The desert wishbone-bush, is a recently redefined species of flowering plant in the four o’clock family known by its scientific name mirabilis laevis, and the alternate common name California four o’clock.
The new definition of mirabilis laevis now includes the wishbone bush, which was formerly formerly known as the mirabilis californica, and several very similar relatives previously classified as separate species and now as varieties.
The desert wishbone-bush falls within the subkingdom of tracheobionta, those being vascular plants and the superdivision of spermatophyta or seed plants. A member of the magnoliophyta or flowering division of plants, mirabilis laevis is listed within the class of magnoliopsida, otherwise referred to as dicotyledons, also known as dicots, meaning that the seed has two embryonic leaves or cotyledons. The mirabilis laevis is classified in the subclass of caryophyllidae and the order of caryophyllales, an order of flowering plants that includes carnations, amaranths, ice plants, beets, and many carnivorous plants.
The desert wishbone-bush is considered a nyctaginaceae or a member of the four o’clock family and the mirabilis L. or four o’clock genus.
This California chaparral plant is native to California and is endemic to California, Arizona, Nevada and northwestern Mexcio.
It inhabits slopes and coastal sage scrub, chaparral and foothill woodland communities.
The flowers are broadly funnel-shaped, one inch across, white to pale pink with a darker pink color near the center, and have rounded, ruffled lobes and up-curved stamens.
The flowers open in the evening and wilt by midmorning. The leaves are green, glandular-hairy, opposite, and oval to kidney-shaped. The stems branch to form green “wishbones” and are hairy, weak, sticky, and ascending to erect.
It is a climber, meaning it can be vine-like. Generally, it is one foot tall to eight feet wide; spreads relatively readily; is summer semi-deciduous, meaning it will go dormant in the summer; and blooms with white, lavender and purple flowers in the winter and spring.
As a shrub in the four o’ clock family, the desert-wishbone bush grows to as much as 30 inches in height, but only with optimum irrigation. The branches of the plant, which form green “wishbones,” give the plant its name. The leaves are green, glandular-hairy, opposite, and oval to kidney-shaped.
Butterflies and moths supported by the desert wishbone-bush include lithariapteryx jubarella; the white-lined sphinx, hyles lineata; the Hawaiian beet webworm, spoladea recurvalis; the somber carpet, disclisioprocta stellata; archirhoe neomexicana; embola powelli; lithariapteryx abroniaeella; and neoheliodines vernius.

From https://cannundrum.blogspot.com, Wikipedia, https://calscape.org/, https://www.fireflyforest.com/flowers

FBN 20200004868
The following person is doing business as: MOSAIC SUITES 948 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. #938 SUITE 129 ONTARIO, CA 01762 JUDITH P. ZAMORA 2302 S. CALDWELL AVE. ONTARIO, CA 91761
Mailing Address: 2302 S. CALDWELL AVE. ONTARIO, CA 91761
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ MICHAEL GUTIERREZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/27/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 05/26/2020
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/05, 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004987
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Willy’s Speed Shop, 6905 Palm Ave, Highland, CA 92346, Mailing Address: PO BOX 930, Highland. CA 92346, Kenneth M. Brana, Socal Engineering, CA 6909 Center St, Highland, CA 92346
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Kenneth Brana
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/1/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/5/20, 6/12/20, 6/19/20, 6/26/20

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
MARIA DE JESUS PARRA
NO. PROPS 2000267
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARIA DE JESUS PARRA
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARIA D. PARRA in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARIA D. PARRA be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 1:30 p.m. on JULY 14, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
MARIA CARMEN ZELADA PUTNAM
NO. PROPS 2000282
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARIA CARMEN ZELADA PUTNAM aka MARIA PUTNAM
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ANDREA MARIA PUTNAM RAMIREZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ANDREA MARIA PUTNAM RAMIREZ be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S35 at 9:00 a.m. on JULY 23, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JOHN JULIAN KELLY
NO. PROPS 2000288
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JOHN JULIAN KELLY aka JOHN J. KELLY aka JACK KELLY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by AUDREY RACHEL KELLY in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that AUDREY RACHEL KELLY be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 1:30 p.m. on JULY 21, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
VIVIAN A. DIXON
NO. PROPS 2000298
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of VIVIAN A. DIXON aka VIVIAN ANN DIXON aka VIVIAN A. BROOKS
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TENISHA JENKINS LIVAS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TENISHA JENKINS LIVAS be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 1:30 p.m. on JULY 16, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004595
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Rodriguez Courier Services, 1473 Randy St, D, Upland, CA 91786, Jose R. Rodriguez, 1473 Randy St. #D, Upland, CA 91786,
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Jose R Rodriguez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/15/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/23/15
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
6/12/20, 6/19/20, 6/26/20, 7/3/20
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
CHERYL LYN SCOTT
NO. PROPS 2000131
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of CHERYL LYN SCOTT
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JEFFREY SCOTT, in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JEFFREY SCOTT be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The wills and codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S35 at 8:30 a.m. on JULY 15, 2020 at the San Bernardino Justice Center, Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner:
R. SAM PRICE, ESQ.
SBN 208603
300 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 475-8800
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 6/19, 6/26 & 7/03, 2020
FBN 20200004634
The following entity is doing business as: GRAND TERRACE HAPPENINGS 21712 VIVIENDA AVE GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313 JEFFREY E MCCONNELL 21712 VIVIENDA AVE GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JEFFREY MCCONNELL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/18/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/12, 6/19, 6/26 & 7/3, 2020.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS2009782
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner TORI TAN filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
TORI FENGZHUO TAN to TORI TAN
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 07/23/2020
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: May 29, 2020 By Justin Manassee, Deputy
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/19, 6/26, 7/03 & 7/10, 2020.

FBN 20200004767
The following entity is doing business as: ALLIES’S CRAFT HOUSE 3898 SCARLET OAK CT SAN BERNADINO, CA 92407 ALEXANDRA J BECKER 3898 SCARLET OAK CT SAN BERNADINO, CA 92407
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ ALEXANDRA BECKER
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/21/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/19, 6/26, 7/3 & 7/10, 2020.

FBN 20200004634
The following entity is doing business as: GROOVE’S KITCHEN 12838 YORBA AVE CHINO, CA 91710 JOAQUIN FLORES 2838 YORBA AVE CHINO, CA 91710
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JEFFREY MCCONNELL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/29/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: May 16, 2020
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/19, 6/26, 7/3 & 7/10, 2020.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005319
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Kwang Construction Service, 5670 Arrow Hwy, Montclair, CA 91763, Whole Home Project Resource LLC, 5670 Arrow Hwy, Montclair, CA 91763
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Wen Chih Shen
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/11/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernadino County Sentinel 6/19/20, 6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005118
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: US China Properties Group, 12736 N. Bend Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3358, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729, Carlton Premier Realty, Inc,12736 N. Bend Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Laura Zhang
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/5/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ V0956
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernadino County Sentinel 6/19/20, 6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LENA MASON, AKA: LENA
MAJORS-MASON CASE NO. PROPS2000144 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of LENA MASON, AKA: LENA MAJORS-MASON and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both: A petition has been filed by WINSTON
LAMAR MASON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that WINSTON LAMAR MASON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of LENA MASON, AKA: LENA MAJORS-MASON. Decedent died intestate. (The petition requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. This will avoid the need to obtain court approval for many actions taken in connection with the estate. However, before taking certain actions, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or have consented to the proposed action. The petition will be granted unless good cause is shown why it should not be.) The petition is set for hearing in Dept. No. S36 at SUPERIOR
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT – PROBATE DIVISION 247 W. 3rd STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0212 on July 30, 2020 at 08:30 AM
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 58 of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery of the notice to you under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are interested in the estate, you may request special notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Section 1250 of the California Probate Code.
Attorney for Petitioner: BERL HILLEL SELSKI, ESQ., SBN 54531 24832 ELENA DR.
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 Telephone: (714) 404-3104
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on June 26, July 3 & July 10, 2020.
FBN 20200005391
The following entity is doing business as: GRIFFIN FITNESS 1900 PROFORMA AVENUE, UNIT G-2 ONTARIO, CA 91761 PARALLEL VENTURES LLC 1900 PROFORMA AVENUE, UNIT G-2 ONTARIO, CA 91761
This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ NANCY LI
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/15/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/26, 7/3, 7/10 & 7/17, 2020.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005444
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Side by Side Services, 5505 Moreno St. Unit #100, Montclair, CA 91763, Lawrence C. Beggs, 5505 Moreno St. Unit #100, Montclair, CA 91763
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Lawrence Beggs
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/17/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005574
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Careone Plumbing, 1433 South Jasmine Ave, Ontario, CA 91762, Paul Robert Ramirez, 1433 South Jasmine Ave, Ontario, CA 91762
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Paul Robert Ramirez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/18/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Began Transacting Business: 6/22/14
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS2009782
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Tori Tan filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Tori Fengzhuo Tan to Tori Tan
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 07/23/2020
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: May 29, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) 1 9STCV22549
SHORT NAME OF CASE: SOPHIA MINGYEUM YEUNG vs. GERARDO DELUNA
NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS (AVISO DEMANDADO): GERARDO DELUNA; COMMERCIAL ROCK CO., INC.; HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC.; AND DOES 1 TO 25, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
SOPHIA MINGYEUM YEUNG
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. ¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
CENTRAL DISTRICT-SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 312 N. SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
The name, address and telephone number of cross-complainant’s attorney, or cross-complainant without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del contrademandante, o del contrademandante que no tiene abogado, es):
STEVAN COLIN (State Bar No. 110360)
GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES 801 PACIFIC AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562) 436-9292
DATE (Fecha): JUNE 27, 2019
SHERRIR. CARTER EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF THE COURT
Clerk (Secretario), by RICARDO PEREZ, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in San Bernardino County Sentinel: 6/26, 7/03, 7/10 & 7/17, 2019
STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
CASE NUMBER: 1 9STCV22549
Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)
PLAINTIFF: SOPHIA MINGYEUM YEUNG

DEFENDANT: To (name of one defendant only): Cross-Defendant GERARDO DELUNA
Plaintiff (name of one plaintiff only): Complainant SOPHIA MINGYEUM YEUNG
seeks damages in the above-entitled action, as follows:
General damages:
PAIN SUFFERING AND INCONVENIENCE [of] $30,000.00
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS [of] $5,000
Special Damages:
MEDICAL EXPENSES (to date) [of] $2,905.00
1 9STCV22549
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STREET ADDRESS: 312 N. SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
BRANCH NAME: SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE
ATTORNEYS FOR(name): PLAINTIFF SOPHIA MINGYEUM YEUNG
STEVAN COLIN (State Bar No. 110360)
GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES 801 PACIFIC AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562) 436-9292
Date: JULY 11, 2019
s/ STEVAN COLIN
Published in San Bernardino County Sentinel: 6/26, 7/03, 7/10 & 7/17, 2019

The Upland City Council is slated to meet in a closed session this afternoon. The agenda for the meeting gives a rather vague description of the issue at hand, stating the council is to consider “one case” of “significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision(d) of Section 54956.9 ” The description does not specify the California Government Code, although that is the apparent reference.
It is believed the council will discuss the potential of legal action against the city as a consequence of Mayor Debbie Stone and City Manager Rosemary Hoerning placing Police Chief Darren Goodman on administrative leave on Monday. That action followed a specially-called meeting of the city council on Friday, June 19, at which a consensus to fire or suspend Goodman was sought but apparently not obtained.
On Monday, Stone and Hoerning acted without the backing of the remainder of the city council.
A number of Upland citizens intend to hold a rally in support of Goodman in front of City Hall at 2 p.m. today.
The council meeting is slated to begin at 2:30 p.m. today, Thursday June 25. Members of the public present will be afforded the opportunity to speak to the council before the panel, reduced to four members as a consequence of the resignation of Councilman Ricky Felix effective May 31, adjourns into its closed door executive discussions.

Download the June 19 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel by clicking on the blue portal below.

Sentinel 06-19-20

By Mark Gutglueck
The City of San Bernardino appears to be headed toward a trial in which two generations of the city’s political leadership, ten of its city managers, nine of its police police chiefs and dozens of its police officers ranging from the rank of captain down to that of sergeant and other city officials over the years are on tap to be exposed as having been enmeshed in a long running scheme that allowed for the trading of lucrative franchises in return for payoffs and career advancement.
While the pay-to-play scheme has locked in the advantage of what has essentially been the same six separate tow companies that have been placed on the police department’s rotation to deal with vehicles parked in no parking zones, left on the streets in a specific location for more than 72 hours or those of individuals arrested for driving under the influence or those taken into custody after a traffic stop or arrest, the franchise system did not prevent other companies from engaging in business involving the public in general, such as towing broken down vehicles or conveying cars from one place to another. Still, with each police department-authorized tow, the car’s owner is subject to a tow fee, another service fee and a per-day impound fee that begins to accrue immediately upon the tow company removing the vehicle to its operations yard. Placement on the city’s towing rotation virtually ensures a towing company’s viability as a going concern. The competition to obtain a franchise is fierce, involving intimidation tactics employed against not only rival franchise applicants but city officials and the elected leadership who serve as the ultimate arbiters of who is to receive a franchise and who will not. As a matter of course, many or in fact nearly all of those elected decision-makers – the mayor and city council – have simultaneously found themselves to be the recipients of the largesse offered by the franchised tow companies in terms of political donations intended to keep those who have voted to approve the continuation of the franchises in office, and in a subset of those cases of bribes and kickbacks.
The city managers who led the city over the last 33-plus years, who under the city’s code and charter served and serve at the pleasure of the council, and the litany of police chiefs who have served under those city managers, out of a sense of professional survival or a craven lack of fortitude, have consistently refused to defy their political masters, and have proven unwilling to make an issue of the consideration that at least some of the tow service franchisees failed to meet the city’s specified standards for them to be afforded the special status that was vouchsafed to them. As political animals themselves, those city managers and police chiefs were informed by their own direct inquiries or through indirect osmosis of who was contributing how much to the mayors’ and city council members’ electioneering funds. Calculating that the council members and the mayors would take a dim view of any official action that interrupted the flow of money to the politicians’ campaign donors, they remained silent about the manner in which some of the city’s tow franchise operators were cutting corners. In some cases, police department personnel actively made misrepresentations in an effort to support the city council and mayor in sustaining the franchise set-up.
Those involved include a virtual Who’s Who of the San Bernardino political and municipal establishment going back more than three decades, with former mayors Eveline Wilcox, Bob Holcomb, Tim Minor, Judith Valles, Patrick Morris, and Carey Davis, current and former city council members Gordon Quiel, Jack Reilly, Esther Estrada, Steve Marks, Ralph Hernandez, Dan Frazier, Jack Strickler, Mike Maudsley, Betty Dean Anderson, Gordon McGinnis, Valerie Pope-Ludlum, Joe Suarez, Wendy McCammack, Susan Lien, Frank Schnetz, Neil Derry, Chas Kelley, Rikke Van Johnson, Dennis Baxter, Tobin Brinker, Virginia Marquez, Jason Desjardins, Robert Jenkins, Jim Mulvihill, Benito Barrios, Henry Nickel, John Valdivia, Bessine Richard, Juan Figueroa, Sandra Ibarra, and Ted Sanchez, along with city managers John Matzer Jr., Ray Schweitzer, Shauna Clark, Fred Wilson, Mark Weinberg, Charles McNeely, Andrea Travis-Miller, Allen Parker, Mark Scott and Teri Ledoux, alongside police chiefs Daniel Robbins, Wayne Harp, Lee Dean, Garrett Zimmon, Michael Billdt, Keith Kilmer, Robert Handy, Jarrod Burguan and Eric McBride having at the least tolerated the circumstance and in some cases having actively perpetrated it. Among the most prominent of those is Valdivia, who acceded to the mayor’s position in 2018, more than seven years after his 2011 election to the city council representing the city’s Ward Three.
Over the years, some tow operators have made efforts from time to time to break into the ranks of the franchised, with little or virtually no success. A sense of entitlement has descended upon those already given franchises, born of the advantage their status entails. Outsiders have been excluded from the club. When it has been suggested that the number of franchises might simply be increased to include any operation that meets the standards imposed by the city, those proposals have been shot down. Nevertheless, an argument often asserted by the defenders of the franchise status quo is that those who have been granted entrance into the fraternity have made substantial investments in vehicles, equipment and facilities in order to qualify for their special status, and that the franchises they have been individually granted are a reflection of their willingness to make the outlays that guarantee the city and the public the level of service they are providing, which very likely would not be matched, they claim, by those would-be franchisees. This has served, in many cases, as the justification for leaving the system as it its. It is worth noting, however, that some of those tow companies with franchises do not meet all of the city’s standards, and that there have been applicants for tow franchises that, while satisfying the essential gist of the city’s requirements, have had their franchise applications rejected.
Though most of those entities which sought a franchise in San Bernardino only to be rejected have dropped out of the competitive process without further ado, one of those, Pepe’s Towing, has not.
More than 19 years ago, Manny Acosta, who inherited that company from his father, began a committed effort to obtain a position on the City of San Bernardino’s towing rotation. Frustrated at every turn, Acosta persisted. Having found himself hemmed in and prevented from obtaining a franchise no matter how he approached the matter, Acosta on October 24, 2018 filed a federal lawsuit against the city and 13 individual defendants, including Sixth District Councilwoman Bessine L. Richard, then-former City Manager Mark Scott, City Councilman James L. Mulvihill, then-City Manager Andrea Miller, City Councilman Fred Shorett, then-Mayor R. Carey Davis, San Bernardino Police Captain Paul Williams, then-City Councilman Benito J. Barrios, then-Police Chief Jarrod Burguan, then-City Councilman John Valdivia, then-City Attorney Gary D. Saenz, then-City Councilwoman Virginia Marquez and then-former Chief Assistant City Attorney Jolena Grider.
At that time, Councilman John Valdivia and Mayor R. Carey Davis were locked in an election battle for mayor, which was to be decided in the election held on November 6, 2018.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleged the defendants violated the company’s rights of free speech and equal protection in the course of rejecting Pepe’s Towing’s efforts to contract with the city to handle police and code enforcement towing duties.
For years, the City of San Bernardino had rejected expanding its towing rotation beyond the group of six towing contractors that presently have a franchise. Acosta had been the most energetic of the tow company operators pressing the city to reopen the request for proposal process to all qualified tow companies. According to Acosta’s legal team, which includes former Federal Judge/former Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Larson; , former Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen A. Trutanich; former Ventura County Deputy District Attorney/former Redondo Beach Prosecutor’s Office Attorney William Dance; attorney Jonathan Phillips; and attorney R.C. Harlan, “Pepe’s Towing of San Bernardino spent 18 years attempting to provide towing services for the City of San Bernardino. The San Bernardino Police Department currently uses six tow companies, most for nearly 20 years without them having been subjected to competition. Several of those are significantly lacking in the facilities and quality of service required to comply with their contracts. In fact, Pepe’s is regularly called on by the city to provide services the existing tow operators cannot provide.”
Furthermore, according to Acosta’s legal representatives, “To stymie Mr. Acosta’s effort, in 2011 the city placed an additional barrier to competition by instituting a new requirement, mandating that new city tow contractors have outdoor storage of at least 65,000 square feet. This requirement was not applied to the existing six tow companies. Four of the six present city towing contractors do not meet this requirement. It should be noted that this requirement affects only new tow contractors that contract with the city. That requirement appeared to be a needless disqualifier for any new competition. The city did not apply this 65,000-square foot requirement to the existing tow contractors, just new ones that may apply, thereby grandfathering an exemption to the storage space requirement for existing tow contractors. It should further be noted that one of the two complying tow contractors merged with another, non-contracting towing company to garner a combined, partially unpaved outdoor storage space of 65,000 square feet, achieving numerical compliance. This new 65,000 square foot requirement forced any new tow contractors to compete on an uneven playing field with existing tow contractors and was apparently designed to ensure that no new towing companies could qualify as city tow contractors.”
In addition, Pepe’s suit alleged that all six current tow contractors failed and continue to fail to comply with many key contract terms, including the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws. It is further alleged against the City of San Bernardino that the city retaliated against Pepe’s Towing when Acosta brought these breaches of contract to the attention of the public.
Initially through its suit, Pepe’s Towing Service sought reconsideration of the decision not to reopen the bidding process and of its application, and to enforce strict scrutiny of the contract terms and compliance upon existing tow contractors. The complaint also sought to abolish the 65,000-square foot requirement imposed in 2011 and made applicable only to those who seek to qualify since that time for new towing contracts. The suit sought to have Pepe’s Towing evaluated in the bidding process on the same terms as all the current authorized tow contractors.
While there at first seemed to be some prospect that the filing of the suit would prompt the city to make a quick settlement by which the existing six tow contractors would have been saddled with the city increasing to seven the number of tow franchises, that did not occur. As the matter has proceeded, Acosta has not relented, as some on the city’s side of the equation were hoping he might. Rather, he has continued, accruing hefty legal costs along the way. That is not all that has been accrued. Acosta’s legal team has succeeded in arming itself with more and more facts and tidbits relating to questionable dealings, most but not all in relation to the tow franchises, ones in which there are accounts of the fashion in which city officials and the police hierarchy have become aware of shortcomings on the part of certain franchisees while powerful and elite city officials insisted that any reference to those shortcomings be buried under an avalanche of bureaucratic obfuscation, even as procedural and legal corners were being cut hand in hand with graft, quid pro quos and outright bribery taking place.
A telling consideration in the power struggle between Pepe’s Towing and the city was that early in the going, prior to the Acosta resorting to a federal suit, he had sought to gain leverage by retaining Jim Penman, San Bernardino’s former city attorney, to represent his company in its petition to the city council to enter the towing rotation. Penman had been San Bernardino’s elected city attorney from 1988 until 2013. Occupying that position for the quarter of a century during which the now-known exploitation of the tow franchise system had taken root, Penman doubtless had further insight into the depravation inherent in the city’s awarding of advantages to the various franchisees, and how that favoritism had come about.
At some point within the last year, a growing number of city officials, reportedly including the city council’s three newest members – Third District Councilman Juan Figueroa, Second District Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra and First District Councilman Ted Sanchez – have come to recognize that the city’s prospects for prevailing in the legal contest against Acosta are dim. Additionally, Mayor John Valdivia, whose acceptance of bribe money had served to perpetuate the graft-ridden franchise arrangement, was acutely aware of just where a trial of the case Acosta has brought would lead, which would include the revelation of the kickbacks he has received. Those revelations would play out not in the venue of San Bernardino County’s notoriously corrupt court system where the judges and district attorney would very likely ignore what was brought out, but rather in the venue of a federal court before a U.S. District judge, which in all likelihood would entail the sordid facts of the case falling under the scrutiny of both the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI. Thereafter, the prospect of Valdivia hearing the sound of a prison door clanking behind him would not be insubstantial.
For a combination of reasons, will on the part of the entire city council to reach a settlement with Acosta has manifested. The snag at this point is that the formula for a settlement is no longer a simple one that consists of allowing Pepe’s towing onto the rotation but one that includes coming to terms with Acosta’s legal team. The settlement figure over which the city council is now choking, the Sentinel is reliably informed, is in the low seven figures, somewhere under $5 million. On a daily basis, as Acosta’s lawyers engage in further preparations to go to trial, that amount continues to escalate.
Meanwhile, the degree to which the city has something to fear is illustrated by how the city’s law firm, Best Best & Krieger and its attorneys assigned to the case, Richard Egger, Damian Northcutt and Avi Rutschmann, successfully sought a protective order for what Best Best & Krieger asserted was “confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.”
For the time being, the lawyers for Acosta and Pepe’s Towing have assented to going along with the order, and Judge Sheri Pym granted it.
Within the next month, the case is scheduled to go to trial before Judge Stephen V. Wilson and a jury yet to be chosen.
This week, the city council went into a closed session to discuss whether it could agree to forging a a settlement. At what was ostensibly the last opportunity for the council to meet in a regularly scheduled setting to settle the matter before it goes to trial, its members collectively declined to accept the terms that Acosta’s and Pepe’s Towing’s legal representatives have said they consider to be fair, and which the city officials, struggling with diminishing revenues and a substantial deficit in the about-to-end fiscal year 2019-20 and an even more forbidding deficit in upcoming 2020-21, believe to be beyond the city’s means.
Among more than a score of weak points in the city’s defense are some pronounced vulnerabilities knowledgeable entities believe the city will be hard-pressed to overcome.
One of those is a report dated July 18, 2018 put together by then-Police Chief Jarrod Burguan and Captain Paul Williams, referred to as a “smoking gun.” In the report, Burguan and Williams state that in response to an August 23, 2017 petition by Pepe’s Towing to be added to the city’s towing rotation, that request had been denied, and that in November 2017, Pepe’s Towing had appealed that decision, alleging the city had not taken seriously nor investigated assertions that Pepe’s Towing had made that the existing tow franchisees were out of compliance with the city’s standards.
According to Burguan and Williams, “The police department conducted inspections of all six tow carriers. Requirements of the TSA [tow service agreement] were documented and items that were non-compliant were presented to each carrier with a timeframe for curing the items. The timeframe for cure of items considered non-compliant is still active within the time granted. Several of the items are cost neutral while other items carry a considerable cost. The TSA has disciplinary actions available that will be used if compliance is not met.”
The Burguan and Williams report noted that the number of tow franchises was limited on the basis of population density, with the tow service agreement allowing one carrier per 35,000 residents. Since the City of San Bernardino’s population had grown to 216,239 as of 2016, the chief and captain said, the city was by the spring of 2018 prepared to add a seventh carrier to those on the rotation. Pepe’s Towing along with another company submitted bids to be considered as the city’s seventh carrier, the report stated. “SBPD traffic unit conducted an inspection at the Pepe’s Towing facility on March 27 and 28, 2018,” the report said. “The lot size was found to be 39,834 square feet. This was 25,166 square feet below the requirement set forth in the RFP [request for proposals] and TSA. The second bidder did not meet the requirements and has not appealed its denial.”
According to Burguan and Williams, Pepe’s Towing subsequently fell short of the city’s minimum requirements when it failed to acquire, as it said it was seeking to do, a secondary lot to augment its existing yard and provide it with the required storage space.
The bottom line, Burguan and Williams asserted, was that “Pepe’s Towing did not meet the requirements of the RFP and TSA. Therefore their request was denied. Pepe’s Towing did not meet the requirements of the RFP and TSA (minimum 65,000 square feet of outside storage space) and failed to obtain a second lot to meet the requirement. The requirement of 65,000 square feet of outside storage space was negotiated with the tow carriers. In order to change this requirement, the city would have to get the consent of each of the six existing tow carriers.”
While Burguan’s and Williams’ report asserted that “noncompliant items are being addressed [and] the timeframe given for correction is still active and disciplinary actions will be taken if needed,” Pepe’s Towing’s legal team has ascertained that at least four of the six franchised tow companies were and remain out of compliance with the same regulation the city maintains disqualified Pepe’s towing, and that no disciplinary action was taken against any of the other existing franchisees.
Pepe’s Towing’s legal team has since documented that “none of the current tow companies are in compliance with the 65,000 square foot outside storage requirement for tow operators approved by the mayor and city council in April of 2011.”
Additionally, three of the current tow carriers, City Towing, Hayes Towing, and Wilson Towing, were sold since they first contracted with the city and failed to notify the city of a change in ownership pursuant to Section 15 of the agreement, constituting, Pepe’s Towing’s lawyers assert, a violation of the agreement, which, under Section 17 c of the agreement, should trigger the suspensions of the City Towing, Hayes Towing and Wilson Towing franchises.
Further, according to documentation compiled by Pepe’s Towing’s legal team, only Big Z Towing and Hayes Towing have the equipment necessary to tow Class B, medium, vehicles. This puts the remaining four current carriers in violation of Section 3 a, 5 j and 6 b of the tow services agreement. None of the six tow carriers have the equipment necessary to tow all Class C heavy (big rig) vehicles, putting all six tow carriers out of compliance with Section 3 a, 5 j and 6 b of the tow services agreement. Pepe’s Towing does possess such equipment, and at times, was called upon by the city to perform in that regard.
Pepe’s Towing is prepared to demonstrate in court that none of the six tow carriers have sufficient space to store 200 vehicles on paved surfaces impenetrable to certain liquids, allegedly in violation of Sections 3 a and 5 a of the agreement. This, Pepe’s Towing’s attorneys are purposed to demonstrate, puts the city itself in violation of certain state and federal laws pertaining to the prevention of the discharge of oil, solvents and other chemicals into the soil, and subsequently into the groundwater. Investigators hired by Acosta are prepared to reveal photographs and other evidence to demonstrate that certain tow companies listed on the city’s rotation list routinely park towed and other vehicles on unimproved surfaces.
At least some of the city’s current franchised tow service providers are not equipped, the law team can demonstrate, to preserve the towed vehicles and their contents in a secure circumstance that will prevent potential evidence to be used in criminal proceedings from being tampered with. This requirement in the city’s franchise agreement calls for the tow carriers to have ‘indoor’ space that is sufficiently secure to store evidence, including vehicles impounded by the San Bernardino Police Department. Lack of such secure indoor storage for evidence is in violation of Sections 3 a and 5 b of the agreement.
One piece of evidence in the arsenal of the lawyers representing Pepe’s Towing is an affidavit signed under the penalty of perjury by one of Mayor Valdivia’s former legislative field representatives, Don Smith. According to Smith, he was present in October or November 2018 for a 1 a.m. rendezvous Valdivia had with Danny Alcarez, the owner of Danny’s 24 Hour Towing, Inc., when Alcarez provided Valdivia with “a thick white envelope that appeared to contain a large amount of money,” which Smith said he believed was a kickback provided to Valdivia for his support of city tow franchises remaining in the exclusive possession of several of the city’s towing operations.
Individuals involved with the City of San Bernardino over the last three decades both in elected and staff capacities told the Sentinel that the circumstance with regard to the city’s tow franchises represents a multigenerational acceptance of quid pro quo arrangements by which the city’s tow franchises were locked in for a relatively small number of operators, and that otherwise good people – mayors, council members, city managers, police chiefs and police department commanders – had simply acquiesced to the ethos set by a small handful of politicians who had accepted donations and money from tow truck company operators who in return expected that there would be favoritism shown toward them, which ultimately manifested in franchises being conferred upon them. These officials painted a picture of corruption having become encrusted, layer upon layer over the course of succeeding mayoral administrations, which was accepted by the city’s administrators and its police chiefs and the department’s command echelon in deference to the power of the city’s various elected officials, a majority of whom were provided benefits in terms of often hefty political support through their relationships with the tow franchise owners.
There are signs, the Sentinel is informed, that the current council has come to recognize the extent and depth of the problem, and that there is some impetus among its members to undertake reform, but doing so is problematic because of the expense inherent in Pepe’s Towing’s demands in the settlement negotiations because of the legal fees that must be paid to Pepe’s Towing’s attorneys, as their fees have escalated after several years of litigation.
Insisting to the Sentinel that “I am unable to comment on closed session discussions” carried out by the city council, Councilman Henry Nickel, said, “This case raises serious concerns as to the alleged misconduct that occurred over the course of many years. As a consequence, the city confronts significant potential liability.”
Nickel said, “It is only appropriate that franchised city services be subject to fair and regular periodic procurements. Competition is good. It holds vendors accountable for providing the best quality services within our community at the best price. I have consistently raised concern over our tow service agreements throughout the time I have served on the city council. I do not recall any procurement for tow services during the six years I have served on the city council. Yet, we have procured many other services.”
Nickel said the city is caught in a viciously treacherous strait. “I am extremely concerned what additional damaging allegations and facts may emerge during the course of discovery and trial,” he said. “If the city were to lose, our community will suffer not only financial loss but so too acquire a terrible stain upon both our collective reputation as well as upon those individuals who held positions of authority and allowed alleged improprieties to continue year after year.”
Nickel propounded, “Culture is often described as ‘the way we do things around here.’ A dysfunctional culture in turn can establish the banality of evil. Good people can be brought to do bad things. In many cases I don’t think there was anything deliberate, but everybody involved in this had dirty fingernails. Everyone who touched the tow contract was in some way implicated. We must reject any such corrosive cultural tendencies. We must practice propriety and fairness with all those who honestly seek to provide essential city services within our community. I expect for the sake of the city and those individuals involved in any alleged misconduct, either by choice or circumstance, that we can reach an amicable settlement before trial.”
The Acosta/Pepe’s Towing legal team is primed, in its own words, to demonstrate the “perpetuation of a monopoly in favor of privileged parties by assuring their continued placement on the San Bernardino Police Department’s tow rotation list.”
Stephen Larson, who now leads that team of attorneys, told the Sentinel, “While there are and have been many good, dedicated, and honorable men and women serving the City of San Bernardino, I anticipate that the trial will showcase what I believe is a history of recurring corruption in long-suffering San Bernardino.”

Redlands city officials have yet to clarify the circumstance relating to the curious grant deeding of a strip of property that runs along the frontages of a significant number of yards of homes in Redlands.
According to tract map documents on file at the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office, the sliver of land in question running along Alta Vista Drive was dedicated for public use in 1948 as part of Hilltop Estates Tract 3311.
The property was deeded to the city as a road, ingress, egress, road support, culvert and drainage easement. Apparently in 2016 it was deeded to a private property owner, Don Paulson, but it is difficult to discern why. Paulson owns property in the neighboring subdivision of Dunlap Ranch, but not in Hilltop Estates. The land for the Hilltop Estates Tract 3311 subdivision was at one time owned by the University of Redlands, but recorded documents reveal that the University of Redlands gave clear title to subdivision land owners and dedicated this area for public use on March 22, 1948. There is no record of fees or ownership of this strip of land by the University of Redlands after 1948.
In 1988 and 1989, the University of Redlands sent documents to all residents in the Hilltop Estates Tract 3311, stating that the University held “no economic interest” in tract 3311. These documents were signed by University of Redlands treasurer Julie K. Phelps.
In 2016, the University of Redlands, despite the consideration that the university did not own the land and had previously claimed it had no interest in it, recorded a grant deed relating to the property being deeded from the University to Paulson, with notarized signatures of University President Ralph Kuncl, Vice President of Finance Cory Nemuro and Board of Trustee Secretary Stanley Weisser.
It is not clear how the university could convey land it did not own and which was entirely encumbered with an easement to Paulson, or anyone for that matter. In March 2019, Paulson started cutting down trees on the easement.
What was reported to the Sentinel was that when Paulson was questioned about his actions, he claimed that he owned the easement and had “made a deal with the city.”
Some Redlands residents have characterized the conveyance of the property as a gift of public land for private gain.
The Sentinel has a document dated March 28, 2019 in which Don Young, the engineering division manager for the City of Redlands, makes a few contradictory statements. Young confirmed that the property was never vacated by the City of Redlands, which under State law would have been required to hold a public hearing so  city council approval for the grant deeding could take place. No such hearing was held, as far as the Sentinel’s research of city records can determine.
Young then said that in 2016 the University of Redlands filed a “quit claim,” deeding the strip of land to Don Paulson. However, the document, 20160547075, recorded at the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office on 12/14/2016 clearly states it is a “grant deed.”
Young further remarked that “No transaction or deal [was] made.” But then he seemed to contradict that when he said that Paulson is entitled “to develop the property” and to engage in “grading of the property.” Young, in contradiction to the 1948 document, maintained that the University of Redlands was the “underlying fee owner.” However, city parcel documents prior to 2016 and recorder’s office records clearly show the area in question was held for public use by the City of Redlands, and the University of Redlands had no involvement and was not paying fees or taxes with regard to it.
When Paulson was questioned about the matter by homeowners on Alta Vista Drive about what had occurred, he asserted he had assumed  ownership of the easement through an arrangement with the city.
Landowners in the area told the Sentinel that Young indicated that he recognized there was a problem with what had occurred, and that he and the city would endeavor to correct it and cure a situation in which homeowners were stuck in a position where their property is potentially landlocked, such that they would be restricted from reaching the street from their property because Paulson owned the land between theirs and the road.
Questions yet remain, in particular whether the city was or is a party to the acquisition of the property by Mr. Paulson and if Paulson’s claim that he owns the property is valid or the possibility that the grant deed is a forgery.
City officials have not responded explicitly to questions as to whether Paulson’s claim that he cut a deal with the city to obtain the property is true, and, if so, what the terms of that deal were. City officials have not made clear what benefit accrued to the city in the deal referred to by Paulson and whether money, in fact, changed hands in the deal.
City officials were unable, as of press time, to produce any record of city council action with regard to the matter. Nor were city officials willing or capable of saying if a public entity such as a city can simply abandon an active easement used for road, ingress, egress, road support, culvert and drainage purposes. Similarly, the city was unresponsive to questions relating to whether active easement used for such purposes could be extinguished.
-Mark Gutglueck

With a railroad project on tap for completion on Colton’s west side, Mayor Frank Navarro, over the objection of Fifth District Councilman Jack Woods, displaced Woods from the city’s railroad committee, replacing him with First District Councilman David Toro.
Colton, like three other of San Bernardino County’s 24 cities, is a railroad town. It is named after David Colton, who went to work for the Big Four – Leland Stanford, Collis Huntington, Charles Crocker and Mark Hopkins – after their company, the Central Pacific Railroad, constructed the westernmost portion of the first transcontinental railroad, which met the Central Pacific Railroad in Promontory, Utah in 1869. Hoping that he might transform the Big Four into the Big Five and become the fifth member of that exclusive fraternity by managing the Central Pacific’s effort to complete the western expanse of Southern Pacific Railroad, David Colton took on the role of vice president of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, while he oversaw the construction of the Southern Pacific Railway. Three years before death found him as a consequence of his being thrown from a horse in 1878, he founded the town of Colton in 1875 as a key stop on the Southern Pacific’s route through the valley on its way eastward from Los Angeles. The City of Colton exists, with San Bernardino, Barstow and Needles, as one of the county’s four original railroad towns. A key element of its landscape are the plentiful railroad bridges throughout its 15.32-square mile expanse, several of which were built a century or more ago, and which would cost a billion of today’s dollars to replicate.
The railroads remain a central element of life in Colton, and so the city council’s railroad committee is both a prestigious and significant body.
At the May 5 meeting, held via teleconferencing without the public present because of precautions taken in the face of the coronavirus crisis, Mayor Navarro announced his intention to appoint Councilman Toro to the city’s railroad committee, in so doing replacing Councilman Woods, who has held a position on that panel for two years.
“I am going to, this evening, make a change to a committee we have here in the City of Colton, which is the Council Railroad Subcommittee. At this committee right now I have appointed Mr. Jack Woods from the Fifth District, and I am going to appoint Mr. David Toro in his stead,” said Navarro. “With that, Mr. Woods, I’d like to say thank you for coming up when we established this committee and raising your hand, but I think it is very important that Mr. Toro does sit on that committee. So, consensus from the council?” the mayor said in opening his proposal up for possible discussion and a vote. There tentatively appeared to be sentiment to go along with the mayor, but before the matter progressed far, technical difficulties ensued, affecting Woods electronic connection, preventing him from responding.
While that glitch was being dealt with by the city’s information technology staff, Councilman Isaac Suchil commended the mayor for making the change “because it’s very important that as we get closer to that facility being closer [sic] that all aspects of the districts that are involved get involved in that discussion.”
Navarro responded, “That’s the idea behind it. In my conversation with Mr. Woods, I told him that in my thought it was important and imperative that Mr. Toro be on that committee because the majority of that project is within his district, and Mr. Toro should be there to get the information first hand, so that he can better be able to answer any questions from his constituents in the district as to what’s going on, what’s going to happen, and take any complaints from his constituents regarding the project.”
Upon Woods’ video and audio connection being fully restored, he said, “I’ve been thinking about the committee realignment because I’ve been on that position for over two years now. I don’t see the necessity in making the change at this time. If there is any information garnered as the result of any committee meetings, any other council member can call any commissioner that’s on there, myself, call the mayor or call Isaac [Suchil] or Dr. G [Luis Gonzalez] and ask for information. It can be related to them, what was discussed, and that information will of course come back to the city council anyway because it would have to go to the city council from the committee. Then they would give action to move whatever the city council decided to the city manager, and he would take action from that point on.”
Wood suggested he was being slighted by the mayor and the council by the move. He said that using the rationale that the rail line improvement project will have a more direct impact on Toro’s First District such that he should be moved onto a committee he was previously uninterested in serving on was suspect. He referenced the way in which the council was willing to entrust to members of the city’s cannabis committee decisions impacting districts in which they do not reside to illustrate his belief that Navarro was being inconsistent with his policy. Assuming that someone would be better equipped to render a decision “just because an issue pertains to one of the council districts” where the appointee resides is a fallacy, Woods asserted.
“It was just like with the marijuana committee,” he said. “That involves every district in the city. If someone has a marijuana process that is going to take place in their district and they’re not on the committee, of course the committee will relate that information to that particular council member. And we could go on from there. That’s why we don’t put everyone on the city council on all these commissions. With that in mind, I’m not in favor of the move. In fact, I look at this as kind of a similarity to the city council opposing me placing my female resident on the planning commission, and the objections that came from that, citing all kinds of reasons which were not accurate, which were misleading.”
Woods’ reference was to his nomination of Gem Montes to the planning commission. Her status as an advocate for the cannabis industry had initially resulted in the city council, in particular Councilman Suchil, who is a retired sheriff’s deputy, resisting her appointment to the land use panel. Eventually the council relented and Montes acceded to a position on the planning commission.
Woods said booting him from the Council Railroad Subcommittee was uncalled for.
“I don’t think it is an appropriate move to make,” he said. “I can’t think of a time when a council member who was on a commission or committee, after being on the committee for in excess of two years, was taken off the committee because somebody else decided as a council member they wanted to be on the committee at that time. I’m not in agreement with the change.”
Navarro said, “Those are comments I will take note of. However, it’s not that I was approached by a council member. It’s the mayor’s decision. According to the MOP [municipal operating procedure], the mayor has authority to place people and move people from committee to committee, and this one here, I definitely want Councilman Toro to be on this committee, as I stated before in the conversation you and I had, because I want him to be there at the forefront when all of this stuff starts coming down, so he is accessible to his constituency for the impacts that are going to be happening in his area. So, that is the main thrust of my decision to replace you with him, to give him that stand on the committee so he can respond directly to his constituency immediately when the questions come up, instead of having to chase around to find somebody to get the answers. This is in his district. It’s going to be a big project. It is going to have impacts to the area. We don’t know yet the size or intensity of those impacts, but I want Councilman Toro there at the forefront. It’s nothing personal, nothing personal at all. This is the decision the mayor can make, and I’ve got the consensus of the council to do that reappointment. I just want to say, Jack, ‘Thank you very much for serving the last two years on that committee,’ and I will be reappointing to that committee Council Member Toro from the First District, wherein the project is located.”
Woods, who as the representative of the city’s southeastern tip has assumed the role of “mayor of Reche Canyon,” said, “If that’s what’s writ in the operations manual, then so be it. I didn’t see that written in there. But I distinctly remember he [Toro] had the opportunity to be on this commission when it was formulated, and David was asked if he wanted to be on it at that time and he said ‘No.’ He didn’t want to be on it, and we respected that. I took that position. To come back now, two years later… I know the commission meets between 1:30 to 2:30 roughly, and there will be other meetings that will take up other times.”
Navarro said, “But it is very important that he be there, Mr. Woods, and that is the only reason I am making this change.”
Woods, resignedly, said, “Alright.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Morongo Unified School District Superintendent Tom Baumgarten has exited his position for an unknown reason. Equally unknown is whether his departure is a temporary leave of absence or for good.
Meanwhile, Doug Weller, Morongo Unified’s former assistant superintendent of human resources, has been brought in to serve in the capacity of acting superintendent.
The Sentinel’s inquiries as to what the basis for Baumgarten’s absence is, and whether he is merely playing hooky or has been expelled, were met with what were essentially non-answers to the quiz. Efforts to reach Weller ultimately led to the woman who was formerly Baumgarten’s secretary and is now serving in that capacity for Weller.
Asked if Baumgarten’s departure is temporary and, if so, what date he is to return, the superintendent’s secretary said, “That is information we cannot share.” Asked then if Baumgarten would be back before the onset of the news school year, she said, “That is not public information.”
The timing of Baumgarten’s retreat appears to have left the district in the lurch, as a combination of factors has imposed on the district a severe reduction in its operating revenue. While Baumgarten was yet in place last month, the State of California informed the district that it would likely impose a ten percent reduction in the Local Control Funding Formula throughout the state, meaning that the district will have sless money for operations in the upcoming 2020-21 fiscal year than it did in the nearly-concluded academic year. In 2019-20, the Morongo Unified School District had expected revenue of roughly $107.3 million and planned expenditures of $109.2 million, with the difference made up through a contribution from an unclarified source. Because of the coronavirus crisis, the city has taken what is either an undisclosed or undetermined hit, reducing the available revenue for this year, even as teachers and students have been absent from their classrooms since March.
Baumgarted was to wrestle with making various economies to the district’s operations, which speculation has suggested would entail reducing teaching positions, not purchasing new textbooks and teaching materials, and deferring maintenance to school facilities. The state has indicated that the inflow of money to the district will be reduced, but has not specified the precise amount.
The district is anticipated to see a basic decrease in revenue because of the drop off in student population, pegged at somewhere around 150 fewer enrollees in Academic Year 2020-21. A commensurate reduction in teaching staff would be at least six. One report held 13 teachers would be axed.
Baumgarten is not in place to make or suggest cuts to the school board.
On the fly, the Sentinel was told, Weller is scrambling to achieve $3 million to $4 million in reductions.
The Sentinel is informed that at a meeting on June 30, the school board will consider a 2020-21 budget calling for $109 million in expenditures and $106 million in revenue, with the difference being drawn from the district’s reserves.