Paramedic Tax Is A Hoax.

Your property tax dollars, approved by ballot initiative 40 years ago “for the specific purpose of establishing and maintaining a mobile intensive care program known as Paramedics within the area of the City of Brea” have been diverted through the Redevelopment Agency/Successor Agency since 1978.

Every Council resolution creating or renewing the Paramedic Program special property tax, for 40 years, incorporated exactly that language. Not a single member of the Brea City Council (save possibly one) had a clue regarding the magnitude of their blunder – the product of a purposeful deception by members of senior staff.

Sounds a hell of a lot like a slush fund to me.

Based upon documents gathered through the California Public Records Act (CPRA), from both the City of Brea and the Orange County Auditor-Controller’s office, it is fair to assume that every City Manager and Finance Director, at minimum, was aware of the fiscal hoax perpetrated upon Council and an unsuspecting public for 40 years.

How much are we talking about?

Over $50 million of your tax dollars. Supposedly, thanks to some obscure directive in State law, these funds have been funneled through the RDA since 1978. Roughly 40% was spent on administrative costs, debt retirement and other expenses – none of which had diddly to do with a paramedic service.

When the state dissolved Redevelopment Agencies in 2011, things didn’t get much better. In fact, they got worse. Originally we did get our hands on 100% of the tax revenues collected.

In 2011 that was cut almost in half – 55% was paid to the Successor Agency letting them do whatever they wished with it. The remaining 45% went into the Brea Redevelopment Trust where the county followed state directions to pay off residual debts of the RDA.

How much longer will we be paying off RDA debt?

Total debt for the Successor Agency is $196 million. A payment plan has been submitted to the state’s Department of Finance, upon which we will be making payments until 2036. That’s 60 years to retire the debts created by the Redevelopment Agency.

The issue in a nut shell.

The people of Brea clearly expressed what we were willing to be taxed for. There was a legitimate attempt in the beginning, by well intentioned members of Council, to fulfill the people’s wishes.

Underneath it all, the covert diversion of tax revenue has continued, virtually unabated, for 40 years.

The good news.

Facts by the ton, discoveries that would light up the eye of Julian Assange, have been dug out of the archives and studied by a “team” including myself, 2 members of Council and 3 long time community leaders.

The details of decades of staff reports, resolutions, budgets, county tax records are being poured over and the revelations emerging out of the data paint a clear picture of the atrocious irresponsibility that ran amok… without restraint, for 40 years.

The gorilla is being drug into the light and the right people, the people we elected to oversee city business, are back in charge.

Undoubtedly more will be learned in the near future. We may be called back into the voting booth to help rescind a failed tax and approve a remedy that will provide us with the sort of paramedic services we thought we were getting 40 years ago.

Stay Tuned.

We’re a long way from knowing the complete truth and from digging ourselves out of a hole 40 years in the making.

tax

Vargas: Liar Liar… Pants On Fire!

On Tuesday, September 5, Council finally had an opportunity to address the Constitutional Due Process issues in the Brea Municipal Code but, thanks to inadequate staff input and a major distraction from Council member Vargas, they were thwarted.

After a year of sidestepping the issue, City Manager Gallardo and City Attorney Markman continued trying to wriggling out of honestly facing the music by submitting conflicting statements to launch Council’s discussion.

Gallardo said he believed the Brea Municipal Code and Code of Conduct were in conflict (not the root issue), Markman disagreed completely… denying that any contradiction existed and doubling down on his assertion that there was no threat of Constitutional violation because termination of Commissioners and Committee members is made without cause.

The greatest roadblock to Council having an intelligent discussion was the almost incoherent ranting by Council member Vargas. He not only derailed the discussion, he added to his list of “causes” for dismissal which crushed Markman’s position. In addition, claims made by Vargas were fabrications… figments of his imagination.

Everyone in the room must have recognized that, especially Vargas. Assuming he hadn’t forgotten the truth, he must have known just how far he stretched it.

Ultimately, thanks to Council’s unwillingness to be intimidated and the Mayor’s taking control of the discussion, the decision was to continue the item until staff could provide additional information. Hopefully staff will also make some attempt to get on the same page with each other.

I’ll leave follow-up on the real issues until they hit Council’s agenda again and turn my attention now to poking holes in the spurious allegations and remarks being tossed about by Mr. Vargas.

The Letter of Dismissal

I’ll work my way through the “causes” cited by Vargas in the letter.

  1. “… our initial agreement was a two year assignment” – No such agreement was ever made. No member of Council has the authority to make such an agreement and, if they were authorized, the BMC would state so and the “deal” would obviously have to be disclosed when the nomination is made. Never happened.
  2. “… allow you some closure from past experiences as a Commissioner, unfortunately I am not in a position to continue the redemption any further” – A complete non sequitur. My seven year history as a Cultural Arts Commissioner, as Chair of this Commission and it’s representative on Art in Public Places and the Senior Citizen Advisory Board is extolled at length in the commendation I received from Mayor Roy Moore in 2011. I needed redemption for nothing.
  3. “… (for) 3 months, I have attempted to communicate with you on numerous occasions via text and phone calls” – Hogwash. Once or twice a month Vargas would call me as he headed home from work at Port Hueneme and we would talk about various matters until he typically said, “Well Clark, you got me home safe and sound again.”

The last time we spoke we discussed his plans to put Term Limits on the ballot as a proposition. He refused to consider discussing his plans with Council. I told him it was a stupid idea, that it was an obvious attack aimed solely at Council member Simonoff. Finally, he agreed to drop the idea and the discussion ended.

Four days later the City Council meeting erupted in heated, angry exchanges with Vargas when he announced his intention to collect signatures via a third party contractor for a ballot initiative on Term Limits. When Vargas called me after the meeting I was too angry to take the call and let it go to voicemail. I did the same with the other half dozen attempts Vargas made over the next hour or so.

He texted me once the next day asking why I was dodging his calls. I texted back that I hated getting lied to and would need a few days to let my anger subside. I never heard from him again until I received the letter of dismissal… 36 hours after almost everyone in Brea seemed to get it. Must have been a massive BCC list.

  1. “…your reluctance to keep me informed of pending issues does not allow me to provide effective service as a council member.” – So, Breans have been under represented for almost a year now. Good to know. Don’t cross your fingers for the Mayor Pro Tem’s seat and we all know what to do when the 2018 elections come around.

During the first year of Vargas’ current term, as I would come across articles online relevant to current or impending city matters, I would email a link to Vargas… who seemed to have neither the time nor skills to do his own research. I did this maybe once or twice a week. I was surprised to hear he was unable to “provide effective service” without my help.

Fast Forward Almost a Year.

I mentioned the rants Vargas inflicted on everyone at last week’s study session, that they were laced with the same sort of groundless statements as are found in the dismissal letter.

  1. Only after repeated badgering by members of Council and City Staff did he feel forced to dismiss me. – Vargas was immediately challenged on this by the Mayor as being complete nonsense. Never happened.
  2. Vargas claimed to have “cleared it with” Gallardo and Markman before he sent the dismissal letter… a weak attempt to imply their approval. Gallardo and Markman preserved their “plausible deniability” by answering Vargas’ email inquiry by phone. A common practice down at city hall. However, Gallardo told me later that he attempted to talk Vargas out of the dismissal but failed and that Markman merely confirmed the appropriate BMC reference.
  3. Vargas said he discussed health issues with me, asking me to resign, and was compelled to terminate me because I would not resign. A year ago my health was not an issue, we never had such a conversation. This is total b*llsh*t.
  4. Vargas stated that he appointed me because of my experience with affordable housing while working for Quaker City Bank. (No Steve, that was Ron Garcia, your first appointment to the Planning Commission in 1998.) We never discussed housing of any type prior to or following my appointment to the Planning Commission. I have never worked for Quaker City Bank, or any bank, but did handle branding and advertising for Landmark Bank in La Habra when it launched in 1979… 38 years ago.
  5. Vargas protested my use of the California Public Records Act (CPRA) to obtain information leading to my “due process” probe and aggressively demanded “cost accounting” from the City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney and Director of Development for the staff time required to respond to my inquiries. He was summarily put in his place by Council member Simonoff who reminded him that it was wrong to chastise the public for the cost of complying with a public records request.
  6. Vargas accused Council of wasting time on an issue that only a “blogger” cared about. Really? Council’s oath of office swears to uphold State and Federal Constitutions! If there is even the slightest possibility that the BMC is in conflict they are bound to investigate regardless of where the challenge came from.

Council does what’s right.

Given all that occurred last Tuesday, Council did what was right. I trusted that they would and they didn’t let me down. They continued the item and tasked staff with bringing them additional relevant information.

This is far from over folks and no loose canon is going to dissuade me from pursuing the truth or bully Council into sweeping this under the rug.

vargas liar

Hines: A Tale Of Two Cities.

HinesIt was the worst of times… period. We’re fighting a war on two fronts and threatened with losing both. On one side Breans are going head-to-head with Hines Properties, a megacorp hell bent on building a hulking monstrosity on St. College north of Birch. On the other we have a runaway Planning department who seems to consider themselves above the law, repeatedly overreaching their authority.

Neither situation bodes well for the people of Brea. The fact that both are connected makes the threat exponentially larger. As the policy and procedural issues can only be addressed by City Council I’ll leave that for another blog and focus on the development issues that need to be solved by the Planning Commission.

Reining in Hines.

At their April meeting, under the less than subtle steering of Chairman McGrade, the Planning Commission ended up desperately trying to patch one small element of the Brea Place project and calling it done.

Commissioner Schlotterbeck made the observation that the project fell short, by about 20%, of complying with our 14 year old General Plan’s maximum density guideline. Next thing you know the much larger southern building and the hotel were tucked aside, seemingly approved and focus was turned to the northern building… Building B.

In a miraculous demonstration of redesigning-on-the-fly, the Hines architect made most of the fourth floor disappear and reduced the building’s density by almost 20%. That’s 22 apartments for those who nitpick numbers. Commissioner Schlotterbeck was quick to point out that the disappearing act also removed parking for 38 units, throwing the building into noncompliance with the 1.78 spaces per unit parking requirement.

Maximum vs. minimum standards.

So, the push seems to be to stay within maximum allowed density while meeting a minimum parking standard. Ok, I’ll say what you’re thinking. What the hell? This is like getting open heart surgery done on a low bid basis.

Why do these city planners think the best policy is to always operate at the fringes of acceptability? Why is building as close as possible to the maximum allowable density the best idea? Why are parking conditions always targeting the fewest number of spaces that might accommodate the demand?

How about building comfortably below the maximum density and designing a parking plan that would actually meet peak demand? What a novel damned idea.

Speaking of minimum standards.

While we’re on the subject, it’s this same unsupportable mentality that led to adopting an addendum to a 14 year old General Plan EIR as the best way to comply with CEQA. Again, operating at the very fringe.

Going with the addendum is the weakest, least defensible means of minimizing or mitigating environmental impact. Hell, the addendum claims there isn’t sufficient environmental impact to warrant doing a new EIR. Circular logic. Inexcusable.

Once again staff dances on the edge of rational choices. Why? To cut public comment out of the conversation? To fast track the project and save Hines the $1.5 million cost of an EIR so staff could extort it later to help defray the cost of some politician’s pipe dream or rock garden?

Drawing a line in the sand.

HinesHey… Commissioners, Planners and Mr. Ninty-Five Billion Dollar Out-of-town Developer… we’re putting you on notice. Nothing less than a blanket 20% reduction in density across the entire project is acceptable. Nada. Nothing.

And that’s the starting line… not the finish line. We still need to talk traffic, parking, building mass and setbacks, in lieu fees and retail that won’t cannibalize local business.

You walked out of the April meeting fist bumping and trading high fives. Listen carefully, you never count your money when sitting’ at the table, there’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.

Markman & Flower