GrandTerraceNews: Documents and Opinion

From a Portion of the Sun Article: RDA & GT

2012-01-16T00:26:00.000-08:00

THIS CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER MUST GO: Better than was not Good Enough.

I have held my thoughts for the past year knowing that the last election resulted in a potential for change and better fiscal administration of our community. When the Council voted to extend the RDA and increase the Debt Limit, Protest Was Made. When the approved bonds were put up for sale, Protest Was Made. and the Council was advised not to further in-debt the GT/California Taxpayers in the RDA Financing Scheme. When the funds from the selling of Debt bonds were put at risk due to the Law Killing RDA's were spent or dedicated in a rush, Protest AGAIN was brought to the City Council.

When the Council and Mayor and City Management were asked time and time again to write and live by a bare bones budget as if the RDA was not going to be funded, it apparently neither prepared a budget or plan for such a scenario . They at least have not presented such a bare bones budget to the public. Such a plan should have been done prior to assuming the added debt or using up the funds from the bonds sold to finance that added approved debt. The Public should have been informed and yes, asked IF WE WANTED to Pay for this folly IF the RDA's were Killed or put at risk.

Now they have the idea that they will present a plan and a new set of taxes so we can pay for all these things that the Citizens have been told over and over again GT will not have to pay... RDA funds will pay for our city's Redevelopment and Operations. We'll be getting more of the California Tax Payer's Pool of funds than we put into the system.

Mayor Stanckiewitz you played the fiddle while GT was and is burning. You continued to spend spend spend, and create more and more obligations. Now if the General Fund can't pay for all the obligations that were accumulated by the Schwab/Ferre era, you added to it during your short Stanckiewitz/Adam's era. Do we want more of the same. NO. Stanckiewitz, and ALL the current City Council should be removed from office as a result of this past year and a half of BAD MANAGEMENT.

Do we want Rental Home Inspection Fees to increase? NO

Do we want Dog/Cat License Fees to increase? NO

Do we want business taxes and fees to increase? NO

Do we want Sport's Teams to pay more for the use of the Parks? NO

Do we want added taxes to fund High City Employee Salaries and Retirements? NO

Do we want to continue to have the Planned Liabilities of the RDA added to the City's Obligations? NO... Cancel the Plans, and use the funds to pay down the RDA DEBT.

Do we want more taxes? NO

Do we trust City Management and Council to use funds properly. NO

Bare Bones includes, the option to End the City of Grand Terrace as an Incorporated City. The assets and liabilities would revert to the County for administration. All Grand Terrace City Council Codes and Ordinances will be nullified and we would revert to County, State, and Federal regulations only. This alone will make doing business and redevelopment easier than keeping the City as a City.

Pay the Piper while you as Nero Played the Fiddle and GT was burning Mayor Stanckiewitz, Do us all a favor, move to end the City of Grand Terrace. Stop all payments of any kind to all City Council Members, and the related costs of all Council Members. No more Medical Insurance or Co-pay, and any other payments made to them.

SHAME ON ALL OF YOU SITTING ON THE COUNCIL and MAYOR... SHAME ON YOU ALL

See: http://www.sbsun.com/ci_19748004

This is what Mayor Stanckiewitz Said:

The 3.5-square-mile bedroom community of Grand Terrace expects to end this fiscal year with a roughly $400,000 reserve, but could be looking at a deficit of between $1.2 and $2 million in the next fiscal year, Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz said.

The cash-strapped city has proposed a ballot initiative calling on residents to support a tax hike, and the potential for the city to lose everything but the most basic services is stark reality, Stanckiewitz said.

He said city officials were scrambling to pull together lists of assets and obligations in the "winding down" process of its redevelopment agency.

He said a goal-setting workshop will be scheduled for early February.

"We're not a poster child for redevelopment," said Stanckiewitz. "We took advantage of it, and now it's time to pay the piper."

GET GT BARE BONES or to the ASH CAN... NO BETWEEN

2012-01-12T01:23:00.000-08:00

SACRAMENTO — California redevelopment agencies have started the dissolution process after their disastrous legal defeat last month, even as supporters mount a last-ditch effort to maintain the community-improvement program in some form.

Auditors soon will begin compiling an accounting of the billions of dollars in debts and assets for the state’s more than 400 agencies. As of June 2010, that included $101 billion in total indebtedness — almost a fourth of which is held by agencies in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

California Supreme Court’s decision Dec. 29 upheld the 2011 law dissolving the agencies and voided a measure creating a substitute program. But that was just the start: Shutting down the 60-year-old program is a logistical and financial thicket that could span decades and spark a new round of legal fights.

“No one knew what the wind-down period was going to look like” before the court’s ruling, said La Quinta Councilwoman Terry Henderson. The city’s redevelopment agency is among the most active in the state.

‘CHALLENGING AT BEST’

“I’m not sure a whole lot of people know what it looks like now. It’s going to be challenging at best, very difficult at worst,” she said.

Redevelopment works by collecting a share of the growth in property tax revenue in redevelopment areas. That money finances borrowing to pay for projects ranging from new sewer systems and downtown revitalizations to fire stations and multifamily housing.

Supporters view the program as a crucial source of money for business development, affordable housing and jobs during a down economy, without raising taxes. Inland Southern California has among the most active agencies in the state. In 2009-10, 45 redevelopment agencies in Riverside and San Bernardino counties spent almost $1.9 billion, almost 20 percent of all spending reported by the state’s 399 active agencies.

But Gov. Jerry Brown and other critics said the agencies subsidize wealthy developers at the expense of the state budget. The diversion of local property taxes to redevelopment forces the state to make up the difference to schools.

Brown proposed eliminating the agencies in his January 2011 budget. Lawmakers ultimately approved the two-bill package, over the angry objections of the League of California Cities and California Redevelopment Association, who sued.

SALVAGE OPERATION

Local government officials and other redevelopment supporters now are scrambling to salvage the program, yet with little political leverage after their unsuccessful legal fight.

“We don’t believe it was ever the intention of the Legislature to abolish redevelopment, but it definitely wants to change it,” said Jim Kennedy, interim executive director of the California Redevelopment Association. He said a revamped program could provide money to build affordable housing and help cities reduce greenhouse gas emissions through better land use and transportation planning.

Brown, however, seemed unwilling last week to extend a lifeline to redevelopment agencies.

Speaking to county supervisors last Thursday, the governor savored his legal victory. City officials, he predicted, will spend the coming months “pawing over the remains of redevelopment.”

‘PRETTY DECISIVE’

He later told reporters that his administration has had very preliminary talks with redevelopment officials since the court ruling.

“Right now, it’s hand-wringing and then we’ll move on from there,” Brown said. “I have a willing ear to the Legislature, and I’m going to listen to them. But the court has been pretty decisive here.”

The turn of events has some redevelopment supporters blaming each other.

Last week, Tom Freeman of the Riverside County Economic Development Agency blamed cities and the redevelopment association for political and legal missteps that “brought this Armageddon on us.”

Riverside County Supervisor John Tavaglione said he thinks Brown might be open to working to restructure redevelopment, but only for county-sponsored agencies. Brown has worked closely with counties on shifting public-safety duties and seeks counties’ support for his planned ballot measure to increase taxes.

“He’s not real pleased with the league right now,” Tavaglione said, referring to the League of California Cities. “I think he has an interest in working with us to find another mechanism to make redevelopment work.”

LOCAL DEBT

State officials say the court’s decision will save the state about $1 billion in 2012-13, and increasing amounts in subsequent years.

As part of their review, auditors and agencies’ oversight boards will decide how much of the agencies’ property-tax revenue should go to paying off debt and how much should be redirected to schools and local governments.

“In no way, shape or form do we want to make these agencies break contracts or not pay their lenders,” Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said.

Inland Southern California agencies have some of the largest debts in the state. For every $1 in revenue Fontana’s redevelopment agency collected in 2009-10, for example, it had about $25 of total indebtedness. That compared with a statewide average of about $1 for every $18 of total indebtedness.

Some agencies went on a borrowing binge last year to get projects on the books before Brown could carry out his plan to phase out redevelopment. The law dissolving the agencies, AB 1x 26, gives officials the power to challenge those transactions.

Throughout California, the agencies’ total indebtedness includes $31 billion in tax-allocation bond debt, according to 2009-10 data filed with the state controller’s office. It also showed $9 billion owed to sponsoring cities and counties.

But the law dissolving the agencies did not include such debts as enforceable obligations. That reflected suspicions by some state officials that redevelopment agencies and their sponsoring entity would swap money in sham loans to avoid losing it.

Kennedy said the vast majority of those loans were in good faith to help redevelopment projects get off the ground.

“We know that there are a fairly large number of agencies where the host community may have decades ago loaned money for …something that AB 1x 26 simply says cannot be recognized as an enforceable obligation,” he said.

That could be another budget hit for cities and counties, Kennedy said. “They may have been relying on that money in the future to fulfill some other obligation.”

Some Early Reader Comments:

Gee the GTGadflies arent alone... after all.

6:16 PM on 1/9/2012

Private property owners have been abused and taken advantage of by RDA's.
Certain RDA / CC members have unfairly, arbitrarily controlled zoning, making property owners grovel.
Instead of working with residents & property owners, they are on a power trip.

They are unethical, biased, and have used RDA funds as their own personal slush funds.
Instead of using RDA funds for designated blighted areas, they are using funds for their own personal agendas and projects.

Time to reduce the pay for City Manager, make staff pay for part of their benefits -- instead of using taxpayer money.

Shameful, disgusting, and enough of the scam.

12:12 PM on 1/9/2012

Let's hope Brown sticks to his decision, and doesn't just recreate a substitute program with the same lack of oversight and corruption.

The RDA agencies here in the Inland Empire offer us many prime examples of misused funds, outrageous developer profits, and questionable relationships. We can no longer afford to support these programs in any form with our taxpayers' money.

The public and the state have no trust in the RDA agencies, and that's their own falt. Too many shady deals have been exposed and we know we've been royally riped off for decades.

5:37 AM on 1/9/2012

The RDA scam makes Bernie Madoff look like a rank amateur. Let's make it simple. The local politicians and their developer handlers made off with the loot. The taxpayers are stuck with massive debt.

Check and check.

5:33 AM on 1/9/2012

"For every $1 in revenue Fontana's redevelopment agency collected in 2009-10, for example, it had about $25 of total indebtedness." LOL!!! And they want this nonsense to keep going! Stupid!

This Taxpayer Ponzi scheme should have been shut long ago.

11:53 PM on 1/8/2012

Sorry Jim, they gave you wrong numbers, look at the
EOPS schedule on the development page on the city website. Try close to 2 billion.

11:19 PM on 1/8/2012

like transferring 149 properties from Riverside RDA to the City of Riverside!!!

NO to RDA and IF the City Must Go... So Be IT!

2012-01-12T01:21:00.000-08:00

Agency: Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
Total indebtedness: $167,760,706.00
Statewide rank: 128

Steven Greenhut: Blight barons of redevelopment plot comeback

Put out of business by the state government and rebuked by the California Supreme Court, redevelopment officials aren't giving up.

By STEVEN GREENHUT / Special to the Register

SACRAMENTO – I'm still giddy after the California Supreme Court ruled last month that the state had every right to shut down those noxious enemies of property rights and fiscal responsibility – redevelopment agencies. Better yet, the state's high court ruled that another law that allowed those agencies to come back into existence was unconstitutional.

As of February, anyway, redevelopment is dead in California, the victim of an absurdly arrogant legal and political strategy pursued by redevelopment's chief defenders. This is wonderful news, made even better by the teeth-gnashing of public officials who have routinely abused their powers under redevelopment law. Cry me a river.

But before I gloat too much, we need to remember that this victory already resembles one of those cheap horror movies where the Evil Thing has been vanquished, and all appears well, then its hand pokes out from the grave just as the credits begin.

No one gives up riches and power without a fight, so redevelopment lobbyists already are crafting new legislation to replace the dead agencies with new, revised versions. (Meanwhile, successor agencies will pay off old debt, and old projects will go on to completion. Many of those projects and property transfers slapped together after the law killing redevelopment agencies, or RDAs, was passed will be audited by the state controller, stopped or tied up in litigation. Many RDA officials, thankfully, will be out of work.) The fight goes on but I never would have expected such progress.

One of my earliest memories as a newly hired editorialist at the Register in the late 1990s was meeting with local property-rights activists in a parking lot outside a subsidized shopping mall project and looking at their charts explaining why a process called "redevelopment" was such a problem. As we gawked at the fruits of redevelopment's corporate welfare, they explained how these urban-renewal agencies float debt without accountability and routinely misuse eminent domain, government's power to seize private property for supposedly public purposes.

As I plunged deeply into the issue, I never forgot that sense of near-hopelessness I felt in that parking lot. I never forgot the despair I saw on the faces of homeowners in Garden Grove as they begged the city to scotch a quietly hatched plan that would have driven them out of their middle-class neighborhood so that the city could market the land to a theme-park developer that was yet to be determined.

Over the years, I've interviewed victims of eminent domain, many of them immigrant small-business owners who couldn't believe what was happening to them in America. They were bullied, put out of business and forced to spend years battling City Hall rather than building a better life.

The general public learned of the injustices after the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo vs. City of New London [Conn.], which upheld the "right" of governments to use eminent domain for redevelopment-type economic projects. The grand revitalization project that destroyed homeowner Susette Kelo's Connecticut neighborhood was abandoned, and the site remains a dumping ground. It serves as a reminder that officials in the U.S. can't plan an economy any better than their equivalents in the old Soviet empire. Free markets work better than bureaucratic central planning.

I've seen how the redevelopment process has distorted economic markets and made it more difficult for people without political connections to build their businesses and their dreams. Redevelopment embodies crony capitalism, but there's so much money in it, with so many consultants and politicians who benefit from it, that I never dreamed of the day when it could actually go away. Who would have thought that redevelopment agencies would be the ones on the outside looking in, scheming for new ways to regain some power and privilege?

Redevelopment officials are so used to getting their way with average citizens that they figured it would be no problem giving state elected officials the back of their hand. The seeds of their demise were sown after former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger attempted to divert some of their funds to fill part the perpetual state budget hole.

Redevelopment – which morphed decades ago from a mechanism to fight urban blight into a scheme to divert county and state taxes to cities – is a creation of the state, so the governor argued that the state had the right to take some money. The League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association struck back with Proposition 22, approved by voters in November 2010, which forbade state diversions of redevelopment funds. It was sold to the public as a means to stop Sacramento politicians' raids on local road funds.

The blight barons were gloating after their big victory, but then Gov. Jerry Brown came up with a work-around. He signed a law that shut down RDAs. After all, Prop. 22 can't stop a raid on funds of agencies that no longer exist. And then he also signed a law that allowed the agencies to come back to power after paying funds to the state.

The redevelopment community challenged both laws and was pleased when the high court agreed to review them. But redevelopment advocates were stunned by the unanimous ruling that found that the Legislature was perfectly within its authority to abolish agencies that it had created. The justices also ruled 6-1 that agencies cannot buy their way back into existence because that violates Prop. 22, the very initiative the RDAs had crafted. How sweet is that reasoning?

I celebrated one recent night at philanthropist Moe Mohanna's downtown Sacramento Oddfellows building. Many in this odd group of activists on the left and right, including Mohanna, had been abused by redevelopment agencies. We ate Persian food and savored the rare victory for the good guys. But we realized that redevelopment is, as the Monty Python troupe once said, "not quite dead."

Let's hope coalitions emerge this year to keep this Evil Thing in its grave.

Steven Greenhut is editor

of www.calwatchdog.com; write to him at

sgreenhut@calwatchdog.com

Did Stater's Earn Its RDA KickBack/SpringBack?

2012-01-06T20:02:00.000-08:00

Read the following and the article in the San Bernardino County Sentinel... It is time the Citizens are the Judge. Do you want these people digging in your pocket if they can't audit a simple performance contract?

Although GT sales tax receipts have increased, unless Stater Brothers provides the accounting proof there is no justification to pay them the incentive pay back. They can provide the documents and proof of what they pay the state, AND they can provide all needed accounting support for a claim. The BOE has no need to disclose confidential information, Stater's can waive confidentiality in order to file a claim for the funds set forth in the agreement. To calculate a full time employee works 40 hrs per week 4.3 weeks per month. So just do the math and spread it out. Also important in that calculation is the number of full time vs part time employees as the part time employees earn less and have fewer benefits.

Walt saying "We didn't pay" the " RDA paid" is a bit of slight of political tongue trickery. Who does he thinks funds the RDA... AH or did... the California Tax Payer... you know like citizens from ah California including us in GT and those who live in areas without RDA's.

You did not get answered why employees are parking on unpaved parking area. Or what compensation or assistance has been given to businesses hurt by the RDA assisted Stater's? The assistance in accumulating the land, and later selling it off to Stater's was done with the resources of the RDA and City. This putting other existing businesses in a less competitive advantage is a liability to the RDA, and hurts the overall sustainability of the local economy.

How many of those out of towners are buying taxable items at Stater's? How can Walt calculate the City would get back the cost in 8 to 10 years if he does not know how much the store is contributing to the sales tax revenue? There should be a requirement of proof of compliance and projected tax contributions prior to any approval of any funds to Staters. No one I know, said we have already paid Stater's Joyce Powers tries to diminish/degrade the citizens who are concerned by the pending liability of the RDA/City/County or State. NO the City Council/RDA Obligated the City/RDA to pay based on specific performance specifications. What citizens deserve at a minimum is to have those specifications measured and audited or ZERO is paid to Staters. This will stop the tax payer from paying via General Funds, or RDA/State Funds or any taxed funds to the benefit of Stater Brothers a company earning a profit, and who has already had extraordinary assistance from the city in the methods used to acquire the land their store sits upon.

Perhaps this Stater's / GT RDA agreement should be reviewed by the State Auditor and AG if our City Council and City Management are unable or unwilling to assure that the agreement is measurable. A basic aspect of a valid contract is that performance must be measurable.

Any Money Paid to Stater's is money not spent in some other Governmental Function. Schools, Fire, Police...Roads, and yes Parks.

Officials, Watchdogs At Odds Over RDA Springbacks To Staters In GT

Jan 6, 2012, San Bernardino County Sentinel

GRAND TERRACE—Four months after Stater Bros. moved its supermarket into new and 72 percent larger quarters at 22201 Barton Road in the Grand Terrace Town Square than it occupied at Mt. Vernon and Barton Road during the previous 37 years, there are sharp differences between city officials and skeptical Grand Terrace residents over whether the $1.2 million in incentives the city offered the grocer to make that transition are justified.

In what would prove to be one of the last major uses of its redevelopment agency, the city in October 2010 entered into an economic development agreement with Stater Bros. to facilitate the transition from the 25,000 square foot location at Barton and Mt. Vernon to the 44,000-square-foot digs in Grand Terrace Town Square. Under the terms of that agreement, Stater Bros. said it would create around 140 temporary construction jobs and 77 permanent full-time jobs and the city consented to paying Stater Bros. $2,500 per job, or up to $192,500 per year over five years. Another clause in the agreement called for the city utilizing up to 45 parking spaces at Grand Terrace Town Square for local ride-sharers, for which it would pay Stater Bros. $12,500 per quarter, or $50,000 per year.

Thus, the city through its redevelopment agency agreed to spring back to Stater Bros over the five year period, $1,212,500 if the grocer met all of the performance criteria. Stater Bros. invested $17.5 million to build the 44,000-square-foot market and has acquired property around the site to add up to 80,000 square feet of additional retail space at the Town Square.
The new Stater Bros. had its grand opening on August 24, but a third of a year later, some Grand Terrace residents are questioning the wisdom of providing incentives to the corporation and expressed uncertainty about whether the company is providing the community with the promised improvements and employment.

A continuing point of confusion is whether or not a quarterly compliance audit of Stater Brother's performance was done. This week the Sentinel received from Grandpa Terrace, a Grand Terrace resident who runs a community interest blog, a list of questions submitted by his readers, including “Did they [Stater Bros.] hire 75 employees? How many of those employees live in Grand Terrace? How many of those employees are full and part time? What has been the change in sales tax revenue to the cIty? In relation to an increase to our local financial stability, what has the net increase of wage earnings earned by Grand Terrace citizens been? Has Stater's earned their 1.2 million RDA funds?”

Grandpa Terrace closed with the statement, “The public should be assured Staters has earned that money before the public pays for this in taxes as well as in increased prices.”

Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz this week told the Sentinel that the quarterly report on Stater Bros. performance under the economic development agreement was not immediately available but was “about due. As to how many full time jobs and full time equivalent jobs were created, I believe they exceed what they were supposed to do. They are supposed to employ 70 to 75 full time equivalent workers. I believe there were 65 or 67 part time workers at the old store. How do you convert full time to the part time equivalent? I am confident they are meeting that goal.”

The success of the store is apparent in the level of customer traffic there, the mayor said.
“It is, I think, now one of their most popular stores,” Stanckiewitz said. “It has outpaced my wildest dreams, what Staters has done. I go through the store three or four times a week and I personally see customers from Moreno Valley and Redlands there that never shopped in Grand Terrace before. They are coming here because it is the nicest Stater Bros. around.”

Stanckiewitz said the redevelopment agency’s activity at Grand Terrace Town Center was limited to the incentives to Stater Bros. and was at a level less than what the city council had striven for. The city had wanted to use further incentives to bring in other retailers, he said, but had not done so because of multiple considerations.

“I’m glad that [Stater Bros. chairman] Jack Brown got tired of waiting and said we will buy the land,” Stanckiewitz said. “There will never again be another 75-year anniversary store. The fact is, there is nothing like it. We’ve got a one-of-a-kind.”

Stanckiewitz said that the $1.2 million springback was to take place “over five years, not up front but retroactively and quarterly. Our redevelopment agency is gone now, so the city will handle it directly.”

In legislation passed last year and just upheld by the state Supreme Court under challenge from hundreds of California’s cities, municipal and county redevelopment agencies have been dissolved in the Golden State.

Stanckiewitz said the money the city will pay out will not impact the general fund, since the payments to Stater Bros. are “performance based.” He said the amount of revenue to be brought into the city by the larger store through increased sales tax revenue will at some future point be greater than the money the city shells out. “The last time I did that calculation was before the store opened,” Stanckiewitz said. “If nothing gets built in that center, and Staters is the only thing there, we will get our money back in the eight to ten year range. But their numbers are way beyond what they forecast and I am hoping they will bring in more business and that we will be paid back in increased property and sales tax before the program is over [i.e., in fewer than five years]. This is a performance-based incentive contract.”

Moreover, Stanckiewitz said, it is increasingly likely that the city will not pay Stater Bros. the full $1,212,500 specified in the agreement, but rather $962,500. That is because the grocer will not be building and reserving the 45 parking spaces in the Grand Terrace Town Square for car-poolers as was proposed under the agreement.

“They are thinking they need those parking spaces for their own customers given how successful the store is,” the mayor said. “There were a certain number of spaces they paved beyond what was normally required for them to open the store. That was built into the incentive package because we have other business in town or places in town that are having parking issues. The city was going to take possession of those spaces and use them as a Park-and-Ride. In five or so years, as the center filled out, they would revert back to parking for the commercial customers. But that day has come quicker than we anticipated and they probably will not be used for Park-and-Ride [carpooling parking]. We won’t be paying for that. This was an RDA [redevelopment] project that did not cost us anything.”

One consideration and concern about the springback of sales tax revenue to Stater Bros. is that as a grocery store, only a limited amount of its merchandize is taxable. The quarterly audit of sales tax revenue into the city will also be impacted by the sales tax generated by a new Dollar Tree store in town, which is heavily laden with taxable sales items.

Sylvia Robles was an unsuccessful council candidate in the 2010 Grand Terrace municipal election in which Stanckiewitz was elevated from an incumbent council position to mayor. Both Stanckiewitz and Robles ran on platforms that had as their central themes reform of the city’s redevelopment agency. In a statement to the Sentinel this week, Robles indicated her belief that reliable sales tax income figures could not be had to make any useful comparisons to see if the incentives provided to Stater Bros. were proving cost-effective for the city’s taxpayers.
“I am not aware of any compliance audit,” she said. “If there is one, it would not include sales taxes captured by Stater Bros as a result of its new grocery store. Sales tax revenues are confidential and the Board of Equalization does not release them. There are job subsidies. That is an ancillary feature and not $1.2 million, which is an aggregate number. I recall about $70,000 estimated per month.”

Robles continued, “The only thing I can comment on -- without production of any compliance audit document -- is that redevelopment agencies are not required to provide any quantitative data that they actually produce higher sales taxes or jobs. The rationale for funding entities with RDA subsidies is to increase sales tax revenues to help support a city’s general fund. Since sales tax revenues are secret or suppressed by the Board of Equalization, I do not see how one can audit new revenue generation compliance."

Grand Terrace community development director Joyce Powers, who oversaw the city’s redevelopment agency and the Stater Bros. agreement, this week told the Sentinel, “There are reports that we have given them $1.2 million, but that is inaccurate. They can request it if they meet certain performance standards under the agreement but to date, no such requests have been made and no funds have been paid to Stater Bros.”

JAN 25 Council Plans to Pick Your Pocket

2012-01-05T19:27:00.000-08:00

The City of Grand Terrace will be looking for funds to replace the revenue previously skimmed off of Redevelopment Agency Funding. Where to look? Well, you know where. The City Council will discuss all sorts of ways to drain more money away form the citizens to perpetuate the City's Existence and to continue to pay Over Paid City Managers and continue intrusive regulations that are over layered already on Federal, State and County Regulations.

It is time to say NO MORE. IF we can't exist as a City at current revenues then it is time to revert to County Level of Services and be done with that. Citizens should not be paying Herman Hilkeys Life Insurance, Excessive Retirement of Former City Manager, and Council Members who use their elected position to get Medical Insurance and Medical Costs covered while asking Citizens to pitch in one more dime in taxes and fees and fines is just not acceptable.

Let the County have City Hall. Let them house the library in it at County Cost. Let the rest of the building be used as a Youth Center for the Advancement of Science Studies or some such thing. Hopefully the county would use some of the tax money that would revert to them to fund cleaning of parks, and a sheriff now and then.

This over costly un sustainable City Government should come to an end. End it NOW not in June or July or a year from now when it will just cost more and more to end it. Pull the Plug NOW.

This will end the Rental Home Inspection Fee, and the City Ordinances that are beyond County Ordinances. It will end the designation of City Wide Blight that is or was used to justify the Redevelopment Agency. We may have to apply to be declaired "Un Blighted" so we have our property rights restored.

The Community of Grand Terrace will still exist after the incorporation of the City of Grand Terrace is terminated. Some folk think the Community will be better served and more of a Community when the City is dissolved.

So watch your pocket books, your tax liens, and don't surrender. Take back your freedom a bit, let's welcome the end of the "City Government" and the return to the County Government. That is more than enough Government for a people who desire freedom.

Check out the Agenda for the Next Council Meeting: It is 300 pages long... a big down load and lots of reading.

http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/archives/38/01102012%20Packet.pdf

Picking over the bones of GT's RDA and GT City.

2012-01-03T04:07:00.000-08:00

How AB 1x 26 Will Pick the RDA Carcass

By Bill Fulton on 30 December 2011 - 2:58pm

The Supreme Court’s redevelopment ruling yesterday didn’t just kill redevelopment agencies. By upholding AB 1x 26 – the kill-redevelopment bill – the court ruling also triggered an entire funeral procession that will shut the agencies down and transition their debt and their assets to other agencies.

That process is sure to trigger more controversy – and probably lots more litigation – as cities try to protect assets they transferred away from RDAs last year and other agencies – the state, counties, and school districts – try to grab hold of them. It also puts each county’s auditor-controller in the middle of this process. But AB 1x 26 essentially represents a state takeover of tax-increment funds that are not required to pay debt by giving enormous power in the process to the Department of Finance.

AB 1x 26 assigns different responsibilities to five different players in the funeral procession. These are:

1. “Successor Agencies,” which will usually be the underlying entity that created the RDA in the first place (usually a city but sometimes a county)

2. “Oversight Boards” for each RDA, which will mostly be controlled by counties and schools.

3. Each county’s auditor-controller, who is responsible for collecting and dispersing property taxes.

4. The state Department of Finance.

5. The State Controller.

Here’s what AB 1x 26 calls on these entities to do:

Upon dissolution of the RDA, all assets and liabilities of the RDA revert to the “Successor Agency,” usually a city. At first the city would still be required to pay debt and other “legally enforceable obligations”. But the city can’t continue to operate as the RDA would. The auditor-controller and especially the Oversight Board has most of the power in determining what to do.

By March 1, each county’s auditor-controller is supposed to do an audit of each RDA’s assets and required payments and provide those audits to the State Controller by March 15. This schedule was originally created based on the assumption that the RDAs would vanish on October 1, not December 29, so it’s unlikely that the auditor-controllers can stick to this schedule. But this step is really important, because the auditor-controllers in each county have to create a “Redevelopment Obligation Trust Fund,” where the funds required to meet RDA obligations will be placed.

In other words, the city will not get the tax-increment money. The tax-increment funds required to pay RDA debt and other obligations will be placed in a trust fund and the rest will be distributed to taxing agencies as regular property tax is – which is typically something like 50% to schools, 33% to school districts, and 15% to cities, and a sprinkling to special districts. (This varies throughout the state.)

Meanwhile, an Oversight Board must be created for every RDA. Each Oversight Board will have seven members: two by the mayor, two by the county board of supervisors, one by the special districts in the former RDA, one by the county school superintendent, and one by the local community college chancellor. Obviously, in every county – and even in large cities – there will be many Oversight Boards with overlapping memberships. This is supposed to be representative of all the agencies that share property tax, but it should be obvious that counties and schools will run this show.

And run the show the do – up to a point. The city prepares a debt and obligation schedule, which is reviewed by an auditor selected by the auditor-controller, as well as an administrative budget. The Oversight Board approves both. The Oversight Board is also charged with disposing of RDA assets. Government buildings get turned over to the appropriate government agency. The proceeds of other asset sales are divided among the taxing agencies proportionally. And they decide whether RDA affordable housing money will go back to the cities or go to the housing authorities instead.

But the Oversight Committee is not the final word – and this is a really important point in seeing how the state is truly taking control of RDA funds. Both the State Controller and the Department of Finance play an important role in overseeing the Oversight Committees, as follows:

* The “Redevelopment Obligation Repayment Schedule” prepared by every city must be approved not only by the Oversight Committee but also by both the Department of Finance and the State Controller.

* The Department of Finance has the power to overturn any action by any Oversight Committee.

You can see all the different messy situations that could arise:

* Cities could start paying off obligations they see as binding, only to be overturned by somebody else when the repayment schedule is reviewed by the Oversight Committee or by the state, which means the cities would have to get the money back or cover the cost.

*No matter where the cities land on the repayment obligations, the three review entities -- the Oversight Committee, the Department of Finance, and the State Controller -- could get into big fights over which repayments should be made. The State Controller will be more independent of short-term revenue concerns than the other two entities. And if this holds up decisions on who get repaid, this could cause concern about California in the bond market.

* The other taxing entities could start suing the cities on some of the asset transfers they made away from RDAs (this is almost certain to happen).

* Naïve oversight committees could go into “fire sale” mode on former RDA assets, which could have a significant impact on urban property values in the whole state.

* The Oversight Comittees and the Department of Finance could get into protracted, ugly battles – even litigation – over the question of whether and how to dispose of assets.

And in case you’re wondering, this whole process starts … now. Yes, the redevelopment establishment will be back in Sacramento on Tuesday trying to get a new bill passed. But in the meantime, surely the Department of Finance and the counties – the two big financial losers in redevelopment – will start pushing to create the Oversight Committees immediately, and they’re start leaning on county auditor-controllers to start the RDA audits right away.

Stay tuned -- we will stay on this story as much as we can.

Revenue Past and Recient Past

2012-01-02T15:51:00.000-08:00

The RDA Funds Ending leads us to ask the tougher question. How much does GT expect to have from various revenue streams. Below is some information regarding the 1% of sales taxes GT recieves from the State on a monthly basis over the years. Note the year runs July to June. Also of interest is the increases and decreases over the months. Note that the sales of taxable items increased just about the time Dollar Tree Opened, (A major seller of taxible items). It also is about the time Stater Brother's Opened. This bodes the question. Which of these stores have contributed to the increase in sales taxes collected? Has Stater Brother's proven to be a source of increased sales tax collection? What Restaurants have been aided or hurt during the same time period? Sales Taxes are collected on prepared foods or ready to eat food. This would answer the question: Has the Stater's Deli taken business away from local Restaurants? The RDA funds / partnership in the New Stater's would then cause a liability to compensate the businesses that lost business due to the RDA aid given to Stater's that caused a competitive advantage for Stater's. The detailed data should be available for public and business review. In addition, the question should be asked: Has Stater Brothers met its obligations to employ GT Citizens, and the number of employees? Has State paid for the Park and Ride portion of the parking lot. Where is that part of the parking lot? How long will Stater Brother's Employees be parking on unfinished parking lot? Can residents put gravel down and park their motor homes on their former lawns?

Well, here's the numbers for the Sales Tax Distributions to GT... I'll post any answers to the above questions if and when I get them.

Council Dug A Bigger Hole And Risked The City:

2012-01-01T16:14:00.000-08:00

Just after the new City Council and Mayor were elected they went forward with the sale of $18 million in redevelopment bonds. This roll of the dice was during a high risk period. The USA economy and financial markets were in trouble, the bill to kill RDA's or force a pay to play as an RDA was pending. This while the City Council Members enjoy costly medical insurance, and the City manager is earning 3 to 4 times the average income of a typical GT Citizen. The City council continues to support the Political Action Committee aka the League of California Cities, that supports the concept of the RDA, and use of Eminent Domain, while using taxpayers limited resources ineffectively.

City Council Members, and City Manager and Mayor should have immediately initiated a operational plan not increasing the debt, or the budget overrun. IF the courts had decided in favor of supporting the RDA Later, we'd be in a better financial situation after being financially cautious while waiting for the legal battles to resolve themselves.

I don't begrudge the Day Care, Maintenance, and lower clerk, employees taking their sick time pay in cash prior to the City's Declaration of Bankruptcy and Dissolution. However, we must know that the Manager, Lawyer, and Council and Mayor see that as the high potential and are paying off employees first, keeping them loyal and possibly silent in future audits of the soon to be defunct City of Grand Terrace and GT Redevelopment Agency. (Remember when Tom Schwab said he was paid to keep his mouth shut.)

Of course Doug Jacobson, Corporation for Better Housing, and Stater Brothers all managed to get their money secured even before the employees.

Some times, Cities have to be dissolved. Don't let the idea of ending the City of Grand Terrace as an entity to entice you to vote for increased local taxes, and a continuation of additional codes and restrictions placed overlapping Federal, State, County and Regional Agencies that all ready are intruding into the rights of individuals and regulation of businesses. These overlapping governmental agencies do nothing to aid in our economic recovery. ZIP. It is time to end the redundancy of regulatory agencies, yes that means No More GT City Code. We will revert to the County Code. Some of us think that is just fine. None of us want to or can afford to pay more taxes, to sustain bloated ineffective city government.

Don't worry, when GT is no longer a City. Your house will still exist. Your businesses will have less regulation. The RDA being removed will return your full property rights to land owners, we will no longer fear that our property has been designated blighted en mass, in order to gain unjustified funding for bloated city salaries, and boondoggles and intrusion into the natural and sustainable economic development and adaptation. The city employees (most of them) have gotten much of their termination package in their paid sick leave pay. It is rather poetic justice that the Financial Market, Financial Melt Down, correlates right back to its primary pool of genesis, the abusive use of Debt financing for the RDA and City Operations that was dependent on ever inflated property values, that eventually could not be sustained.

Thanks Tom Schwab. Thanks Past City Council Members and City Attorney, Thanks League of California Cities. You set up the current Management quite well. Unfortunately, the Current Council, City Manager and Mayor lacked the courage to make a hard stop of your ill intended and ill advised financial practices.

http://www.pe.com/local-news/breaking-news-headlines/20111229-inland-redevelopment-agencies-reeling-after-ruling.ece

..."Grand Terrace Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz, who previously said a loss of redevelopment funds could threaten his city’s existence, said Thursday that disincorporation of the San Bernardino County municipality is “still a very viable alternative.”

Grand Terrace sold $18 million in redevelopment bonds on the eve of the passage of both redevelopment bills, Stanckiewitz said, and the city will try to keep that money.

Under the overturned funding diversion law, local agencies’ payments were due Jan. 15. Those payments had been put on hold because of the state Supreme Court case."...

NEW: RDAs Hoisted On Own Petard

DEC. 29, 2011

By STEVEN GREENHUT

Believers in property rights and limited government should be thrilled that when the toughest threat to redevelopment arose in California, the biggest defenders of these agencies — the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association — weren’t up to the task of saving these horrible agencies. It was clear that redevelopment — the big-government, urban-renewal project that was ended today in a wonderful California Supreme Court ruling — was in big trouble when the CRA’s long-time leader, John Shirey, bailed out and became city manager of Sacramento, well before the state court issued its ground-breaking ruling. Ironically, it was the strategy pursued by these redevelopment supporters that led to the agencies’ demise. The result couldn’t be sweeter.

“As I wrote in February, If California Redevelopment Association President Linda Barton’s presentation Tuesday at a Sacramento Press Club debate was any indication, then Gov. Jerry Brown might have an easier time than expected in getting rid of the state’s noxious redevelopment agencies. Barton was so out of her league it was almost embarrassing as she debated longtime redevelopment foe, Chris Norby, now an Assemblyman representing north Orange County.” Redevelopment officials resorted to distortions that were easily debunked by the Legislative Analyst’s Office and, ultimately, to an embarrassingly flawed legal strategy. When push came to shove, the RDA house of cards simply crumbled.

The best example of the failure of redevelopment’s leadership can be found in the California Supreme Court decision itself, which used the policy of the CRA’s own making, Prop. 22, to give these agencies the final death knell. After Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — at the urging of Republican Assemblyman Norby, tried to divert redevelopment funds to the state general fund, the leadership of CRA and the League crafted Prop. 22 (November 2010). The initiative, per its summary, “prohibits the state from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services.” It was a constitutional amendment.

The measure was sold to the public as a protection of local transportation funds from Sacramento raids, but that was dishonest. The measure was designed to protect redevelopment funds. It passed and its defenders were gloating. They viewed redevelopment as permanent and untouchable.

But arrogance has its cost. To get around the ban on diverting redevelopment funds, Gov. Brown signed into law ABx1 26, which ended redevelopment agencies. His argument: It was no diversion if the agencies are shut down, and because RDAs are technically state agencies, the state has the full authority to shut them down. But the state’s Democratic leaders were really only after the money. As advocates for urban renewal, they had no real beef with these agencies, even though they routinely destroyed the lives of small business owners by abusing eminent domain and over-regulating land use within redevelopment project areas.

So as a sop to the agencies, the governor also signed into law ABx1 27, which allowed the agencies to come back to life provided they paid what the CRA and League called “ransom.” The governor should have vetoed that bill, but we know his political perspective. The redevelopers could have a) accepted that they would be losing money and just gone on with their lives; or b) challenged the bill ending redevelopment and left it at that.

But they challenged both laws, a strategy borne of overreach and arrogance, and one that misunderstood the current political and legal realities. The state high court agreed with Brown on the first law:

“Assembly Bill 1X 26, the dissolution measure, is a proper exercise of the legislative power vested in the Legislature by the state Constitution. That power includes the authority to create entities, such as redevelopment agencies, to carry out the state‘s ends and the corollary power to dissolve those same entities when the Legislature deems it necessary and proper. Proposition 22, while it amended the state Constitution to impose new limits on the Legislature‘s fiscal powers, neither explicitly nor implicitly rescinded the Legislature‘s power to dissolve redevelopment agencies. Nor does article XVI, section 16 of the state Constitution, which authorizes the allocation of property tax revenues to redevelopment agencies, impair that power. …if a political entity has been created by the Legislature, it can be dissolved by the Legislature, barring some specific constitutional obstacle to a particular exercise of the legislative power. The assertion in Proposition 22, section 9 that tax increment allocations to redevelopment agencies are constitutionally mandated, rather than constitutionally authorized and statutorily mandated, is a clear misstatement of the law as it stood prior to the passage of Proposition 22. Moreover, section 9 of Proposition 22 does not purport to amend article XVI, section 16 or to change existing law concerning the source of redevelopment agencies‘ entitlement, if any, to tax increment.¹³ Accordingly, we decline to treat its immaterial misstatement of law as a basis for silently amending the state Constitution. (I added the underlining)· The Association‘s alternate constitutional argument rests on article XIII, section 25.5, subdivision (a)(7) of the state Constitution, added in 2010 by Proposition 22. Examining both the text and the various ballot arguments in support of and against that initiative, we find nothing in them that would limit the Legislature‘s plenary authority over the existence vel non of redevelopment agencies….Proposition 22 contains no express language constitutionalizing redevelopment agencies.”

That’s good and proper, but here’s where the ruling is really sweet. Critics of redevelopment such as myself were thrilled about the ending of redevelopment agencies, but we saw that these agencies were mostly paying up and coming back into existence. It was annoying and costly to them, but the corporate welfare types and urban renewal bureaucrats were not going anywhere. Then the California Supremes ruled that because of Prop. 22 — the initiative that redevelopment’s advocates foisted on the state — AB1x 27 was no longer valid. Prop. 22 halted these so-called ransom payments, so 27 was dead — the best of all worlds for those of us who want to put a dagger in the heart of RDAs. Here is the court:

“A different conclusion is required with respect to Assembly Bill 1X 27, the measure conditioning further redevelopment agency operations on additional payments by an agency‘s community sponsors to state funds benefiting schools and special districts. Proposition 22 (specifically Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 25.5, subd. (a)(7)) expressly forbids the Legislature from requiring such payments. Matosantos‘s argument that the payments are valid because technically voluntary cannot be reconciled with the fact that the payments are a requirement of continued operation. Because the flawed provisions of Assembly Bill 1X 27 are not severable from other parts of that measure, the measure is invalid in its entirety. Assembly Bill 1X 27 on its face imposes not an optional condition but an absolute requirement: going forward, every redevelopment agency must have its community sponsor annually pay the portion of its tax increment assessed by the state under Assembly Bill 1X 27. … A condition that must be satisfied in order for any redevelopment agency to operate is not an option but a requirement.²³ Such absolute requirements Proposition 22 forbids. (See Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 25.5, subd. (a)(7)(A).)”

The CRA, the League of California Cities and the foolhardy Republicans, such as Sen. Bob Huff were outsmarted. They were so arrogant that they tripped over their own clever plans. They passed Prop. 22, which then forbade the one mechanism that would have saved redevelopment from the ash bin of history.

There are many villains, beyond Barton and Shirey — the League’s Chris McKenzie springs to mind. Here’s his statement after the court agreed to take the case:

“We’re very gratified that the California Supreme Court has agreed to take our case, issued the stay we requested to preserve the status quo, and that it is moving forward on an expedited basis. The redevelopment bills are unconstitutional, violating Proposition 22 and other provisions of the state constitution. We look forward to presenting our case to the court very soon. We’re confident the state Supreme Court will ultimately strike down this unconstitutional legislation that ignores the voters’ will and that will destroy local economies.”

The vote wasn’t even close — 7-0 on the first part and 6-1 on the second. Most Republicans in the Legislature look foolish now, as they argued that redevelopment cannot constitutionally be eliminated. They used their power to try to protect the corporate welfare program in defiance of their limited-government rhetoric, and now the public knows that these folks are not their allies on most issues. But why waste our times on these folks?

There are many heroes, who labored for years to end this travesty not only for financial reasons but for reasons of justice. As someone who covered redevelopment for many years, I saw how these agencies engaged in unethical practices and basically stole people’s land in order to benefit rich developers, who provided political support for the elected officials who supported this process. I watched redevelopment destroy lives and undermine the fabric of cities — not to mention run up huge amounts of debt. Some people saw this and devoted themselves to fighting for this cause.

Norby is perhaps the biggest hero in the state. He started groups devoted to fighting redevelopment. He planted the seed of destruction in the mind of two governors, and he never gave in to pressure from fellow Republicans to save these agencies.

Philanthropist Howard Ahmanson is best known in the liberal media for funding religious-right causes, but one of Ahmanson’s biggest interests for years was fighting redevelopment, for reasons of faith and justice. He supported two other heroes, Assemblywoman Beth Gaines and her husband, Sen. Ted Gaines, who both defied their parties and voted with the Democrats to end redevelopment.

I’ve known many activists and lawyers who have fought for years against this travesty, people including Fullerton Councilman Bruce Whitaker, Tony Bushala, Chris Sutton, Larry Gilbert, Les Poppa, Allan Pilger, Bob Ferguson, Moe Mohanna and on and on. People who tasted the bitter sting of redevelopment often pledged their lives to fight it. Here, finally, we see a good news story, a triumph of justice in a state with few such victories.

I can’t end without tipping my hat to Gov. Jerry Brown and the Democratic Legislature. I almost never agree with anything they do, of course. And I don’t for one minute argue that the state’s Democrats ended redevelopment because of any concern for property owners or property rights. But they did indeed do the right thing. They stuck with it. I don’t believe that we would have this great victory had the eminent-domain-supporting Meg Whitman become governor. Brown’s analysis of redevelopment did indeed show a remarkable understanding of more than the fiscal problems with it. This victory makes many of his other bad policies almost tolerable.

Ultimately, Brown is the hero here and it’s sad the Republicans didn’t join with him. When your political foe gives you a gift, you ought to take it, but the GOP was too short-sighted to do so.

Sure, there will be new efforts to craft new types of agencies, but I can’t see where the money will come from. There are no permanent victories in politics, but this is a big one. There are no federal issues here, so this can’t be appealed to the federal courts. It’s a big win for Californians. Many of us view California’s future as sadly bleak. Gov. Brown insisted that he is not a “declinist,” that California is not in decline, but he is wrong. All the indicators are bad, except perhaps for this one. So we close 2011 on a happy and surprising note. Maybe we’ll have many more pleasant surprise for 2012.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/12/29/rdas-hoisted-on-own-petard/

RDA one Step Closer to the END

2011-12-30T08:38:00.000-08:00

The City of Grand Terrace will finally be forced to plan and yes implament a budget it can pay for with the taxes and revunues it is intitled to by the real economic activity within the city. The city can expect no further support of City/RDA Employee expense to be covered by the 27% raked off of RDA Funds that were redirected state funds. State funds will no longer be directed to pay the likes of Doug Jacobsen, or Jack Brown's Stater Brothers Market. State funds will no longer be used as a tool to purchase City Employee's a home or a home loan.

The abuse of the RDA system is hopefully OVER in GT and all the other cities where their councils were wanting to continue to have an RDA.

Grand Terrace City Council and City Manager error in their resistance to the adoption of a strict sustainable internal budget limiting City Expenses to only those that could be funded by General Tax Fund Revenues only and stopping their addiction to the RDA Funds. The City could and should offer all employees a pay cut equal to the loss of the funding the RDA used to provide their compensation. If the City Manager won't work for 80,000.00 per year... about half.. well there are most likely folks who will do that job, for that or less. No what we will see is the further cut back on people earning less than 40,000.00 per year.

This city's use of the RDA has been oppressive and inappropriate for years. It unfortunate that the New Members of the City Council and Mayor, failed to see the need to end the RDA dependency when they were elected. The existing City Council and City Manager demonstrated the lack of financial and political fortitude to write, implement or even share a budget that would be sustainable without an RDA. It would have been more prudent to operate on the shoe string of a budget before the shoe was removed. Then if the RDA was allowed to exist in the future, there could be true Redevelopment of Truly Blighted areas and increase Real Employment and Economic Activity in GT.

It is time for an assesment on the projections and effectiveness of the past use of RDA Funds. When you skim 27 percent off for non Redevelopment Costs, and then you finance your Bonds at a cost, you have deflated the value of the RDA Buck right from the start. Then City Council/RDA make decisions that don't impact the local economy, but favor a select few within the community.

It is time, no past time for the RDA System to end. Put the money back in the places it belongs.

December 30, 2011 10:00 AM

Calif officials seek redevelopment compromise

(AP) SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California Supreme Court on Thursday gave Gov. Jerry Brown and state lawmakers the right to eliminate community redevelopment agencies in a crucial victory on the state budget.

But the fate of the more than 400 redevelopment agencies remains unclear as cities — and even many lawmakers — vowed to seek a legislative compromise next year that would ensure the agencies' survival.

Brown has little incentive to go along.

The court affirmed the state's authority to dissolve the agencies, calling it "a proper exercise of the legislative power vested in the Legislature by the state constitution." Doing so means more of the property taxes generated within redevelopment zones will go toward schools, law enforcement and other local services, freeing up as much as $1.7 billion in the state general fund during the current fiscal year.

Crime in GT... the reported sort...

2011-11-29T00:36:00.000-08:00

Crime and public safety, November 29

Staff Reports

Posted: 11/28/2011 06:54:13 PM PST

GRAND TERRACE

Teen held after several sites spray-painted

Sheriff's deputies arrested a boy suspected of tagging several Grand Terrace locations with spray paint.

Two teens were seen out about 10:35 p.m. Sunday by sheriff's deputies who were patrolling near Barton Road and Palm Avenue.

The deputies stopped them because they were out past the city's 10 p.m. curfew. While talking with the teens, deputies discovered that one of them had a spray can in his possession and his hands were covered with wet paint, according to a sheriff's news release.

When sheriff deputies checked the area, they found a number of freshly spray-painted locations.

The boy was arrested, issued a notice to appear in juvenile court, and released to a guardian.

lori.consalvo@inlandnewspapers.com

GRAND TERRACE

Man arrested after stolen motorcycle found

A man suspected of stealing a motorcycle and storing it under a tarp at a friend's Grand Terrace residence has been arrested.

Steven Greene, 26, of Grand Terrace was taken into custody Saturday on suspicion of possessing a stolen vehicle Saturday, according to a sheriff's news release.

Sheriff's deputies reportedly saw the motorcycle underneath a tarp during a burglary investigation in the 22000 block of Grand Terrace Road and contacted the homeowners.

The homeowners told officials Greene was storing the motorcycle there. Sheriff's deputies were given permission to inspect the motorcycle and found out through a records check that it had been reported stolen in Colton, authorities said.

Greene came back to the residence a few hours later and was arrested, according to the news release. The homeowners told officials they did not know the motorcycle was stolen.

Anyone with information about the stolen motorcycle can call the sheriff's Central Station at 909-387-3545

Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_19428579#ixzz1f56kKOuh

Crimes are UP In the Months of Nov, Dec, Jan. Be alert... Be Sober .... avoid crime. From Local Crime News: http://www.localcrimenews.com/city/1315/Grand-Terrace-crime-news.html

Ramirez, Constantin - (M/H)
22558 Robin Way
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-6118 Verified Address
Reported: 11/25/2011 by Crime Reporter: TAPE
Crime Report #: 6574305
Source: San Bernardino SD
F PC245(A)(1) Adw Or Assault W/Force Likely To Produce Gbi

Crowe, Nicole - (F/W) Age
23080 Orangewood Ct
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-5568 Verified Address
Reported: 11/25/2011 by Crime Reporter: TAPE
Crime Report #: 6574308
Source: San Bernardino SD
F VC10851(A) Take Vehicle W/O Owner'S Consent

Greene, Steven - (M/W) Age
22306 Grand Terrace Rd
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-4301 Verified Address
Reported: 11/26/2011 by Crime Reporter: TAPE
Crime Report #: 6574375
Source: San Bernardino SD
F PC496D(A) Receiving Stolen Property, Motor Vehicle

Howard, Levon - (M/B) Age
22638 Cardinal St
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-5751 Verified Address
Reported: 11/26/2011 by Crime Reporter: TAPE
Crime Report #: 6574468
Source: San Bernardino SD
F PC273A(A) Child Endangerment

Boyd, Erin - (F/W) Age
22803 La Paix St
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-5509 Verified Address
Reported: 11/27/2011 by Crime Reporter: TAPE
Crime Report #: 6574560
Source: San Bernardino SD
F PC666 Petty Theft With Prior

Macias, Richard - (M/H) Age
22111 Newport Ave Spc 124
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-4310 Verified Address
Reported: 11/23/2011 by Crime Reporter: TAPE
Crime Report #: 6568303
Source: San Bernardino SD
M PC273D(A) Corporal Injury To A Child

Feldman, Kelsey - (F/W) Age
22210 De Berry St
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-5417 Verified Address
Reported: 11/20/2011 by Crime Reporter: 9999
Crime Report #: 6561683
Source: San Bernardino SD
F HS11377(A) Possess A Controlled Substance

Other Arrests & Crimes

21845 Grand Terrace Rd Spc 30
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-4443 Verified Address
Reported: 11/17/2011 by Crime Reporter: 9999
Crime Report #: 6546971
Source: San Bernardino SD
F HS11361(A) Furnishing Cocaine To A Minor Under 14

21845 Grand Terrace Rd Spc 30
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-4443 Verified Address
Reported: 11/17/2011 by Crime Reporter: 9999
Crime Report #: 6553412
Source: San Bernardino SD
F HS11361(A) Furnishing Cocaine To A Minor Under 14

12201 Michigan St
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-5407 Verified Address
Reported: 11/17/2011 by Crime Reporter: TAPE
Crime Report #: 6546050
Source: San Bernardino SD
M VC40508(A) Fail To Appear

22009 Grand Terrace Rd # B2
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-4439 NOT Verified Address
Reported: 11/14/2011 by Crime Reporter: TAPE
Crime Report #: 6541127
Source: San Bernardino SD
F PC459 Burglary

22081 De Berry St
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-5412 Verified Address
Reported: 11/10/2011 by Crime Reporter: 5081
Crime Report #: 6526534
Source: Riverside SD
F PC3056 Violation Parole:Felony

22562 Van Buren St
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-5742 Verified Address
Reported: 11/11/2011 by Crime Reporter: TAPE
Crime Report #: 6532316
Source: San Bernardino SD
M VC23152(A) DUI Alcohol/Drugs

22825 Barton Rd
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-5208 Verified Address
Reported: 11/13/2011 by Crime Reporter: TAPE
Crime Report #: 6532564
Source: San Bernardino SD
M PC647(F) Under the Influence of Drugs/Alcohol

22607 Brentwood St
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-4903 Verified Address
Reported: 11/08/2011 by Crime Reporter: 9999
Crime Report #: 6525051
Source: San Bernardino SD
F PC422 Threats Of Violence

22627 Grand Terrace Rd
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-4900 NOT Verified Address
Reported: 11/04/2011 by Crime Reporter: 6145
Crime Report #: 6519564
Source: Riverside PD
F HS11377 Possess A Controlled Substance
M HS11550 Under The Influence Of Controlled Substance
F PC1203.2 Revocation Of Probation

22326 Blue Lupine Cir
For: Driving Under the Influence
Reported: 11/06/2011 by Crime Reporter: 5085
Crime Report #: 6511409
Source: San Diego PD
M VC23152(A) DUI Alcohol/Drugs

12542 Warbler Ave
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-5729 Verified Address
Reported: 11/04/2011 by Crime Reporter: TAPE
Crime Report #: 6514859
Source: San Bernardino SD
F PC69 Obstruct/Resist Executive Officer

22627 Grand Terrace Rd
Grand Terrace , CA 92313-4900 NOT Verified Address
Reported: 11/04/2011 by Crime Reporter: 6145
Crime Report #: 6519564
Source: Riverside PD
F HS11377 Possess A Controlled Substance
M HS11550 Under The Influence Of Controlled Substance
F PC1203.2 Revocation Of Probation

22491 De Berry St Apt 26
Reported: 10/28/2011 by Crime Reporter: TAPE
Crime Report #: 6499423
Source: San Bernardino SD
F VC23153(A) DUI Alcohol/Drugs With Bodily Injury

12005 Aspen Cir Apt D
Reported On: 10/26/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Petty Theft

12012 Preston St Apt 3
Reported On: 10/29/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Other Drugs

22491 De Berry St # C26
Reported On: 10/28/11 in San Bernardino County
For: DUI, Driving Under the Influence

12414 Cardinal Ct
Reported On: 10/27/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Driving Under the Influence

12798 Fremontia Ave
Reported On: 10/26/11 in Riverside County
For: Driving Under the Influence

21845 Grand Terrace
Reported On: 10/26/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Assault

1175 Mount Vernon Ave #274
Reported On: 10/16/11 in Riverside County
For: Driving Under the Influence

Makes me think of Schwab House

2011-11-07T15:37:00.000-08:00

Tax-Free Housing for Employees

What are the requirements for a section 119 exclusion?

The New York Times reported last month that some museum executives in Manhattan receive tax-free housing because the museum classifies their apartments as “business premises”. (Plum Benefit to Cultural Post: Tax-Free Housing by Kevin Flynn and Stephanie Strom. August 9, 2010.) Tax experts cited in the article disagree as to whether the museums’ reliance on the “business premises” tax exclusion is advisable.

Normally, an employee must pay income tax on the fair market value of rent on housing that the employer provides. However, under section 119 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), the employee may exclude the value of housing from her income if the employee must live on the employer’s “business premises.” IRC Regulation §1.119-1(b) states that the Section 119 exclusion is permissible if all three of the following conditions are satisfied:

1. The employee’s residence is located on the employer’s business premises.

2. The employer furnishes the residence for its own convenience.

3. The employee must accept the residence as a condition of employment.

The question is? Did Tom Schwab pay taxes on the house stipend he received from the City of Grand Terrace? Was the sale of a City Owned Property to Tom Schwab a legal transaction. His employment was not conditional on his acceptance of the house. The then City Council did not say to Tom Schwab live in Grand Terrace and accept this house or you lose your job you already have. In addition to prove this point. Tom Schwab was already employed with the city without a requirement that he live in Grand Terrace. The Current City Manager was not told she had to live in the City of Grand Terrace as a condition of employment.

Sure Tom Schwab is gone. However, the question of potential unpaid taxes, or undeclared income is a civic concern when tax dollars are much needed. In addition the past manipulation of the council and the sale of an RDA home to the City then the City to Schwab smacks of an illegal transfer of government property to Tom Schwab and thus a possible criminal act on his part and on the part of those who conspired to bring about the transfer of government assets to Mr. Schwab. It is clear DA Ramos has no interest in addressing the State and possible Federal Laws that were violated in the transaction. Perhaps the IRS and FBI and the State AG can be reminded that this issue has not been fully tried in a court of law.

Quick Updates from Utopia (That's Right I am not in GT)

2011-11-03T23:01:00.000-07:00

Ok folks, I have extended my summer absence from GT and may even skip this winter all together. However, I will post or bring up to date some issues that have come in from the Email Box:

Sounds or I should say SOUNDS like the Orange Show Raves are getting out of hand. If you hear a Rave in GT, there may be hearing loss at the actual Rave. Perhaps the Department of Health can turn down the volume if San Bernardino Code Enforcement is unable to dial it down.

Next City Council and Management hired an expert to negotiate the RDA Deal. We should ask why the City Manager is not skilled in RDA Management isn't some of her income draw because she is the RDA Director. If she is not qualified for that function perhaps the cost of hired help should come out of her Income Package. At least GT was smart enough to see it needed help and did not take a Schwabastic spit in the wind approach. That is good.

However, in the Nov 8 Packet for the Council there are glowing reports on the balance of accounts for the city. I don't question the account balance. I do question the representation of the report. The report does not identify the liabilities associated to the funds sitting in various bank accounts. The RDA Funds are obligated to pay back interest and principal of Bonds, In addition the City has retirement costs that are long range. Then a real and hopefully priority is the 1 or 2 contract the citizens really care about. One being the Police Protection the Other the Fire Protection. The water is not city water, power is SCE, Trash and Sewer are negotiated contracts that quite frankly the City has been just a pass through agency and not real tough negotiators. So just saying here are our account balances is a misleading picture of the City's reality. This is a Schwabistic Representation of Financial Reporting that leads to the Citizens and council to think.... oh we have plenty of money. THAT IS JUST NOT THE CASE.

Regarding Money. It is about time for the first quarter report on the INCREASED Sales Taxes that have resulted in the New Stater Brothers. Contrasted in that report should also be the figures of sales tax reductions for the stores impacted by the "New Stater's". All restaurants lost potential sales and foot traffic. Except Miguel may have seen an increase. In addition to the accounting for the "Sales Tax Windfall" promised we should have a public accounting of the number of employees working at Staters and the number of Part Time Uninsured and Full Time Fully Covered Employees. Are they in compliance with their obligation with the city. A default will return RDA Funds and fee waivers if I recall correctly.

Email reports the Stater's Employees are still parking on un finished parking lot surfaces. Isn't that a code violation? Try parking your car on the dirt at your house... See how that works for you.

Question regarding new occupant for the anchor store at Mt. Vernon and Barton Rd (Old Stater's Center) has that name changed? Let me know. Well, my understanding is Stater Brothers is blocking any new business that want's to move in until their lease option expires. Rent is being collected by the property owner however, the empty space is not good for businesses in the shopping center. I do hear parking for the restaurants is much nicer so folks are encouraged to enjoy that aspect of the change. What should go in there? Well Virginia has her speculation a Mexican Market or subdivided offices. It will be interesting. I think if there were offices being proposed Stater's would release the building as then the conversion would insure that they would never have competition for the grocery market in GT.

Email writer asked about CVS's and the two other shops on that corner. One pointed out that the picnic table and bench area is trashed and ugly and it seems the Code Enforcement is lax when it is a Commercial Property of Jacobsen's Development. There is still a Shipping container in the parking lot being used for storage. Again try that anywhere else in GT. I don't know anything about CVS's health. However, I've always said GT has not supported a Pharmacy in the past. Stater's at least did not double up with an additional Pharmacy as it planned, that would have killed CVS and the Wallgreens if that ever gets built.

Pay Jacobsen with State Money for a West Side Park. Jacobsen gifts 15,000.00 for a GT Kickback for operating funds. The obligation to build low income housing has not been answered and this was an obligation tied to Jacobsen and the Stater's Development. A park is nice, but somehow this one has a stink that will never be abated.

SDA Parents and Educators are writing mad about the Council member Hays's Beer Garden... I have directed them to the ABC board that issues licenses for this type of business. Let the ABC board know how you feel about an additional point of alcohol sale in GT. We already are considered to be saturated with Alcohol Licenses. Next to a School and SDA Church is also a bit of an issue. SDA's begin their Sabbath on Friday at sunset. When is this bar going to be open?

Looks like Occupy Redlands is focused on the bigger picture and not local issues. There should be a local assessment regarding excessively paid City Managers and City Management. I think it would be fair that a City Manager and City Management all employees should earn no more than 10 percent more than the Average Citizens income. This may be a level of compensation Citizen's Tax Contributions can pay for without going into RDA Debt Financing. It would also limit the Retirement Obligations in the future. City Managers should be realistic about living on a limited budget. Retired people on limited incomes in GT renting out a room should not have to pay additional inspection fees and so forth.

Well, readers, I will try to get to the email at least once a month... Good Luck

Gramps

RDA and then Where did the 2.3 Million Go?

2011-09-27T19:21:00.000-07:00

Friday, September 16, 2011
Page 4 San Bernardino County Sentinel

Grand Terrace Works Out Ten Year Repayment Schedule With SBVMWD

The Grand Terrace City Council this week resolved to return to the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District almost $2.3 million in state redevelopment pass-through funds mistakenly credited into the Grand Terrace’s redevelopment agency account two and three years ago.

In 2008-09 and 2009-10, the county auditor-controller’s office, which handles the apportioning of state redevelopment pass-through funds to the county’s cities and various agencies, utilized an incorrect schedule and formula to calculate the amount of money to be shared by Grand Terrace, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA).

The water district was shorted roughly $8.8 million over those two years and IVDA received $6.5 million more than it was entitled to and Grand Terrace received a $2.294 million windfall to which it was not entitled. This spring, after the water district’s finance officer noted a discrepancy between his own calculation of what his district was owed and what it had received, the district’s general manager contacted the county auditor-controller/treasurer’s office. The auditor-controller verified the miscalculation and notified both Grand Terrace and IVDA in May, informing both entities they would need to repay the water district.

The issue was almost rendered moot a month later when the state moved to abolish municipal redevelopment agencies and confiscate their assets. Grand Terrace, however, has agreed to pay the state $2.8 million this year and $670,000 next year to keep its redevelopment agency intact.
Pursuant to a three-month bargaining session with the water district, Grand Terrace officials have negotiated a payback arrangement that will allow the $2.3 million to be refunded to the district in increments over the next ten years.

Gramps Thinks: In 2008/09 Grand Terrace (Steve Berry and The Finance Department and then City Council Members), should have realized there was an overpayment and not used the excess funds and called attention to the error prior to the Passing of the Kill the RDA Law was passed. What are these folks thinking... OH MONEY... during a RECESSION... COME ON.. This sounds like we still have a bunch of people working in City hall that would not return money if the local cashier got the change wrong. I expect better of people who work in go GT. Don't YOU? City Manager Betsy Adams may not have noticed a year to year increase as she was hired after the initial error.

IF the CITY paid back the 2.3 Million could pay the State the funds to continue the RDA? BONDS WERE SOLD.... Sounds like some money shifting going on again... People are not pleased with the shell game being played.

Small Town = Short High Speed Chase = Big Trouble

2011-09-20T13:29:00.000-07:00

Grand Terrace couple arrested following vehicle pursuit

Lori Consalvo, staff writer

Posted: 09/19/2011 06:22:41 PM PDT

A couple was arrested for alleged child endangerment and felony evading Sunday night after leading sheriff's deputies on a chase.

Curt Warren, 56, and Cheri Warren, 52, of Grand Terrace were taken into custody and booked at the Central Detention Center in San Bernardino, according to a San Bernardino County sheriff's news release.

The couple was was seen fighting at the Grand Terrace Chevron Gas Station at 22483 Barton Road. When deputies arrived, the couple led them on a high-speed pursuit, which ended at the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Van Buren Street where the couple's vehicle ran out of gas.

When a sheriff's deputy arrested the suspects, a 6-year-old child was found inside the vehicle.

Something Fishy in the Water.

2011-09-19T00:42:00.001-07:00

What hasn't been answered in public is why on earth did the City of Grand Terrace spend the excessive payment of 2.3 Million that was paid to it? Let's think about it for a bit. If you go to your bank's ATM and ask for 20.00 and you get 2000000, you are obligated to inform the bank and return the money that is not yours. You don't have the right to go on a shopping spree.

So although a repayment plan has been agreed to, the citizens still aren't fully informed as to what happened to that money we weren't entitled to. Who's pay raise was approved, what project was paid for, what bills were paid, what golden handshake was paid for? If the money wasn't spent, it would be siting in a fund some where ready to be paid back. This is the behind closed doors discussion that the Citizens are not being told.

Let's think back to how many times the "Professional" Finance Department has been the source of problems. The non payment of withholding taxes on City Council Members, the confusion about the Red light Revenues, the unrecorded payments for the sale of city property to city employees, the payment of Schwab's house being improperly recorded for years, and now this use of a significant overpayment. Under who's direction are these decisions being made and the Finance Department just going along with that Management Decision. What were the decussions in City Hall when they found they had recieved a windfall of extra unexpected cash?

This all smells a bit fishy. I don't feel we have gotten all the truth. We can handle the truth the question is, who is being protected from possible legal action for their "error" in judgment when they used funds that they most likely knew the city should have reported as an overpayment.

Questions from the Email InBox:

2011-09-17T00:05:00.000-07:00

Pa: Why has the city been hiring so many outside advisers or consultants?

Answer: The expense or the need for outside advisers and consultants goes right back to the troubled management of Tom Schwab and Steve Berry. Because their management and decision making was so flawed, there is no reason to trust an internal report compiled by city employees who were hired by either of the Schwab or Berry. In addition no doubt City Manager Betsy Adams needs to cover her own back as there may be continuing employees with loyalties to Tom Schwab or Steve Berry willing to sabotage a report or staff recommendation in order to make her look bad or liable for a bad representation to the City Council. The City Council's own credibility is in question after being led down the road by bad advise from Schwab and his City Attorney all those years. City Manager Betsy Adams did not clean house so she may not feel the staff hired by Schwab/Berry are up to the professional standards to provide reliable reports and analysis. Given past experience this may be a justified assessment. So the outside consultants may seem to be expensive, but the need for an honest answer and a unbiased professional clearly written report is required at this time.

Pa: How will the payment for the Water 2.3 Mil, and the RDA Fee Payment impact the year to year budget and RDA Obligations? Was there an adjusted Revenue/Budget presented.

Answer: Good question, I don't know but now that the cat is out of the bag there should be a revised long term budget provided to the public and council.

Pa: How long will the old Stater's location be empty?

Answer: Jack Brown/Stater Brothers has a pattern of behavior that leads me to believe that they have a hold on that property and it will remain closed and empty for at least 6 more months. This way they keep out any competition. Their old facility in Colton was held empty until the City of Colton and the property owner found an occupant that would not be in direct competition with Stater's.

Is this fair. No. Having an empty space like that even if they are paying rent to keep it empty causes the other business remaining in that development to be hurt by diminished traffic. In addition it hurts the city by those business having fewer sales and collecting less sales tax. The RDA could have negotiated with Stater's not to have a vacancy hold on their former location during the negotiation regarding the RDA funds provided to Staters. It is not in the City's RDA's interest to have the RDA project hurt the pre-existing businesses as they can put in a claim for lost revenues resulting from the RDA's Action and support for Stater Brothers.

Stater's continues to have people parking on unpaved parking areas... is this what GT RDA paid for? or CalTrans? This is a code violation if it were anywhere else in GT. This is flagrant favoritism being shown to Staters on several levels.

This should go to a LOCAL Company...

2011-09-17T00:04:00.001-07:00

The City of Grand Terrace is seeking an experienced, responsible, capable and Professional with proven experience in Park Maintenance.
You are hereby invited to submit a proposal by the Submittal Date and Time of October 12, 2011, at 2:00 p.m., based upon the requirements and conditions set forth in the Request for Proposals.
There will be a mandatory job walk on September 28, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. for all interested parties submitting a proposal.

The RFP can be found at:
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=820

Something May Have Gone Right...in GT

2011-09-15T23:56:00.000-07:00

Grand Terrace pays $6,000 to fund community events, lets volunteers do rest

By Ryan Hagen Staff Writer

Posted: 09/15/2011 02:41:43 PM PDT

GRAND TERRACE - The loss of city funding won't mean the loss of city-funded community events such as Halloween Harvest and Community Days.

The city has agreed to pay the Foundation of Grand Terrace the last $6,000 out of a trust - funded mostly by donations and sponsorships - to put on the events and gather its own sponsorships for future years, after approving a budget in June that ended what had been a $52,880 annual expense.

"As a resident of this city, I want to make sure the events that have gone in the past continue," said Sally McGuire, chairwoman of the foundation's events committee on Wednesday. "As we get the monies, we'll be able to make decisions on what events we can and cannot have."

The first definite yes is Halloween Harvest, previously known as Halloween Haunt. It's scheduled for Oct. 31 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at Richard Rollins park.

McGuire expects to spend $2,000 or less on a Halloween celebration, which according to City Manager Betsy Adams is about half the usual total cost.

But she said the celebration will be much the same as usual, but with less candy - donated by the Grand Terrace Woman's Club - than in earlier years and without carnival-style game booths.

The city's other big annual event is Community Days, held in June.

Beyond that, McGuire said, she wants to hear from community members to see how much money the foundation can raise and which events people think are most important.

All expenditures will be tracked, because it's public money being used.

Councilwoman Darcy McNaboe abstained from the vote because she is the unpaid president of the Foundation of Grand Terrace.

The city had to make the agreement with an official group such as the foundation, City Attorney John Harper said.

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

Gramp's Notes: For many years now the blog has promoted the idea that the Citizens and Service Groups of GT should be planning and accounting for and hosting the "Events" and not the City Staff. The Funds were ill accounted for by Schwab and Berry, and the events were corrupted into being Political or Power Building Events. Staff Hours were shifted from what their job descriptions were to the Events Planning and Hosting Duties. Having Redevelopment Funds or Fees for Code Enforcement Inspection on Rentals used to plan Events is miss use of funds and a breach of the public trust. It is time that this miss use of funds and "Informal" accounting is not normal operational procedures for our city.

The Foundation of Grand Terrace is a logical service agency to hand these activities to. The Foundation of Grand Terrace is a legal entity, and carries insurance or can be sure that the down line activity sponsor has event insurance if needed. They can also keep accounts clear and not be using City Employees improperly. This will also increase the co-ordination of volunteers within Grand Terrace. Smart solution all ways around.

Will this transfer the planning and building of Blue Mt. Park, and the Dog Park? Can these be developed as Volunteer Projects with Foundation Oversight, with City Planning Approval of course? Minimal City Costs for trash pick up and perhaps water.

In the Past Service Organizations and the Foundation of Grand Terrace started events and eventually those events were taken over by the City... It is more efficient to have the events and special activities and perhaps all volunteers co-ordinates by non- City Management. This will par down the function of the City hall to what it was intended to be when the city became a city. We wanted, service contracts negotiated as a city period. All other activities were and should be citizen supported without City Hall's participation or interference.

In the future let's hope the community is informed about what comes under this new agreement. It is time to step up and support with funds or time or labor those events you think are important to the community.

Transparent as MUD

2011-09-14T10:57:00.000-07:00

Grand Terrace agrees to pay off $2.3 million debt over 10 years

Ryan Hagen, Staff Writer

Posted: 09/13/2011 10:01:02 PM PDT

GRAND TERRACE - After nearly five months of closed-door negotiations, the city agreed Tuesday night to pay almost $2.3 million owed to the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District.

Grand Terrace learned of the debt in May, after the water district realized that in fiscal years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the county Auditor, Controller and Treasurer's Office used the wrong formula to calculate the amount Grand Terrace's redevelopment agency needed to pay to the district.

Despite early agreement on the basics of a repayment plan, details were repeatedly changed because of a law abolishing all California redevelopment agencies - which was passed in June, along with another law allowing cities to pay to maintain the agencies, then stayed by the state Supreme Court - said City Manager Betsy Adams.

"This is an item that's been in closed session a long time, and some ancillary issues still are but we can now report the debt and that the water district gave us 10 years to repay it," Adams said. "It was extremely generous of them to do so, and I think it's important for that to be publicly acknowledged."

The court's stay prevents redevelopment agencies from entering into new agreements, so the council - which also sits as the board of the redevelopment agency - agreed to repay the debt out of city funds.

The debt was discovered as Grand Terrace grappled with a $50,000 general fund deficit. Finances remain extremely tight in the city.

It has long leaned heavily on the redevelopment agency, but moved to issue bonds to develop infrastructure and alleviate that dependency at the same time the debt came up.

That put the city in the precarious position of acknowledging the debt to bonding agents while keeping negotiations details private until now, a dilemma Councilman Bernardo Sandoval said Adams and the council handled perfectly.

"Our city manager made the very conscientious decision that we would not go out for bonds without addressing this issue," Sandoval said Tuesday.

"(Also,) everybody on this council has really been very assertive to report out the items on closed session as soon as we are able. I want to thank my colleagues for that level of integrity and transparency."

The incorrect payment amounts also mean the formula used to determine how much Grand Terrace must pay to retain its redevelopment agency is wrong, factoring into the city's earlier decision to appeal that amount, Adams said.

The Inland Valley Development Agency owes more than $6.5 million to the water district because of the same error, according to county records

GRAMPS SAYS: TRANSPARENT AS MUD

There would be no reason that the above matter had to be resolved behind closed doors. YES this fits in the Can be or May be behind closed doors however, this is the very type of issue that CAN be discussed in public IF the City Council and City Manager wanted to be TRANSPARENT.

Why should we know about this type of negotiation and problem facing the City. Well this issue has an impact on other Council Decisions or Indecision, Actions or Inaction. The public should know what is the issue, what are the complications and what is the progress of the issue as it is being resolved. It is unlikely that the PUBLIC has any control over the out come. It is also a reality that the water district could say pay up now and kill the City of Grand Terrace, but it is seldom in the interest of an agency to kill off it's clients. That would be bad business practices.

When Bernardon Sandoval, Walt Stanckiewitz, Darcy McNaboe were running for City Council Positions they promising more TRANSPARENCY they have not maximized that promises sufficiently. Gene Hays an appointed Council Member also said he believed in transparency. This leave Lee Ann Garcia who no doubt went along to get along.

A debt issue is not a Payroll issue, it is not a matter of National or even City Security. Your a bunch of misguided leaders who think the public is either too reactionary, or too dumb to have these serious financial matters and negotiations in public view as they transpire. This is why the public or the governed does not trust its government.

Let's hope the next election cycle produces a set of Council Members who want true Transparency and will hold all Agenda Items that CAN be discussed in public are in public.

Danger being ignored.

2011-09-09T18:20:00.000-07:00

Dear Gramps: Who do you tell?

There is a high risk fire hazard that by all appearances is being neglected by code enforcement and the presumed property owner Cal Trans. The trees, brush, and weeds along the freeway off ramps on Barton Road are ripe for a hot tail pipe, spark, car accident or spontaneous combustion. Of particular concern is the off ramp by the Animal Hospital. If there were fires along the off ramps they could spread depending on the wind conditions.

Gramp answers.

Well, a call to Grand Terrace Code Enforcement or CalTrans may be in order. Perhaps the Fire Station knows how to get the problem addressed. The water to the off ramps may have been cut with the expectation that the plants would be removed during construction. Good eye in spotting a hazard. Good luck in getting it mitigated.

Saying No to Thy Neighbor

2011-09-09T18:16:00.000-07:00

Teen and 21-year-old Arrested in Connection with Burglary

The suspects are accused of breaking into a home near their residence.

Loma Linda/Grand Terrace Police arrested two suspected robbers Thursday shortly after the break-in was reported at a Grand Terrace home.

About 10:38 pm, Deputy Daniel Hanke was dispatched to a residential burglary in progress at a home in the 22000 block of Newport Avenue. Officials said a resident confronted the two men who then fled the area.

Hanke and Deputy Jeremiah Cornett arrived on scene within minutes of receiving the call, officials said. Using information gathered at the scene and from witness, the deputies found their suspect, 21-year-old Jesse Hernandez and a 15-year-old Hispanic boy at a neighboring mobile home park. Both live in the park and were arrested at their homes, officials said.

Hernandez was also on felony probation and booked into Central Detention Center for violation of probation and on suspicion of residential burglary. The 15-year-old was released to his parent or guardian pending a court appearance for residential burglary, officials said.

2011-09-08T22:54:00.001-07:00

HI All

Know Thy Neighbor

2011-09-08T12:37:00.000-07:00

Traffic Stop Turns Into Meth Bust In Grand Terrace

A truck stopped for speeding in the area ends in two arrests for possession of a controlled substance.

A routine traffic stop for speeding turned into a drug bust in Grand Terrace Monday, when two people were arrested for possession of methamphetamine, according to a Riverside County Sheriff’s news release.

A Sheriff’s deputy pulled over a black Ford F-150 on a traffic violation for speeding in the area of Newport Avenue and Grand Terrace Road. The driver, John Cartmill, 61, of Grand Terrace had an active warrant out for his arrest.

During a search of his vehicle, approximately six grams of methamphetamine were located and additional Sheriff’s units arrived to assist in an investigation.

Deputies went to the residence Cartmill rents in Grand Terrace where the homeowner, Belinda Millard, 51, was contacted and a search of her residence was conducted. Approximately one gram of methamphetamines was located along with several items of drug paraphernalia.

Cartmill was booked at West Valley Detention Center for Transportation of Methamphetamines and is being held on a fifty thousand dollar bail amount. Millard was also booked at West Valley Detention Center for Possession of a Controlled Substance and is being held on $25,000 bail.

More on Roring Arrest

2011-09-02T02:55:00.000-07:00

Grand Terrace man pleads not guilty to "Virginia Tech"-style terrorist threats

By Jesse B. Gill Staff Writer

Posted: 09/01/2011 05:54:04 PM PDT

A Grand Terrace man has pleaded not guilty to charges that he made threats on his Facebook page that he was planning a "Virginia Tech"-style shooting at Crafton Hills College in Yucaipa, where he is a student.

Stanley Roring, 30, of Grand Terrace, was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of making terrorist threats. He was booked at Central Detention Center in San Bernardino. His bail was set at $50,000.

"It was information reported from someone who is a friend or acquaintance of (Roring's) on Facebook," said Cindy Bachman, spokeswoman for the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. "Obviously, it was very alarming once that was read."

Roring pleaded not guilty at Central Detention Center Thursday to one felony count of criminal threats.

The threat was a "general, blanket threat" against the school, and did not lay out specific plans for an attack, Bachman said.

"But he did indicate that (the attack) would be similar to the shooting at Virginia Tech," she said.

Roring also posted messages of impending "genocide" at the school, officials said.

After being alerted to the threat, college police contacted the Sheriff's Department, who moved very quickly to investigate the claims and take Roring into custody.

"At 11 (a.m.), we were notified and by 3 p.m., (Roring) was in custody," Bachman said.

Investigators served a search warrant at Roring's home after arresting him nearby. They recovered evidence at the home but Bachman said detectives won't release details about what they found.

Crafton Hills president Gloria Harrison said college staff was "stunned and horrified" to learn of the threats.

"However, we are gratified at the courage of the person who reported this matter and grateful to the law enforcement officers who resolved the matter so quickly and without any injury to anyone and without any disruption of classes or work at Crafton Hills College," she wrote in a prepared statement.

Roring is still entitled to due process within the San Bernardino Community College District apart from any criminal proceedings, said Alisa Moore, spokeswoman for the district.

"We have already started the process for disciplinary action," Moore said. "Those processes have been initiated, his due process rights will be protected."

Roring has a weapons charge in his criminal record. He pleaded guilty in 2007 to the willful discharge of a firearm in a negligent manner. He was sentenced to 33 days in jail and three years probation.

Bachman said it is likely that Roring may undergo an evaluation to determine his mental state.

"If he was mentally prepared to commit a violent act like this or if he was looking for some attention, he definitely got some attention from law enforcement," Bachman said.

jesse.gill@inlandnewspapers.com, 909-386-3921

3.5 years or 5 THEN WHAT?

2011-08-27T20:28:00.000-07:00

The City Manager of Grand Terrace and The City Council should be looking for ways to fassion a City Government that can operate within the finances available without dependency of the RDA and or Debt Financing. This is a necessity now so that when the 3.5 or 5 years pass there will not be the cries of we are going to be falling into a big abyss of non existence and so forth.

This is a small town. The City is not nor is it likely will it ever be able to assure that all people doing business in GT are in fact licensed to do business in GT, Pay Taxes, and obey the same codes and regulations required of homeowners.

This town has not added to it's Buying Power only the increase of competition. Stater's Deli will be taking customers away from our pre-existing restaurants. That isn't a net increase in sales just a relocation of sales. Some how, Jacobsen's CVS isn't facing the promised competition from a Stater's in house pharmacy. Yet, other businesses in GT are having their customer base pinched. Was there some Non Competition Agreement between Jacobsen and Brown, included in the sale of the land to Staters?

When will Stater's release the property at their old leased site so that some one else can pinch their customers, or create new jobs in GT, not just relocated jobs and services?

Either way, the economy is slowly recovering, and if GT were allowed to develope in a natural sustainable way slowly with out merly displacing a coustomer base for a favored business over other businesses our overall economy would be more stable, sustainable, and a contribution to the city, region, county, state and country. There is a bigger world... out there GT... you deserve no are obligated to produce more than pumps, mustard and ravioli, if your existence is to be assured.

GRAND TERRACE: Council approves restart of redevelopment

By DARRELL R. SANTSCHI
Staff Writer dsantchi@pe.com

The Grand Terrace City Council is making it official and will pay the state in order to restart the city's redevelopment agency.
The council voted 5-0 Tuesday night to give final approval to an ordinance restarting the agency in 30 days, but will have to make what Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz called "extortion payments" to the state.

Two new state laws require local redevelopment agencies to either shut down redevelopment, used to fund public improvements, or voluntarily turn over a large chunk of redevelopment revenue to help balance the state budget.

Grand Terrace has joined in a lawsuit filed on behalf of redevelopment agencies throughout California challenging the constitutionality of the two state laws.

Even if that challenge is unsuccessful, city Community and Economic Development Director Joyce Powers said Grand Terrace will file an appeal this month of the amount the city would have to pay.

At present, the price tag would be $2.8 million this year and $670,000 in the 2012-13 fiscal year.

The city's appeal is being made on two fronts, although details have not yet been made public.

One would reduce the city's contribution by as much as $750,000. The other would save $400,000.

If the appeal is not successful, Powers said, the redevelopment agency would be able to function for only about 3½ years before its revenue, gleaned from property taxes, would not raise enough money to make its annual payment to the state. If the city wins its appeal, she said, the agency could survive five years.

Cal-OSHA, and Death In GT

2011-08-27T12:13:00.000-07:00

The following article regarding the death of Tree Trimmer, Jeffery Kenney should raise several questions for all citizens and property owners. As unfortunate as it is for Jeffery Kenney and his family as citizens we need to ask ourselves to look at the bigger picture. Who was Kenney working for? Was he trimming the tree as an employee of a company? Did his employer know he was not using a safety rope? Who in Grand Terrace is supposed to see that all such work is done with safety practices adhered to. Did the business have a business license in GT? Is there a pending public or private, liability as a result of this tragedy?

Man falls 50 feet from palm tree in Grand Terrace
By Melissa Pinion-Whitt
Created: 08/26/2011 07:08:35 AM PDT
A Riverside man died Thursday after he fell 50 feet from a palm tree in Grand Terrace.

Jeffrey Kenney, 56, was trimming a palm tree in the 22300 block of Barton Road at 12:16 p.m. when he fell, San Bernardino County coroner's officials said.

His safety rope was not fastened.

Paramedics took him to Loma Linda University Medical Center where he was pronounced dead at 1:11 p.m.

Tree trimmer falls to his death
06:50 AM PDT on Friday, August 26, 2011
JOHN ASBURY
STAFF WRITER
jasbury@pe.com

A Riverside man was killed Thursday when he fell about 50 feet to the ground while trimming palm trees.

Jeffrey Kenney, 56, was contracted to trim palm trees in the 22300 block of Barton Road in Grand Terrace.

About 12:15 p.m., his safety rope became unfastened, causing him to fall to the ground. Kenney was taken to Loma Linda University

Medical Center where he was pronounced dead about an hour later.

The San Bernardino County district attorney's office and CAL-OSHA are investigating the death.

Stater Brother's Opens

2011-08-27T11:36:00.000-07:00

The New Stater Brother's Market Opened.
5
Yes the store looks nice, and the use of Green Building Methods is a welcome feature. That being said, there have been some comments that have been sent. Fresh Salad Bar at 6.99/lb is a high and most doubt there will be fresh salad for very long. In addition the fish looked great but most folks doubt there is sufficient demand to have that quality and variety of fish on a continuing basis.

It is nice to have the Dairy shelves have doors.

The staff was all friendly and trying to be helpful, but there were so many staff people there the store was extra crowed during the initial opening. Which leads to the next question. Why are people parking on unpaved land? Isn't there a code requirement that parking be done only on Improved Surface? Or is Decomposed Granite Sufficient for an "Improved Surface". Home owners would like to know if this is sufficient for everyone?

Missing from the prommised store... A full service Pharmacey, (Perhaps there was a revision because CVS is having a difficult go of it and a Wallgreens is in the works.) Market Saturation is a problem folks... Like the Blog hasn't been pointing this out for a long time..

It will take time for all of us to adjust to the additional stop light on Barton Road... be careful out there folks.

Don't forget about the Resturants and Stores in the GT Mall on Barton Rd and Mt. Vernon, Stater's Old Site. Dollar Tree, Laundrymat, Resturants, Dry Cleaner, Mail Mart, Kick Boxing and Do Nuts... all need you to remember they are there... Now parking will be easier.. perhaps you'll go to these stores more often.

Let's hope that Stater's will vacate the building quickly and make it available for the next occupant with out delay. Any vacant space is a detriment to the existing businesses and the community. As a matter of fact because Redevelopment Agency Funds and support were used to relocate Stater's any business suffering a loss as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's on Action can apply for financial compensation to off set some if not all their losses, until the Empty Space is leased and the property has a similar rate of traffic.

Stater's move was at least efficient and neat.

A Look at RDA from Someone Other than the Pa

2011-08-04T17:03:00.000-07:00

http://youtu.be/7NPSugPQpH8

Emails have been questioning why GrandPaTerrace has been more patient with Mayor Stanckiewits, and the New City Council and City Manager.

Let's get right down to it. I don't agree with all the decisions being made at the City. I would like the Citizens to have the opportunity to see the reality of a real bare bones budget and city operation. Perhaps this would be close the parks, close the Senior Center, pay for only Fire and Police, and nothing else. Or even stop being a city all together and be satisfied with County level services. At some point in time we should ask are we getting our money's worth? Is being a City better than being just part of the County? Are we missing out on some efficiencies because of our City Ego?

Now that being said. Mayor Stanckiewits and the City Council had a real campaign and the electorate was engaged in making an informed decision. NOW it is time to govern. All are dealing with what was left them. It is not like we are in an economy without trials, or that past administration left GT in financial order sufficient to stand without difficult decisions.

I will say I am less than impressed that Betsy Adams has not surrendered her contract compensation so that others may be retained. Basic services like mowing lawn and cleaning public toilets are in some ways more important to a city than a City Manager.

Council Member's McNaboe, Hays, Garcia are up for replacement or re-election this election cycle. It is important for Citizens to offer up an alternative candidate with alternative ideas so that voters have a choice in the election and direction of the City.

Citizens and Service Groups are stepping up, and filling in the needs of the community in ways that had been smothered by the prior administration. Civic Activity by Citizens and Community Groups is sustainable and beneficial on many levels of human endeavor. Citizens, commute long distance to their jobs, raise their children, participate in sports activities, and yes will spend time cleaning up a park or painting a wall. For the folks in City Hall earning big bucks to need a cleaning service to carry out their trash is a bit offensive. Sure the cleaning of ducts should be done by a professional, but really people working at city hall, take out your own trash and scrub a toilet now and then. Do you have maid service at home too?

Stepping Up: GT Citizens Score

2011-08-04T14:25:00.000-07:00

The recent Grand Terrace City News featured several things that should be a guide to future City Management/City Council and Redevelopment Agency's actions and planning. In addition there are a few things at the end of the list that are end of summer advise.

First: Soccer Parents and organization stepped up and cleaned the park their children will be using for the Soccer Season. This is a great thing. Deep cleaning of tables and the snack bar in addition to park clean up was done by a team of volunteers of all ages. Parents and children worked together and made a day of the effort. Could the Soccer Team organize their participants in a way that they take on nearly all the maintenance of the park with perhaps the exception of mowing, and repairs to irrigation? Could the Base Ball Teams take on Pico Park in the same way? Corporation for Better Housing takes care of the Susan Petta Memorial Park as their residents are the majority benefactors of that park. Yes all these parks are public, but should not the people who use the park the most be willing to help with the upkeep of the park?

In addition, the general public needs to learn or re-learn the good rule of leaving a public place better than when you came. All people who see trash or debris on the ground could bend over and pick it up and put it in a trash can. Walkers abound in GT.. How about walking with a trash bag and some grippers... You don't have to slow down, just pick up what you can without breaking your pace and soon your bag will be full.

Second: The Lions Club's public service activity served over 300 people by providing eye glasses and eye health screenings. The terrific effort of the Lions Club is yet another example of how citizens as individuals and groups can rally the resources and people to a community need. The fact that so many needed assistance is also a reality that should not be unrecorded. Grand Terrace is often touted as being immune to the economic reality of the problems that are associated lower incomes. With high home costs, utilities, and the cost of commuting to work, many citizens are working paycheck to paycheck. Many don't have medical insurance, many do not have dental and vision plans even if they have some sort of medical insurance.

So when the City thinks about adding a tax, or fee, or fine, they should keep in mind, some folks in GT don't have that extra 20.00 this month. There are homeless and near homeless in Grand Terrace. Grand Terrace needs to think about More Jobs or a increase in Real Income, not just more places to spend the same money we currently generate.

Third: Wallgreens and a business to be named in the future, a development brought to GT by Dr Hu. Dr Hu has a plan. He did not use or abuse the Redevelopment Agency's power in the use and development of his property. He has not asked for waivers of taxes. He has paid all the fees required. His project moves forward, without public financed bonds, and tax deferrals funding it.

Dr Hu demonstrates an example of proper or natural slow but sure economic development oh dare it be said... capitalism with out government involvement, and the use of property rights of individuals. Go forth and prosper Dr. Hu. Good luck in doing what your doing Dr. Hu.

Fourth: The Concert featured at Colton's Flemming park is an example of some of the wonderful live fine arts available in our area. Redlands Bowl, Roosevelt Bowl (Perris Hill Park), Flemming Park, University of San Bernardino, Court St Concerts, are just a few free or near free family / community building arts experiences nearly all of us can afford. Car pool, take a bunch of your kids friends, be a neighborhood hero. It is a small investment in gas, and a grand shared experience. Take your own dinner or snacks. If you have a buck or two, pitch it into the offering bucket. Everyone can be a supporter and or consumer of these local arts productions. When you attend any of these events, you will take away not only an arts experience but a community experience.

Fifth: School has started: It is HOT. Keep SAFE. Our hottest part of the year is end of August, first weeks of September. Watch out for the added pedestrian traffic, and the mommy traffic around schools. Be PATIENT with drivers and pedestrians.

Sixth: Have extra water in your car. If you see someone who looks parched, offer them a cup or bottle of water, you may be saving a life. Watch for children and pets left in cars during the day. Keep extra water in your car in the event your car breaks down and you yourself get stranded.

PS: I have gone North for the Summer so I only know what I read, and recall of AUG/SEP in GT. Canada in Summer is great!!!

More Staff Canges at GT City Hall

2011-08-04T13:08:00.000-07:00

Grand Terrace city clerk resigns

RYAN HAGEN, Staff Writer

Posted: 08/03/2011 10:14:32 PM PDT

GRAND TERRACE - Brenda Mesa is resigning as city clerk, saying she took a part-time position with the city of Upland so she can work closer to home.

"My son is getting ready to start school," said Mesa, 45, an Upland resident. "He's starting kindergarten, and I want to be close to his school."

Mesa submitted her resignation Monday, and her last day will be Aug. 11. She has been the clerk since 1992.

Her resignation comes a month after the City Council laid off Assistant City Clerk Tracey Martinez to help balance its budget and follows recent departures by other longtime employees.

"We went a lot of years without turnover, and I think it's just (coincidence)," Mesa said. "My decision has everything to do with my family and nothing to do with the city."

Martinez will return to fill the city clerk position until a permanent replacement is found, said Community and Economic Development Director Joyce Powers, who is in charge of city operations this week while City Manager Betsy Adams is on vacation.

In Grand Terrace, the city manager hires the clerk without City Council action, Powers said.

"We've really valued her as a friend and an employee, and we're sad to see her go," Powers said. "We wish her the best of luck."

Mesa said she began working in Grand Terrace nearly 25 years ago, as a part-time receptionist, and has only worked for the city or "doing the typical jobs young people do."

She said she's confident the city will do well without her, although she described leaving as bittersweet.

"There's been a lot of years I spent there," she said. "It's been a great experience. I love Grand Terrace."

ryan.hagen@inlandnewspapers.com

909-386-3916

Oh Wallgreens Fresh N Easy also in Packet

2011-07-24T01:34:00.000-07:00

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;

2011-07-24T01:20:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-07-23T23:58:00.001-07:00

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.

RFP:

2011-07-23T23:50:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-07-23T22:27:00.000-07:00

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

2011-07-15T22:34:00.000-07:00

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....

2011-07-14T14:52:00.000-07:00

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:

2011-07-14T12:15:00.001-07:00

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.

2011-07-14T01:44:00.000-07:00

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.

Budget Vote

2011-06-30T11:52:00.000-07:00

Grand Terrace council balances city budget

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

Ryan Hagen, Staff Writer

Posted: 06/29/2011 08:58:05 PM PDT

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

BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET

2011-06-18T14:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Cuts in GRAND TERRACE BEGIN

2011-06-15T21:45:00.000-07:00

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

2011-06-15T21:43:00.000-07:00

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

2011-06-15T21:34:00.000-07:00

Democrats Craft Budget Sans GOP

June 14, 2011, 5:30 pm • Posted by John Myers

Email Twitter Facebook 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.

Budget Reductions in Detail

2011-06-12T15:12:00.000-07:00

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.

Know Thy Neighbor or Sheriff Slow to Act

2011-06-01T12:37:00.000-07:00

,

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

JESSE B. GILL, Staff Writer

Posted: 06/01/2011 11:21:16 AM PDT

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.

Weapons found next to day-care center

Man arrested after dispute with parents

Jesse B. Gill, Staff Writer

Posted: 05/31/2011 07:37:53 PM PDT

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.

2011-05-28T18:13:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-05-28T13:23:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-27T13:20:00.001-07:00

$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

2011-05-27T11:42:00.001-07:00

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?

2011-05-26T18:00:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-26T17:49:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-24T13:00:00.000-07:00

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."

GrandTerraceNews: Documents and Opinion

From a Portion of the Sun Article: RDA & GT

GET GT BARE BONES or to the ASH CAN... NO BETWEEN

REDEVELOPMENT: Court decision just the first step

NO to RDA and IF the City Must Go... So Be IT!

Did Stater's Earn Its RDA KickBack/SpringBack?

JAN 25 Council Plans to Pick Your Pocket

Picking over the bones of GT's RDA and GT City.

Revenue Past and Recient Past

Council Dug A Bigger Hole And Risked The City:

RDA one Step Closer to the END

Calif officials seek redevelopment compromise

Crime in GT... the reported sort...

Crime and public safety, November 29

Makes me think of Schwab House

Tax-Free Housing for Employees

Quick Updates from Utopia (That's Right I am not in GT)

RDA and then Where did the 2.3 Million Go?

Small Town = Short High Speed Chase = Big Trouble

Grand Terrace couple arrested following vehicle pursuit

Something Fishy in the Water.

Questions from the Email InBox:

This should go to a LOCAL Company...

Something May Have Gone Right...in GT

Grand Terrace pays $6,000 to fund community events, lets volunteers do rest

Transparent as MUD

Grand Terrace agrees to pay off $2.3 million debt over 10 years

Danger being ignored.

Saying No to Thy Neighbor

Teen and 21-year-old Arrested in Connection with Burglary

Know Thy Neighbor

Traffic Stop Turns Into Meth Bust In Grand Terrace

More on Roring Arrest

Grand Terrace man pleads not guilty to "Virginia Tech"-style terrorist threats

3.5 years or 5 THEN WHAT?

Cal-OSHA, and Death In GT

Stater Brother's Opens

A Look at RDA from Someone Other than the Pa

Stepping Up: GT Citizens Score

More Staff Canges at GT City Hall

Grand Terrace city clerk resigns

Oh Wallgreens Fresh N Easy also in Packet

City Council Agenda Read is Important;

RFP:

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

GT Greed or Need?

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

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

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

REGION: City officials slam state over redevelopment

Red Lights To Go....

Red Light Camera On Way Out:

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

Crime and Public Safety, July 14

Budget Vote

Grand Terrace council balances city budget

BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET

Cuts in GRAND TERRACE BEGIN

Crunching the State Budget

Democrats Craft Budget Sans GOP

Budget Reductions in Detail

Know Thy Neighbor or Sheriff Slow to Act

,

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

Weapons found next to day-care center

Getting Closer in Sac.

40.00 From Every Man Woman and Child

GT after the RDA

Unsustainable back in 1978 to Now: Why a Bigger Hole

Plan outlines stark future for Grand Terrace

Grand Terrace authorizes $29 million in bonds

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

Agency taps Grand Terrace for $2.3M