Family Ties Run Deep at Garden Grove City Hall – At least 117 employees, including a council member and former mayor, in recent years have had at least one relative also working for the city

Garden Grove, California –

Family Ties Run Deep at Garden Grove City Hall

Employees for the city of Garden Grove like to say they’re part of the “Garden Grove family,” and that nickname is more or less literal.

At least 117 employees, including a council member and former mayor, in recent years have had at least one relative also working for the city, according to a public records request posted on the city’s website.

The issue has been controversial in Garden Grove, where the Orange County District Attorney is continuing an investigation into allegations of nepotism in the hiring of former mayor Bruce Broadwater’s son Jeremy as a city firefighter.

It was Bruce Broadwater himself who in October made a request, under the California Public Records Act, for all employees, current and former, with a relative working for the city.

In 2013, Voice of OC reported that a number of top officials had relatives who work in the city, including former city manager Matthew Fertal’s three sons and niece.

Broadwater has said that he did not intervene in his son’s hiring, pointing to a change in the city’s nepotism ordinance while he was off the city council.

He said that while he didn’t approve of his son’s hiring, it was not against city policy at the time, and certainly not unique.

“What am I supposed to tell [Jeremy] — that everyone and their brother can hire somebody and he can’t get hired?” Broadwater said at the time.

Broadwater’s Public Records Act request, which is available on the city’s new public records portal, shows that in addition to a number of top officials and department managers, many rank-and-file employees also have had a husband, wife, parent, child, cousin or in-law working for the city.

Councilmember Kris Beard’s two sons and finance director Kingsley Okereke’s two daughters and son have worked summer jobs in the Recreation Department. Community Services Director Kim Huy has a brother-in-law in Public Works. IT Director Charles Kalil has a sister-in-law in Community Development.

One employee, an administrative analyst, has a father, cousin and two brothers in the city, according to the document.

City firefighters, who gave former chief David Barlag a vote-of-no confidence when Jeremy Broadwater was slated for hiring, are certainly not immune.

Police Chief Todd Elgin’s son-in-law, and the brother-in-law of police officer Brian Dalton (the son of former mayor Dalton) are Garden Grove firefighters. Batallion Chief Paul Whitaker’s wife Lucia is a fiscal analyst for the fire department. Two fire captains — Alberto Acosta and Justin Truhill — are brothers-in-law, while firefighters Travis and Shane Mellem are blood brothers.

After a hot 2014 election season that saw and departure of both Bruce Broadwater and Fertal, employees have been especially attentive to public concerns over real or perceived nepotism, said former interim city manager Allan Roeder.

While it’s not uncommon for employees to meet on the job and marry, or for the children of a police officer or firefighter to follow in their parents’ footsteps, Roeder said he thought the number of relatives in Garden Grove is “high.”

“From a best practices standpoint, it’s best to avoid [hiring relatives] wherever possible,” said Roeder, who was the city manager of Costa Mesa for 25 years. “Quite honestly it creates perception, even when the employees are not in the same department…that, because someone is related to someone else, there may be favoritism, or something of that nature.”

From a practical standpoint, Roeder said it also makes it difficult for the city manager to manage employees if they have to worry about placing two relatives in a working relationship.

“You don’t want to put yourself in the position of having to manage workload based on those types of relationships. It’s better not to have to constrain yourself than to try to work things out after the fact,” said Roeder.

Amid the nepotism controversy, former Human Resources Director John D.R. Clark left for a job as Vice President of Southwestern College in Chula Vista. His subordinate, Laura Stover, has since been promoted to director.

In Sept. 2014, while both Broadwater and Fertal were still in office, the city passed a new nepotism ordinance that bans the future employment of relatives of high-ranking employees. It also doesn’t allow related employees to work in the same department or be placed in job where they could one day be supervised by a relative.

Relatives of officials could still apply to work 1,000 hours or less in a part-time position, subject to city manager approval, while part-time employees hired prior to September 2014 are still eligible for promotion to full-time employment.

However, while the new policy ensures the city will have fewer related employees in the future, officials are bound by the previous policy when it comes to those hired before the change, said City manager Scott Stiles, who took in August.

“It appears some people on the list are no longer with the City…and given the City’s current [nepotism] policy…I think the list will continue to be reduced,” Stiles wrote in an email. “Without doing some more research, I can’t report whether this list is more or less than what you might find in other cities the size of Garden Grove.”

“What I can tell you is that we have a responsibility to follow the established nepotism policy set by City Council, and that we strive to follow best practices necessary to maintain the public trust,” Stiles added.

Roeder said the only instance where the issue came up during his nine months at the helm was when an existing part-time employee sought a promotion to a full-time position.

Because of the potential for the person to work under or with a relative, “We denied the promotion,” he said.

Councilman Phat Bui said there isn’t much the city council can do now, given the nepotism policy was put in place after the hiring of most of these employees.

“For now, we just need to make sure the promotion or transferring of employees be done fairly and based on the merit of qualifications,” Bui said. “And I would like to have a process where anyone…would be able to appeal to upper management or the city council as well.”

Councilmembers Beard, Chris Phan, and Steve Jones did not respond to a request for comment.

Mayor Bao Nguyen declined to comment on the employment of relatives until the DA completes its investigation, but added that he believes the city will be transparent moving forward.

“I think people want the city to be fair in its hiring and that they all have a fair chance when they apply for jobs — and I think we’ve made that clear moving forward,” Nguyen. “But it’s important people continue to hold us accountable and bring up these issues.”

https://voiceofoc.org/2015/11/family-ties-run-deep-at-garden-grove-city-hall/

Contact Thy Vo at [email protected] or follow her on Twitter @thyanhvo

San Juan Capistrano water customers to get refunds for tiered rates

San Juan Capistrano, California –

Water customers in San Juan Capistrano who were charged under a pricey tiered system declared illegal can get their money back under a new refund process.

Anyone who paid for water under the top three of four tiers between Aug. 28, 2013, and June 30, 2014, is eligible for a refund or credit on future bills under the system approved Tuesday night by the City Council. The period covers from when an Orange County Superior Court judge ruled the tiers to be illegal to when the city implemented new prices last summer.

The new rate system includes tiers, but they’re not nearly as steep before: top users paid $11.67 per 100 cubic feet of water under the old rates; they pay just $5.15 now.

How much the refunds will cost the already cash-strapped city is unclear. City staff are preparing a report for the June 16 meeting that will include a projection and information on a formal application process.

That prompted Councilman John Perry, one of two residents who sued before he was elected, to vote against the refunds because he wanted to know how exactly they will be calculated.

“By any measure, they deserve every penny extra that they are forced to pay by the city,” Perry said.

The refund process comes as people like Eric Krogius, a Cota de Caza resident who used to live in San Juan Capistrano, have filed small claims to recoup the money they paid for the heavy tiers.

Krogius, who is U.S. Rep. Mimi Walters’ brother, said Wednesday he doesn’t plan to drop the claim he filed last month in Superior Court. And he said he still wants the money back he paid under the tiers prior to Aug. 28, 2013. His court hearing is scheduled July 13.

“I’m going to take it all the way to the end, and we’ll let the judge decide if they can arbitrarily decide that that’s the date,” Krogius said.

The city already is in a tight financial position. Years of unrelated litigation drained funds so much that when an appellate court in 2010 ordered the city to pay $6.35 million to a landowner over a development dispute, the city paid for about half of it by increasing property taxes in 2011 for the next 10 years.

City documents presented to the council Tuesday say the water rate refunds will increase a deficit in the city’s water budget that’s already expected to be at least $1 million by June 30, which is the end of the fiscal year.

It’s not the first time San Juan Capistrano’s water revenue hasn’t kept up with expenses: The city has supplemented that aspect of the budget for years. One of the biggest financial factors is a struggling groundwater recovery plant for which the city owes more than $40 million. Jim Reardon, who also sued the city, and Perry have long said they believe the water rates were artificially inflated to cover the enormous cost of the plant.

But city documents didn’t show how the rates related to the actual cost of water in San Juan Capistrano. That’s where the city ran into trouble: Proposition 218, enacted by voters in 1996, requires all government fees be set in accordance with cost. Reardon and Perry had long told the council the city water rates didn’t do that.

The 4th District Court of Appeal’s April 20 affirmation of the August 2013 Superior Court ruling attracted international attention and was criticized by Gov. Jerry Brown. The court was careful to emphasize that tiers in general aren’t illegal, but arbitrary tiers are.

But so many municipal agencies use tiered systems that the ruling has caused a scramble to ensure compliance and fend off more litigation. Last week, a class-action lawsuit was filed in Marin County over the tiered water rates there.

Contact the writer: 949-492-5122 or [email protected] On Twitter: @meghanncuniff.

https://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-664292-water-court.html

Water customer Eric Krogius used to live in San Juan Capistrano – he wants his money back – and So Do We – Let’s Sue City Hall

San Juan Capistrano, California –

Victorious San Juan Capistrano water users want a refund

Water customer Eric Krogius used to live in San Juan Capistrano, and he wants his money back.

The homeowner and securities specialist paid huge water bills under the steep tiers recently declared illegal by the 4th District Court of Appeal, and he recently filed a claim in Orange County Superior Court to try to recoup the thousands he once thought were gone for good.

“I think it’s got the makings of a great class action,” Krogius said.

But San Juan Capistrano city officials aren’t ready to talk refunds. The City Council – now dominated by four people who support the lawsuit, including one of the men who sued – has yet to decide whether to appeal the April 20 ruling to the Supreme Court. It has until June 1 to do so. Mayor Derek Reeve expects a decision “probably this week.” The Council is scheduled to consider the case in a closed session today.

“If the council does not appeal and thus accepts the judgment, I anticipate some form of refund policy will be developed and announced soon thereafter,” Reeve wrote in an email to the Register.

That would open the door for a flood of requests – first in San Juan, and later in other agencies that can’t prove a leak-tight link between what it costs to provide water and what they charge for it.

“Could that create chaos? It certainly could,” said Ryan Cogdill, an attorney for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which backed the challenge to San Juan’s rates. “That’s a risk agencies run when they try to impose costs they can’t justify.”

The city of Fullerton knows this story well.

More than 40 years ago, Fullerton tacked a 10 percent “in lieu franchise fee” onto water bills. That raised millions over the decades – more than $27 million since 1997, according to city figures – but the fee wasn’t tied to any specific cost of providing service. That ran afoul of Proposition 218, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association warned, threatening to haul Fullerton into court in 2012.

Fullerton didn’t fight the way San Juan did. Instead, Fullerton essentially acknowledged that the 10 percent figure was pulled from a hat and hired a consultant to do a full analysis of water utility operations. It calculated how much it costs for everything from office space, electricity and personnel to operating stations, pumps and wells.

In the end, Fullerton wound up reducing the fee and refunding $3.3 million to customers. That’s a fraction of the excess it collected over the decades, but the statute of limitations only left Fullerton on the hook for three years’ worth of repayment.

San Juan – and every water agency that can’t clearly demonstrate the link between costs and rates – could find itself backed into a similar corner.

“It does seems to be the case that this ruling would mean refunds,” said Frank Wolak, director of Stanford University’s Program on Energy and Sustainable Development. “It’s unfortunate that so few judges understand basic economics.”

And Reeve’s statement indicates the city is preparing for refunds. While no decision on whether to appeal has been announced, city officials have taken a couple of steps that indicate they’re not interested in pursing the case further.

The council recently ended its contract with Michael Colantuono, the lawyer who’d fought the lawsuit since it was filed in August 2013, and directed the city’s contracted law firm, Best Best & Krieger, to handle the case as part of its standard litigation duties. And city attorneys sent a letter, saying they wanted to negotiate a settlement, to the lawyers who sued.

But who would be eligible and for how big a refund is unclear.

A claim filed last year by Newport Beach lawyer Gerald Klein estimated total refunds of $20 million to $30 million. Klein said at the time that the claim was the first step in a class-action lawsuit, but he hasn’t sued yet and recently declined to speak to a reporter about the case. Councilman John Perry, who sued with fellow Capistrano resident Jim Reardon, said he believes class-action firms don’t want the case because they can’t make enough money from it.

In court documents filed after the 2013 Superior Court ruling, Reardon and Perry’s lawyer, Ben Benumof, noted that the money owed to him – a Superior Court judge calculated it at $237,242 – exceeds the amount of money expected to be refunded to San Juan Capistrano ratepayers: about $150 per household for three years, which he called “a small return easily eclipsed by the attorney’s fees needed to prosecute the case on CTA’s behalf.”

The city has yet to pay Benumof anything. The City Council is to consider today how much to give him, Perry said.

Krogius calculated his request of $7,511.70 by subtracting the difference between the top tiers he paid – $11.67 – and the base rate that was the only non-tiered rate in place – $3.18.

But the court emphasized that tiers are still legal; it’s arbitrary tiers that are problematic.

San Juan Capistrano readjusted its rates in 2014 to greatly reduce the tiers, but they’re still in place – the top tier charge was slashed from $11.67 to $5.15; the bottom tier rose from $3.18 to $3.41. So theoretically, heavy water consumers like Krogius could still be charged more than the base rate. Just not as much as San Juan Capistrano originally charged.

And the court hasn’t said anything about refunds.

“It’s too amorphous,” said Larry Kramer, who served on the San Juan Capistrano City Council for four years before losing in the November election. “I couldn’t get an answer out of the city as to how it might work.”

There is, however, a checkmate possible in this game.

“Prop. 218 limits local government, not the state,” said Thomas J. Campbell, dean of Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law. “The Legislature could simply pass its own tiered-pricing law, trumping local units. The result would be a short-lived rebate to the plaintiffs, but a restoration of tiered pricing. It would not surprise me if Gov. Brown attempted such a step as part of his drought-relief package.”

Such a move would have to be uniform for all water agencies, he said – something like a surcharge on usage exceeding a predetermined level, with proceeds dedicated to a rebate for low- water users. That would avoid construing the state action as a tax increase, Campbell said.

Meanwhile, Krogius is scheduled to appear in court July 13 for his claim against San Juan Capistrano.

He decided to demand a refund after he and his wife, Kathleen, were turned down by City Hall staff. They’d paid huge water bills – sometimes upward of $800 a month – for their big home and lawn in San Juan Capistrano.

“We just thought it was the status quo and we had to live with it. And we did live with it,” Kathleen said.

They lived there for 16 years before moving to Cota de Caza earlier this year. They still recall receiving the first bill under the now illegal tiers, which were approved in February 2010.

“We couldn’t believe it when I got the first bill,” Kathleen said. “I thought it was a typo.”

https://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-662302-juan-san.html

Contact the writer: 949-492-5122, [email protected] or on Twitter: @meghanncuniff

Hangar Fire - "Without Litigation" - City of Tustin Already On the Hook for $90 Million in Clean-Up Costs - "Not Including the Actual Hangar Property" - and Heading for a Billion Dollars - Developers Likely Not Off the Hook Either - Property Value Assessments Undergoing Official Review - Ask Yourself - Would You Buy or Rent at the Tustin Legacy - Remember there's "Another" Hangar Too
Addicted? 1-800-662-HELP
URGENT REMINDER - if You're on Southern California Edison's - "Time to Fuck You" - "Electricity Rate Plan" - "Opt Out Now" - Call Today or Visit the Website - 1-800-810-2369