Answers to often-asked questions from the community during the past several weeks

With the wisdom gained from 93 years of continuous weekly publication, the Yorba Linda Star sensibly asks writers to refrain from campaign-related remarks in the issue immediately preceding Election Day.

That judicious edict allows me to ignore the final-hour foibles of local office-seekers and answer some questions that have popped up in the community during the past few weeks.

Question: How much has Friends Christian High School paid the city for the lease on the 32-acre Bastanchury Road property?
Answer: Sponsors of the campus planned for 1,200 students have paid $2.1 million from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2010. Starting this fiscal year, payments will be increased annually based on an average of the Consumer Price Index for the prior five-year period.

Q: When will the Friends high school open?
A: “Official opening date is fall 2013, but there’s a growing possibility that could move up to fall 2012,” John Christensen, chairman of the school’s marketing committee, says.

Q: Does Yorba Linda have an unfunded pension liability?
A: Nearly $4 million estimated at June 30, according to figures presented to council in June. The city pays both employer and employee portions of CalPERS pension fees for workers and council members, 19.6 percent of salary this year and 21 percent next year.

Q: How many rounds of golf are played at the city-owned Black Gold course?
A: A total of 50,211 for 2009-10 fiscal year, below the projected 50,367 but above the 49,359 for 2008-09. Total revenue was $5,314,506, a 3.6 percent drop from last year’s $5,512,494. Recalculated waived interest on city loans to Black Gold was $327,592 on June 30, with loans totaling $4,786,268.

Q: Will a new library be part of Town Center redevelopment?
A: No definite plan at present, but council is expected to get serious about Town Center next year. Council voted 5-0 Jan. 19 “to explore various mechanisms to construct a new library in the Town Center.”

Q: Is it legal for a council member to talk to another off-microphone during a meeting?
A: Not if “one council member is communicating with another regarding an agenda item up for vote during a public meeting,” says a May 18 report presented to council members.

Q: What does the city earn from leasing the vacant lot at Yorba Linda Boulevard and Imperial Highway for pumpkin and Christmas tree sales?
A: The Oct. 1-Dec. 31 rent is $15,000, which the city sets aside to partially fund July 4 fireworks. Election signs are allowed on the slope but must be removed before Nov. 8.

Q: How much does Yorba Linda pay Brea for police service?
A: A $10.74 million base payment is projected for 2010-11, up 72 percent from 10 years ago. During those years, population increased 16.2 percent and service calls 59.6 percent

Q: What’s the cost to trim city-owned trees?
A: $46.75 per tree in parks, $37.35 for parkway trees.

Water board race: historically different this year

Yorba Linda’s 24th City Council election is proceeding along a patently predictable path: candidates issuing contracts, platforms and pledges lacking specific details and plenty of charges and counter-charges about personal attacks and campaign sign tampering.

I’ve tried to focus attention on key issues the six contenders for two positions on the Nov. 2 ballot have ignored or glossed over with generalities. Many of these columns are posted at www.ocregister.com/yorbalinda (scroll down to “columns” and click on “more”).

Unfortunately, I haven’t written about the important and unusually competitive contests for three trustee seats available on each of the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified and North Orange County Community College boards, which are well worth close voter scrutiny.

But I want to devote my last campaign-related column to this year’s historically different contest for three director positions on the five-member Yorba Linda Water District board.

This is the 19th director election—six others were canceled when only incumbents filed to run—for the 21.3-square-mile district with 47,891 voters, since the public agency was organized in 1960. The prior mutual company stockholders selected directors 1909-1959.

Only two incumbents have lost re-election races in the past 50 years—Mark Abramowitz replaced Carl Scanlin in 1998, and Abramowitz lost to a past director, Bill Mills, in 2002. Just 20 men have served as directors since 1960, and nine originally were appointed.

At election time the usual practice has been for incumbents to endorse each other and run as a team, with Mike Beverage, a single-term councilman in the 1980s and water director since 1992, managing the winning campaigns.

But this year, only two incumbents—Mills and John Summerfield—are running together, and a third, appointed incumbent Phil Hawkins, a former member of the district Citizens’ Advisory Committee, is seeking election, as he told me, “independent of everybody.”

And Beverage, the current board’s longest serving director, is supporting Hawkins and advisory group members Bob Kiley, husband of former council member Barbara Kiley, and Gary Melton. Beverage told me the district needs “new blood” and “new direction.”

Hawkins, Kiley and Melton each told me they’re not running as a team but cut costs by ordering signs from the same vendor. Kiley said he supports Hawkins and Melton, Melton supports Hawkins and Kiley and Mills supports Hawkins and Summerfield.

Summerfield wants to “preserve the present direction of the board,” while Beverage is trying to “upset that continuity” and “make major changes,” according to Summerfield.

In addition to benefits, directors earn $150 per meeting. For the 2009-10 fiscal year, they attended 323 meetings (Mills 77; Beverage 74; Summerfield 69; Ric Collett 52; Hawkins, appointed Feb. 26 to replace the late Paul Armstrong, 27; and Armstrong 24).

Measure Y: Half a loaf may be all we can get

“Half a loaf,” some say, “is better than no loaf at all.” And based on what I’ve learned in 13 years of writing this column, I’d add, “When politicians offer even half a loaf, take it,” especially when the tendered item contains a few long-sought crumbs of ethical reform.

Of course, I’m addressing Measure Y--the Yorba Linda Ethics Ordinance--placed on the Nov. 2 election ballot by a 3-2 City Council vote, with John Anderson, Nancy Rikel and Mark Schwing in favor and Jan Horton and Jim Winder opposed.

The ordinance’s full text and impartial analysis by City Attorney Jamie Raymond can be found in a sample ballot pamphlet mailed to the city’s 43,282 registered voters last week.

Raymond notes the ordinance is already part of the municipal code and will stay in effect even if most voters oppose the ballot measure. But if “yes” prevails, the ordinance could not be amended or repealed without voter approval.

The latter is a plus, guaranteeing the reforms a permanent place in the city’s law books and not subject to the whims of current or future council members. Additional reforms can be enacted by separate ordinances and put before voters in future elections.

It’s best not to wait for a perfect ordinance, since getting three votes on anything about ethics is like pulling teeth. The most recent codification of council-member ethics was back in 1972, when an early council adopted a weak, quickly forgotten ordinance.

Among the key provisions of the new, more effective law is a ban on campaign donations from city contractors, such as the city’s trash hauler and ambulance provider, contributors to mostly incumbents in past election cycles.

And the time limits placed on council members voting on issues benefiting contributors of $250 or more will inhibit deep-pocket developers in providing the large sums used to finance many council winners from the late 1980s through the early 2000s.

Also important is a ban on closed-door council committee meetings, such as the ad-hoc Town Center group of developers, council members and top city management staff that met in 2005-06 to hash out Old Town redevelopment matters in private sessions.

Other reforms, including a “whistleblower” procedure and an official code of ethics, are expected to be approved after the election.

However, less likely to be implemented is more transparency in approving increases in council fringe benefits, such as the 13.4 percent increase they gave themselves in a 5-0 vote Aug. 17, included in a resolution in a 10-item consent calendar agenda. Council’s salary and benefit hikes should be presented in legally noticed public hearings.

And left untouched by the ordinance are contributions from developer-funded political action committees, such as the active Committee for Improved Public Policy and once-active Past and Present Elected Public Officials Representing Yorba Linda.

Candidates should discuss council member compensation and read the sign ordinance

This week’s column again focuses on an important issue ignored—so far—by all six candidates seeking the two City Council positions up for grabs in the Nov. 2 election.

Previously, I’ve written about declining revenues and city subsidies at the Black Gold Golf Club and potential higher-density zoning for 11 west side land parcels, which the contenders have overlooked or glossed over with vague, generic statements.

Also missing from their various “contracts” or “pledge lists” is any mention of the 13.4 percent increase in fringe benefits council members awarded themselves in a quick 5-0 vote with no discussion as part of the routine “consent calendar” at an Aug. 17 meeting.

And, not surprisingly, the little-noticed enhancement has been omitted from newsletters two council members e-mail constituents and websites and Facebook pages two council members use to publicize their campaigns and selected council actions.

The benefit boost for council members is the same $112 per month increase they granted city employees for “cafeteria” benefits to begin Jan. 1, 2011. A past council’s 3-2 vote in 1996 added the governing body to the “cafeteria” plan, in which dollars can be used for a health plan premium, cash-out payment and/or 401k-like retirement plan.

But the increase in “cafeteria” benefits—from $833 to $945 monthly—for employees was accompanied by a five percent salary reduction due to 13 furlough days in the 2010-11 fiscal year. On June 30 council debated but discarded plans to trim their own salaries.

At that June 30 meeting council members proposed 10, 25 and 50 percent reductions in their $500 per month pay. The 10 and 25 percent cuts were defeated 3-2, and the 50 per cent cut motion wasn’t even seconded.

The council did vote 3-2 to pay the $30 per meeting Redevelopment Agency salaries only “for those meetings where actual Redevelopment Agency business is discussed.” The city also covers council’s dental, vision and life insurance benefits and cell phone allowances.

Certainly, an extra $6,720 for council members next year won’t break the treasury, and council is allowed to discuss employee compensation packages behind closed doors, as long as a public vote is taken, even if the vote is tucked into a 10-item consent calendar.

But symbolism is important, especially when council members plead poverty as they deny other expenditures and agree to reduce employee pay but not their own salaries.

And sadly, candidates also are ignoring parts of the city’s zoning code regulating the placement of temporary campaign signs on public property.

According to a list of rules each contender was given when they signed up to run, signs are not to be placed within 15 feet of a driveway, street intersection or fire hydrant, and they must be “freestanding” and not affixed to fences, posts, traffic signals, utility poles, light standards or trees.