Wednesday, 3 February 2021
Thursday, 31 December 2020
2021 NO on E for San Marino PERMANENT school parcel tax
I started this blog back in 2008/2009 under the title "No on E" and here we go again.
The March 2nd Special Election for the San Marino Unified School District Parcel Tax Measure E is NOT a simple renewal for a set number of years like the 2015 Measure E renewal was "for six (6) years."
This Measure E has no end date and continues in perpetuity. Measure E on the March 2, 2021 ballot will make it in effect permanent unless ended by voters. That means someone has to qualify a voter initiative to put it on the ballot to end it.
The attached ballot question you will receive states, in part:
"... shall San Marino Unified School District continue to levy a $968 education parcel tax, with exemptions for seniors, raising approximately $4 million annually, to be assessed in each fiscal year with annual inflation adjustments until ended by voters?
An un-ending school parcel tax with built in annual increases will, in time, result in property owners paying hundreds of dollars more a year than the starting $968.
The attached March 2015 Measure E ballot statement for renewing Measure E stated clearly it is "for six(6) years." No parcel tax should become permanent; it is supposed to help SMUSD get through a rough patch with declining enrollment. SMUSD needs a paradigm shift and learn new methods to work more efficiently and eliminate waste when possible. A parcel tax is not a blank check that keeps on giving.
With a school parcel tax in perpetuity means there are no future renewals where SMUSD has to explain to the community why the parcel tax is still needed after the last renewal. An un-ending parcel tax is like giving free drugs to an addict; the addict never has to change his ways to learn to live without drugs.
Measure E should not pass because only a voter initiative in a future election can end it. The voter initiative process is complicated and expensive. Proponents wanting to end Measure E will spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to prepare/submit the initiative to the Attorney General. If approved, hundreds of signatures still have to be collected to qualify the measure for an election.
No Transparency: Campaign to “renew” the parcel tax was announced after deadlines to file Argument Against (Dec 11) and Rebuttal (Dec 21) to supporting statement. Voters against a tax in perpetuity would likely have filed opposition statements.
Tax Will Be In Perpetuity: Current tax renewed for 6 years. Measure E will be in effect forever without an end date. SMUSD will never have to explain why tax is still needed.
Extremely Difficult To Change: Tax can only be ended by a voter initiative following a very complex process requiring hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to qualify a voter initiative for an election. If passed, this Measure E school parcel tax will survive all of us and our heirs.
Vote No on Measure E. Let SMUSD revise Measure E back to a reasonable renewal for a set number of years.This is NOT a renewal but a parcel tax in perpetuity: VOTE NO on E
The ballot statement presented to voters in the Mail-In Ballot has no end-date for the Measure E parcel tax. This tax will survive all of us and our heirs.
San Marino Unified School District March 2021 Parcel Tax Ballot Statement on Scribd
In March, 2015, it was a renewal for six (6) years with an end-date to the tax
San Marino Unified School District March 2015 Measure E Renewal Ballot Statement on Scribd
Crane No-Bid contract: Response to Steve Talt Esq. to read San Marino City Ordinance 02.05.06 in its entirety.
Merry Christmas Steve. I'm finally getting around to your suggestion below that I read 02.05.06 in its entirety.
I could not find Ordinance 02.05.06 in the City's website. What I was referring to in my email was 02.06.05 I'll assume yours is a typo.
O-02-06-05 was amended by O-20-1366 in June, 2020. This was mentioned by Mayor ShepherdRomney during a CC meeting.
I would like to reciprocate and ask that you read O-20-1366 that amended O-02-06-05.
Section B. Procurement Of Goods And Services Other Than Public Projects: Procurement of goods and services, but excluding contracts for public projects, shall comply with the following procedures:
2.b. Waiver Of Bidding: Bidding required by this subsection B for procurements of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) or less may only be dispensed with when the City Manager or the Director of the department undertaking the procurement determines in writing that the goods or services are only available from one (1) source or that the best interests of the City are served by dispensing with competitive bids. Bidding required by this subsection B for procurements over thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) may only be dispensed with when the Finance Officer determines in writing that the goods or services are only available from one (1) source or that the best interests of the City are served by dispensing with competitive bids and are authorized by the City Council.
Attached is the response to my Public Records Act request for the Finance Officer's written determination that waived the bidding requirement. My exact request is in City's the response.
The Finance Director only "reviewed" the July 31, 2020 Staff Report titled "Award of a Professional Design Services Agreement in the amount of $349,660...."
Therefore, I received a "Staff Routing Slip" where the Finance Director did not indicate under "Review" column that his comments were attached. Since no Finance Director written determination exists to satisfy the requirement in B2.b., the City could not provide me a copy of the written determination required to waive bidding for procurement of services over $30,000.
Unless I am reading the above section incorrectly, it seems like the Finance Officer's written determination is required under O-20-1366 Section B.2.b in order to invoke the "Waiver of Bidding." Since none exists after "research and review of the documents in the City's possession," waiving competitive bidding to award Crane a services contract is a violation of San Marino local ordinance, i.e. law.
Wishing you a Happy and Healthy New Year.
Saturday, 8 August 2020
City Council approves no-bid contract despite warning from Mayor that it is illegal
Ignoring 35 written comments opposing the $4mm San Marino Center renovation, our City Council voted 3 to 2 to proceed with a no-bid $349,660 architectural services contract award that would lead to a $4mm renovation of the San Marino Center.
The services contract was
awarded without competitive bidding as required by our Ordinance and Municipal
Code. Mayor Gretchen warned the council “I
don’t think it would be legal for us to enter into this today without that
process (competitive bidding) and without receiving at least 3 bids.”
Zane Hill's Tribune articles quoted Councilman Talt saying "That's one of the reasons why you have this professional services exception," and Public Works Director Throne said “he recommended continuing to work with Crane….” as justification for waiving formal bidding. Both are incorrect. Dispensing with competitive bidding is not an authority invested in the Director for procurement of services.
Ordinance O-20-1633 that amended SM Municipal Code 02.06.05 was cited by Mayor Gretchen during the CC meeting as requiring 3 bids. She is correct. She is also correct in questioning the legality of the Crane agreement process that does not conform to SM Municipal Code 02.06.05.
SM Municipal Code 02.06.05 is for “PROCUREMENT OF GOODS, SERVICES AND CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS”
Under section B.5 for " Procurements Greater Than Thirty Thousand Dollars: Written notices inviting bids for procurement of goods and written requests for proposals to procure services shall be provided to at least three (3) vendors and to all vendors requesting to receive notices inviting bids and requests for proposals for the types of services or goods to be procured. With the exception of contracts for services, the award shall be made to the lowest responsible bidder."
Councilman Talt voted for the Ordinance and should know that the only exception for services is the award does not have to be to the lowest bidder. But there
are still bidders. Read the code: there is no “professional services exception”
to formal bidding for procurements over $30,000..
The authority Director Throne
does seem to have is that the person responsible for the procurement may select
the winning bid for services which does not have to be the lowest bid. But he does NOT have the authority to use his recommendation of a vendor to dispense with bidding.
San Marino Ordinance O-20-1366 on Scribd
San Marino Staff Report to ... on Scribd
Saturday, 20 June 2020
SMUSD $3 million budget deficit and $2219 charge at Palm Desert Mastro's steakhouse
Where are all the school district issued credit card statements?
Why are there 3 charges in Palm Desert?
Thursday, 5 December 2019
OMG: In San Marino, the end justifies the means according to Mayor Steven Huang
Mayor Steve Huang attended the Preserving San Marino meeting on Tues Dec 3rd.
I asked the Mayor if the public safety tax did not pass, would the City Council really lay off all but 1 firefighter and 1 policeman. He replied they would find the money. I added:...like from the reserves?
That means the fear mongering message from the Committee of San Marino Residents for Measure SM of only having 2 first responders is NOT TRUE. Then I said the Committee of SM Residents for Measure SM placed an ad that says all but 2 first responders would be laid off and the City Council did not refute this claim but also signed and endorsed another ad from the same Committee for Measure SM.
Mayor Huang's response was "Whatever works."
I guess the "end justifies the means" is the MO of San Marino. What ever happened to honesty and integrity?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)