(October 17) So many things are happening in fashion this fall. There’s a cutting edge in the fashion world, and coming back in style  is grunge. This weekend I was in the city of Los Angeles and there’s always a vanguard of Angelenos setting the next trend. This time it wasn’t elegant that rocked but grunge. The revival of grunge is under way and with it comes the cuffed jeans, tights, and plaid shirts. It is a very rocky look, adding big black felt hats, baby doll dresses in granny prints, and biker jackets which are great for the weather. The granny print dresses are adorable and straight from London, too. It’s all a bit shocking in the fashion world. Forget about high fashion, and dress in grunge!  The fashion world has  definitely revived grunge. Interestingly it’s become alive in Los Angeles, spilling over into San Bernardino County. This is a very interesting time in fashion. Here’s to the revival of grunge in California. Keep free falling, because grunge is back.

“I’m the mold that grunge was grown in.”  -Townes Van Zandt

(October 11) A controversy has developed involving  Upland Assistant Public Works Director Acquanetta Warren and her participation in recommending an extension and revision of Upland’s trash hauling franchise contract.
At issue is that in addition to being Upland’s assistant public works director, Warren is also the mayor of Fontana. Fontana, like Upland,  has a longstanding franchise arrangement with Burrtec Waste Industries for the provision of refuse service.  Burrtec and its principals and employees collectively are one of Warren’s major political supporters in terms of donations to her various campaign funds, including those relating to her city council, mayoral and Assembly runs. And while under California law Warren is free to vote and support Burrtec with regard to the city of Fontana’s franchising of the company,  provisions of the California Political Reform Act which are now part of the state’s government code prohibit her from engaging in any governmental  decision making process involving the waste handling company outside of her elected capacity in Fontana.

Acquanetta Warren

Thus, in making statements to the Upland  Finance Committee on September 30 in her capacity as assistant public works director that were generally interpreted as a recommendation that the city extend Burrtec’s contract for at least another 15 years and in so doing confer upon that company a contract with a total value  in the neighborhood of $150 million, Warren appears to have run afoul of Government Code Section 87100, pertaining to conflicts of interest involving public officials.
Since 2000, Burrtec has had a franchise within the city of Upland for the hauling of trash. In 2001, Burrtec obtained a $17 million per year contract with the county of San Bernardino to run its landfill system. Shortly thereafter, the company had landed trash hauling franchises in 16 of the county’s 24 incorporated cities and 35 of its unincorporated communities, putting Burrtec literally and figuratively at the top of the trash hauling heap in the county.
In 2004, Burrtec, after extensive dialogue with then-Upland mayor John Pomierski, altered its franchise contract with Upland to put in place a so-called “evergreen” clause, which renewed the franchise contract for seven years every year unless Upland gave notice it wanted to rebid the contract, in which case the franchise would then have six years to run. In 2007, Pomierski again huddled with Burrtec executives and  and then-Upland city manager Robb Quincey, and altered the  franchise contract to provide for revenue sharing on recyclable conversion and retrofit Burrtec’s Upland operation with newer vehicles and trash bins.
In April of this year, the county board of supervisors, upon the recommendation of county public works director Gerry Newcombe, elected against renewing the landfill management contract with Burrtec, instead going with Los Angeles County-based Athens Services. While Burrtec remains a major player in the San Bernardino County waste industry, the loss of the landfill contract was a significant one. At the corporate level, Burrtec began casting about for a strategy to maintain its profitability into the coming decades.
Part of that strategy is to consolidate and extend for as long as possible its existing franchises. An early major test of that strategy is now playing out in the city of Upland. In May, Burrtec executive vice president Michael Arreguin wrote a letter to Upland Public Works Director Rosemary Hoerning, proposing a franchise contract revision that called for the company taking on the additional  responsibility for  recycling, paying the city a vehicle weight fee to offset the cost of repairs to the city’s streets necessitated by the weight of Burrtec’s trucks, providing street sweeping throughout the city, and offering household hazardous disposal as well as medical waste disposal to its Upland customers. As part of the revision, Burrtec asked that the city allow it to increase the rate it charges Upland’s customers by 7.2 percent for the remainder of 2013-14; another 2.1 percent in July 2014; 2.1 percent in July 2015; 2.3 percent in July 2016; and 2.4 percent in 2017. Increases beyond that would be tied to the Consumer Price Index. Perhaps the most significant change the company requested was the extension of the evergreen term by eight years from seven to fifteen years, thus ensuring that Burrtec will remain as Upland’s trash hauler at least until 2028.
As public works director, Hoerning was ultimately responsible for analyzing the Burrtec proposal and making a recommendation on it to city manager Stephen Dunn. Because of her heavy workload, however, Hoerning begged off on that assignment. Logically, responsibility for the analysis would have next fallen to Warren, as Hoerning’s top assistant. Warren, however, possibly because of her relationship with Burrtec as mayor in Fontana and a recipient of at least $11,578 in campaign contributions from that company  or its principals over the years, was not given the assignment either. Instead, Dunn, using his authority to spend up to $50,000 per vendor without prior city council approval, hired Northern California-based R3 Consulting Services to evaluate the Burrtec proposal.
R3 returned a report that highlighted the benefits of Burrtec’s revised franchise contract proposal, and Hoerning, without seeking outside bids or any further input, then cited R3’s endorsement of the concept in making a staff recommendation that the city council approve the revision and extension. As one of the final parts of the vetting procedure, the revision was scheduled to come before the city council’s finance committee, consisting of councilmen Glenn Bozar and Brendan Brandt. Brandt, however, has indicated he will abstain from voting on the matter because his law firm has done work for Athens Services, one of  Burrtec’s competitors, resulting in a conflict of interest. Thus, when the committee considered the revision on September 30, councilwoman Debbie Stone, as the alternate member of the finance committee, substituted for Brandt.
Present at the September 30 committee meeting was Arreguin,  who laid out and touted his company’s revision proposal. City staff present included Dunn, Hoerning and Warren, as well as elected city treasurer Dan Morgan. Stone found Arrequin’s presentation, the R3 report and the recommendations by Dunn and Hoerning persuasive, indicating she was amenable to voting as a member of the committee to recommend that the entire council approve the franchise contract revision as Burrtec has presented it. She said Burrtec’s past performance and the familiarity of its personnel with Upland and its routes convinced her that keeping Burrtec in place was in the city’s interest.
Bozar, however, proved to be a much harder sell and said he was not in favor of the 15-year evergreen clause, which he said would have the immediate practical effect of conferring upon Burrtec a franchise contract that would have a total contract value approaching  $150 million over the next 15 years, while creating a situation in which the franchise would remain in effect for at least 28 years unchecked by any competitive bidding process for that entire length of time. He indicated he wanted to explore revising the franchise contract to remove the evergreen clause altogether.
In the go-round that ensued, city staff restated the case for the city retaining Burrtec and approving its franchise contract revisal as presented, including input by Warren, in which she commended Burrtec for the efforts it has made in improving the level of trash service in Upland and responding to her own requests and those of other city officials in taking care of problems and difficulties that have cropped up during its tenure as the city’s trash hauler.
It was this advocacy by Warren on behalf of Burrtec that has created the current controversy.
According to California Government Code Section 87100, “No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his/her official position to influence a governmental decision in which (s)he knows or has reason to know (s)he has a financial interest.”
Gov. Code Section  87103 (e) states “A public official has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of Section 87100 if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official, a member of his or her immediate family, or… any donor of, or any intermediary or agent for a donor of, a gift or gifts aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in value provided to, received by, or promised to the public official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made.”
According to the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s website, “If a public official has a conflict of interest, the official may be required to disqualify himself or herself from making or participating in a governmental decision, or using his or her official position to influence or attempt to influence a governmental decision.”
The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) makes further reference to California Government Code Section 84308 in pointing out that governmental officials serving in an appointed governmental position are subject to greater restrictions than are elected officials with regard to influencing or voting upon issues impacting a campaign donor.
“In most cases, the receipt of campaign contributions is not the basis for disqualification by a public official,” the FPPC website states. “However, certain public officials who make decisions in proceedings involving licenses, permits, or other entitlements for use (e.g., planning commissioners, board members of joint powers authorities and other regional governing or planning agencies, and members of other state and local boards and commissions) are subject to the restrictions of Gov. Code Section 84308. Section 84308 prohibits solicitation or receipt of campaign contributions from parties, participants, or their agents, in proceedings involving licenses, permits, or other entitlements for use. The law also requires an official’s disqualification in those proceedings if the official has received campaign contributions of more than $250 from a party or participant within the 12 months preceding the decision. Finally, Section 84308 requires disclosure of such campaign contributions.”
The website further states, “Elected state officers, judges, and members of local government agencies who are directly elected by the voters (e.g., board of supervisors, city council, school board) are exempt from Section 84308 when they are acting as members of the agency to which they are elected. However, if one of these individuals is also a voting member of another nonexempt body, such as a joint powers agency or regional planning agency, he or she is covered by the law with respect to license, permit or other entitlement for use proceedings before the nonexempt body. For example, if three city councilmembers and two county supervisors sit on a city-county joint powers authority, Section 84308 applies to the license, permit or other entitlement for use proceedings before the joint powers authority because the officials were not elected directly to the authority. It does not apply to the officials when they are voting on matters before the city council or board of supervisors.”
While Warren is not a voting member of the Upland Finance and Economic Development Committee, as an appointed (i.e., hired) member of city staff, she does and has supplied information to the committee and city council to inform their decision making process and thus has served “to influence a governmental decision” as is prohibited in Government Code Section 87100.
Warren may also have failed to meet the reporting burden in Government Code Section 84308. In her statement of economic interest, known as a California Form 700, on file with the Upland city clerk’s office, she made no disclosure of the campaign donations she has received from Burrtec.
When contacted by the Sentinel, Warren said she would not respond to questions relating to the Burrtec contract extension proposal or her role in making recommendations related to it. Nor would she discuss her understanding of the restrictions Government Code Section 87100 places upon her in her professional capacity in Upland as a consequence of the political contributions she has received as an elected official.
“I’m not making any comment, sorry,” she said. “You’ll have to speak to Rosemary [Hoerning] about that.”
Hoerning told the Sentinel that the ultimate decision with regard to Burrtec’s franchise contract revision proposal will be made not at the staff level but by the city council.
“That is a policy question that is being placed before the city for their final decision,” she said.
Hoerning acknowledged there were elements of the proposal that were advantageous to Burrtec, in particular the 15-year evergreen clause, but that this was offset by benefits to the city and its ratepayers.
“That is a long period of time but Burrtec’s proposal has provisions that have merit and are of value to the residents of Upland,” she said. “The contract involves limitations on the rate structure and it imposes a maximum increase cap that will protect the ratepayers.”
Hoerning said she could not speak to whether Warren had violated any parts of the government code.
“I am not familiar at all with  the restrictions placed on her as a consequence of her political leadership role with any other agencies,” Hoerning said. “She works on our staff with responsibilities related to the city of Upland’s public works function. I did not rely upon her in making my recommendation. I am relying primarily upon what the city’s consultant, R3, determined, which is that the city should extend the contract. That is what I am recommending to the city council independent of her, along with the city manager. [Burrtec] provides service rates that are below or comparable to what the costs are in other cities, by my review.”
The Sentinel has learned that less than a week after the September 30 Upland Finance and Economic Development Committee meeting, on October 5 Warren hosted a fundraiser for the Fontana Boys and Girls Club, billed as the “Mayor’s Ball.” Burrtec was a major sponsor of that event.
Upland Mayor Ray Musser was non-committal in his response to questions about his city’s assistant public works director’s involvement in a decision making process that has allegedly been tainted by her receipt of money from the company  seeking a lucrative contract extension from the city. Nor would he offer his personal assessment of whether Warren’s recommendation at the September 30 meeting was a violation of Government Code Section 871000.
“The city attorney is looking into that,” he said.

(October 10) Judith Oakes’ theft of Rialto Unified School District lunch money was so substantial, according to investigators, that once she had begun she could not stop because to do so would have given indication of her past thefts.

Judith Oakes

More than two months after her arrest by Rialto Police, Oakes was charged by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office on October 8 with eight counts of embezzlement by a public or private officer and eight counts of a public officer crime.
Officials believe an audit has confirmed that Oakes, who was an accountant for the district overseeing the school lunch program for nearly 14 years, stole more than $1.8 million since 2005.
According to investigator Jeff Stewart, who was hired by the district to look into the thefts, it is likely that Oakes stole more than $3.1 million since 1999. On top of the $1.8 million in cash Oakes is now documented as having taken in the past eight years, another $1.3 million is unaccounted for in the years between 1999, the year Oakes is believed to have begun her depredations, and 2005. The examination of the disappearance of district money prior to 2005 was less rigorous because those crimes fall outside the statute of limitations.
Oakes was married to Jack Oakes, an educator who eventually rose to the position of school principal in the San Bernardino City Unified School District. In the mid-1990s, Judith Oakes was working as an accountant at the Bank of Redlands, which is now known as Community Bank.
In 1997, she went to work in the Rialto Unified School District as an accountant. Eventually, she was given virtually unfettered oversight of the cash receipts from the district’s school lunch program. Not only did she oversee the crew that had physical custody of the money, she was given ultimate accounting authority over the funds.
Beginning in 1999, Oakes began pilfering roughly $4,000 a week from the batches of bills collected and processed by the district’s money-counting machines prior to bank deposit. Having begun the thefts, it seems Oakes was obliged to continue stealing approximately the same amount of money every week – an average of between $4,100 and $4,300 weekly – so that the pattern of thefts would remain undetected.
According to Stewart, sometime after she was put in charge of the staff counting and bundling the lunch money and then depositing it into a school district account and after she had begun her thefts, Oakes was entrusted with security arrangements in the office where the money was counted, as well as the loss control procedure devised for the money counting function. “The [district nutrition] department has a money-counting machine that counts bills, and informs workers when there’s enough to ‘strap’ into batches,” Stewart said. “Ms. Oakes was involved with the installation of the camera system and was aware of what areas in the room were visible to it,” according to Stewart.
Oakes engaged in two levels of sleight-of-hand in first secreting the money she took out of the money counting room and then obfuscating the books that tallied the lunch receipts district-wide.
In the first instance, according to Stewart, “Oakes reportedly would bind the bills up at the back counter of the room, rather than on the table next to the computer, where she couldn’t be seen on camera. Ms. Oakes would then quite frequently take a strap or two of twenty-dollar bills or other denominations and stuff them down her top after checking to make sure the person at the computer was not looking.”
Oakes, who had an overview all of the money flowing in from all of the district’s schools, at which a total of  26,408 students are now enrolled, would then provide falsified deposit slips after the money was bundled and ready for deposit. Oakes overcame the scrutiny of the district staff member responsible for reconciling the bank statements with the district’s deposits by falsifying a spreadsheet which she substituted for ledgers containing entries related to the checks and cash collected from each school.
On occasion, it appears, some staff members noted inconsistencies and irregularities with regard to the total amount of money counted and the amount deposited, but Oakes was able to use her position and authority to override any questions and staff  members did not, at least until relatively late, make an effort to report those irregularities out of fear of getting on Oakes’ bad side.
The roughly $210,000 Oakes was stealing from the district yearly augmented an already very comfortable $190,000 yearly household income she and her husband pulled down. Jack Oakes, who had ascended to the position of principal at Ramona-Alessandro Elementary School, made $119,771 during the 2009-2010 school year. Judith was making over $70,000 at that time.
In April 2010, Jack Oakes was severely injured in an off-roading accident in the desert and died of a trauma-induced heart attack.
After her husband’s death, Judith Oakes continued the thefts from the district she had previously been engaged in for over a decade. By the end of 2011, it is believed that she had begun a relationship with Harold Cebrun, who had been superintendent in the Compton and Lynwood school districts prior to being hired as superintendent with the Rialto district in March 2009.
In May, discrepancies with regard to the receipt and depositing of district lunch money was suspected. Video cameras showing perspectives from different angles than those Oakes had previously established were installed in the money counting room unbeknownst to Oakes and Cebrun. She was caught on video stuffing money into her brazier on at least two occasions.
When she was arrested on August 7, Oakes had two packets of $2,000 in $20 bills in her possession. More packets were found at her San Bernardino home later when it was searched pursuant to a warrant. Oakes made incriminating statements to police officers, characterized as a confession. She immediately posted $50,000 bond and was released.  She resigned her post on August 8. While the Superior Court’s on-line record shows that a case – number 1308340790 – had been opened against Oakes involving a single charge of PC 459 filed against her on August 12 and that a $50,000 bond had been deposited in conjunction with case 1308340790, the action notation for the following day, August 13, reports that the district attorney was notified but that no case was filed, a seeming contradiction to the previous reference of a PC 459 charge. PC 459 refers to burglary.
That confusion was rendered moot this week, with the 16 charges filed against her. Her bail was raised to $1.8 million, the amount of money she is alleged to have stolen. She was immediately whisked into custody at her arraignment in Fontana Superior Court on October 9 and she remains at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga.

(October 10) JOSHUA TREE — The Hi-Desert Medical Center, a nonprofit 59-bed acute primary care hospital that is the primary provider of health services in the Morongo Basin, took on another leadership role late last month when it initiated operation of what is the Morongo Basin’s first wastewater treatment plant outside of Twentynine Palms.
At the initiative of the health care district, the medical center entered into a partnership with the Joshua Basin Water District for the construction and operation of the plant. Originally budgeted as a $2.4 million project, the contractor, Twentynine Palms-based Van Dyke Pipeline Contracting, completed the project at roughly $200,000 under budget. The water district, which supervised the project, obtained permits and licensing for the undertaking. The Morongo Basin Health Care District is picking up the entire cost, construction and operational, of what is dubbed the  Joshua Basin Treatment Plant No. 1.
Located on the east side of White Feather Road, it is capable of handling the current 52,000 to 73,000 gallons of effluent currently discharged per day from the hospital and the nearby Continuing Care Center. It will be able to expand to process the 104,000 to 146,000 gallons of wastewater  per day that it is anticipated will flow from the hospital after its scheduled 23,500-square-foot expansion.
Pipes carry the effluent to the facility’s holding tanks, separators, equalization basin, sludge pre-thickener pumps, and then to the bioreactor and accompanying blowers. In the bioreactor, microorganisms feed on the sludge to break down the sewage, at which point it undergoes further processing and filtration.
The plant provides a model, at both the physical/operational and administrative/financial levels, for the town of Yucca Valley. In Yucca Valley, where the population has grown to 20,700, the entire town and its population utilize septic systems. According to the United States Geological Survey, 880 acre-feet of septic discharge currently reaches the groundwater below the town every year. According to the USGS,  nitrates are accumulating beneath Yucca Valley in ever increasing concentrations and at depths that pose a threat to the groundwater. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the state agency responsible for protecting water quality, adopted a resolution identifying the town of Yucca Valley as one of 66 communities throughout the state with groundwater threatened by the continuing overuse of septic systems. The board further declared Yucca Valley as a top priority for eliminating the use of septic systems, meaning Yucca Valley’s is one of the five most seriously threatened water supplies in the state. After local officials resisted taking immediate action and refused to impose any kind of building or development moratorium that would stabilize the problem, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Hi-Desert Water District in 2011 forged a memorandum of agreement to allow the city to continue to issue interim permits for new septic systems while imposing state-mandated  septic discharge prohibitions due to be triggered as of May 19, 2016. Under that mandate, phase 1 of a wastewater system must be completed or significantly on its way to completion by that date or the state will initiate enforcement action. The first phase of the project is to cover the downtown area of Yucca Valley, the area most proximate to the heart of the groundwater basin.  Similarly, phase 2 must be completed or nearly completed by May 19, 2019 and phase 3 must be completed by May 19, 2022. The last two phases lie further out where future concentrated development is most likely to occur.
With the May 19, 2016 deadline looming, the Hi-Desert Water District is pushing for the creation of a financing mechanism to pay for the water treatment system, consisting of a municipal sized treatment plant and over 400,000 linear feet of pipe.
Officials believe the system can be built for $125 million. One analysis is that each Yucca Valley  parcel’s share in the debt burden for the creation of the sewer system would be $16,700.
If the $125 million cost of the project could be defrayed over 30 years, households in Yucca Valley would be called upon to pay between $20 and $40 per month for sewer service, according to one calculation.

(October 10) What is known as the 303 Building, which has served as an adjunct to the county’s historic central downtown courthouse for much of the last decade, will be adapted to become the new headquarters for the district attorney’s office  when the new central county courthouse is completed.
The county board of supervisors, which had previously committed $1 million toward making that conversion, this week increased the conversion project budget by $5,300,000 to $6.3 million.
According to Carl Alban, the director of the county’s architecture and engineering division, “The 303 Building is currently occupied by the district attorney on the upper two floors, public defender on the ground level floor, and state courts for courtrooms and administrative space in the remaining five floors. Upon completion of the new State Justice Center located at the southeast corner of W. Third Street and Arrowhead Avenue, court operations will no longer be conducted in the 303 Building.”
Alban said his division is proposing “the demolition and remodel of the areas occupied by the state courts to provide needed office space to relocate DA personnel and operations from multiple locations throughout San Bernardino to a central location as established by the county buildings acquisition and retrofit project implementation plan. This project will also include parking improvements to increase the number of parking spaces from 177 spaces to approximately 300 spaces by the addition of a parking deck over the existing parking lot. Dedicated parking will help to minimize parking burdens created by increased vehicle loads generated by the State Justice Center and Superblock Master Plan, as well as maximize district attorney personnel parking within close proximity to offices and courts.”
According to Alban, “The revised project budget of $6,300,000 is comprised of the following components: project management and inspection costs of $360,000; construction costs of $5,400,000; and a construction contingency of $540,000. The funding source is discretionary general funding approved by the board of supervisors as part of the county buildings acquisition and retrofit project in the 2012-13 and 2013-14 capital improvement program budgets.”
The board of supervisors authorized Alban to release a design-build pre-qualification package, which Alban said will allow the project costs to be identified much earlier in the process; allow design and construction activities to be performed concurrently, reducing the amount of time required to complete the project, and allowing building occupancy at the earliest possible date; reduce the project cost as a result of the close working relationship between the designer and the construction contractor; the incorporation of efficient and economical construction methods into the design; and eliminate disputes and the need for dispute resolution between the design and construction contractor, resulting in the reduction of the likelihood of  litigation and contract modifications.
“The purpose of the pre-qualification package  for the selection of a design-build contractor for this project is to solicit preliminary information from interested design-build contractors,” Alban said. The information submitted will be evaluated by a committee that includes representatives from the county administrative office, district attorney’s office, and architecture and engineering. The evaluation process is intended to identify three design-build firms who, in the opinion of the county, are best qualified to execute successfully the design and construction of the project based on the criteria identified in the pre-qualification package.
Following selection of the three finalists, architecture & engineering staff will return to the board to seek approval to proceed on to the second step of the procurement process. The second step will provide significantly more detail regarding the project requirements and expectations, allowing the three design-build contractors to submit a best and final proposal. The selection of the successful design-build contractor, Alban said, will be based on “best value,” as determined by the evaluation committee.

(October 10) The county board of supervisors has signed off on granting franchise extensions to eight separate entities operating water pipeline systems at various spots throughout the county.
In each case, the eight companies had previous consent to operate their respective systems to transport water in the county rights-of-way. In all of those cases, the franchise agreements were approved and entered into in 1998, and all are set to expire on November 20, 2013.
In September  the board of supervisors adopted resolutions declaring the board’s intent to grant  franchises to the Center Mutual Water Company, the Jubilee Mutual Water Company, the Terrace Mutual Water Company, the Bar-H Mutual Water company, the Sky Forest Mutual Water Company, the Crystal Lakes Property Owners Association, the Baseline Gardens Mutual Water Company and the Alpine Water Users Association to operate  pipeline systems to transport water in county of San Bernardino public rights-of-way for the period from December 19, 2013 through December 18, 2028.
Center operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area of Lucerne Valley. The pipeline system consists of approximately 4,374 feet in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Lucerne Valley area.
Jubilee operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area of Lucerne Valley. The pipeline system consists of approximately 246 feet in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Lucerne Valley area.
Terrace operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area of Colton. The pipeline system consists of approximately 28,286.74 feet in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Colton area.
Bar-H operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area of Lucerne Valley. The pipeline system consists of approximately 6,600 feet in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Lucerne Valley area.
Sky Forest Mutual Water Company operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated community of Sky Forest. The pipeline system consists of approximately 11,245 feet (2.13 miles) in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Sky Forest area.
The Crystal Lakes Property Owners Association operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area of  Newberry Springs. The pipeline system consists of  approximately 500 feet in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Newberry Springs area.
Baseline Gardens Mutual Water Company operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area near the city of Highland. The pipeline system consists of approximately 11,880 feet (2.25 miles) in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the San Bernardino/Highland area.
The Alpine Water Users Association operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area of Twin Peaks. The pipeline system consists of approximately 52,246 feet (9.9 miles) in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Twin Peaks area.
In accordance with County Code Section 14.0701, the county is authorized to grant franchises along and over public roads and rights-of-way for all lawful purposes, upon such terms, conditions and restrictions as deemed necessary and proper. In general, a franchise is an agreement between a municipality and a utility or cable provider that outlines requirements that must be met in order for the utility or cable provider to use the municipality’s public right-of-way.
There will be a roughly one month delay between the expiration of the current franchises and the official continuation of the new ones. The delay in presenting a recommendation to the board to approve a new franchise agreement resulted from internal county administrative delays. The entities will continue to operate their pipelines in the county road rights-of-way and have made all franchise payments in full and on time.
The franchise fees made to the county by the separate entities correspond to some degree but not absolutely in rough proportion to the linear feet of public right-of-way used for the pipelines in question.
Jubillee will pay franchise fees of approximately $12 annually.
Terrace Mutual will pay franchise fees of approximately $6,800 annually.
Bar H will pay franchise fees to the county of approximately $200 annually.
Sky Forest Mutual will pay franchise fees to the county of approximately $700 annually.
Crystal Lakes will pay franchise fees to the county of approximately $60 annually
Baseline Gardens Mutual will pay franchise fees to the county of approximately $7,000 annually

(October 10) The county will buy 450 bulletproof vests for the probation department at a total cost of $150,522.
In making the purchase upon the recommendation of chief probation officer Michelle Scray Brown and deputy chief probation administrator Scott Frymire, the board of supervisors agreed to go with the high bidder for the provision of the vests, based upon Brown and Frymires’ conclusion that the company’s product offered advantages other vests do not.
According to Frymire, “The department determined that due to an increase in equipment that probation officers are now carrying on their person, an additional load bearing device was needed. After extensive consultation, it was decided that a load-bearing ballistic vest cover would be the most effective and practical way of addressing this need. The vest covers being recommended for purchase will allow a probation officer to retain immediate access to his/her equipment and thereby enhance personal safety.”
In May, the department solicited bids from Lawndale-based The Vest Man, Prescott, Arizona-based ProForce Law Enforcement and BPS Tactical, Inc., which is based in Mentone, asking them to provide samples of their load bearing vests for testing and the accompanying costs for 450 of the items.
The Vest Man was the low bidder at $112,039. ProForce Law Enforcement bid $123,730. BPS Tactical, Inc.’s bid came in at $150,522
“After a department review group conducted an extensive review and field testing of the offered products, BPS Tactical, Inc. was selected as the preferred vendor due to the superiority of their product, excellent warranty, individualized fit, and the customer service offered,” Frymire told the board of supervisors. “While BPS Tactical, Inc. is the most expensive of the three vendors, its cost is a reflection of the superior quality of the product. These vest covers are expected to last for a minimum of five years.”
BPS also offers the advantage of being located within San Bernardino County.

(October 10) In an operation rife with far reaching implications, the Orange County District Attorney’s office, assisted by Orange County Sheriff’s Department detectives and officers, served a search warrant at the Upland law office of the now-dissolving law firm of Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir.
Investigators carted off scores of boxes full of documents and other materials after descending upon the Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir Building, located at 367 N 2nd Avenue in Upland.
Officers and district attorney’s office investigators and personnel were observed at the offices mid-morning on October 10. Despite the open display of law enforcement activity in San Bernardino County, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office was tight-lipped with regard to the operation.
“We are not confirming that activity took place or that we are involved in it,” said Susan Kang Schroeder, the chief of staff to Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.
Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir employed several attorneys who had formerly served as police officers and the firm specialized in representing police officers and their unions in labor related actions, contract negotiations, disciplinary actions, firings, reinstatements and criminal defense.
The firm had established a reputation for fierce representation of its clients, who often obtained favorable outcomes in their respective legal and procedural matters.
Last year, however, things began to unwind for the firm, culminating ultimately in a decision in August to disband it.
As tense contract negotiations were proceeding in 2012 between the city of Costa Mesa and the Costa Mesa Police Association, the Lackie Dammeier firm, which represented the union, advised members to step up pressure on the city’s elected leadership. Shortly thereafter, a private investigator under retainer by Lackie Dammeier, Christopher Lanzillo, began tailing members of the Costa Mesa City Council. On August 22, 2012, Lanzillo followed Costa Mesa Mayor Jim Righeimer to a bar, Skosh Monahan’s, owned by another city councilman, Gary Monahan. Lanzillo followed Righeimer after he left Skosh Monahan’s as the mayor drove home, and en route called 911 to report Righeimer was drunk and driving erratically. When police came to Righeimer’s home, they found that he appeared sober but subjected him to a field sobriety test, which he passed. Righeimer subsequently produced a time and date-stamped credit card receipt for two Diet Cokes he had consumed while at Skosh Monahan’s. Information then emerged that the police association had also been seeking, at Lackie Dammeier’s suggestion, to entrap Monahan and another council member, Steve Mensinger.
Soon thereafter, the Costa Mesa Police Association ended its relationship with Lackie Dammeier but not before other Orange County municipal officials, including city council members from Buena Park, Fullerton and Irvine, came forward to tell how the Upland-based firm and its clients engaged in efforts to harass them as they headed into elections and contract negotiations with their cities’ police unions, which were represented by Lackie Dammeier.
So brazen was the law firm in its pro-police union strategies that it posted on its website a political activity playbook that advised police unions on how to intimidate and twist the arms of politicians and lobby the public in a way that associates police pay raises with higher levels of public safety. In the brouhaha that ensued, Lackie Dammeier removed that posting.
While the firm represented hundreds of associations and officers from around California, its major client was the Peace Officers Research Association of California, a statewide legal defense fund for law enforcement officers. Over the last several years, Lackie Dammeier had won several notable cases for the organization, known by its acronym PORAC, and was considered the organization’s most potent legal tool.
But in August of this year, PORAC, which has 99,000 members culled from the ranks of law enforcement agencies up and down the state, informed its members that improprieties were found in Lackie Dammeier’s billing practices. The firm, PORAC said, had  charged 4,200 hours in one year for a single attorney, averaging 11.5 hours per day for every day of the year.
Shortly thereafter, PORAC dropped Lackie Dammeier as one of its legal representatives. Within two weeks of that development, the firm announced that it was dissolving, although its attorneys continued to work on the cases it was handling. Several of the firm’s lawyers signed on to work with other firms. In the meantime, the firm remained active, and continued to function out of the 367 N 2nd Avenue location.
While no official explanation of the purpose of the Orange County District Attorney’s Office’s raid was forthcoming, it is widely believed the search was an outgrowth of the firm’s activity on behalf of the Costa Mesa Police Association and other police unions. The district attorney’s office has previously obtained search warrants and subpoenas to further its investigation into the tactics used against Costa Mesa politicians.
The raid of the Lackie Dammeier office by a law enforcement agency is of special sensitivity, given that attorney-client privilege extends to all range of legal documents and communications between lawyers and those who hire them and that many of the cases handled by the firm pertain to criminal charges, potential criminal charges or disputes between the firm’s clients and law enforcement agencies and their managements.
When she was reached by the Sentinel while investigators were still at the law office, law firm partner Sakunthala  Ethirveerasingam, who goes by the professional name of Saku Ethir, said, “We just don’t have any comment right now.”

(October 10) By Ruth Musser-Lopez
Our county is graced from east to west with old precious railroad gems in the form of magnificent historic structures financed by railroad corporations to serve as depots and service stops as well as destination points along its rail lines.  Here in San Bernardino County we know how to take to the extreme the Mediterranean romantic architectural splendor with parapets, arches, colonnades and red roof tiles, maximizing that exotic flair that one would expect on the Spanish Riviera or in a Moroccan oasis.   In Spain, castles exemplify the grandeur of romantic architectural style; in San Bernardino County it’s our railroad stations and depots that serve as the bulwark of our vintage romantic structural design knowhow.
In Spain, Moorish influence is found at its southern boundaries at the enchanting Alhambra Palace of Granada.  Here, our county seat holds the claim to one of the crown jewels of precious railroad gems near its western entry. This enchanting gateway, the 1918 San Bernardino County Station was designed in the Mission Revival Style with Moorish Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival features which add to its magnificence and complexity. The structure served as the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (ATSF) Railroad depot with additions of living quarters and a Harvey House added a few years later, replacing the 1886 two-and-a-half-story wooden structure that burnt down in a 1916 fire. Construction was made at the behest of San Bernardino local politicians to replace what preceded it on a much larger scale…and it came at greater expense.  Previous to 1886, a converted boxcar served as the depot so obviously, big strides had been made to return some railroad capital into San Bernardino County since the California Southern Railroad’s cross-continent route was bridged to the Pacific in 1884.
The new station designed by architect W. A. Mohr was built at a cost of $800,000, which adjusts to $12 million or so today, although it is doubtful such a triumphant edifice could be built for that sum now.   It was at the time the largest railway station west of the Mississippi River.   Including hollow clay blocks within its walls, a red tile roof and stucco exterior, the new depot was fashioned to withstand fire.  High beams, coffered ceilings and decorative column capitals all were handcrafted and a 330-foot arcade extended between the depot and the tracks. (http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/about/santa-fe_depot.html)
Unfortunately however, as is the case of any structure not properly maintained, the 1918 architectural centerpiece began to fall into decline.  Through a $15.1 million acquisition and rehabilitation effort shared by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the City of San Bernardino, the Santa Fe Depot was acquired by SANBAG in 1992, restoration began in 2004 and today the fine “county gate” has been restored to its former beauty.  Since June of 2004, SANBAG has been occupying and reusing offices upstairs in the depot located at 1170 W. 3rd Street, between Mt. Vernon Avenue and I Avenue, west of Interstate 215.
In 1908, ten years earlier than the new Harvey House in San Bernardino was built, a “Crown Jewel” had been constructed on the east gate of San Bernardino County; in Needles the “El Garces” named after the Spanish padre/explorer, had put the old wood structure depot in the county seat to shame.  Originally used as the Santa Fe Depot and Harvey House restaurant and hotel in historic downtown Needles, it was built by the Fred Harvey Company on contract with the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad.  The hotel was designed by architect Francis W. Wilson in an elegant Neoclassical and Beaux-Arts style and was considered to be the supreme “Crown Jewel” of the entire Fred Harvey chain.   After construction of Route 66 was completed in the 1920s, passenger traffic on the Santa Fe drastically declined and even though the traffic on Route 66 passed by the station, the restaurant and hotel were closed permanently by 1949.
Afterward, the original imported Italian tiles and chandeliers, along with other precious appurtenances, furnishings and fixtures “disappeared” over the years.  The structure fell into disrepair; rooms were trashed by squatters or given over to bats, rats and pigeons.  In 1988 Amtrak stopped using the station and the Santa Fe made plans to demolish it. The city of Needles, however, stepped in to purchase the property and building in the 1990s.  When restoration was considered, the only financially feasible alternative seemed to be initial gutting and cleanup.  As of 2002, it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Some restoration and reconstruction of the historic El Garces began in 2007, by the owners of another historic hotel, the La Posada, in Arizona.
Work seems to be intermittent as funding is available, though it is starting to “come around” in appearance with new paint and the prospects look promising for new glass window treatments soon.  An injection of new funds, perhaps a little more help from SANBAG, wouldn’t hurt.

(October 10) The Coyote (Canis latrans) is found throughout most of California, ranging from the low desert and valley areas to the highest mountain elevations. It proliferates in the foothills of San Bernardino County and often ventures into civilization, usually at night, seeking prey. The most common coyotes in San Bernardino County are  the C. l. clepticus, known as the San Pedro Martir coyote and the C. l. ochropus, known as the  California Valley coyote.
Referred to as the “little wolf,” coyotes resemble a medium sized shepherd type dog in many respects but feature large erect ears, a narrow muzzle and yellow eyes. The tail is round and bushy and is carried straight out below the back. Coyotes typically grow to 30–34 inches in length, not counting a tail of 12–16 inches, stand about 23–26 inches at the shoulder and weigh from 15–46 pounds.
Coyote coloration varies from grayish, tawny brown with a black tip on the tail in the low desert and valley areas to gray with white under parts in the highest elevations. Coyotes are intelligent and facile creatures with exceptional senses of smell, vision and hearing.
Coyotes are active at dusk, night and predawn and have a distinctive vocalization, which consists of various howls, high quivering cries and frenzied high pitched yapping. There are two howling seasons, January/February when breeding season starts and September/October when females are calling to their pups. Pups are ready to hunt on their own in the fall of the year of their birth and will relocate 5 to 10 miles from their parents’ range. The mortality rate for juvenile coyotes is 50% to 70% . Adults typically live 3-5 years. It is estimated 30% to 50% of the adult population dies each year. Coyotes compensate by breeding younger and having larger litters.
A coyote’s range varies  to 30 square miles. They become highly territorial and range far less as the local coyote population increases and there is fierce competition among them for food, water and shelter.
The absence of prey can factor into a smaller litter size. Fewer females will breed when there is a scarcity of food. Coyotes are opportunistic carnivores, feasting on whatever is available, including meat, fish, poultry, rodents, reptiles, insects, vegetables or fruit. They will kill to assuage their appetites but will feed on carrion, or domesticated pets when available. They will dig through trash and gorge on pet food.
A coyote’s sense of smell, vision and hearing allows it to live in rural areas and at the periphery of suburban area without being detected by humans.
Coyote can carry rabies and tularemia, diseases that can be transmitted to man and domestic pets. Specific canine diseases such as distemper and canine hepatitis can travel both ways, putting both coyotes and domestic pets at risk. Parasites that are carried by coyotes include mites, ticks, fleas, worms and flukes. Heartworm is the most important endoparasite in California’s coyote population and can be transmitted to domestic dogs by mosquitoes.
As Coyotes find urban areas a convenient place to find nourishment, they have lost their fear of humans and have become bolder. Efforts to control or exterminate the coyote by predator control agencies have produced an animal that is extremely alert and wary and well able to maintain itself.