Claremont Insider

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Limits

With the the economy tanking, the stock and housing markets plummeting, and a credit freeze just beginning to thaw, you'd think that there'd be some serious talk at Claremont's City Hall about what contingencies need to be in place for the inevitable hits the city budget is going to take. But don't hold your breath.

This past week, the credit markets loosened up enough for California to sell $5 billion worth of short-term revenue anticipation notes that allow the state to bridge the gap between now and the beginning of 2009, when tax revenue starts rolling in.

The news for California and local governments like Claremont isn't especially rosy, however. And, as the LA Times noted on its front page today, the potential damage will likely be widespread:

Some of the most dire problems are emerging in states such as California and Florida, where the housing collapse has been the most pronounced.

California lawmakers, who faced a $15.2-billion deficit going into the fiscal year, argued over the budget for months. In the final draft, state services took a big hit: Medi-Cal was temporarily cut by 10%, and the education budget was set at $3 billion less than last year.

The bad news continues to mount. Last month, the state's revenue fell about $1 billion short of projections. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders have been meeting weekly to discuss the problem and are considering calling lawmakers to a special session. In Florida, lawmakers faced a similar challenge as they wrote their yearly budget. The plan they devised was nearly $6 billion smaller than the year before. It resulted in 200 net job losses, tuition increases, cuts to nursing homes and the shuttering of 13 driver licensing offices.

Now the Legislature is scrambling to patch a new $795-million gap. Lawmakers may face yet another multibillion-dollar shortfall when they sit down to craft a budget for the fiscal year starting in 2009. Declining revenue is just part of the problem in Florida: Education costs are soaring because of the passage of a 2002 class-size-reduction ballot initiative, and rising enrollment and healthcare costs are bloating the Medicaid program.

Budget woes engulfed more than 40 states beginning in 2001, a result of the dot-com crash. At the time, economists said it was the biggest fiscal crisis for states since World War II.

"If you look at some of the basics of the economy -- unemployment, the stock market decline, the decline in consumer spending -- there is some reason to fear this crisis will be worse," said Nicholas Johnson, an analyst with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Local governments, in particular, may get hammered harder this time around. In 2001, Johnson said, cities and municipalities, flush with cash from high property tax rolls, were able to pick up the cost of services that states had abandoned. But that will be more difficult now because declining home values have dragged down property tax revenues.

Yet, despite the obvious looming budgetary problems, no one in Claremont is talking, at least publicly, about the hard decisions that we may have to make. Rather than having an open, public discussion of our fiscal realities, the powers-that-be in town are carrying on as if the party's still in full-swing on the one hand, and on the other they sneak in things like trash collection rate increases based on false and misleading information.

The City took steps earlier this year to try to address reduced sales and property tax revenue by instituting across the board spending reductions and putting a hiring freeze in place. But we suspect that no one anticipated things like a nationwide 32% decline in Toyota auto sales - something that has dire implications for a city like Claremont which gets over 50% of its sales tax money from Roger Hogan's Claremont Toyota.

In trying to cement what she considers her legacy, Claremont Mayor Ellen Taylor has placed a lot of costly projects on the city's plate - an affordable housing project, Padua Park, a new police station, to name a few - but her real legacy may be committing the city politically and fiscally to things that will push the city's budget far into the red.

We like to believe in a limitless future, but that simply does not square with today's reality. We hope our city's leaders have the vision to understand that reality.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Claremont Happenings

DAILY BULLETIN BLOGS CLAREMONT

The Daily Bulletin as a relatively new blog by Claremont beat reporter Wes Woods II. It's called Claremont Now and has a lot of community events listed, as well as bits of other local news.

A couple events Woods has listed:

  • Tuesday, October 21st, 7pm - Neighborhood Meeting

  • City Council Neighborhood Forum -Padua Hills Theatre
    4467 Via Padova
    Claremont
    (909) 399-5460

    Council Members are also hosting a series of Neighborhood Forums. Neighborhood Forums give residents from different neighborhoods the opportunity to talk with City Council Members in a relaxed and informal setting. Neighborhoods can discuss issues that are important to them, air concerns, share ideas, ask questions and get the latest information about topics and projects that are specific to each neighborhood. Although forums are scheduled for specific neighborhoods, you do not have to live in that immediate area to attend.

  • Wednesday, October 22nd, 3:30pm - Padua Park Dedication

    Groundbreaking for Padua Park, located on Padua Ave. a half-mile south of Mt. Baldy Rd. Woods writes, "comfortable shoes and clothing are recommended." Given all the BS and hyperbole the City has employed in justifying spending down the General Fund Reserve and effectively defrauding the state of California out of $850,000 to build the park, you just might want to bring your waders.

  • Tuesday, October 28th, 7:30pm - Community Talk

    Woods writes that two local residents who lost their home in the 2003 Padua Fire will be giving a talk about the experience of rebuilding their home:
    Debbie and Vern Jahnke, as part of the Mt. Baldy Group/Sierra Club meeting, will discuss their rebuild at 7:30 p.m. inside the Olin Bldg. at the college, 301 Platt Blvd.

    The cost is free.

    Information: (909) 621-7148.

    The Jahnkes' new house was featured in an LA Times article last year.

Speaking of home and the loss of home, we were reminded of another post we had last year when we in one of those windbaggy, waxing-poetic moments.


NO, REALLY, BRING YOUR WADERS

The City of Claremont's website informs us that tomorrow, October 18th, the city will have another of its' free mulch events going, beginning at 6am:
Claremont residents are invited to help close the recycling loop by participating in the Free Mulch Program. The City's tree maintenance contractor uses trimmings from City trees to create mulch, taking a wonderful community asset and making a sustainable product. Mulch helps not only to conserve water, but to limit the amount of waste produced in the community. The next event will be held this Saturday, October 18, 2008, at the Wilderness Park Overflow Parking Lot located at the corner of Mills Avenue and Mt. Baldy Road. Mulch will be available on a first-come, first-served basis beginning at 6 a.m. Please be sure to bring any equipment necessary to load and transport mulch.

If you would like more information about the program, please contact the City's Community Services Department at (909) 399-5431.

VILLAGE VENTURE

The annual Village Venture is set for Saturday, October 25th. The Claremont Chamber of Commerce has all the info:
Saturday October 25th 2008, 9am to 5pm

One day show - rain or shine.

Over 450 booths fill the tree-lined streets of Claremont Village. Over 25,000 visitors attended in 2007! Check out the Gabriel Fenoy's 2007 Village Venture photographs from the Claremont Courier here!

Children's Halloween Parade begins at 9:30 am. Participants are invited yo assemble at the corner of Harvard and Bonita Avenues at 9:15am.

The Great Pumpkin Contest will once again be located in Shelton Park, northeast corner of Harvard and Bonita. This area is also Kid's Korner which is filled with games and activities. Application forms coming here soon!

Parking:

Parking Structure First Street, west of Indian Hill Blvd

Metrolink Parking, First Street

FREE SHUTTLE service from:-

The Claremont Colleges Facilities Services parking lot on east First Street at Mills, every 5 minutes.

St. Ambrose Episcopal Church parking lot Bonita Avenue, east of Towne, every 10 minutes.

Youth Activity Center at Indian Hill Blvd at Scripps Drive, every 10 minutes.

Call 909-624-1681 or e-mail contact(at)claremontchamber.org with any questions.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

$35 Million Water Rate Increase

They come around with the predictability of eclipses or the tides or the change of seasons. They are applications by the Golden State Water Company to the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for another RATE INCREASE. Since the water company is a regulated utility, all rate increases must be approved by the PUC.

Last month the water company sent yellow notices to all of its customers advising of yet one more bite at the rate-payers' apple:

NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING BY GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY FOR A RATE INCREASE
REGION III SERVICE AREA
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS
APPLICATION NO. 08-07-010

Down in the fifth paragraph, the water company advises us that the total request for Region III, which includes Claremont, is for $35,414,600, with the bulk of it, $30,035,900 coming as a 33% increase in 2010!

Why Is This Man Smiling?


This breathtaking increase request is quite in keeping with the modus operandi of Golden State in initially asking the PUC for the moon and then settling for a few scattered comets, asteroids, and pieces of space junk. Over the years, Golden State comes in with a highball request, the wheels of the PUC grind exceedingly slow and fine, and the Commission ultimately approves an increase in the neighborhood of half what was initially requested--still, gobs and gobs of money. Enough to keep President and CEO Floyd E. Wicks in those nice suits for a long time (see photo, right).

This year the Claremont City Council approved $30,000 to pay lawyers at Best, Best and Krieger to represent the City as a participant in the rate increase application process. This process is a highly choreographed procedural minuet, and becoming a "participant" is the only way effectively to have a voice. [Reading the staff report referenced just above authored by that Candide of Claremont, Scott Carroll, would make a reader believe that the City's vaunted participation and protest single-handedly brought Golden State's water hikes to rein. The City participation was important, as it is a formal way to participate, but even in 1996, when the City was not a participant, the 56% increase request was slashed to 12%. As we recall--we could be wrong--the big deal that year was not the rate per se, but getting approval of a new rate structure with separate "meter" (fixed hookup charges), and "commodity" (water usage) rates. Anyway, post hoc ergo propter hoc, Scott.]

All of which makes us wonder, whatever became of the fanciful idea of the City purchasing the water company? We haven't heard about it for a long, long time, and it is a remnant from the bad old days of Glenn Southard, giving you some idea of how long it has been floating around. Did the City come face to face with financial reality on this idea? This is how the world ends, not with a whim but with a banker.

More on all of this as it unfolds in the community. For now, in case you lost yours, here is the notice sent last month--or perhaps it was August--by Golden State Water (click on images to enlarge:

(If links below appear broken, try again later. The PUC appears not to have paid its electric bill.)
(Links seem to be working again. Guess Arnie sold those short-term bonds)

Also, if you are really a glutton for punishment of the worst sort, here is a link to the California Public Utilities Commission file on the July 1, 2008 Golden State Water Company rate increase.

The 70-page rate increase application is here.

The City's August 7 protest is here (4 pages).

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Sam He Is

What with all of the important stuff at Tuesday's City Council meeting: raising trash rates with abandon, killing the leaf blower ordinance [Gentlemen, start your engines], making Thompson Creek Trail safe for dogs, banning smokers from City Parks, and making the first $100,000 payment on Community Services Director Scott Carroll's goof-up in bulldozing the Wilderness Park...what with all of this, what do we here at the Insider turn to? Ourselves, naturally, as anyone would.

We got a bit of mention during public comment when a Claremont citizen took it upon himself to lambaste the City Attorney for violating our free speech rights a year ago. Maybe it was a one-year anniversary thing, since the City Attorney's letter-writing campaign came to light in October of last year. This delayed-fuse google-bomb surprised City Attorney Sonia Carvalho. So much so that she burst into tears in apologizing for her letter to Google demanding that we be "terminated".

Just kidding; she really didn't cry. But we had one of those photo-caption contests here at Insider Central, and that caption won. In truth, not much was said.

* * *

This Insider reference and the one we now take up formed nice airy bookends to the substance of the meeting. At meeting's end Sam Pedroza gave a report about his excellent trip to a League of Cities symposium on Blogs.

Since he doesn't like to be filtered by the "local negative blog" (us) we present his report here, in full, in his own words, with the very least editorial comment we could possibly restrain ourselves to make.

Sam on Blogs, 2:24 video clip

Monday, October 13, 2008

Hot Air Blowing in from Indio

DESERT CITY NEWS

Bridget Healy, long-time Assistant City Manager in Claremont, who followed Glenn Southard to Indio, has announced to staff in Indio, and Indio's council has been informed that she plans to retire in two months, on December 17th.

She was recently spotted by the Indio Desert Sun newspaper purchasing the first bag of popcorn at a new SuperTarget store in that desert land of the Open Spaces and Big Boxes. Referring to the Coachella Valley SuperTarget, she was quoted, "It's awesome, and the popcorn is great."

Bridget has maintained a pied-a-terre here in Claremont since decamping to Indio in 2005. Her name has appeared since on supporter lists in several local political contests. She signed the Courier ads for the ill-fated "Parks and Pasture" assessment district measure of 2006. Last year, during the school board election, her Claremont digs sported a Hilary LaConte sign (don't blame us or accuse us of stalking, Google Streetview caught it). So, she's definitely a beautiful person.


We have the vague recollection, though, that she supported a losing candidate in the 2005 school board election, and until we research that one a bit more, we'll say no more.

We are reminded of a party we attended more than a year back in a town a hundred miles from Claremont. There we met a shirttail relative of "Bridget Distelrath"--this relative couldn't shake the name she went by for years. The story goes that at a family gathering a few months earlier, Bridget spoke of her desire to return to Claremont and "run for Mayor". We guess her heart is in the highlands of the Inland Empire and not in the below-sea-level lowlands of the Coachella Valley. Maybe it's too hot there.

If we were Jeff Parker or Tony Ramos, we would be worried about the return of someone with Bridget's knowledge of where the skeletons in City Hall are hidden, and with too much time on her hands.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

We Meant a CPI Increase All Along

The City agenda report for trash rate increases was published on Friday. You may link to it here.

In this, the City Staff exceeds its own enviable standards of soaring and smug self-justification. These people are just plain without shame, no question about it. We don't know who is most responsible for this remarkable prose, but until we hear to the contrary, we guess we'll go with the person named under "Prepared by", Garbage Staffer Anna Sanchez. This woman seems to come from the same "We Can Never Do Wrong" writing school as City Planner Lisa Prasse, and is coached in the same sing-song condescending style of oral delivery (see our prior post, and look at part 1 of the entire July 22 staff report if you don't believe us). For goodness' sake, we know that our councilmembers aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, but do you have to talk to them like they were 7-year-olds?

Now, we don't propose to parse every sentence in the staff report. Let's take a look at paragraph 2 though:

"On July 22, 2008, staff presented council with two options to consider increasing multi-family and commercial refuse collection service fees and temporary rental container fees as well as include an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase on all solid waste service fees..." [emphasis added]
Looky how the CPI increase has risen in importance in this summary. It takes about one third of the verbiage. Funny though, because in the entire 32 minute presentation that Anna Sanchez gave at the July 22, 2008 council meeting, she did not mention CPI even once. (Again, the entire video of the presentation is here.) The City Manager chimed into the colloquy, and he didn't mention it, either. Nor did our Mayor Ellen Taylor, who seems to have fallen into a bad habit of butting into any councilmember's or staffer's discussion, not to mention the time given to members of the public.

In the July 22, 2008 staff report on these increases
, the CPI increase was not even mentioned in the summary:
"Staff Recommendation: That the City Council choose Option A or B to increase multi-family, commercial, and temporary bin refuse collection services, approve amending a late fee penalty for delinquent payment or nonpayment of sanitation service charges, and set a public hearing on October 14, 2008 to review the proposed increases."
It wasn't until the middle of page four that the CPI was mentioned, and then it was clearly in the context of the options on multifamily and commercial rates:
"Staff reviewed the deficit in the sanitation operating fund during the budget workshop held on June 12, 2008, and during that presentation, [sic] presented two (2) options for council's consideration. Both options outlined below assume all fees will be increased by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in July of each year."
We have already covered how each of the options that follow this contain a table with the footnote, "Assumes a 2.5% CPI increase on all fees except Residential".

But now, after some persistent members of the community have raised questions, the CPI assumes pride of place as probably the main thrust of staff's rate increase proposal. From page 2 of the October 14, 2008 agenda report:
On July 22, 2008, staff presented two options for council to consider to remedy the impending deficit in the Sanitation Fund. Both options presented included a CPI increase applied to all fees on July 1 of each subsequent year. Using the CPI as a method of increasing rates on an annual basis will help prevent any future large increases to recover costs for service. One of the primary reasons why the Sanitation Fund is in its current state is because a mechanism to increase rates was not placed in the the original ordinance. To help mitigate any future disparities in revenues versus expenditures, the CPI mechanism was chosen. Although residential service revenues appear balanced today, without incremental rate increases based on CPI, as costs increase over time, the residential service revenues will not be able to recover costs for service and the Sanitation Fund will face another deficit.
We are really sorry to subject you, our readers, to this bland bureaucratic drivel. Let's be clear. The Sanitation Fund has a $2,000,000 SURPLUS. That is because the City has been overcharging us for years.

We'll bring this too-long and too-boring post to a merciful close by simply posting how staff proposes to re-address this issue. We especially like the self-justifying prose in the first paragraph:
"After the July 22 City Council meeting, there has been public concern about the CPI increase on residential rates. In the staff report and public notice, the CPI for all solid waste services, or Option A or B, was noted. However, the presentation and subsequent dialog of the City Council focused on the immediate increases proposed to the multi-family, commercial and bin rates."
When you have writing as poor as this example, which fuzzy and obscure writing is a product of fuzzy and obscure thinking, you can make a post hoc argument, as staff tries to do, that it means whatever staff wants it to mean.

We give up. They're gonna increase your residential rates and make it sound as if it's OK with you that they do so.

Click on image to enlarge

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Talkin' Trash Again

One nice thing about the City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 14: the trash controversies will be over. We hope.

If you need to catch up, our first post was here: Bait and Switch. This was followed by Claremont Trash News, and Yet More Mail.

You may recall that the Big Issue is the CPI increase buried in the two-page notice to residents. Everyone--and we mean everyone--who reads that notice fairly believes that they are reading a notice that is about an increase in (1) Commercial Sanitation Rates, (2) Multifamily Sanitation Rates, and (3) Bin Rental Rates. Readers are unanimous in believing it has nothing to do with an increase in residential rates--until someone points out the strained reading of the eye-glazing verbiage in the fourth paragraph, below the 5-point-type table:

"...In addition to the proposed rate increases listed in the above table, an annual increase to all solid waste service rates at the rate of inflation as determined by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is being proposed..."

Even then, because the context is Commercial and Multi-family rates (and bin rentals), and because those items were underlined in the previous paragraph, 99 people out of 100 say that the quoted sentence on CPI applies only to CPI increases on Commercial, Multi-family, and Bin rates. And remember, the key tables in the July 22 staff report (see our earlier post) specifically omitted residential rates from the CPI calculation.

The one person in 100 who doesn't agree with that, is the City staff, who seem to be digging in with the interpretation that they always intended to increase the residential rates.

However, a review of the tape of the July 22, 2008 council meeting shows that in a 32-minute presentation and discussion, no one--not Garbage Staffer Anna Sanchez, not Mayor Ellen Taylor, not City Manager Jeff Parker, not Councilmember Peter Yao, not Councilmember Corey Calaycay, and not Councilmember Linda Elderkin--said, thought aloud, or intimated, that the proposal before the Council included a CPI increase on residential rates. We have already discussed the paper staff report here with copies of the notice posted.

There are only three times in the 32-minute discussion where council even touches on the idea of a residential rate increase. See what you think after viewing this short video clip:



First, Ellen Taylor says there is no intent to increase residential trash fees, then Linda Elderkin confirms it in no uncertain terms. Finally, a lengthy discourse by Sam Pedroza is cut short by Peter Yao and Ellen Taylor who say the COLA (cost of living, another term meaning, loosely, Consumer Price Index) is attached to both Multi-family and Commercial rates. No mention of Residential, because the context is clearly increases in these two rates.

Lest you think the Insider took these out of context, the four YouTube links below give the entire discussion, cut into parts to comply with YouTube 10-minute length limitations.

part 1, 8 min 40 seconds



part 2, 8 min 15 seconds



part 3, 7 min 19 seconds



part 4, 9 min 28 seconds


TOMORROW--THE CITY STAFF REPORT

(YOUR WORRIES ARE JUST BEGINNING)


Friday, October 10, 2008

Yet More Mail

A reader commented on the Daily Bulletin's coverage of Claremont's residential trash collection rate hike, which a number of citizens believe is being implemented in an underhanded manner by the City and the City Council. The reader took issue with what he/she felt was uncritical thinking on the part of the Bulletin's reporter, Wes Woods II:

DATE: Thursday, October 9, 2008 12:47 PM
SUBJECT: DAILY BULLETIN ARTICLE ON TRASH FEES
TO: Claremont Buzz

I AM APPALLED THAT THE REPORTER FOR THE DAILY BULLETIN TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT ABOUT THE CITY INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL RATES FOR TRASH. He (or perhaps his editors) mislead the public by saying that a part of the letter sent out by the city to 10,000 residents included a sentence that said residential fees WOULD be increased to the CPI every year. It is clear (and perhaps the only clear thing about the letter) to anyone who received that letter that the word RESIDENTIAL was never used in reference to residential fees. The reporter further says “The confusion appears to stem from the fact that in one portion of the notice that deals with a price hike to several classes of services, the single-family residential service is not mentioned”. TRUE, but then here is the obfuscation, “But in another portion, which discusses the application of a new Consumer Price Index fee, the notice states that single-family residential service is included”. NOT TRUE AT ALL. The reporter could have at least quoted the sentence from the city letter that city staff says refers to single-family residences “ In addition to the proposed rate increases listed in the above table (they are referring to a chart above showing increases in multi-family, commercial and bin rental fees) , an annual increase to all solid waste service rates at the rate of inflation as determined by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is being proposed”. In that way he could let the public objectively decide whether that sentence meant to include SFR in the proposed fee increases, but he chose not to do so. I guess it is a matter of what “is” is.

The reporter then goes on to say that “The city analyst”, and he means Anna Sanchez, “said the wording on the notice outlining a price increase for single-family residential pickups was spelled out, and there was no intention of deceiving residents”. Notice that he is not quoting her, merely paraphrasing so we do not know if she actually said that or not. But we do know that on the videotape of the July 22nd City Council meeting when this issue was discussed, Ms Sanchez, in her report to the council on this item, clearly stated that staff was not proposing to increase single-family residential rates (you can get a copy of the tape from the Claremont Public Library for free or view it at city hall by requesting it from the city clerk or buying a copy for $5 and see and hear her exact words on tape). So where is this reporter getting his information?

It is disappointing to see a new reporter get it so wrong so soon in his career, and I hope that your readers will write letters to the editor correcting this misrepresentation. At the very least , if they oppose this CPI increase, which will be in place FOREVER with no review by the council again, that they each write a letter of protest stating their name ,address parcel number (assessor’s id number on their property tax bill) and stating which rate increase they oppose( in this case single-family residential CPI increase in trash fees) and get it to the Claremont City Clerk on or before Oct 14th. If they want to be present at the public hearing which will be held at the regular City Council meeting on Oct 14th no earlier than 7pm (we do not yet know the agenda item it will be but they cannot hold a public hearing before 7pm so people should get there no later than 7pm), that would be great. We are appealing to the sense of fair play and doing the right thing that we hope the council will consider and not impose the CPI on single-family residential rates as we pay the highest rates out of 17 cities (16 pay less than we do)and we feel it was not properly or clearly noticed.

And thanks for your coverage of this and other important issues that don’t seem to get coverage in the media, or at least, in many cases, not competently reported upon

Thursday, October 9, 2008

CUSD Actions - A Reader's Take

We received an email in response to yesterday's post about Claremont Unified School District board member Steve Llanusa, whom one suspects will someday in the not-too-distant future be the target of a censure motion by his fellow school board members.

Here's our reader's comment:

DATE: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 5:52 PM
SUBJECT: SCHOOL BOARD CENSURE POLICY
TO:Claremont Buzz

DID ANYONE NOTICE THAT AT THE END OF THE CENSURE POLICY (aka GAG LAW) THAT THE OFFENDING MEMBER CAN AVOID CENSURE BY APOLOGIZING FOR HIS/HER ACTIONS, STATEMENTS,ETC. BUT THAT THE BOARD CAN STILL RETAIN THE RIGHT TO CENSURE HIM/HER? TALK ABOUT A DOUBLE BIND!! PRETTY SOON THEY WILL TELL LLANUSA THAT HE IS FORBIDDEN TO SPEAK TO ANY EMPLOYEE, THEN ANY PARENT THEN ANY STUDENT. HAVEN’T WE SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE?

Well, yes, this has been played out before in Claremont's City Hall. If the people who run things here, especially the local school board, don't respect their own rules, why should they respect things like opposing viewpoints or free speech?

As always in our small town, past is prologue. (If you click on the link, notice how current Claremont League of Women Voters president Barbara Musselman inserted herself into that prior city brouhaha.)

Claremont Trash News

Claremont's proposal to raise trash service fees remains in the news.

You may recall that we noted in our post on this subject that it certainly appeared back at the July 22nd City Council meeting that city staff was telling the Claremont City Council that the rate hikes would be limited to multi-family dwellings, businesses and dumpster rentals. Not only did the charts that accompanied the staff report show NO increase to residential fees, but the charts specifically said the staff's projections "Assumes a 2.5% CPI [consumer price index] increase on all fees except Residential."



In addition to the report, in the July 22nd Council meeting city staff specifically told Councilmember Linda Elderkin twice that residential fees were not being raise. This is on video, by the way.

So it is surprising now to see the same city staff saying that the City meant all along to include an annual refuse collection rate CPI increase for individual residences, even though Claremont residents pay some of the highest garbage collection rates in the area and despite the fact that the residential portion of the Sanitation Fund is projected by staff to run a surplus for at least the next two fiscal years.

That same staff, by the way, gave residents until October 14th to register protests against the rate hike. If a majority of the 10,000 or so residential property owners in town do not protest, the CPI hike will be implemented.

The Daily Bulletin had an article on the subject today, though they seem to have bought into the city staff's version of events and make no mention of the false assurances to Councilmember Elderkin on July 22nd about the rate hikes not applying to residences.

The Bulletin reported:

CLAREMONT - Some city residents are upset over what they say is an unfair hike in monthly trash fees of about 70 cents.

Nineteen residents have written protests about the hike, City Clerk Lynne Fryman said Tuesday.

A letter with 95 signatures has been received, but, Fryman said, she needs to validate them with City Attorney Sonia Carvalho.

"It shouldn't be a problem," Fryman said.

The signatures have to be in Fryman's possession by Tuesday and before the close of a public hearing when the council will meet to discuss the issue.

Protests involve writing down a parcel number or description of the property and the rate increase the owner opposes, said Anna Sanchez, a senior management analyst.

Some residents against the increased trash rates said they did not know the trash rate increased until an Active Claremont meeting in September when Community Services Director Scott Carroll informed attendees.

The issue began with a July 22 staff report for that day's City Council meeting, and a notice was mailed to residents the next day.

Some residents said the notice excluded mention of residential fee increases, and they said those fees should not be subject to an increase because they are already high.

As is typical in any Claremont City Hall controversy, City Attorney Sonia Carvalho is lurking in the background, advising the staff on how to use misleading language to sneak the rate hike in.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Steven Llanusa Speaks from Exile

Very recently, CUSD Board member, Steven Llanusa, spoke out in the Daily Bulletin on his muzzling by the Claremont Unified School District Board. Although the letter appears on the Bulletin website today, it is likely that the editors will replace it with more current material. Hence, we copy it here:

Stifling speech

Your recent article about the Claremont school board's new censure policy touched on some topics that should be explained more fully. (Re: "Claremont board votes to create censure policy," Oct. 1.) What was not mentioned in the article is that the board president and Superintendent Dave Cash have complete control over what can be discussed because they create each agenda for our meetings.

We had "Written Communication" on our agenda for several years. It let board members share written information from constituents. Last July, a letter sent to the board from a high school employee alleged some families and district officials were getting special treatment regarding attendance policies. After that letter was quoted at the July board meeting, "Written Communication" was removed from the agenda.

During public comment at the August board meeting, the superintendent's wife announced she had taken her student out of school without following the policy in the Parent Student Handbook to excuse the absence. While scores of students this semester are denied off-campus privileges for similar unexcused absences last semester, the superintendent's family was given special treatment and no such consequence. Under the "Future Agenda Items" at our next meeting, I requested an investigation into this matter.

After that meeting, Superintendent Cash threatened me with legal action if I didn't drop the subject. However, I continue to believe my role as a board member is to ensure policies are implemented fairly for all students. "Future Agenda Items" has also been removed from our board agendas.

The new bylaw limiting what board members may say during our reports was presented by Superintendent Cash. In the past, I could have shared our constituents' concerns during this time, but not now.

Three avenues of communication have thus been eliminated and a censure policy instituted. Regarding these restrictions, I have never seen so much effort put into stifling opportunities where people could express questions or criticism of the superintendent or the school district.

STEVEN LLANUSA Board member, Claremont Unified School District

* * * * *

We recommend Llanusa get in line at public comment unless the censure policy prohibits that, too. (The censure policy is reproduced below, thanks to the Bulletin. Click on images to enlarge.)



Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Wilderness Park Meeting 7pm Tonight

The City of Claremont will hold a special meeting on the damage to the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park tonight at 7pm at the Joslyn Senior Center's Oak Room. The Joslyn Center is located at 660 N. Mountain Ave. You can call Claremont's Community Services Department at (909) 399-5431 for more information.

The park was damaged by a city-hired bulldozer
along Thompson Creek in a long swath over 100 feet wide. Estimates place the area affected at up to 10-12 acres. The Daily Bulletin had an article on tonight's meeting:

The work caused more than $200,000 in damage, according to Padua Hills residents.

City Manager Jeff Parker apologized for the incident and said he would meet with residents.

Parker will do so at 7 tonight.

He will be joined by a biologist, restoration ecologist, regulatory specialist and habitat restoration expert.

"Hopefully, we can get the repairs done as soon as possible, before any rain comes," Parker said.

The purpose of the meeting is to let residents know what the city has done about the bulldozing, provide background on the city's information, introduce the consultants and take feedback.

Lawrence Woodruff, who has lived in the area since 1983 and plans to attend today's meeting, was skeptical of the city's efforts.

"It would appear from things the city has done in the past, the city always goes the cheapest route," said Woodruff, president of the Padua Hills Community Association. "That's our concern at Padua Hills."

Claremont had set aside $100,000 for the damage done to the park, he said.

But, another resident had an independent contractor perform vegetative restoration on the damaged area, and the amount totaled from $200,000 to $300,000, Woodruff said.

Woodruff said he is afraid that the city "will scrimp on doing things right."

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Claremont Conservative Blogger E-mail Hacked

ADULT--OR VERY JUVENILE--LANGUAGE ALERT

People who correspond with Claremont McKenna student Charles Johnson were perhaps surprised by a Saturday morning message from him. The subject line read, "f*** all of you".

The message was along the same lines, "honestly, f*** off".

Charles Johnson is the CMC sophomore who started the Claremont Conservative blog last year.

While the Claremont Conservative takes on issues well beyond our sleepy little town, and has a decided political slant, it also occasionally deals with local issues, especially town and gown relations.

We have found Mr. Johnson unfailingly polite. So we were shocked--shocked--to see the above sentiments sent by him. It bothered us some though when we saw the signature block:

Ronald Mc Donald
Claremont Mens College
Claremontfascist.com
Claremontliar.com

Hmmm, we thought to ourselves, could it be that Charles Johnson was hacked? After all, Claremontfascist.com and Claremontliar.com could be really really clever takeoffs on the name of the blog, Claremontconservative.com. And the Ronald McDonald allusion? Isn't that a clown?

We were puzzled by the "Claremont Mens [sic] College" reference, but decided that was what is known as a Red Herring to throw investigators off the scent.

Also, we have never, ever, heard of Charles Johnson being awake at 10:38 a.m. on Saturday. The only way that would happen is if he had been up all night.

This hacking was most likely done by a student, probably one with access to some of the IT family jewels at the College. Or maybe Charles Johnson just had a really obvious password like, "wfbuckley", or "sarahbarracuda", or "mitt2008!". We wonder how much effort President Pamela Gann is going to put into solving this--dare we use the words that may not be said?--hate crime.

Click on Image to Enlarge

We are impressed with the length of Mr. Johnson's email address list, even if some of his correspondents appear in it three times. How many of us have well-known Harvard law professors, editors of national publications, and other such luminaries in their contact lists? Too bad they all now think Mr. Johnson is a juvenile delinquent.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

LA County Fire Expo - Oct. 25th

October usually means high fire season in our foothills, and on Saturday, October 25th, five years to the day after the Padua Fire burned through Palmer Canyon and the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park, the Los Angeles County Fire Department will host an expo called "Living in the Fire Zone."

The event will run from 12pm to 3pm on the 25th at the Alexander Hughes Community Center, located at 1700 N. Danbury Rd. between Towne and Mountain Aves. Residents will be able to get information from fire officials on various fire safety and fire prevention topics.

The Claremont Police Department had all the info:

The Los Angeles County Fire Department will be hosting a Living in the Fire Zone Fire Expo to help residents prepare for a wildland fire.

Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008
Time: 12 pm - 3 pm
Location: Alexander Hughes Community Center, Padua Room
Address: 1700 Danbury Rd., Claremont, CA 91711

Prepare for your survival

* Learn about the 5 important steps to help you get ready
* Vendors will be on hand to provide information, products, and demonstrations

Presentations of:

* Fire department operations
* Vegetation management
* Building standards

Static displays:

* LA Co Fire Forestry, Prevention, & Operations
* LA Co Dept. of Animal Care & Control
* San Dimas & Temple City Sheriff's Station
* California Highway Patrol
* American Red Cross
* City of Claremont Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) & Community Patrol

Wilderness Park News

PARK RESTORATION MEETING

Claremont's cleanup and restoration plans for the damage in the city's Wilderness Park move forward on Tuesday, October 7th, at 7pm with a meeting at the Joslyn Senior Center. The city's website had details:

The City of Claremont will be holding a special meeting for the public to discuss restoration plans of the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park (CHWP). The City has assembled an experienced team composed of a biologist, a restoration ecologist, a regulatory specialist, and habitat restoration experts to assist in reaching a successful outcome.

The public is invited to meet the CHWP Restoration Team, hear the proposed plans to restore the disturbed area of the Wilderness Park, and to ask questions. The meeting will take place on Tuesday, October 7, 2008, at the Joslyn Senior Center located at 660 N. Mountain Avenue. The meeting will be held in the Oak Room beginning at 7:00 p.m.

For more information, please contact the City's Community Services Department at (909) 399-5431.

Claremont City Manager Jeff Parker's weekly newsletter also mentioned the meeting, noting that it will be an opportunity for the public to hear the plans to fix the affected areas and to ask questions of the experts the city has hired for the job.


WILDERNESS PARK MOUNTAIN LION SIGHTING

City Manager Parker's newsletter also carried a bit about some hikers spotting a mountain lion in the Wilderness Park:
On Wednesday, hikers reported sighting an aggressive mountain lion protecting her cubs, on Cobal Canyon Trail (at the 3 mile marker) in the Wilderness Park. State Fish and Game Wild Life Protection was contacted and warning signs have been posted at the Marshall Canyon and Mills Avenue entries. The City is encouraging the public to walk in pairs on the trails and, in the event of an emergency, to call 9-1-1 or the Claremont's PD’s emergency number, 626-1296. Residents can call the Community Services Department for more information on this issue.

You might recall that back in July there was another mountain lion sighting on Mills Ave. near Mt. Baldy Rd. In response, the Claremont Police Department's page on the city website posted some information on staying safe in mountain lion country.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Sunday Council Meet-and-Greet

A reader reminds us that this Sunday the Claremont City Council will be at the Farmers Market on 2nd St. between Yale Ave. and Indian Hill Blvd. in the Claremont Village. The councilmembers will be working in shifts at the city booth. So if you feel like chatting them up, about trash or anything else, check out the Farmers Market Sunday:

DATE: Thursday, October 2, 2008 1:22 PM
SUBJECT: Trashing the city
TO: Claremont Buzz

Thanks for posting the bait and switch (which is exactly what the city is doing) about the trash fees. I have talked to more than a few people who have said they read that letter from the city several times and finally threw it away because they thought it did not apply to them (residential rates). Your posting clearly shows that the city is trying to pull a fast one on the residents (what’s new?) but this time they have no leg to stand on. I often wonder if Council Members actually see these letters that are sent out in their names before they are sent out. If so, then they are all responsible and should take the proper corrective measures.

Residents have a chance to see them in person this Sunday at the Farmer’s Market in Claremont from 8am-1pm. It will be interesting to see how many of the Council Members show up and what excuses they have to justify this egregious error. I hope your readers confront them and post the Council Member’s responses on your blog. Once again, the INSIDER is doing the job that we should expect from our elected officials. BRAVO!

DoubleTree Music Under the Stars

The LCR Band will be closing out the summer patio music series at the Claremont DoubleTree Hotel tonight from 7-10pm. To reserve a table call ahead - (909) 626-2411.

Friday, October 3, 2008
7:00PM - 10:00PM

Music Under the Stars - The LCR Band
DoubleTree Hotel
555 W. Foothill Blvd.
Claremont, CA 91711

Come out to see The LCR Band at a great summer venue. Come early for dinner and to get a good table for dining and dancing. There is no admission fee.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Bait-and-Switch, Garbage-Style

Yesterday's Claremont Courier had an article (not available online) about the city's proposed hike in trash fees.

Back on July 22nd, the Claremont City Council received a staff report on the city's Sanitation Fund. The report stated that unless prices were raised, the fund, which receives money from trash collection fees and pays for the garbage collection operating costs, would run out of money within three years and the city would have to begin spending General Fund money to help pay for the refuse operations.

The July 22nd staff report included a set of tables projecting what the income stream would be in Fiscal Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 under the present rate structure:

Click to Enlarge


As you can see from the two tables, the deficits come from three areas of trash collection: multi-family (apartment buildings) refuse, commercial refuse, and temporary bin rentals (dumpsters of different sizes).

According to the two tables, residential refuse collection rates would continue to run surpluses. Moreover, the staff report included a table showing that Claremont residents pay the highest rates of any of the local cities surveyed for the report (see table at right, click to enlarge).

The staff report gave the City Council two options to choose from. The first, Option A, included a lower rate increase for temporary dumpsters and no increase for multi-family units. Option B included a larger rate increase for the temporary bins and added a multi-family rate increase.

The report include rate tables showing Sanitation Fund revenue projections for FY 2008-09 and 2009-10 under the two different options. In both sets of tables for Options A & B, the projections for revenue for residential garbage collection stayed the same, so presumably there were no rate increases built into the assumptions. Also, as seen in table 8 of the report (the projection for FY 2009-10 of Option B), there is a small disclaimer at the bottom that says: "*Assumes a 2.5% CPI [consumer price index] increase on all funds except residential." [Emphasis added.]


Sanitation Fund Projections Under Option B
FY 2009-10



The City Council approved Option B, of which the above table would lead residents to believe that residential fees not only were NOT increasing but also were not subject to a yearly consumer price index hike. However, buried in the staff report was one sentence on page four that stated: "Both options outlined below assume all fees will be increased by the Consumer Price Index CPI in July of each year." The issue, then, turns on what the meaning of "all" is. But, as we've shown, the tables showing the projections for the two options explicitly exclude residential fees from the rate increase discussion. So that should settle the discussion.

Further, in the council's discussion of the issue on July 22nd, Councilmember Linda Elderkin asked more than once if the rate increases included residences. The staff answer each time was "NO." So, the staff on July 22nd was clearly interpreting their report to say that there was no intention to increase residential rates, which by the staff's own data were projected to run surpluses without any CPI increase.

After the discussion, the Council approved the staff's Option B by a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Sam Pedroza voting against the measure. Pedroza indicated he preferred the staff's Option A.

On July 23rd, a city-wide mailing to all property owners mentioned the rate increases approved by the City Council. However, the letter, according to the Courier, also said: "....the proposed rate adjustments are only for service areas where the current rates do not cover the cost to provide the service." Again, this would exclude residential rates, since those rates, by the city's own data, are running surpluses and cover their own costs.

Here is the city's letter to property owners:

Click on Images to Enlarge














Now, however, the City's staff is saying that a CPI increase really was intended, and they claim it was spelled out in their July 22nd staff report and in the July 23rd letter. The Courier also reported that "the letter was drafted with the oversight of City Attorney Sonia Carvalho and any confusion was 'unintentional.'" Yeah, right. Why are we not surprised to see the invisible hand of the City Attorney behind all of this.

Yesterday's Courier article quoted resident John Serpa, who suspected some skulduggery on the city's part:
Resident John Serpa threw out his letter after reading it, feeling that it did not apply to him. But after attending an Active Claremont meeting where the rates were discussed and learning about the proposed rate increase, he complained that the language in the letter was either too vague or purposefully deceptive.

"If they wanted to hide something, they did a very good job, Mr. Serpa said. "I would expect more from the people at city hall.
As the Courier reported, under California's Proposition 218, property owners can protest the rate increases by sending a written protest to the City Clerk by prior to the October 14th City Council meeting. If more than 50% of the property owners respond, the rate increase cannot be levied.

To ensure that the city does not discard a valid property owner rate protest, residents protesting the increase should include the owner's name, the property address, parcel number, and the specific increase they are protesting: residential, multi-family, commercial or temporary bin. They should also make sure to sign and date the protest.

The city is reporting having received only six protests so far, but that is not surprising considering the way they concealed and misrepresented rate hike. John Serpa also had a letter in yesterday's Courier outlining what residents should do if they do not agree with the increase:
At a recent Active Claremont meeting, Scott Carroll, the Director of Human Services [Carroll is actually Director of Community Service - ed.] casually mentioned the CPI proposal and said that the City has only received a very small number of letters protesting the City's action. No wonder there was a limited response!

Friends and neighbors with whom I spoke to regarding this matter said that they completely disregarded the City's letter because it seemed to only apply to commercial and multi-family accounts. Not true!

If there are few written protests regarding the CPI use for yearly rate increases, it will be in place in December 2008 and there on forever.

Anyone against this proposal needs to take action before the next City Council meeting on Oct. 14, 2008 by:

1. Submitting a letter of protest to the City Clerk at City Hall.

2. Include your parcel number from your property tax bill.

3. Try to attend the City Council meeting Oct. 14, at 7 p.m.

If you're interested in filing a protest, you can send it to:
City of Claremont
City Clerk
P.O. Box 880
Claremont, CA 91711-0880

Thursday Mailbag

More mail, this time park-related talk:


LIGHTING UP

We got this email in response to our post on the light posts that went in at the two city of Claremont parking lots on Mills Ave. north of Mt. Baldy Rd. (the area is largely unlit at night):

DATE: Monday, September 30, 2008 9:58 PM
SUBJECT: City of lights
TO: Claremont Buzz


Hi Buzz -

Looks like at least some of the cement anchors near the Wilderness Park parking lot are for surveillance cameras. One oversees the east end of the Thompson Creek bike trail and parking lot across the street, while another is at the very top of Mills Ave. at the smaller parking lot for the Wilderness Park. Don't know if there's one at the top of Indian Hill, too, at the Thompson Creek Trail parking lot there. And who knows if there is a constant live feed to the Police Dept., or if they just go to a recording device to go refer to after a vehicle break-in. I'll let you pontificate on that. I hope they are a crime deterrent.

We're taking a wait-and-see view on this one. We'll just have to hear what people who live around the parking lots have to say, especially those homes on Mt. Baldy whose backyards face the Thompson Creek Trail parking lot. Do the cameras look into their upstairs windows? Also, if the City plans on similar cameras and lights along Via Santa Caterina at the trailhead to Johnson's Pasture, how will those residents feel about being watched 24-7?


VANISHING KIDS

Then there was this in response to Claremont's plowing ahead with Padua Ave. Park despite a evidence supporting the idea of a graying city population:

DATE: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:09 AM
SUBJECT: [ No Subject ]
TO: Claremont Buzz


Dear Buzz:

With a declining youth population, why Padua Park? I moved to Claremont in 1964 when my ex went to work for G.D. Our children were born in 67 and 69 (a baby boom year - one of the largest, if not the largest, graduating classes of CHS). We moved into this home in northwest Claremont in 69. It was teeming with children and aerospace engineers. La Puerta was open and it was anticipated that our north of Baseline children would go to that school. We would have 200-250 trick or treaters annually. Today. if we have 20, we think that is a bunch. We hardly have any children in this neighborhood anymore and no engineers. We now have a grandchild that we take to Higginbotham Park on a regular basis. I am desperately seeking a playmate for her. However, when I speak to other adults in the park, they are not from our neighborhood, but from South Claremont, Pomona, etc. They tell me the reason they bring their children to Higginbotham is that they want a safer environment. That is pathetic!

I was a stay at home mom in those days and did my bit with PFA, AYSO and Little League. I was president of Little League in 82. That year we had 476 boys AND girls participating. It was the largest league we had ever had. And, you need to keep in mind that the Pony/Colt League for 13-plus year olds was separate. I was on that Board as well and I vaguely recall we had about 200 playing. Little League has very strict boundary rules for participation. What is the participation level today? Somehow we managed practices at all of the parks, some of the elementary school play grounds and St. Ambrose's field. We even managed the season Field 2 at College Park was flooded. We were in competition with men's softball and hardball and all of the other soccer teams in town as well as Pony/Colt.

Are we renting our fields out to groups outside the City? I know the school district allows students outside our district to attend CHS. I presume it is to increase their state and federal monies as well as bolster the school population so they can tell us they need more bond monies. What is the school population versus prior years?

Is this another boondoggle as all of the tennis courts (lighted and non) of the 70's? I remember that fight well. The City had to have them in nearly every park and CHS increased their courts. Today as I traverse Indian Hill and the surrounding area, you got it, I don't see one court in use. Nor does Parks and Rec sponsor any leagues anymore.

But, of course, who am I to question the powers that be. I am a cynic and was opposed to Village West, the roundabout, the trolley and any number of things that Glenn and the housewives have dreamed up. We had pretty decent government in Claremont until about 1983 when G.D. pulled out.

Great job you are doing. I so enjoy reading your blog. Oh yes, you are right to remain anonymous. Retribution in Claremont is still alive and well.

One factor is the growing competition among sports groups, youth and adult, for field space. There are two soccer clubs, the Claremont Stars and the Foothill Storm, that draw from all over the area. Also, there adult soccer and softball leagues that compete with the kids for field time. And, there are relatively new groups like the the youth All-American football league that weren't around before. Add to that the fact that AYSO has added a spring league, and you get a lot of overstressed fields.

The argument that we need more fields for "our" kids, is pretty trite. Do we really need two soccer clubs? Probably not. Those two soccer clubs could use any city's fields. Groups like AYSO and Little League ought get the top priority if we're really talking about "our kids" since they are truly community-based organizations. And the adult recreation leagues certainly do not have anything to do with kids.

So, the city and its Youth Sports Committee aren't being completely honest when they bring up the kids argument. But trying to have a reasonable discussion about the subject is like questioning motherhood, apple pie, and the American Way of Life. That's why you end up with unused tennis courts. Any sports-related decision in town cannot be questioned in the planning process. False assumptions get made and become policy.