Voice of the People Save Grand TerraceVote for Measure C

Much has been made about the Grand Terrace City Council going behind the backs of its citizens in taking a series of actions that led to Measure “C” being placed on the November 2013 ballot. Nothing could be further from the truth. Once it determined its budget-cutting actions taken in FY 10–11 and 11–12 were not going to stave off insolvency, the Council established an Ad Hoc Budget Advisory Committee to assist it in charting a course of action that would keep Grand Terrace a financially viable municipality. Before appointing individual committee members, the Council conducted a very public application process and elected to appoint all 14 individuals who submitted applications and filed public Economic Disclosure Statements as part of this process. The Committee was comprised of the broadest of cross-sections of the community. The Council also determined the Committee would comply with California’s Open Meetings Law to ensure members of the public would be notified of Committee meetings and have an opportunity to attend Committee meetings scheduled for the public’s convenience. The Committee met eight times, including six regular meetings and two mandatory City Council Budget Workshop meetings. ALL of these meetings were properly noticed, open to the public and conducted in the early evening to ensure citizens could end their work day and attend the Committee’s meetings if desired. Many members of the public attended the Committee and City Council meetings regarding the city’s financial situation, including members of the opposition who have disseminated false and misleading information about the public nature of this process and the citizen input received as a result of the City Council’s outreach. Official minutes of the City Council and Ad Hoc Budget Advisory Committee document the statements and participation of the very people claiming the Council “has gone behind the backs of the people." These same folks would have you believe Grand Terrace’s financial situation is unique and the result of nefarious actions taken by Council and staff. Once again, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, many California cities have faced insolvency for a variety of reasons, including the state taking redevelopment money from cities and what is generally recognized as the deepest economic recession since the Great Depression. The chart below amplifies this last point even further: CITY POPULATION BANKRUPTCY (Y/N) San Bernardino 204,483 Y Stockton 290,409 Y Mammoth Lakes 7,254 Y Rialto 100,022 N Fairfield 106,440 N Atwater 27,369 N El Monte 126,308 N La Mirada 49,939 N Culver City 40,567 N Stanton 39,480 N Tehachapi 13,631 N Arvin 16,675 N Grand Terrace 12,150 N Adelanto 25,000 N After reviewing approximately 170 pages of financial documentation, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the Council the establishment of a Utility Users’ Tax. This unanimous vote included the vote of the person signing the ballot measure statement opposing Measure “C”! If the general public informs itself as well as the Ad Hoc Budget Advisory Committee, I have no doubt the community will vote for the passage of Measure “C” this coming November.