L.A. County budget shortfall at more that $500 million

Read the headline below closely..."layoffs POSSIBLE". What private employer in the US would have a $500 million loss and not lay off people immediately? I guess the County administrators flunked math as the total below is like 168 million. So what about the rest? Also note that 1/4 of the total is cuts from LASD, where we all know most of the cost and the fat is located. How does eliminating a vacant deputy postion save us money? Thats fake. Also how much overtime is being cut. Very "broad" picture being painted below. We need to see the details in the story below as we call know the deveil is in the details. Also when these cuts actually happen lets us know. We all hear about "proposed" cuts "in the news" that never really happen. Also lets take a  look at govt. employye job losses vs private sector job losses. There is no comparison. It must be like 700 private sector job losses for every one public secor job loss. Ill bet not one person that was a full time govt. employee in CA before 2004 has lost their job due to budget cuts. I would love to see just one real job cut, that actually really ocurred and by which we stopped paying tax dollars for that position. I challenge any reader to show us some evidence that this has occurred and that a real measurable "budget saving" resulted. I think this is all "press release" generated headlines to generate sympathy were none is needed or to drum up votes for the coming ballot proposition(s) in November. Surely when they run the ads in November for the "Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act" (which they hope to qualify for the November 2010 statewide ballot) they will run these headlines of "proposed" cuts and tell us how the sky is falling.

L.A. County budget shortfall at more that $500 million, layoffs possible
April 19, 2010 | 2:09 pm

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a5267e70970b-800wi

Los Angeles County Chief Executive William T Fujioka said Monday that he is grappling with a $510.5 million budget shortfall and may need to lay off about 100 workers to help close the gap, even with negotiations underway with labor leaders that could yield compromises.

“This will be the worst year,” Fujioka said at a news conference today, predicting that the economic downturn will continue to ease and the pressure on the county will be far less in coming years.

In addition to possible job cuts, Fujioka's proposal to close the budget gap includes shortened library hours, reduced overtime for sheriff’s employees and the elimination of more than 1,000 vacant positions across the county.

Fujioka also cautioned that the cuts might grow significantly worse in the coming weeks because of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed $1.5 billion cut to county funding. That situation remains fluid, however, and no state cuts are included in Fujioka’s plan so far.

Currently, his budget proposal for the coming fiscal year totals $22.721 billion, a decrease of $885 million from the current budget. The proposed budget is scheduled to be presented to the Board of Supervisors Tuesday, allowing for public hearings to begin May 12.

Among proposed curtailments:


* Sheriff: $128 million in cuts, elimination of 214 budgeted positions by downsizing the Pitchess Detention Center, deletion of 300 vacant deputy positions, reduction in overtime budget.

* Assessor: $7.9 million reduction and elimination of 22 positions, affecting appraisals, information technology projects and other services.

* Public Health: $7.9 million reduction and elimination of 81 positions

* Public Social Services: $7.4 million and elimination of 383 positions.

* Public Library: $4.8 million reduction and elimination of 9 positions, reducing service hours at selected libraries and elimination of the adult literacy program.

* Public Defender: $4.5 million reduction and elimination of 18 positions.

* Children and Family Services: $4.4 million reduction in programmatic areas.

* District Attorney: $3.6 million reduction and elimination of 25 positions.

-- Garrett Therolf at the L.A. County Hall of Administration

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Making Lemonaid out of Lemons

This is an example of a shrewd move by LASD. On the news last night they were showing the LASD "hero" dispatcher, and the "hero" boy with a Sheriff hat on. Everything was happy smiles and what a great thing it was no one was hurt. Yep lucky for them. Now lets say the home invaders had shot the family then left? Do you think we would hear much about this 911 call? Nope. The real back story here, not covered by the mainstream media [especially the local TV stations who love to film whats fed to them by law enforcement in cases like this just to get ratings], is when was the 911 call placed and how many minutes later did the sheriff actually arrive at the scene? [this info is tracked by the way] If they were told a description of the car why could they not catch them? Was the LASD helicopter in the air at the time? How long did it take to respond? Was the cars description called in timely? They could not spot the car? If not why do we have two Sheriff's helicopters in the air all the time buzzing our homes at all hours of the day? How close was the closest sheriff's car to the house when the call came in? How far was this house from the LASD substation in Norwalk? [where the LASD helicopter lands by the way] These are the types of questions that should be asked in a situation like this and are not. Why? Most likely as the answers are embarrassing for the LASD. Its more fun to have a media event and hand out sheriff caps. Yep, making lemonade out of lemons. Hats off to the mainstream media for missing the real story and the LASD press spin masters.

We have heard stories of "911" calls before to Lakewood Sheriff's. Like "burglary in progress. I am watching them take stuff right now... Come quick." 30 minutes later a car shows up and asks where the burglars are. We kid you not. We could not make this stuff up. The deputy was told by the reporting witness that the burglars left about 5 minutes after the 911 call. Then the deputy just drives away. No report. Why make a report as that will just make LASD look bad as another unsolved burglary.

Now I am sure the sheriff response to all of the above would be "we need more units/deputies/dogs/radios/helicopters" or "we need more overtime" or "more lucrative pensions" but that is another story. The real issue is we are not getting much bang for our buck. All we get are "puff pieces" like the one below, and worse on the blathering local TV news. Oh and don't forget the stories that end badly or never get reported as their is no cute little boy in the story. Sure this is a "feel good" story, but lets not forget the "real" back story.

Norwalk boy, 7, makes harrowing 911 call during armed home invasion [Updated]
March 9, 2010
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/authorities-were-hailing-a-7-year-old-norwalk-boy-as-hero-tuesday-after-he-hid-in-a-bathroom-and-called-911-as-three-armed-at.html

Authorities were hailing a 7-year-old Norwalk boy as a hero Tuesday after he hid in a bathroom and called 911 as three armed attackers broke into his home and threatened his parents.

During the harrowing emergency call, the child pleaded with Los Angeles County sheriff's dispatchers to send help.

"Can you come really fast? Please! Please! ... They have guns. They shoot my mom and dad," the boy said, according to a copy of the 911 tape released by authorities.

The incident began about 8:30 a.m. when the three suspects, armed with handguns, stormed in through an unlocked door and said they were going to take what they wanted, the sheriff's department said.

The boy hid in the bathroom and locked the door.

"There's some guy who's going to kill my mom and dad," he said. "Can you come, please?

"Bring cops...a lot of them! ... And soldiers, too," the boy said.

He told dispatchers that he thought his parents had been shot.

The attackers broke into the bathroom and found the boy. At that point, screaming is heard on the 911 tape.

Authorities said one of the suspects grabbed the boy and asked who he called. "911," the boy responded, according to the department.

The suspects fled without injuring anyone or taking any property, authorities said.

"If not for the brave and educated actions of the 7-year-old boy, this might have ended tragically," said Capt. Pat Maxwell.

[Updated 10:18 p.m.: The boy hid in the bathroom with his 6-year-old sister, according to the 911 tape. Authorities said the suspects fled in a gray two-door Acura RSX.]

Anyone with information is asked to call detectives at (562) 863-8711.

-- Andrew Blankstein and Robert J. Lopez

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Dollar Tree opening soon at South St and Bellflower Blvd

LAAG has learned that the Dollar Tree store in the old refurbished Vons store should be opening around the latter part of March 2010. [finally] Again not a huge success for Lakewood which has a dismal commercial vacancy rate (from all appearances) but it is better than the horrible eye sore that was the dilapidated Vons store for the last few years. There are 10 open stores within 10 miles of Lakewood currently. Of course we could have had a Trader Joe's market in that location had the city had the guts to tell Safeway to can their lease buyout provision. Apparently its required no food stores at South and Bellflower for years to come for fear of real competition in this poor discount food shopping selection we have in Lakewood. More on that issue as we wrote in August 2009.

According to a February 2010 Wall Street Journal article Dollar Tree Inc.'s fiscal fourth-quarter earnings rose 28% as the discount retailer continues to fare well during the downturn. Apparently its doing well as customers trade down to cheaper goods during the downturn.

The company in December estimated revenue of $1.49 billion to $1.53 billion with a gross margin of 37 percent.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Ban on trash in L.A. River

This story below is good news. There was no mention in the story of similar rules applying to the San Gabriel River (where most of Lakewood's storm drains empty to) however we assume similar rules are in force as the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board also has control over the San Gabriel River. See this San Gabriel River report for more detail. This is why we urged Lakewood some years ago to enforce a logical parking ban; so that city wide street sweeping covering all streets weekly would comply with these rules, which will become more difficult over time to comply with without thorough sweeping programs. Next wee need to see storm drains inlets modified (and the catch basins cleaned before storms) to deal with all the trash and other pollutants not collected by the sweeper. Of course the story linked above does not mention which agency is supposed to clean out these catch basins once a week and all during a rain storm so they don't overflow and cause flooding nor is there any mention of the funding mechanism for this after the initial money is spent on installation of these snazzy catch basins. Also we are not keen on delaying this until 2016 but that is the slow pace of local government. I hope federal stimulus money is spent on this and perhaps the work will start sooner that way.

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-trash11-2009dec11,0,6852403.story
latimes.com
Water board moves to enforce ban on trash in L.A. River
Cities along the watershed are required by 2016 to keep all trash out of their storm drains. Those that don't comply will now be in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.

By Bettina Boxall

December 11, 2009

Regional water quality officials on Thursday put some teeth into their long campaign to cleanse the Los Angeles River system of the tons of trash that turn it into a movable landfill after major storms.

Standards previously adopted by the Los Angeles [Regional] Water Quality Control Board give cities along the watershed until 2016 to keep all trash out of their storm drains.

On Thursday, the board incorporated those limits into storm water permits, putting municipalities that don't meet the requirements in violation of the federal Clean Water Act. Until now there had been no penalty for noncompliance.

"It's taken two decades to get to this point," board vice-chair Madelyn Glickfeld said after the 5-0 vote. "If we hadn't done this today, it would have been a signal" to cities "to relax, guys."

During storms, tons of trash and plastic debris wash up in municipal drains that empty into the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. The trash floating at the river's mouth in Long Beach can be so thick that it is hard to see any water. In the unusually wet winter of 2005, Long Beach hauled more than 12,000 tons of garbage out of the river.

Much of the trash winds up in the Pacific Ocean, contributing to huge floating garbage patches. Pieces of plastic can wrap around wildlife and kill birds and fish.

Trash was formally identified as a pollution problem in the river in 1996. Five years later, the regional water board adopted standards. But 22 cities sued to overturn the trash limits, saying they would be expensive and difficult to meet.

The courts found the board had not performed an adequate environmental impact analysis of the new rules, but otherwise upheld them.

After conducting an environmental review, the board readopted the trash standards in 2007.

In the meantime, some cities in the watershed, including Los Angeles, started installing screens and collection systems to keep street debris from washing into sewers. Sixteen cities in the watershed recently received $10 million in federal stimulus money to outfit their catch basins.

Local officials pointed to progress Thursday. "We have taken trash reduction seriously," said Signal Hill Councilman Larry Forester.

Another official showed the board photographs he took after Monday's storm. Parts of the river that have been coated with trash in the past were largely clean.

Local representatives argued that it wasn't necessary to write a target of zero trash discharges into the storm permits, and that doing so would set a burdensome precedent for other pollutants.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Trick or Treat from the Lakewood Sheriff's Department

The Press telegram reports that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's station in Lakewood is hosting a "Haunted Jail," complete with spooky costumed characters (does this mean deputies?), food and games (do tasers count as games?). The Lakewood Station moved all its prisoners to Cerritos for the event. Odd that the LASD did not send this press release to LAAG.

So are we to believe that no work hours (i.e. tax dollars) were "lost" on all this? Right. Trick or Treat? I think the taxpayers are being tricked. This is the highest and best use of a $20 million dollar new station? I mean we know the LASD Lakewood station does nothing useful for $10 million a year (except try to look busy) but lets not advertise the fact by turning the jail into something out of The Andy Griffith Show on one of the busiest nights out of the year. You want to read about something really scary that really happened in the Lakewood jail read this. Now that real scary episode will be a real "treat" for taxpayers. We'll see if the LASD has any tricks up its sleeve on that one. Likely not. Just some tax dollars for that "trick or treater".

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

The South and Bellflower shopping center saga continues

As we have reported previously the ongoing "former Vons" saga at South and Bellflower lingers on for what seems like an eternity. Just getting the parking lot fixed took over a year. They were finished in August 2009. [read our update to this story here]

Vons/Pavillions is owned by the lovely Safeway people headquartered in Oakland CA. When the current owner of the properly bought it many years ago Vons had a very long term and cheap lease on the building it vacated in 1998. They did not want to let go of the lease for fear that another grocery store would move in there and heaven forbid "compete" with the Pavillions over at South and Woodruff (which has the worst prices of any grocery store in the area thanks to union and other issues...but that's another column). Clearly the Fresh and Easy has not been any competition. We are still banking on that operation to fold up as the novelty has worn off.

The real problems began when the current landlord (Lings Property Management..located in LA) tried to buy Vons lease interest out. Of course Von's wanted to make sure that a Trader Joes market or some other savvy competitor cannot get in that spot. This created two problems. First it harms Lakewood shoppers who have a lack of real shopping choice for groceries (as most cities in the this area, especially Long Beach, backed the unions and disallowed Wal Mart grocery stores). Secondly it reduces the chances of leasing that entire former Vons store due to its sheer size. But the city apparently refused or failed to intervene on behalf of the city residents and encourage Von's (Safeway) to drop that requirement and so there you have it. No competitive food stores in that center for years to come thanks to heavy handed action by Safeway. Quite frankly we feel that is appalling and only hurts residents.

So as it stands now the former Von's store will be subdivided into three equally divided store units. More doors and glass will be added to the front. The building is essentially gutted inside now. As of Sept. 15, 2009 it is supposed to be ready for the build out of the first of three new tenants.

The first will be "Dollar Tree" And of course they will sell little if any "food items" at the store thanks the our pals over at Safeway. It is not clear on who the other two tenants will be but given the glut of commercial space in Lakewood we are not optimistic that it will be leased quickly (especially given the site had had for lease signs up for about 3 years..one actually rotted and fell over!) We are also not at all impressed with Lakewood's very shallow and transparent redevelopment efforts which don't seem to be getting much bang for the tax dollar. Also the city seems to focus all their attention on the mall and second or third tier shopping centers like the one at Bellflower and South and Palo Verde and South languish with years of vacancies and decay. We all know where that leads.

Dollar Tree is one of a number of large chains that appears to be doing well in this 12% unemployment economy.

Here are Dollar Tree's current local stores:

6426 E. Spring St. Long Beach, CA 90815

Norwalk Town Center 13913 Pioneer Blvd Norwalk, CA 90650

8111 E Wardlow Road Long Beach, CA 90808

In related news, in the same shopping center the Hanalei restaurant has reopened after being closed for about a year. No idea what the problem was but its good to see businesses operating as opposed to empty buildings. We know thats not good for anyone.

We also hear that the Movietime Video rental store in the same shopping center is supposed to be subdivided and that a 7-11 will go in on the Bellflower Blvd side. We will believe that when we see it.

Finally the South and Bellflower site is supposed to get a minor facade upgrade for all stores. That has not yet been defined. But anything would be an improvement over what we have now.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Community Workshop to discuss proposed improvements to the San Gabriel River Bikeway

Today we received a press release (below) from the city of Seal Beach regarding the section of the San Gabriel River bike path that is situated in their city and Orange County. We have complained about the deterioration of the path for years (since June 2006 to be exact). The County of LA claimed they could do nothing as the path was Seal Beach's responsibility by an agreement created in the early 1970's when the path was first built. We argued that that should never have been the case. We argued for OC transportation funds to be used. We argued for federal "Stimulus funds" to be used. All to no avail. Finally it appears that the money that was originally "promised" by the State on Sept. 2008 (then "withdrawn" on Dec. 2008) is now starting to ooze thru the mess that we all know is ongoing in Sacramento (don't get us started on that). Well don't hold your breath for the funds to ever make it into "real" improvements you can ride on. They may all get eaten up by consultants and other types of "pre-groundbreaking activities". But at least this is a good start.

So for those of you that use this section of the San Gabriel River Bikeway (405 south to the ocean) we hope to see you at the meeting on Sept. 10. It is important that bike riders that use the trail show up and provide input (and support) as we are actually the ones that know the problems and how to fix them. Its your trail and your tax dollars. So please pass this along.

Press Release text:

“The City of Seal Beach will be holding a Community Workshop to discuss proposed improvements to the San Gabriel River Bikeway and River's End Staging Area. This project will include repaving the bike trail from the First Street parking lot to I-405, improvements to the First Street parking lot, and remodeling the existing First Street restroom. The workshop will include a presentation of the draft plan for the area followed by an opportunity to ask questions and provide your feedback.

The project is being funded through a grant from the State of California, Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. Funding restrictions through the State had caused the City to place this project on hold recently. However, with portions of funding back in place, the City is pleased to bring this project back online and would like to gather input and feedback from the community and those who utilize the San Gabriel River Bike Trail.

The workshop will be held at the City of Seal Beach Council Chambers on Thursday, September 10, 2009 at 6:30 pm.

For further information regarding this project, please contact David Spitz, Associate Engineer at (562) 431-2527 ext. 1331.”

David Spitz, P.E.
Associate Civil Engineer
City of Seal Beach
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
p - (562) 431-2527 ext 1331
f - (562) 430-8763
dspitz@ci.seal-beach.ca.us


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

California Proposition 59 - freedom of information or "sunshine" law

California Proposition 59 was an amendment of the Constitution of California that introduced freedom of information or "sunshine" provisions. On November 2, 2004 it passed with 9,334,852 (83.4%) votes in favor and 1,870,146 (16.6%) against.

The amendment adds to the state constitution Article I, Section 3 (b). Section 3 (a) is the provision of the Declaration of Rights that guarantees the right to freedom of assembly, the right to petition the government and the right to instruct ones elected representatives. The amendment added to these rights the following provisions:

(1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.

(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the official performance or professional qualifications of a peace officer.

(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.

(5) This subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right of access to public records or meetings of public bodies that is in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, including, but not limited to, any statute protecting the confidentiality of law enforcement and prosecution records.

(6) Nothing in this subdivision repeals, nullifies, supersedes, or modifies protections for the confidentiality of proceedings and records of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses provided by Section 7 of Article IV, state law, or legislative rules adopted in furtherance of those provisions; nor does it affect the scope of permitted discovery in judicial or administrative proceedings regarding deliberations of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses.


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Water costs to increase 109% in Lakewood

Just as LAAG was getting ready to write an article on what a poor job cities like Lakewood are doing on water conservation and recycling (other than lip service), this story below pops up and grabbed our attention. Bottom line: water fees are going up 109% due to spending on pork projects that do not appear to be directly related to water delivery to residents in Lakewood. Whatever happened to all the federal stimulus money? Again this is yet another sad example of how government agencies (especially little known, little watched ones like the Central Basin Municipal Water District) just do not care what the taxpayers think about spending. They know that most of what they do is carried out in utter obscurity and hidden from ratepayers, and unless things really get out of hand, most increases are gradual, slow or hidden in "obscure fees" and unnoticed by most ratepayers (like the frog in the boiling water; turn up the heat (or costs) slow and he wont jump out before he cooks).

Charges for water need to be based more on rational formulas than simply raw usage. Charge based on lot size and number of occupants. Once they go above the allotted threshold fees go way up. Then perhaps we would see all those silly lawns in Lakewood replaced with drought resistant plants. People in LA county fail to realize that we live in a desert and its going to get worse before it gets better. We are now in year round drought mode. Rain in LA country means very little as the vast majority of it just goes out to the ocean (after it picks up a bunch of toxic chemicals after coursing over miles of driveways, streets, gutters and storm water drains. Some non run off waste water is treated then released to the ocean. Only a very small percentage of water in LA County is reclaimed and used to water lawns. Not only is this a waste of money and energy but also something that is even more precious: water.

Of course the irony here (as usual) is that this "fee" increase has nothing to do with the scarcity or usage of water (or even the cost of water) but rather poor judgment by bureaucrats and pet projects of dubious value. Still this cost increase may have the "beneficial" effect of making people cut back on water use and starting to be come more rational in terms of their landscaping choices.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-water-rates18-2009jul18,0,756615.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Doubling of water fees in largely blue-collar L.A. County area stirs uproar
The Central Basin Municipal Water District says the money will go to projects that are cheaper to build during a recession. But client cities and agencies question the expenditures.
By Louis Sahagun

[bold text from LAAG editor]

July 18, 2009

A water district's decision to double water fees has sparked outcry from largely working-class and impoverished areas of Los Angeles County.

The Central Basin Municipal Water District unanimously approved the charges June 25, despite objections from cities including Compton, Lynwood, Santa Fe Springs, Huntington Park, Bellflower, Norwalk and Lakewood.

The fee hikes will be phased in, from $44 per acre-foot of water to $62 per acre-foot on July 1, then to $72 per acre-foot on Jan. 1, 2010, and $92 on July 1, 2010.

An average household in Lakewood, for example, can expect to pay about $88 more a year on water services, officials said.

Officials in Norwalk, which buys 80% of its water from the district, say the city's water fund cannot support the increase without passing the cost on to customers.

"This issue is not dead yet," said Adriana Figueroa, administrative services manager for Norwalk. "We have lots of questions and we want answers -- we deserve them."

Cities and local water agencies have begun questioning the board's spending on projects, including a 12-mile-long pipeline for recycled water, and contributions it made toward building an "interpretive center" in the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary.

Art Aguilar, district manager for the central board, sympathized with customers, but insisted that "the money we get will be spent wisely" on projects that he said are more efficient to build during a recession, when costs have fallen.

"I do not disagree with their anger and being upset," Aguilar said. "If we didn't have to do it right now we wouldn't. . . . It's just one of those things. We have a bad economy, which means that the cost of building the recycled-water pipeline will be less than it would in a strong economy. So we'll save money in the long run." The pipeline project "was initially projected to cost about a total $110 million," he said. "We believe it will come in at less than that."

But Jeanne-Marie Bruno, general manager of Downey-based Park Water Co., a district customer that serves portions of Compton, Norwalk and Artesia, was not convinced that her customers would benefit directly from that project.

"We have lots of questions," she said. "Does this project make sense for our region? Are the right customers being billed for this project?"

Robb Whitaker, general manager of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, argued that this was not the time to raise fees. The agency manages groundwater for nearly 4 million residents of southern Los Angeles County, according to its website.

"In the worst of times," he said in a letter to Aguilar, "when our respective public and private customers are laying off employees and implementing mandatory furloughs and generally slashing their budgets, such an increase is unimaginable."

Some environmentalists took issue with the district's donation of $80,000 last year in support of a controversial proposal to build a $30-million interpretive center and parking lot in the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary.

Aguilar said the district wants to use the proposed center for new student programs designed to enhance understanding of the San Gabriel River watershed and its water districts. He pointed out that as part of an effort to cut costs, the district did not donate money this year to the San Gabriel River Discovery Center.

Jim Odling, chairman of the Friends of the Whittier Narrows Natural Area, which opposes the center, said the environmental impact report on the project "indicates the real purpose of the center will be to serve as a fancy meeting place for water and government agencies."

"In other words," he said, "while the district claims to be so desperate for money it is raising surcharge fees, it managed to come up with $80,000 to help build an interpretive center nine times bigger than the one that exists there now."

The Commerce-based district supplies water to 2 million residents in 24 cities and unincorporated county areas. Each year, it provides about 60,000 acre-feet of imported water to its 227-square-mile service area.

The district "is doing everything it can to provide information," Aguilar said. "If we need to sit down and have more meetings and outreach, we will do that too." (LAAG editor: yes we can have the meeting at the new interpretive center!)

"I understand that a 109% increase sounds horrible to people," he added. "But in the long run it will allow us to put together projects that will allow us to serve them better in the future."

louis.sahagun@latimes.com


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

LASD contract cities have nowhere to turn

This was an issue we brought up with the city of Lakewood over two years ago. Namely that without competitive bidding contract cities like Lakewood may be getting ripped off. In the sectors where there is real private competition (like street sweeping, tree trimming, trash collection etc.) the city is arguably well served by at least appearing to have used some competitive bidding. But given the length of time some private contractors have been "serving" Lakewood one really starts to wonder just how much these budget increases are due to lack of competitive bidding.

In the law enforcement arena this is doubly so. The problem of course is that the LASD services are offered on a take it or leave it basis. Surely Baca laughs off any complaints by Lakewood as we just built his deputies a $20 million new locker room. So its not like we can drop the LASD at the drop of a hat and get other law enforcement. Thats a real problem and its starts to breed the problems set forth in the story below. The first was total lack of accountability and oversight as to how the "liability trust fund" money was being spent. This issue has been brewing for years and there is still no resolution. Clearly the current situation with the trust fund was brought about due to pressure (in secret) by the deputies labor union.

The other problem is an unclear chain of command and lack of real accountability. The city council only has moderate control over the LASD as a contract city. This is unlike the control cities have over their own city police departments.

The other problem (as exemplified by the trust fund issue) is that cities that have few deputy "problems" (i.e. lawsuits) end up paying a larger share of the "rogue deputy cases" involving "shootings gone bad" etc. that occur in cities that have more crime problems or police clashes with citizens. Again this does not work in Lakewood's favor.

Finally this lack of real bargaining position by the small contract cities is resulting in costs just being passed on to the cities with no real way to control or curtail them, again because the city really does not "run" the LASD and has little ability to control costs other than when at the yearly "bargaining" table.

This lack of real bargaining power due to a lack of alternatives is fostering runaway costs. In FY 2007-2008 the Lakewood LASD contract was $8,862,113.00 (or approx. $216 per year for each registered voter in the city...such a deal!) The FY 2009-2010 the Lakewood LASD contract was $10,423,367.00 (or approx. $254 per year for each registered voter in the city). That is a 17.6% increase! How is this possible with no inflation and almost flat cost of living increases (how many of you in the private sector got a 17% raise in 2009-10?)

So what to do. Well surely we cant continue to deal with LASD the same way as in years past. We need to look at their services and cost of delivery like we would with any other contractor...more critically, especially in light of the budget probles we are sure to have over the next 5 years. One of the problems is that certain people on this city council are probably not very objective when looking at the LASD negotiations or service efficiency.

The other problem is where to turn for a competitive bid. Long Beach PD is an obvious choice but they have their own problems, mostly budgetary. But the real issue is would adding Lakewood to their patrol area and a large chuck of cash to their budget improve not only Lakewood bargaining position with LASD but also raise up the LBPD situation? The other option is looking at starting a city police force but pooling common resources with other small contract cities. Drawbacks include bringing in the same "bad apple" officers that are problems now at LASD. LASD also touts that we get "bonus" services like SWAT and the LASD crime lab etc. included in the deal. However that is not a free "add on". Also when was the last time we needed SWAT in Lakewood? And given the new crime lab's reputation its clearly no bargain.

We think given the way the state and country are headed budget wise that Lakewood is going to have a very tough budgetary road for the next 5 years (Lakewood admits that). The sales tax declines are also going to hurt badly and we dont see that improving any time soon. And we dont see LASD helping Lakewood financially in the future.

We think its time for some real competitive bidding.

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_12765178
La Habra Heights to consider ousting sheriff's; look elsewhere for police contract
By Mike Sprague Staff Writer
Posted: 07/06/2009 11:00:00 PM PDT

LA HABRA HEIGHTS - The tiny rural community of La Habra Heights is at the vanguard of group of cities considering dumping the Sheriff's Department.

La Habra Heights City Manager Shauna Clark will ask the City Council at its 7:30 p.m. meeting Thursday to give her permission to consider contracting for police services with another agency and consider leaving the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

La Habra Heights is among 40 cities that contract with the Sheriff's Department refusing to renew. They are upset that Los Angeles County is forcing them to pay for legal liability in criminal misconduct cases against deputies.

Calls Monday to La Ca ada Flintridge, Duarte and the California Contract Cities Association were not returned. Officials in La Ca ada Flintridge and Duarte have criticized the new contract language.

The cities have threatened to sue the county after it took $5 million from the liability trust fund to settle a case against a Compton deputy who raped three women while on duty.

The cities pay for the fund, which currently has $52 million.

"We don't get to choose our deputies," Clark said. "We don't get to train them. For a small city like us, a large lawsuit in a case like that could break us."

It could mean that La Habra Heights, population 5,712, must purchase additional general liability insurance and establish a liability reserve, she said.

David Sommers, spokesman for Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe, said the liability issue may be on its way to being solved.

"We're pretty close to a final resolution," he said. "The talks are still ongoing and the supervisor is hopeful that it will be resolved shortly."

Sommers said he believes the issue between the cities and the county could be smoothed out.

"For more than 50 years, the contract city relationship has worked well," he said.

"Contract cities are the number one customer of the county," he said. "There are more residents in contract cities than in unincorporated areas. They are our No. 1 customer and we have a responsibility to provide excellent customer service."

Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina has said that if the issue isn't resolved by Aug. 31, the contracts with cities won't be renewed.

The contracts were due to expire July 1, but the county extended them until Aug. 31.

In La Habra Heights, liability isn't the only issue.

Clark also is concerned about the rising costs of sheriff's services.

The cost for patrols rose a combined 47 percent over the last five years. In contrast, property tax - the city's main revenue source - increased by only 21 percent during that time.

One possible provider of police services could be Whittier.

Whittier City Manager Steve Helvey said patrolling La Habra Heights might not make financial sense for his city due to its small size and distance from Whittier.

The Sheriff's Department typically only keeps one car in the community.

"We'd still have to be prepared to send in other units," he said. "It's probably not the most convenient situation."

He needs to talk it over with the Whittier City Council, he said.

Should the issue remain unresolved, La Mirada could be another city that would look elsewhere for services, said Councilman Hal Malkin.

One of the last area cities to leave the Sheriff's Department was Santa Fe Springs, which contracted with Whittier for police services in 1995.

mike.sprague@sgvn.com

(562) 698-0955, Ext. 3022

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email