VOTE NO on San Marino Unified School District MEASURE E

VOTE NO on MEASURE E 

San Marino Tribune "Letter to the Editor": Measure E is an Unending Tax

 

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.

https://www.scribd.com/document/489515378/San-Marino-Unified-School-District-March-2021-Parcel-Tax-Ballot-Statement

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

https://www.scribd.com/document/489515538/San-Marino-Unified-School-District-March-2015-Measure-E-Renewal-Ballot-Statement

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.

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

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?

SMUSD Aug2019 Palm Desert Credit Card Charges on Scribd

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?

San Marino High School Visual and Performing Arts Car Wash Fundraiser

In this flyer, Friends of SMHS VAPA state: "Tax Deductible Checks can be made to Friends of SMHS VAPA."

This is not so according to the IRS.  If a benefit is received by the donor, e.g. a car wash, then the value of the car wash is not tax deductible.  Let's obey the tax laws.

Get a Tax Deductible San Marino HS Car Wash on Scribd

October 25, 2019 San Marino CA 91108 City Council Meeting

I attended the City Council Meeting and the first item on the agenda was the hiring of the new Finance Director.

Councilman Ken Ude asked if Mr. Paul Chung is "coachable."  Mr. Chung is an analyst and does not have experience as a Finance Director.  City Manager Marlowe said "yes."  Mr. Ude asked if the City Council can be involved in the coaching.  Ms. Marlowe said "no, he reports to me."  Marlowe must have forgotten she reports to the City Council.

The City Manager said Mr. Chung is available to start work on Monday November 25th.  I asked to be heard and explained the following to the Council which went completely over their heads:

1) Week of Nov 24th is a short week since it is Thanksgiving.
2) Why pay someone 5 days to work 3; plus most staff leave early on Wednesday before Thanksgiving

Plus the staff Mr. Chung needs to meet might not be in during that short week.

But since the City Council members are not hiring for their own business or practice and it's only our taxpayer dollars, wasting 2 days' salary is not an issue.

The Councilmembers need to be "COACHED" to think of the City's money as their own money.  Spend the City's money as if you are spending your own money.

They need to lead by example.  San Marino has a revenue and expense problem according to the City Manager and the Council because it needs to have a Utility Tax and a Special Public Safety Tax in order to operate. 

Let's start reducing expenses, NO MATTER HOW SMALL THE REDUCTION THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO START.  Don't be led by the City Manager.  Manage the City Manager for once.

The San Marino Tribune Will Never Print This Letter

I sent this letter to Tribune writer Mitch Lehman.  Another San Marino resident went down to the Tribune office to submit his "Dear Editor" letter and was given an indication that it would be printed.  No such luck.  Very one-side publication but how can an objective newspaper stand by false information and data?  Fake News!

The group "San Marino Residents for Measure SM" is saying defeat of this Special Public Safety Tax will leave San Marino CA 91108 with 2 first responders: 1 firefighter and 1 police officer.

This group must have confirmed with the City Council that the Council will allow this to happen; the City Council will not eliminate other non-essential expenses and programs in order to protect the lives and properties of San Marino residents.  That would be a first anywhere.  A City Council will not adjust the City's budget to make sure fire and police protection remain intact.

The Truth Behind San Marino Parcel Tax Measure SM on Scribd

聖馬力諾拒絕 710 號高速公路計劃

聖馬力諾拒絕 710 號高速公路計劃

大都會交通局(Metro) 目前正在提議一系列項目，計劃讓地方街道從710 號公路的盡頭修到210 號公路，而不是延長710 號公路，讓它從阿罕布拉山谷大道(Valley Blvd in Alhambra) 一路通車到210 號公路。

大都會交通局將支付 32 萬美元給聖馬力諾，以拓寬橫穿我們城市的亨廷頓大道 (Huntington Drive) ，使交通量增加。這些項目對我們的社區有不利影響：我們孩子的安全、空氣質量，最重要的是影響我們在寧靜的聖馬力諾市的生活質量。

目前通過聖馬力諾時，車輛在亨廷頓大道上的行駛速度一般高達 48 英里/小時，公佈的限速是 40 英里/小時。大都會交通局估計，在交通燈和加寬亨廷頓大道的共同作用下，限速將提高 16%，達到 56 英里/小時。

亨廷頓大道沿線有 6 所學校（ 4 所公立學校、1 所教區附屬學校和 1 所私立學校）。我們想讓汽車在上學和放學期間以每小時 56 英里的速度通過嗎？不！這對步行或騎自行車上學的學生來說太危險了。

隨著越來越多的汽車高速駛過，額外的廢氣污染將影響聖馬力諾及其周圍的空氣。亨廷頓大道沿線增加的噪音以及停車困難問題會影響我們的安全和生活質量。我們喜歡我們安靜、寧靜的城市，並希望保持這種狀態。

還記得 2011年的“Carmageddon”嗎？耗資 10 億美元的西側 405 號高速公路塞浦爾維達通道 (Sepulveda Pass) 拓寬項目。加州交通局已經承認，現在的通行時間比拓寬之前更長，因為在拓寬的 405 路段通過塞浦爾維達通道的汽車更多了。

大都會交通局高級執行官 Abdollah Ansari 說：“這筆錢只用於提高通行能力、改善運行狀況、實現交通同步、使車輛通過，而不是用於交通穩靜措施。”

710 公路計劃及其項目只利於駕車者在聖馬力諾高速通過，對寧靜的聖馬力諾市及其市民沒有任何好處。

本請願書請求市議會不接受任何對我們城市安全和生活質量有不利影響的 710 公路計劃及資金。

我們城市的發展方向應該由納稅公民來決定，而不是由其他任何人來決定。

通過簽署這份請願書，我們要讓市議會知道，我們不希望在聖馬力諾有任何 710 公路計劃，也不希望改變街道以讓更多汽車通過我們的城市。

請訪問此鏈接並簽署請願書：http://chng.it/MsBPcxQpkK

SAN MARINO 91108 REJECTS METRO 710 FREEWAY PLANS AND FUNDING

San Marino Citizens and Parents of Sts Felicitas and Claibourn School Students, ask the San Marino City Council to REJECT the Metro plans that would widen Huntington Drive from Atlantic to Rosemead, synchronize traffic lights that will bring more traffic and increase the average speed to 56mph (by Metro's own estimates). 

These 710 Projects bring more cars, more air pollution, more noise pollution and decrease safety for our children who walk or bike to school.

Go to this link and sign the Petition to say NO 710 Projects in San  Marino  http://chng.it/MsBPcxQpkK

SAN MARINO REJECTS 710 FREEWAY PLAN

Instead of completing the 710 freeway from Valley Blvd in Alhambra all the way to the 210, Metro is now proposing a host of projects for local streets to carry traffic from the end of the 710 to the 210.

Metro is offering San Marino $32 million to widen Huntington Drive through our city that will increase traffic.  These projects have adverse effects on our community: safety of our children, air quality and most importantly our quality of life in our tranquil City of San Marino.

The prevailing speed on Huntington through San Marino is now up to 48 mph with a posted limit of 40 mph.  Metro estimates the speed limit would increase 16% to 56 mph aided by synchronized traffic lights and a widened Huntington Drive.

There are 6 schools (4 public, 1 parochial and 1 private) along Huntington Drive.  Do we want cars speeding through at 56 mph during the start and end of school periods? NO!  This is a danger to students who walk or bike to school.

With that many more cars speeding through, the additional exhaust pollution will affect the air in and around San Marino.  The added noise and more difficult parking along Huntington Drive affect our safety and quality of life.  We like our quiet, tranquil City; and want to keep it that way.

Remember the 2011 “Carmageddon” $1 Billion Westside 405 Sepulveda Pass Widening project?  Caltrans has conceded that commute times are now longer than before the project due to even more cars on the widened 405 section through Sepulveda Pass.

Metro Senior Executive Abdollah Ansari is quoted as saying “This money is only good for capacity enhancements, operational improvements, traffic synchronizations, items that pass the traffic through and not traffic calming measures”

The 710 PLAN and its projects BENEFIT DRIVERS SPEEDING THROUGH San Marino.  NO BENEFITS for the tranquil City of San Marino and its citizens.

This petition is to demand that the City Council DO NOT accept any 710 Plan and funding for our City that adversely affects our safety and quality of life.  

The direction of OUR City should be decided by its taxpaying citizens and not by anyone else.  

By signing this petition, we are letting  the City Council know that we DO NOT want any 710 Plan in San Marino or changes to our streets to accommodate more cars passing through our City.

PLEASE GO TO THIS LINK TO SIGN THE PETITION   http://chng.it/MsBPcxQpkK

San Marino City Council must provide leadership and oversight

To: San Marino City Council

From: Concerned Citizens of San Marino

Subject: The City Council must provide leadership and oversight. 

the undersign believe that our City suffers from lack of control over our expense budget leading to wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.  The functions performed by City departments are inconsistent and of poor quality.

In 2016, the City Council formed an Ad Hoc Committee supported by five San Marino residents. The goal of the Committee was to review the operations of the Administrative, Finance and Public Works Departments and make recommendations for improvement. The final Report was submitted and approved by the Council on January 3, 2017. The Report included 47 recommendations which the Committee highlighted that would reduce operating costs and improve service quality.

As an example, the Committee pointed out that the Public Works monthly personnel costs of $150,000 could not be justified by the work performed. In addition, the work of the Department was of poor quality and resulted in the taxpayers now being burdened by $50 million of deferred or neglected maintenance. Almost three years later, very few of the recommendations have been implemented and the City continues to waste taxpayer dollars and provide poor service. Where is the City Council leadership and oversight?

We ask the Council to direct the Staff to adopt the recommendations of the Committee and incorporate them in the 2019/2020 City budget which is now under review.

For 2 years, the current Mayor has called for a goal of reducing the City budget by 10%. It appears that the proposed budget is now up 10%.  Implementation of the Ad Hoc recommendations would assist in reaching the Mayor’s goal. If the City Manager is incapable of submitting a budget with a 10% reduction, the City Council needs to do a “Top Down” budget reduction for the City Manager.  Then it is the assigned task and responsibility for the City Manager and Departments to meet the reduced budget numbers.

Inconsistencies and poor quality in City services are due to lack of a Quality Management System.  In order to improve the City’s operations going forward, we Concerned Citizens of San Marino, ask the City Council to study and implement a Quality Management System for the City of San Marino and all City departments.  Specifically, implementation of International Standards Organization “ISO9001:2015” and “ISO 18091:2019” for local governments. 

By signing this petition, we are asking the City Council to do what is right for the citizens of San Marino. Verify legitimate spending, eliminate unnecessary spending and improve the quality of service in our City.

Go to this link to sign the petition:  https://www.change.org/p/concerned-citizens-of-san-marino-san-marino-city-council-must-provide-leadership-and-oversight

Why did SMUSD Superintendent Alex Cherniss contradict 6 of his principals on the state of school facilities???

Six (6) San Marino School Principals over 4 years wrote and published high praises for the conditions of our school facilities and systems.

San Marino High School: “San Marino HS facilities are comfortable, spacious, air-conditioned, and well designed for instruction.  Sports facilities are have been significantly upgraded.  School facilities are a source of pride for our district.  They are well maintained, clean, safe, and functional.  No complaints have been filed.” 

Carver Elementary: “Carver school facilities are well maintained in a manner that is clean, safe and functional.  The academic facilities are comfortable, spacious, air-conditioned, and well designed for instruction”

Valentine Elementary echoed the same as Carver Elementary plus added:  “We take pride in our beautiful gardens and large grass playfield.  Inspections show NO areas of deficiency.  No complaints have been filed.”

Carver, Valentine and Huntington Middle School gave the “State of Repair” of its facilities and systems the highest grade of “Good” and Overall Rating of “Exemplary.”

The same or similar reports of exceptional facilities and ratings have been recorded over 4 consecutive school years by 6 principals.  

San Marino High School did rate its Mechanical / Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning systems (“HVAC”) as “Fair” but above the lowest grade of “Poor” (for 2017-2018) and an Overall Rating of “Good.” 

A new HVAC system for SMHS does not need $148 million of tag-along projects.  The new HVAC system can be self-funded by SMUSD with some salary and non-teaching position hiring freezes, e.g. not backfilling the assistant principal or retirees returning as consultants.  Try doing more with less.

And the schools are in a “Good” state of repair, “Exemplary” Overall Rating, safe and functional, spacious, air-conditioned and well designed for instruction.” The “spacious” facilities at the High School and both elementary schools should not need additional or new facilities in 2 years when the ballot measure might be floated again for more classrooms, and sports facilities that have already undergone extensive upgrades.

If 6 principals say facilities and systems are Good with no complaints filed, spacious and well designed for instruction, why does the Superintendent say otherwise and contradict his own “managers ?”

The under-construction Barth Athletic Complex requires $12 million dollars for modernization.  Who approved the antiquated design for the new complex that now needs $12 million of modernization before it is even completed?

This is what you do when you didn't have enough funding to complete the Barth and pushed construction into the future to be funded by part of the Alex Cherniss proposed $148 million bond.

Why didn't any of the SMUSD School Board members like Shelly Ryan, Lisa Link, Chris Norgaard, Nam Jack and C Joseph Chang ask questions? Or Read the statements from the 6 principals? Or Do their homework to understand why a yet to be built athletic complex requires upgrade?  

REMEMBER the new $10,000 cap on tax deductibility of property and state income taxes that will add to your taxable income.  Any San Marino homeowner who bought his home in the last 15 years will very likely have a property tax bill of $10,000 or more.  Now all your state income tax deductibility will go away and the amount will be added to your Federal taxable income line on your IRS 1040.