Survey….

 

…SAYS

Reminiscent of the late Richard Dawson’s “Family Feud,” game show, the representatives of the Lew Edwards Group made their presentation of the “City of Wildomar Park Issues Survey,” which was conducted from July 17, 2012 through July 22, 2012. In a telephone poll, 300 Wildomar residents were surveyed for their responses to the following primary question:

“If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it or no to oppose this measure?”

The “measure” in question is a $28 per year parcel tax for Wildomar’s parks.

For context, please click on the following link:

http://lakeelsinore-wildomar.patch.com/articles/wildomar-says-yes-to-28-parks-tax-survey-shows

According to the survey, the following responses:

1) Definitely yes-56%.
2) Probably yes-17%.
3) Undecided, leaning yes-4%.

According to the polling consultants, the 56% and the 17% and the 4% undecided, leaning yes, amounts to a total yes vote of 77%.

4) Definitely no-18%.
5) Probably no-4%.
6) Undecided, leaning no-1%.

According to the polling consultants, the above amounts to a total of 23% no vote.

After the meeting was over, I spoke to Dave Mason, one of the polling consultants, and reminded him that the 56% “definitely yes” was the same final tally in last year’s failed Measure D ballot measure, as well as the prior successful park assessment vote in 2006.

I asked him what percentage of the probable and undecided, but leaning yes votes are likely to become actual yes votes on election day. He stated that, in his opinion, 75% of that 21% would end up voting yes on a ballot measure for parks.

Doing the math, 75% of 21% equals 15.7%, which added to 56% for the “definitely yes,” equals a total of 71.7%.

By their own admission contained within the “Methodology” section of the report, the margin of error is somewhere between ± 5.7% up to ± 6.2%. Using a median number of 6%, despite their glowing optimism, this survey, if accurate, could still only predict a yes vote tally of 65.7%, which is a full 1% less than the 66.7% yes vote required for passage of the measure.

Despite the results of the survey, this is not a slamdunk for passage, by any realistic measurement.

In any event, the die is cast, as the City Council voted 5-0 to move forward with a parcel tax of $28 per year to be on the November 2012 ballot.

Since I gave them my word that I would not oppose a $28 per year parcel tax, I will not work against the parcel tax (although I have offered multiple suggestions for the reallocation of limited funds, without having to waste more money on a tax measure).

The political climate for a tax measure on this particular ballot may not have the positive outcome that Councilmember Bridgette Moore gleefully expressed with her “Yes!Yes!!”, when given a chance to respond to the presentation.

Without a doubt, this survey, and a park tax measure enhances her tear-stained “I’m trying,” campaign platform, which is the reason for this new measure being on the November 2012 ballot in the first place.

She may find herself re-elected to the Wildomar City Council, only to bear the political consequences of being a two-time loser, when it comes to parks. If that turns out to be the case, she and her colleagues may find themselves in the position of having to eventually embrace my thoughtful recommendation that City Hall be moved from its current location to Marna O’Brien Park as a reasonable means to reallocate limited funding and keep the park open.

Comments can be made to gilrasmussen2012@gmail.com.

 Instead of “doing  better with less,” Wildomar may find itself in the awkward position of having to “do less with Moore.”

Lack Of Planning On Your Part Does Not Constitute An Emergency…

 

… ON OUR PARTS

Paraphrasing a commonly used proverb (which is appropriate,  as our City Council is a doltish  paraphrase of what  informed elected officials should be), City councilmember Marsha Swanson’s recent, ill-timed suggestion to explore some form of park tax measure for the November 2012 ballot, has degenerated into a political/civic embarrassment for Wildomar.

The agenda packet for the Tuesday, July 31, 2012 Special Meeting, which has been specifically set to discuss the results of the recent $23,000 telephone poll, does not contain a copy of the report of the results of the survey, leaving Wildomar residents without any information upon which to base their public comments at the upcoming meeting.

According to city staff, the polling professionals of the Lew Edwards Group will be working over the weekend to finalize the report.

Please click on the following link to the vacuum of the City Council agenda packet, to confirm:

http://www.cityofwildomar.org/uploads/files/minutes/07-31-12-cap.pdf

Since the November 06, 2012 election was not a surprise to anyone but Swanson, the impromptu City Council direction to their staff to initiate this last-minute ” scramble” is a clear demonstration of City Council ineptitude.

Comment can be be made to gilrasmussen2012@gmail.com.

Waiting And Watching The Math…

 

“IF A MAN “NO VOTER” ANSWERS, DON’T HANG UP.”

Hopefully, this Northern California-based (where they love their taxes) polling firm, will retain their professional integrity throughout their part of the process.

If there is a significant variance from the historic, well-established 56% “yes” ceiling, they will have some “splaining to do, Lucy.” (To quote the late Desi Arnaz).

In response to the Lake Elsinore-Wildomar Patch’s article on the subject, I have some thoughts on the process being implemented by the City of Wildomar.

But then, when don’t I?

Please click on the following context:

http://lakeelsinore-wildomar.patch.com/articles/wildomar-parks-what-are-you-telling-the-pollsters

1) Since the pollsters are only seeking 300 opinions, the likelihood of your receiving a personal opportunity to weigh in on the issue is very remote. (.009375%, to be exact, so don’t be holding your breath).

2) Despite the City Staff’s inaccurate pronouncement that a minimalist 300 person opinion poll has a plus or minus 5% error factor, the actual error factor is +/ -6% percent.

Please click on the following link to confirm for yourself:

http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/best-estimates-guide-sample-size-and-margin-error

Whether or not the error factor is 5% or 6%, the decision to go forward with the parcel tax in November 2012 is based primarily on the need of incumbent city councilmember Bridgette Moore to be able to campaign on the “I’m trying” slate, which is only an attempt to deflect attention away from her ineptitude on your behalf.

Mayor Benoit said it best when he recently reminded his council colleagues that the last two park votes received the same 56% approval from the voters.

Comments can be made to gilrasmussen2012@gmail.com.

 

It’s Been That Kind Of A…..

 

…BUSY WEEK

Every now and again, the demand for my time and attention can exceed my calendar. Since my profession is the investigation of casualty claims, one cannot control the number of and degree of intensity of new claims assignment to investigate. As a result, creative efforts such as Wildomar Magazine must, of necessity, take a backseat.

One of our company’s primary clients is the well-known parcel delivery service (the one with the ubiquitous dark-colored trucks). Whenever one of their vehicles is involved in a collision with another vehicle, if it occurs in the Southern California area, I will receive a telephone call (often in the early morning hours) and I am required to immediately go to the scene and initiate a liability-focused investigation. These accidents can range from “freeway-stopping fatalies'” (two in the last month), to more mundane, slow speed residential uncontrolled intersection accidents. However, until we arrive on scene, we are never certain as to the nature and the seriousness of the occurrence.

On the other hand, for the past 20 years, I have been primarily involved in the resolution of complex litigation, such as found in construction defect lawsuits. On Wednesday of this week, I took what I thought would be a simple overnight flight to Reno Nevada to attend a Mandatory Settlement Conference for a single residence, “mold-based” litigation. Settlement conferences are generally scheduled within 30 days of trial, so the pressure to settle the matter is on all parties.

As such, I scheduled my return flight for just after noon on Thursday, anticipating a rapid resolution of the matter, given the serious limitations of insurance coverage available for this particular lawsuit. It’s one thing to win a big lawsuit. It’s quite another to get paid, especially if there is limited coverage to find a settlement.

However, the judge presiding over the MSC was a recent appointee to the bench and had a self-admitted string of successes in resolving complex litigation is, and this matter would be no exception. As a result, despite my reasonable request to make a brief presentation to His Honor, which included the entirety of my authorized economic contribution to the negotiations, His Honor insisted that every last carrier representative be present in His Court throughout the process.

At the very least, I was able to enjoy the late afternoon shrieking of the plaintiff’s spouse, emanating from the judge’s chambers, when she realized that her million-dollar claim was going to be settled for about 25% of that amount.

And that her attorney would take 40% of that.

Finally, after achieving the resolution on our terms, the matter was put “on the record” at approximately 5:00 PM.

After that, a quick taxi ride to the Reno-Tahoe Airport

Needless to say, rather than being home by 5:00 PM, I found myself getting on an airplane at 7:30 PM, with the scheduled arrival in Ontario at 11:30 PM.

Unfortunately, I had previously agreed to attend another MSC at the Orange County Court at 8:45 AM the next morning.

Comments can be made to zakturango@excite.com.

I considered leaving the Courthouse after I made my pitch, contemplating that His Honor would not recognize my absence.

However, the thought of having a bench warrant served on me at the airport was a sufficient deterrent to my going AWOL. It’s that “duty-thing” that is ingrained in all military veterans… and insurance professionals. (I am both).

The End Of Dumb Questions In…

 

…WILDOMAR

An old adage says, “There is no such thing as a dumb question…. unless you already know the answer.”

With the suspension of the Brown Act mandate by the State of California, the current Wildomar City council will no longer have to fear the uncomfortable public humiliation of asking  a “dumb” question while engaged in public debate.

Please click on the following link context:

http://lakeelsinore-wildomar.patch.com/articles/state-allows-cities-to-become-less-transparent

Currently, under the Brown Act constraint, no City Council member can discuss any agendized item with more than one other city councilmember. However, if they discuss it with two other council members, either directly or serially, they would have conducted secretive deliberation with a council majority (three members of a five person board), more commonly known as a  “backroom deal.”

Needless to say, this probably goes on, intentionally or inadvertently, in Wildomar.

In contrast, the Board of Trustees of the Wildomar Cemetery District consisted of a three-person board, so Brown Act constraints prevented any preliminary discussion between two trustees, since that would constitute a board majority. As a result, the only place to have a conversation about anything was during a public meeting. Some of our board meetings became rather heated, which was good for our democracy.

As result, public deliberation in future Wildomar City Council meetings will likely have a much “smoother” presentation and appearance, as the casual, friendly conversation between the affable and friendly council colleagues, will be conducted in private, prior to council meetings, in order to make sure that any uncomfortable “questions” will be “asked and answered” before the city Council meetings occur.

“Practice makes perfect.”

The antidote to this “warm and fuzzy” arrangement, is to elect future councilmembers who can remain outside the social spiderweb that will entrap and destroy the “common good” of the community of Wildomar, through the lack of openness and transparency.

Naturally, of course, I will be offering my status as a “pariah” and social attributes as the “ultimate outsider”  to the citizens of Wildomar in the November 2012 election.

Currently, most likely due to the effect of Wildomar Magazine, only one of the five current City councilmembers even speaks to me in public.

Not that it matters to me, since I have been snubbed by the best.

Back in the day when I attended Lake Elsinore City Council meetings on a regular basis, seeking information for the mocking pages of Elsinore Magazine, I would be having a private conversation with another individual, when former-Mayor Pam Brinley would deliberately step between the two of us, sharply spinning on one heel, fully exposing her well-nourished backside to yours truly. 

No one in public office in Wildomar has ever matched Brinley for her exquisite “snubbery.”

The only one to come close was former-Mayor Scott Farnam, who physically assaulted yours truly (he was annoyed by a WM article) at a private residence, during the December 2009 Christmas Party for staff and elected officials. (Visit the January 2010 WM archives for the details).

At the time, I would’ve preferred a simple snub.

Who knew that “Outsider Status,” would be the ultimate antidote for backroom deals in Wildomar?

Comments can be made to gilrasmussen2012@gmail.com.

A Hollow Argument From….

 

… THE CITY OF WILDOMAR

Despite the theoretical “exposure” to a potentially massive refund totaling $358,000, according to the Californian article this morning, the actual exposure to Wildomar is less than $10,000.

Please click on the following link for context:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/wildomar/wildomar-ag-s-office-sheds-little-light-on-park-tax/article_c52ed511-8b95-5fa5-ad50-bec1f113bb04.html

And this, to confirm that Riverside County paid 50 claims for refunds, totaling $5709:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/wildomar/wildomar-park-tax-refund-issue-remains-unsettled/article_d008df21-5266-56d0-aec3-02cc9cabac6c.html

Given the economic downturn, and the disruption to the property ownership in Wildomar, many of the residents who paid for the court-overturned park assessment no longer have an interest in the $56 refund they are due from the City of Wildomar. In addition, many of the other residents who are entitled to a $56 refund, have graciously “waived” the reimbursement right, further reducing the exposure to the City.

On the other hand, during the Public Comment portion of the recent Special Meeting of the Wildomar City Council, a well-spoken, senior gentleman addressed the City Council and objected to the proposed request for additional taxes, ” when the City of Wildomar still owed him $56,” a logical and simple idea from a considerate citizen. (My guess is that he will be a “no” vote, if the parcel tax measure is added to the November 2012 ballot, despite whatever the poll says).

What makes the city’s response to their refund dilemma so “hollow,”  is that they ignored the economic impact of an adverse ruling, as the litigation worked its way through the Courts.

The City of Wildomar should have established a Park Assessment reserve, by cutting back on what they were spending on the parks, in anticipation of that eventual adverse ruling. Had they done so, they would not find themselves in their current embarrassing predicament.

According to the state Attorney General, the adolescent members of the Wildomar City Council are going to have to meet with the adult leadership in Riverside to find a resolution.

Comments can be made to gilrasmussen@gmail.com.

While the City of Wildomar may be “saving” some money with their hollow argument and defiant  approach to refunds, they are frittering away any confidence that their citizens may have in their elected leaders.

The “Next” Logical Progression…

 

…IS SECESSION

Michael J. Williams, the  Californian’s ace reporter (because he pays such exquisite attention to what officials are saying), reports on last Wednesday evening’s Wildomar City Council meeting, accurately capturing the City Council mood and manner in today’s article on the subject of the animal shelter dilemma, as follows:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/wildomar/wildomar-city-to-press-case-on-animal-shelter-costs/article_6a8a2438-799d-5ff8-9bac-a137b876fdb0.html

Permit me to recap some of the comments for you, with my commentary added (in blue):

1) Councilman Tim Walker termed the situation “a great fiasco” during the Wednesday’s council meeting. “I’m for having the shelter here, but it has to be equitable,” he said.

I am pleased that councilmember Walker finally understands the implications of his thoughtless vote on December 08, 2010, when this supposed “conservative” meekly surrendered his vote in favor of the “great fiasco.”

Click on the following link to City Council minutes for the December 08, 2010 meeting, and scroll down to page number 10, to confirm the unanimous vote:

http://www.cityofwildomar.org/uploads/files/minutes/12-08-10-cm.pdf

 2) Councilmembers directed their administrators to analyze what it’s costing the city… “Once we get the right numbers, I am willing to pursue other options, if it has to come down to that,” Walker said. “It needs to be fair. What it is now is not fair.”

I remain hopeful that once Councilmember Walker gets his “right” numbers, he will be willing to consider secession from the JPA in order for Wildomar to form its own municipal animal control service, which will save more than $200,000 annually, and to undo his previous vote.

3) City officials agreed it was a logical progression for the city to participate in the authority, considering the new building was within city limits.

 If that were truly the justification to participate in the authority, than “every” church-going city councilmember should attend Cornerstone Community Church.

That being said, if “logic” and “progress” are to be employed, the City Council members must finally arrive at my conclusion, which is the secession from the Animal Friends JPA.

4) In a meeting last month, however, they (“the other JPA authority members”) rejected a request by Wildomar officials to revise its that service formula…

To be fair to the founding members of the JPA, they were, and are, entitled to agree to any allocation formula they desired and their “rejection” of an “after-the-fact” request by Wildomar to alter the terms of the agreements, is ultimately reasonable and appropriate.

As a result, the only “logically progressive” action left to Wildomar is to secede from the agreement, which will do no more than restore the JPA to its original configuration, causing no harm to the JPA or the shelter.

Since the underlying bond language is based upon the original agreement, which includes the “animal count” allocation, any single member of the JPA has a bulletproof veto over any change, except for the unilateral right of each member, including Wildomar, to secede from the agreement, with a modest 60 day notice to the other members and re-payment of any outstanding obligations.

(Since Wildomar was not a member of the JPA when the original construction bond was established, Wildomar currently has NO obligation to repay a portion of that bond indebtedness, once they secede. Any future re-finance of the bond, however, if Wildomar remains a member, would create a $2,000,000 + repayment obligation for Wildomar).

In conclusion, it appears that the economic distress being felt by the Wildomar City Council is a “logical progression” from their non-deliberative, unanimous vote of December 08, 2010, when they “failed” to direct their administrators to analyze what it would cost the city to join in the JPA, in the first place. (Since Walker and Benoit were newly-sworn city Council members, this “fiasco” has to be laid at the feet of Council incumbents, Bridgette Moore, Marsha Swanson and Bob Cashman).

At the very least, it would behoove the City Council to direct their administrators to research the feasibility of Wildomar developing their own municipal animal control service, which could be, if properly scaled to fit Wildomar only, accomplished for about $170,000 annually, compared to the $411,000 in annual cost to be a part of the JPA.

If you do the math, that’s a difference of $241,000 per year.

In the meantime, we can only hope for the next “logical progression.”

Comments can be made to gilrasmussen2010@gmail.com.

Now that councilmembers Walker and Benoit have almost two years of political seasoning under their belts, and as they appear to be noticing the  adverse financial implications of their previous vote, they should take the lead in undoing the City Council’s error.

“The Gambler”….

 

….WILDOMAR-STYLE

At last evening’s Wildomar City Council meeting, City Manager Frank Oviedo informed the City Council that his recent “guestimate” of $15,000 for a public opinion poll, to determine whether or not a parcel tax of $28 per year should once again be presented to the voters would actually cost $22,500, a modest 33% understatement.

At the end of the day, the Wildomar City Council unanimously voted to include a $500 “fudge factor,” authorizing Oviedo to spend up to $23,000.

During the discussion before the vote, it was disclosed that the aforementioned $22,500 will fund the poll of 300 citizens of Wildomar, presumably chosen randomly to attempt to measure local taxpayer’s fiscal appetite for a park-based parcel tax. The margin of error for such a poll would be 5%.

Once again, Mayor Ben Benoit offered the best analysis, citing the fact that the rate of approval for the last two park measures has been at the same support level of 56%.

The first successful measure in 2006 only required the approval by a simple majority of property owners, or 50% +1 vote for passage. The second unsuccessful Measure D required a 66 2/3 %  “yes” vote for passage. A simple parcel tax, if placed on the November 2004 ballot, will require a 66 2/3% “yes” vote for passage.

The most revealing comment was uttered by Councilmember Bridgette Moore, who opined that, should the poll results came back at the July 31, 2012 meeting, reflecting a 63% support for a $28 per year parcel tax, she would be in support of going forward, relying upon a presumed groundswell of support of volunteers.

Unfortunately for Moore, whose re-election effort will be seriously hampered by the lack of a park measure to somehow show that she’s “really trying” to overcome the effects of her lack of leadership over the past four years, given the admitted 5% margin of error, she is willing to “cut the deck” once again, unnecessarily wasting tax money in the process, if the measure doesn’t succeed.

Not to mention the fact that, should a second park measure fail, the erosion of the City Council’s credibility with its citizens would be significant. It’s that “consent of the governed” thing.

Councilmember Moore needs to keep “her fingers crossed” that the results of the poll reflect a minimum of 72% voter support (within the 5% margin of error) before she votes to go forward with the measure.

As Kenny Rogers once famously sang, “You’ve got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em.”

If the poll returns with a support level of 71%, or less, it should be a “fold ’em.”

Comments can be made to gilrasmussen2012@gmail.com.

It is, after all, more fun to gamble with someone else’s money.

When Your Elected Officials Are Spayed & Neutered…

 

… THEY DELIBERATE OVER MEANINGLESS STUFF LIKE THIS

Today’s Press-Enterprise contains an article concerning Wednesday night’s City Council agenda, that deserves your attention:

http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/wildomar/wildomar-headlines/20120709-wildomar-animal-shelter-impact-credits-not-enough.ece

The City of Wildomar is obligated to pay $331,000 per year for animal control services to Animal Friends of the Valleys, plus they waive more than $80,000 per year in licensing fee revenues to Animal Friends, despite knowing that the payment is based on the admittedly unfair and inequitable allocation  for an”animal count” versus a “population count.”

As result, the taxpayers of Wildomar are subsidizing the taxpayers of Murrieta and Temecula when it comes to animal control services.

And since the current City Council lacks the political testicalia necessary to change that circumstance, one is left to assume that there has been some heretofore-unknown reproductive surgical intervention performed on Wildomar’s elected officials.

Rather than listening to my voice of reason, that the City of Wildomar should secede from the Southwest Communities Financing Authority (JPA) that easily snookered City Manager Frank Oviedo and then-Mayor Bridgette Moore into foisting this economic disaster on people of Wildomar, City Staff is promoting a tepid request that the City of Wildomar be given more economic credit for hosting the shelter.

Unless the City Council is prepared to demand a $200,000 per year credit, an unlikely number to be requested, or granted, they should come to terms with Wildomar’s economic reality and direct staff to explore less expensive alternatives, including secession.

Fortunately for the people of Wildomar, since this is an election-year, I will be taking my plan of secession to the people, through the ballot box in November 2012.

We cannot afford to remain a part of Animal Friends, nor can we afford to re-elect leaders who have been politically spayed and neutered.

Comments can be made to gilrasmussen2012@gmail.com.

As proposed in my previous article, a properly-scaled animal control operation for Wildomar would cost approximately $170,000 per year, and that number could be further offset by $80,000 per year in license revenues, for a net cost of $90,000 per year.

 “Re-Thinking Wildomar; Doing better with less.”

Murrieta; Temecula; Canyon Lake; Riverside County & Lake Elsinore…..

 

….CAN’T

But Wildomar can, and should, withdraw from the Southwest Communities Financing Authority (“JPA”), which governs the Animal Friends of Valleys (“AFV”).

That’s because each of the original signatories to the agreement would still be responsible for their percentage of the original $15,000,000 construction bond in order to do so.

Except for Wildomar, the “Johnny-come-lately,” who did not join the JPA, until after a December 08, 2010 City Council meeting with a unanimous vote authorizing staff to complete the inequitable membership agreement. Since the construction bond obligation had already been created prior to Wildomar’s joining, there would be no obligation of the part of the City of Wildomar to pay a percentage of that original bond upon secession.

In a recent discussion about the feasibility of seceding from the animal shelter JPA, the City Staffer to whom I was speaking, was unaware that the agreement between the City of Wildomar and the JPA could be unilaterally terminated by the City of Wildomar without incurring that significant budget busting $2,000,000  “exit” obligation.

Therefore, in order to substantiate that feasibility, I quote from the very agreement that is part of the agenda packet for that December 08, 2010 City Council meeting, as follows:

“Section 4. Termination and amendments

(c) If Southwest Communities Facilities Authority has incurred no obligations each party may terminate this Agreement by giving not less than sixty (60) days written notice thereof to all of the parties.
(e)  This agreement cannot be terminated until all forms of indebtedness, and/or fiscal obligation incurred by Southwest Communities Facilities Authority, or adequate provision for such payment shall have been made.”

Currently, the only obligation to be repaid is the $57,000″loan” granted by the JPA to Wildomar , who could not afford to pay their full allocation this year.

Unless the JPA refinances the original bond, which it can apparently do with a 4/5 vote of the JPA board, Wildomar can secede from the agreement without incurring any additional obligation to pay approximately 20% of the new bond obligation (potentially, in excess of $2,000,000).

That is why there is an element of urgency to this issue of secession.

For an eye-popping reminder of the inherent “unfairness” to the City of Wildomar that it’s neighboring communities were willfully complicit in implementing (to their economic benefit), please click on the following excellent Michael J. Williams/Californian article on the comparative numbers:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/swcounty/region-shelter-coalition-to-look-at-cost-distribution/article_6b1f5c51-00bb-5f8f-8197-2dbcd9f4f489.html

At the recent JPA meeting, I stood up and publicly addressed the member representatives sitting at the dais, fearlessly telling them that their “failure to disclose” (or Wildomar City Staff’s failure to analyze) the inequities of the “population count” versus the “animal count,” would be, in hindsight, the political genesis of the secession movement.

For the record, incumbent City Councilmembers Bridgette Moore and Bob Cashman each voted “aye” on December 08, 2010 issue of joining AFP/JPA without any thoughtful or diligent consideration of any less expensive alternatives.

Comments can be made to gilrasmussen2012@gmail.com.

At present, all it will take is the cost of postage to notify Murrieta, Temecula, Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, and Riverside County, that the City of Wildomar is going in another direction for its control services.

And, of course, some political “spine.”

“Re-Thinking Wildomar; Doing better with less”