Hefty costs involved in forcing recall election

The surprising fact that Yorba Linda's Oct. 7 recall ballot will be the first in city history – considering the sizable number of controversies arising the past 47 years – is easier to understand when the costs involved in a successful petition drive seeking a recall are examined.

Most recall threats haven't gotten past the talking stage, and the low-budget 2012 effort targeting John Anderson fell short in signature numbers and didn't make the ballot.

But a record amount of cash has been spent to force the special election to decide if Tom Lindsey will remain in office for the final month of his four-year term and if Craig Young will be allowed to complete the two years left on his term.

Chief sponsor of the Lindsey-Young recall effort – the political action committee Yorba Linda Residents for Responsible Representation – spent $35,896 to qualify the issue for the ballot, according to state-required filings for the first six months of this year.

One committee opposing recall – Residents for a Better Yorba Linda – spent just $7,564 during the same time period, although the group collected an added $30,000 earlier this month.

Also, the largely business- and builder-funded independent expenditure committee Southern California Coalition of Businesses and Taxpayers spent $16,409 supporting Lindsey and Young in May with several mailers.

Biggest expense for recall supporters was $17,175 for gathering a portion of the signatures on the two petitions targeting Lindsey and Young – $1,201 to pay three city residents collecting names and $15,974 for 11 individuals from other cities.

Petition printing cost $1,197, newspaper ads $5,001 and computer-generated “robo calls”--so popular with the city's registered voters--$4,873.

Expenses also included $2,990 for distributing flyers, $1,290 for signs and banners, $411 for phone lists, $174 for web hosting and $120 for mailbox rental, with printing worth $2,600 donated by 2012 council candidate Ken Peterson.

The money was raised from 41 Yorba Linda residents ($20,686), one city business ($500) and two businesses and one individual from other cities ($1,418). Eight Yorba Lindans loaned a total $9,500 to the committee and a June garage sale raised $2,388.

The Residents for a Better Yorba Linda opposition group spent $3,600 for campaign paraphernalia, $1,726 for postage, $701 for campaign services, $684 for a Yorba Linda Country Club fundraiser, $600 for information technology and $476 for newspaper ads.

The money was raised from the business-oriented Orange County Jobs Coalition ($10,000), four Yorba Linda residents ($1,100), two residents from other cities ($700) and various donations under $100 ($1,393).

The two Aug. 4 contributions came from John Dalton, a city resident and owner of a document storage and recycling firm ($20,000), and the business-oriented Orange County Taxpayers Association political action committee ($10,000).

Candidates pay to reach all voters with statements

All but two of the 12 candidates seeking to represent Yorba Linda as City Council members, school trustees and regional water board director in the upcoming Nov. 4 election wisely chose to use an inexpensive and effective campaign tool to reach every registered voter.

The 10 contenders, along with four seeking to replace two council members in an Oct. 7 recall election, will have 200-word “statements of qualifications” included with sample ballot mailings.

The recall candidates and six seeking two seats in the regular council election each paid $886 for statements to be mailed to 40,871 registered city voters. Mailings begin Aug. 28 for the recall ballot and Sept. 25 for the general election.

The fee – about 2.2 cents per voter – is cheap compared to the $3,000 to $5,000 cost to design, print and mail the colorful placards favored by well-heeled candidates and support groups.

Fees vary by the size of the electorate for each district and recoup what the county pays for printing and fulfilling a federal regulation that statements be translated into Chinese, Korean, Spanish and Vietnamese for voters requesting materials in those languages.

Two of the four candidates for two trustee slots in the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District paid $1,311 for statements to reach 83,916 voters (about 1.6 cents each), and the two candidates for a county Municipal Water District board seat paid $2,016 to reach 154,093 vot-ers (about 1.3 cents each).

Candidates can't disparage opponents in the statements, which are subject to review and challenges by the public, with changes required if objections are upheld.

Running for two council seats Nov. 4 are Canyon Inn owner Paul Ambrus, Whittier College professor Jeff Decker, state deputy attorney general Peggy Huang, incumbent Tom Lindsey, homeowner association leader Judy Murray and food industry executive Matt Palmer.

Oct. 7 recall candidates are Decker and Palmer to replace Lindsey and bio-technologist J. Minton Brown Jr. and former council member Nancy Rikel to oust Craig Young, although Palmer and Brown oppose the recall.

Seeking the two Placentia-Yorba Linda school trustee positions are incumbents Carrie Buck and Karin Freeman, and challengers Jim Brunette, a software consultant, and Brenda McC-une, a children's advocate. Only Buck and Freeman paid for statements.

Candidates for the county Municipal Water District board slot representing Yorba Linda and five other cities are incumbent Brett Barbre from Yorba Linda and Greg Diamond from Brea. The district handles imported water for 28 agencies, including the Yorba Linda Water District.

Nobody filed to run against Yorba Linda Water District board incumbents Phil Hawkins, Bob Kiley and Gary Melton or Jeff Brown, a Yorba Lindan whose North Orange County Community College District trustee area includes a tiny slice on the city's westside, so they'll be appointed to new four-year terms.

Campaign signs: pollution or democracy?

Campaign signs for the Oct. 7 recall ballot targeting two City Council members and the Nov. 4 election to fill two four-year council positions are already appearing on Yorba Linda roadways, signaling an early start to a contentious battle for control of the city's governing body.

Generally, residents fall into one of two camps regarding the biennial display of campaign clutter, with some seeing the signs as examples of a vibrant democracy and others decrying the visual pollution and environmental waste by the posting of so many repetitive messages.

And historically, the signage wars bring out some of the most immature behavior exhibited by candidates and supporters, involving myriad charges and counter-charges of sign-stealing or defacement, as if junior high “mean girls” were competing for seventh-grade class secretary.

Also dispiriting is the fact that some of the candidates seeking to make and administer Yorba Linda's laws don't always follow long-standing zoning regulations regarding temporary signs, copies of which are given to all council contenders when they file for the ballot.

The city regulates temporary signs on both public rights-of-ways and on private property on the theory that such signage can “present a potential hazard to persons and property.” The rules, the guidelines state, “enable freedom of expression, while preserving public safety.”

For example, unlighted signs on private property can't exceed 32 square feet in area, and freestanding signs can't be higher than six feet.

Signs on public property, mostly along city streets, particularly Imperial Highway and Yorba Linda Boulevard, are subject to several rules, but all must be freestanding – they can't be attached to fences – and must display the owner's name, address and telephone number.

The public rights-of-way signs can't exceed six square feet in area and four feet in height, as measured from the grade of land. And signs must be removed by five days after the election.

Several specific rules apply to the location of signs, which can't “overhang” any street, curb, sidewalk, trail or driveway. They can't be placed within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or driveway edge or street intersection “as measured from the midpoint of the corner radius.”

Forbidden locations include street medians and sidewalk tree wells, two often-violated rules. The rule banning signs within 15 feet of a driveway eliminates most Main Street placements.

The most popular location for temporary signs – the city-owned vacant land on the northeast corner of Yorba Linda Boulevard and Imperial Highway – only allows signs on the slope area.

Violations can be reported to the Community Development Department at City Hall (code enforcement number is 714-961-7138). Owners must remove cited signs within 72 hours, with city staff also empowered to remove and store illegal signs for owner pick-up.

And, the city says, sign owners are responsible for liability claims and “causes of action.”

Federal funds: principles or practicality?

An interesting conundrum confronts Yorba Linda's five elected City Council members – all self-identified as conservative Republicans – whenever they make decisions involving acceptance of Federal funds for local needs and priorities.

Should they take a principled stand that reflects their political orientation or act in a more practical manner and take the taxpayer cash before it's allocated to another community?

That's a judgment council makes each year regarding the 50-year-old Community Development Block Grant program run by the federal Housing and Urban Development Department for 1,209 state and local governments.

The program, proposed by President Richard Nixon in 1971 and initiated under President Gerald Ford in 1974 with bipartisan Congressional support, will return $197,653 in tax revenue to Yorba Linda for the 2014-15 fiscal year after acceptance of the city's “action plan.”

The plan, approved on a 4-1 council vote, is due Aug. 15. The four “yes” votes from John Anderson, Gene Hernandez, Tom Lindsey and Mark Schwing came with individual reservations indicating some were “philosophically opposed” to the program.

But practicality won, as council favored getting back some tax money residents send to Washington. Craig Young, who cast a first-ever council vote opposing participation last year, again demurred, citing “over-regulation” and “unintended consequences.”

This year's allotment, down 7.5 percent from last year's $212,515 and 49 percent from 2010-11's $294,551, will be spent on neighborhood improvement, senior nutrition, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and administration.

The neighborhood improvement total of $75,000 will provide up to 12 grants to qualified low- and moderate-income homeowners for “general property improvements and repairs to meet local codes, standards and ordinances,” according to a report from staffer Pam Stoker.

A maximum 15 percent allowed for public services for low- and moderate-income residents will be spent on a hot-lunch program for about 500 seniors at the Community Center, noted Stoker, the city's economic development manager.

The $29,648 is for operational costs in serving meals provided by the non-profit SeniorServ agency with other funding. Lunch starts 11:15 a.m. Wednesdays and 11:30 a.m. other weekdays, with a suggested $3 donation for 60 and older and $5 fee for under 60.

The $53,475 for disability compliance will be spent on providing accessibility at another city facility, a follow-up to three others made compliant under previous grants. And a 20 percent maximum, $39,530, will be spent on administration and planning.

In noting the “precipitous decline” in annual grants, the 31-page action plan stated: “When combined with the loss of the Redevelopment Agency and uncertain future of the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund, the city's financial ability to fund community development activities and affordable housing projects has been undermined.”

Voters to decide future City Council pensions

Yorba Linda's 18-year practice of contributing cash to two retirement plans for most City Council members could come to an end, depending on voter sentiment in November, when residents will vote the governing body's pension benefits and other perks up or down.

One of the current contributions is for a “defined benefit” plan based on council members' monthly $500 salary through the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) for members not already retired under PERS.

A minimum of five years of PERS-covered service is required for a lifetime benefit based on the single-highest salary year for current council members. The benefit is based on a three-year salary average for new members seated after Jan. 1, 2013.

For years, the city paid both the employee and employer PERS contributions, and, since 2007, reported the city-paid 7 percent employee contribution as “earnable compensation.”

But beginning July 1, 2013, council members were required to contribute 2.5 percent

of salary for PERS retirement, a number raised to 5 percent for July 1-Sept. 30, 2014.

Members newly seated after Jan. 1, 2013, will pay 6.5 percent or other PERS-set amount, and all members taking office on or after Dec. 3, 2014, will earn a $525 monthly paycheck.

The other current city payment is used by most members for a “defined contribution” plan, with cash going into a 457 account that's similar to the more widely known 401(k) account.

Described in a resolution approved by a 5-0 council vote in 2013 as a “cafeteria plan” benefit, the city contributes $1,095 monthly per member that can be used as a health insurance premium or placed in a 457 account.

Since most members are either retired under Medicare or other retirement health plan or receive health insurance in their full-time employment, nearly all have been putting the entire amount into 457 accounts.

The rare exceptions were a few past self-employed members who used some of the city-supplied cash to pay for health insurance and put the residual amount into 457 accounts.

The current $1,095 monthly benefit is the same granted the city's full-time employees. State law limits council salaries to a formula based on a city's population, but benefits are allowed up to the maximum granted a city's management employees.

In recent years, council members have bragged they haven't increased their salaries, but every year since 1996, the “cafeteria plan” benefit, mistakenly called a “health benefit” by many council members, has increased the same amount allowed full-time employees.

From 1996 to 2010, council benefits were slipped into an annual resolution approving compensation for management employees and placed on meeting agendas under the “consent calendar” with various routine items combined for a quick, single vote.

Fifth-term Councilman Mark Schwing, who cast one of three votes for the added council benefits in 1996, was the lone vote against putting the issue on the Nov. 4 ballot.