Blog Archives
On the City Council Agenda – March 3, 2015
Welcome to the Monday morning edition of Our Town Tustin. It was a quiet weekend around the home office. We were originally supposed to cook in the American Legion Riders annual chili cookoff but the impending (but never appearing) rain kept us at bay.
And, this morning, we awakened to some disturbing news just outside our city limits. The El Zocalo Mexican Steakhouse on Tustin Avemue and First Street was the scene of a shooting. The suspects and victims were arguing when at least one suspect pulled a gun and began blasting. Patrons of the steakhouse subdued the suspect and held him for police. According to Channel 5 news, one person died at the scene and four people were sent to Western Medical for treatment.
The Tustin City Council should have a fairly easy week with a light agenda. On the Closed Session, The city council will look at three Liability Claims -Sara Barba, Joseph Lujan and Rudy Gomez. The city is also in discussion with the School District over MCAS land. It’s unclear whether it is the land swap deal they were working on.
Besides the usual items on the Consent Calendar, Item 6 – Rename the Future 31.5 Acre Tustin Legacy Park, would ask the city council to rename the future sports park to Veterans Sports Park at Tustin Legacy. We’ve been following the progress of the proposed Veterans Memorial at the park for the past few weeks.
Renaming this sports park will allow the city to name the future linear park the Legacy Park. We think it is a nice touch and probably deserves some special recognition from the city council. Just don’t let the two-face John Nielsen talk about it. His past record, aligning with Jerry Amante, shows he has little care about our veterans beyond using them to further his own political agenda.
In other business on the Consent Calendar, City Hall will be getting a new HVAC system at the cost of $250,000. According to the staff report, the money was budgeted during this fiscal year.
The sole item under Regular Business is Item 6, Water Deposit Policy and Adoption of Resolution No. 15-10. This resolution will allow the Tustin Water Department to collect additional deposits from those they deem as deadbeats.
Now, I can’t remember how much of a deposit our household paid when we moved in to Tustin. I’m not sure if they still have my money or not. The current fee structure for deposits is, basically, “first and last month”. In other words, if your average water bill is $100, you would pay a $200 deposit with a $50.00 minimum required.
Under the proposed structure, the new deposit schedule could cost a customer from one to two-and-a-half times their average bill. In addition, if a customer fails to pay on time twice in a two year period, they will be required to furnish the maximum deposit.
Of course this new fee structure, which city staff claim will protect the city, will actually hurt the most vulnerable among our residents. Those with little or no credit will be hurt the most while the well-to-do get away with a returned, minimal deposit. So, how is this helping the city to accomplish any goal?
Well, there is one. The deposits are held by the city and may be invested. So, the City Treasurer will get to play with your money while they while away their time at the stock market. In the meantime, folks who struggle to pay their water bill each month, much less a long term deposit, will have their money tied up for at least two years. That’s real customer service for you.
Hopefully, the city council comments will be short and sweet so we don’t have to listen to them drone on about their exciting time at other community meetings. If they do, just remember that, in almost every case, they are touting their ability to make money from their positions as councilmembers, through the stipends they receive for the extracurricular activity.
Striking a Blow for a Free Press – Supreme Court Rejects Public Records Policy
In a blow for freedom, the California Supreme Court ruled that Orange County’s exemption from public records law is illegal.
The case stems from a request to Orange County by the Sierra Club for access to their computerized satellite mapping system. The system, which cost millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, was originally offered to the Sierra Club for a third of a million dollars. The Club refused, saying that the database is a public record and, therefore the county should follow the California Public Records law in making it available at cost.
Lower courts aligned with the county and ruled against the Sierra Club who then took the issue to the California Supreme Court. In ruling for the Sierra Club, the court said Orange County must provide access to the system at the actual cost of duplication.
We hold that although GIS mapping software falls within the ambit of this statutory exclusion, a GIS-formatted database likethe OC Landbase does not. Accordingly, such databases are public records that, unless otherwise exempt, must be produced upon request at the actual cost of duplication.
While this ruling specifically addresses a single public record it should, by inference, affect access to all public records in the state. That is good news for the media in general.
In a public records case last year, the city of Anaheim resisted a request for archived emails from city records. When pressed by the Voice of OC, the city then attempted to extract a $19,000 fee for reconstructing the records which had been deleted. Voice of OC and Californians Aware threatened a lawsuit in that case. The emails were allegedly destroyed in response to the Voice of OC’s request.
The City of Tustin has been particularly generous in granting access to public records. In one case where the number of records requested by Our Town Tustin resulted in several binders of information, we were given access in the City Clerk’s foyer rather than insist on charging for duplication. So, while this ruling may not do much for us directly, it will certainly insure the doors remain open for future access.
Our Town Tustin 