Upland Councilman Glenn Bozar’s two-month long effort to persuade his council colleagues to begin the process of incorporating into the Fiscal 2016-17 budget economies to offset anticipated future underfunded or unfunded pension costs failed this week. Instead, Bozar’s persistent request to have city staff shave enough money out of the planned spending for the upcoming year’s budget to allow the city to fatten its reserves was soundly turned back when the council voted 4-1 to accept city manager Rod Butler’s proposed $46.5 million general fund budget.
Since budget discussions began in earnest in May, Bozar has been pressuring Butler to revisit the budget numbers and impose on city staff further discipline. Bozar originally took issue with that element of the spending plan that called for the city to divert into the city’s general fund some $970,000 in gasoline tax the city normally uses to repair streets along with more than $400,000 from its various utility enterprise accounts that are kept on a ledger outside the general fund. Bozar took issue with the consideration that Butler was calling for Upland’s 2016-17 expenditures to grow by $3.8 million over those in 2015-16 while revenues over the same period were to increase by slightly over $2 million. Bozar wanted Butler to meet a requirement that the city achieve the goal of putting 12.5 percent of its revenues into reserves – in compliance with the city’s so-called Fiscal Responsibility Act – without diverting money from infrastructure improvements and maintenance. Bozar suggested instead that Butler reduce to the extent that was workable the hefty increases Butler had layered into the budget for both the fire department and the police department – 12.5 percent and 11 percent, respectively – as well as administrative services division increases of 14 percent.
Giving Bozar heartburn was that the budget called for a 20.3 percent increase – $1,171,145 – of the city’s contribution into the city’s pension fund; a 20 percent increase – $549,7217 – for so-called fringe benefits; and 5.39 percent – $1,024,553 – for salary increases.
Shortly after Bozar came onto the council more than three years ago he latched onto the looming pension crisis which is confronting cities all across California. Over the last fifteen years, governmental entities have offered public employees increasingly generous retirement packages by agreeing to a pension calculation formula that allows thirty and thirty-five year employees to retire at age 55 and draw a yearly retirement stipend that is equal to sixty to ninety percent of their highest yearly salary with the city. In many of these cases, these annual pensions exceed $100,000. In California retirement systems have been created to cover the ongoing and future costs of these pensions, with both the governmental entities and the government employees contributing to them. The most significant of these is CalPERS, an acronym for the California Public Employees Retirement System, which manages the contributions into that retirement fund made by the various governmental entities and public employees. That money is put into the stock market and other interest bearing or revenue-producing securities. CalPERS is the retirement/pension fund managing system for all state employees as well as most municipal employees throughout the state, including those employed by Upland. All government contributions into CalPERS are set at a certain rate each year based upon that particular governmental entity’s number of current employees and the terms of the pension benefits it offers. To stay fiscally balanced, CalPERS also has an earnings goal for the money it invests – 7.5 percent per year. When its investments do well and meet that goal, the only money contributed by the cities and state and participating agencies is the earlier referenced set amount. But if CalPERS’ investment portfolio does not meet its goals, then those governmental entities are committed to make up the difference. Last year CalPERS’ investment return was only 2.4 percent.
As years pass and more and more public employees retire, and with the average lifespan of Americans ever increasing such that many retirees are on average now living well into their seventies, eighties and beyond, the pension burden is burgeoning to a point that it is straining cities financially.
In Upland, which last year had a $43 million budget, $7.1 million went toward pension costs. This year – 2016-17, that cost is anticipated to increase to $8.3 million. Projections are that the city is already committed into the future to having to pay – for just current and past city employees – over $90 million in future pension costs. That number is ever increasing as more city employees are hired. That commitment is referred to as the city’s pension liability. This pension liability has been a major focus for Bozar, who has asserted that as that liability grows to an ever larger part of the city’s costs, less and less money will be available to the city in the future to pay for municipal services, perhaps to the point that the city will be bankrupted entirely.
Bozar is the chairman of the city’s finance committee. The two other members of that committee – city treasurer Dan Morgan and councilwoman Debbie Stone – supported him in his direction to Butler in May and June to revisit the proposed budget and make cuts where possible. Butler, however, defied in some measure Bozar’s expectations, dragging his feet in instituting the reductions to the rate of growth to certain department operations and expenditures. For example, Bozar wanted Butler to cease the diversion of gasoline tax into the general fund and reserve it all for road and street improvements. Instead, Butler simply reduced the diversion from $970,000 to $600,000 of the revenues from gas tax. Nor did Butler make cuts to the operating budget but sought to utilize creative ways to pull money out of the city’s utility enterprise funds to shore up the general fund. Both Morgan and Bozar expressed consternation at this approach and three times sent Butler back to the drawing board to find expenditures to cut.
This week, Butler came before the full council with what essentially was his original proposed budget intact, calling for $46.5 million in spending in 2016-17. Bozar again sought to have the budget number revisited, calling upon his council colleagues to instruct Butler to find a way to reduce spending so more money can be put into reserves to give the city the opportunity to deal with its burgeoning pension liability from a position of strength. Bozar asserted that the city should initiate an austerity program now, so it can stay ahead of the curve while it is still solvent, rather than putting itself into the position of having to make desperate cuts under the onus of future deficits.
Bozar used a graph giving projections of the city’s expenditures against revenues going forward that showed that the last year the city could count on a surplus was in 2016-17 and even that was not certain because CalPERS has already indicated it will not meet its ongoing earnings goal this year, necessitating an even heftier contribution from the city than the assumption in Butler’s proposed 2016-17 budget. “We’re not being transparent with the public or this council,” Bozar said. “We can’t control costs but we certainly can project. That’s what we did, but we’re not sharing it with public or this council the way this is being presented tonight.”
Bozar said the city’s Fiscal Responsibility Act required that the budget make some allowance for the anticipated increased financial burden the city will have to bear to make up for CalPERS lackluster earnings performance. “You are going off the fiscal cliff according to what is not being disclosed tonight,” Bozar said. “I think we have to identify the problem before we can offer solutions. You have to know what your problem is and how big it is and be transparent about it, then you can come up with recommendations. So, what this is showing me is when the city manager reports things are looking good in his report to the public and us, this belies that fact. We need a plan right away.”
Not exhibiting fiscal discipline at this point, Bozar warned, was tantamount to “just kicking the can down the road. I can’t support this budget as presented. This budget should not move forward until all of this information is presented.”
The balance of the council, however, consisting of Mayor Ray Musser, Stone, Gino Filippi and Carol Timm, opted to approve the budget as Butler had presented it.
Councilwoman Stone said it was time to accept the budget that Butler had presented and that he and staff had already been put through the ordeal of “a brutal four meetings.”
Stone rejected Bozar’s call for making further reductions in the budget to ensure the city can meet its mushrooming pension costs. “I completely disagree with Glenn on this,” she said.
She said staff had gotten into the spirit of austerity by agreeing to consider treasurer Dan Morgan’s suggestion that there be “a freeze on employees for six months.” Saying that “We can beat CalPERS to the bitter end,” she indicated that the city had to simply accept that “there is nothing we can do as a city to change any of that. Sitting here and saying we’re not transparent, I don’t feel that is fair to you guys [i.e., staff] because I know you are doing your due diligence to be up front.”
The taxpayers would simply need to take up the slack of the commitment past city officials had made to provide generous retirement benefits to city employees and live with the situation, Stone indicated. She said Bozar was taking the wrong approach in trying to apply the accounting and accountability standards of the business world to local government. “Glenn, I know what you are talking about in private industry, but I’ve learned since I’ve been on the finance committee that public and private budgets are completely different animals,” Stone said in directly addressing her colleague. “I don’t see why we have to be notified every time Rod wants to do something We hired him as city manager. Let’s let him do his job.”

In the wake of Chino having moved to a ward system for the election of its city council members, Chino Hills is on its way toward liberalizing its previously stringent regulations on campaign signage. Both cities were prompted to action by legal considerations, in Chino’s case a threat of legal action and in the case of Chino Hills in reaction to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Chino Hills City Attorney Mark Hensley has advised the Chino Hills City Council that its current political sign ordinance will no longer pass legal muster in the aftermath of a 2015 Supreme Court ruling. The city’s political sign ordinance requires that candidates obtain an election sign permit, tender a $250 deposit before erecting signs, remove the posted signs within ten days after the election and pay the city a $20 fine for every sign removed by city personnel after that deadline,
Hensley and assistant city attorney Elizabeth Calciano believe there are elements in the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, which would obviate Chino Hills’ ability to enforce its political sign ordinance. Somewhat paradoxically, the Reed v. Town of Gilbert case did not pertain to political signs, but rather small temporary signs erected by the Good News Community Church and its pastor, Clyde Reed, to alert the community to its services. The Town of Gilbert, Arizona’s sign code, ironically, imposed stricter limits on the size, location, number, and duration of the church’s signs than it did on political, ideological, and homeowners’ association signs. The church filed suit against the town in 2007, arguing that the code – both as written and as applied to its signs – was an unconstitutional restriction on its First Amendment right to free speech. After the Ninth Circuit Court found in favor of the town and its ability to discriminate against signs based on their content, the matter was appealed up to the Supreme Court, which last year ruled in favor of Reed, finding that a governmental entity cannot impose different restrictions against one type of signs versus other types of signs based upon their content. Thus, Hensley and Calciano reason, the City of Chino Hills cannot impose on political signs restrictions that are different than what apply to any other type of signs. Chino Hills’ political sign ordinance is qualitatively different from its commercial sign ordinance, imposing a set of restrictions on the signs candidates use in running for office that are different from those imposed on commercial signs.
Because of the Reed Vs. Gilbert ruling, Hensley and Calciano revisited the totality of the city’s political sign ordinance, considering other elements of the restrictions Chino Hills’ is imposing. As a consequence, Hensley and Calciano found an issue with the requirement for a $250 deposit accompanying the application for the sign permit. Such a requirement could be construed as “prior restraint” to free speech, which the Supreme Court first found unconstitutional in the cases of Near v. Minnesota and New York Times Co. v. United States.
After Hensley and Calciano recommended the city revise the code to comply with the standard inherent in the Reed Vs. Gilbert and other cases, the Chino Hills planning commission voted unanimously June 21 to recommend the changes to the city council, which will take up the matter on July 12.
In the newly drafted political sign ordinance, the provision for the $250 deposit has been removed, the limit on the signs remaining in place no more than ten days after the election has been increased to 30 days and the $20 fine has been displaced.
The new ordinance will maintain restrictions on the size and placement of signs. In particular, the provision prohibiting the posting of signs on public property and in roadway right-of-way will remain in effect. Those enforcement provisions applicable to other signs are also to be applied to political signs.
In neighboring Chino, the city council last month moved to change its at-large city council elections in which all of the city’s voters were eligible to participate every two years to ones that will involve voters voting once every four years in accordance with which of the four council wards they reside within. Each voter will be able to vote only for candidates from his or her ward running for election to represent his or her district. The mayor will continue to be elected at large, that is, in a contest in which all voters in the city are eligible to participate, in elections held corresponding with the presidential general election. The city moved to make that transition after Kevin Shenkman, using the letterhead of his firm, Shenkman & Hughes, sent a letter in December to the City of Chino, noting the city relies upon an at-large election system for electing candidates to the city council. Shenkman charged that “voting within Chino is racially polarized, resulting in minority vote dilution, and therefore Chino’s at large elections are violative of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001. It is our belief Chino’s at-large system dilutes the ability of minority residents – particularly Latinos (a “protected class”) – to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of Chino’s council elections.” In the letter, Shenkman threatened to sue Chino “on behalf of residents” if Chino’s at-large council system was not replaced by one based on district representation.

A small town’s fire truck is like fireworks, red-white-and-blue, Star-Spangled-Banner, Old-Glory, 4th-of-July. That big chunk of long red metal, with its hoses and ladders gloriously draped about its sides and its local boy, all grown up, donning his shiny badge and unmistakable fire chief helmet atop the big red fiery engine is the star of the local Independence Day parade as he airs the sirens of strength, virtue and success. Yes, the firetruck—as American as apple pie, truly the symbol of all that is about freedom and independence in the small, iconic, all-American town—the penultimate symbolic statement of the ability to run and control local affairs and local government, to bring about a community’s own destiny against all outside forces, even the rampages of fire, disaster and excessive taxes.
So it had been in Needles, California, at least since post World War II up until the time a few years back that the County of San Bernardino offered the city such a great rate on a contract that combining services seemed like a no-brainer. Sure it took a while to learn where all the fire hydrants were located, and perhaps there was a 20 minute longer response time and a few buildings burned down, but county fire protection services kept the fire from spreading and the insurance rating allowed for reasonable insurance plan prices, at least for those close enough to the station.
Just as everyone was all snugged in and having almost forgotten about the old locally controlled fire department and feeling delighted watching as a new fancy county fire station was being built in town, the County of San Bernardino under the new reign of First District Supervisor Robert Lovingood had another little surprise in store: the county would be doubling the price of the contract, suddenly hiking it from $600,000 to $1.2 million per year with no explanation and no alternative but to either pay up or annex into the taxed service area (“FP-5”) of the County’s Fire Protection District, thus forcing the property owners within the territory of the City of Needles to make up the difference with a new flat tax burden of $148 per parcel. By the time most of the community of the smallest city in the entire County of San Bernardino woke up to smell the coffee and realize that they were losing ownership of their fire truck along with the deal—it was too late to protest. Many of the towns citizens who “go dark” or leave town for the hot summery month of June and July when the notices were sent out to property owners, were not around to protest at the hearing, nor did they mail their protests in on time to meet the three week deadline. Those that did show up were outraged. Moreover, some putting their ear to the ground were shocked to learn what most people don’t know about—the situation of the citizens of Sunset Beach who found out the hard way what Needles is learning now. The Sunset Beach Taxpayers Association was defeated in a lengthy and expensive court battle, when in the association’s court appeal it was determined for certain that a council’s vote to annex its territory to a previously taxed Orange County district is not the same as a legislative vote to directly tax its people, and therefore does not fall under Prop 218, a proposition that prohibits taxation without a vote of the electors where the tax will be in excess of 1 percent of the assessed value of a property.
Undaunted, the Needles Fire Auxiliary, led by three of its citizens – former council members Ruth Musser-Lopez and Ed Mathews, along with Mary Stein – determined to make a two-pronged effort to defeat the exaction of a tax that would go directly to the county trough, leaving its citizens with no control over how it was spent and, moreover, to stop the heist of the fire truck. First they signed a notice of intent prepared by Musser-Lopez, to circulate a voter initiative to prohibit the annexation of the territory within the City of Needles into a fire district, mandating the application for dissolution of any county fire district within its territory and arranging for a local fire department “start-up” tax at no more than 0.15% or $120.00. Musser-Lopez appealed for city taxpayer support, as it would amount to $28 less than the $148 tax the county would impose, would keep the proceeds in local community control and would be limited to two years whereas the county’s annual fire services district tax had no end date. They delivered this Notice to the city clerk last Friday.
On Sunday afternoon in the backroom of the Wagon Wheel, a local eating establishment, they were joined by other locals, former councilman Don McCone along with Nyla Anderson and Paul Pletcher, who pledged to join the auxiliary and circulate the petition to get the initiative on the ballot. The group took a collection to finance a 500-mile round trip, sending Musser-Lopez to the Inland Empire to find an attorney who might represent the auxiliary for the second prong of the plan—obtaining an injunction against the city for having taken action against the Needles City Charter when the city council voted to convey a tax upon its property owners by annexing into the district and that this tax would be in excess of 2% for all property owners whose property is valued at less than $7,400. The Needles City Charter prohibits such taxation without a vote of the electors.
Seeking representation for the Auxiliary, first, Musser-Lopez attempted contact with Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Organization the day after the protest hearing on June 22 in which it was determined by Kathleen Rollings-McDonald, Executive Director of the San Bernardino County Local Area Formation Commission, that there were insufficient protests to take the matter to a vote. There was no response.
Musser-Lopez sought the advice of Upland City Councilman Glenn Bozar, a known foe of increasing local taxes, but the best Bozar could do on short notice was direct her to the Howard Jarvis Association. She then struck out on attempting to elicit the support of several attorneys. Without the guidance of an attorney, Musser-Lopez on her own prepared a verified complaint, in pro per, complete with Exhibits A – H. On Tuesday evening from her location now 250 miles away from Needles, she notified the Needles City Council via a letter emailed to Stein, which Stein printed and delivered to the city attorney at the council meeting that night and read to the public. The notice stated that at 10:00 the next morning (Wednesday) Musser-Lopez, in pro per, would be filing a complaint against the city for breach of contract—violation of the city’s charter concerning tax limitation, and that she would seek an ex parte hearing to obtain a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the city to suspend the annexation and the transfer of city fire department property, including the city fire truck.
According to Stein, the council, at that point in the meeting, upon hearing the notice, retreated to closed session to determine what action to take on the legal matter. When the council emerged from the closed session, it was announced the city would take action to defend against the lawsuit. Councilman Shawn Gudmundsen, who voted for the tax annexation said “there are some very serious allegations being made here.”
At 10 a.m. Wednesday morning Musser-Lopez checked through security at the court with three copies of her complaint and application for an order to halt both the annexation and the fire truck transfer. Once through the doors, she approached the stairway to the civil action filing room, but before reaching the civil filing windows she was intercepted by Needles City Attorney John Pinkney. “Okay” she said, “what can you tell me to convince me not to file my complaint.” Pinkney referenced the Sunset Beach Taxpayer’s Association vs. Orange County Local Area Formation Commission (OC LAFCO) case. There ensued some palaver between Musser-Lopez and Pinkney with regard to whether
the Sunset Beach case was relevant to the situation in Needles since the Sunset Beach case cited the taxpayer protection of Prop 218 and not the city charter. Without admitting the likelihood that the Sunset Beach decision would also likely apply to the Needles matter, Musser-Lopez let Pinkney know that she had no intention of leaving without filing if she could not get a guarantee that the city could get the fire truck back should the Fire Auxiliary’s voter initiative pass and the city recovers jurisdiction over its fire department by detaching from County Fire, its South Desert Service zone and FP-5. At that point, Pinkney called City Manager Rick Daniels who called both San Bernardino County’s Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) and County Fire District.
At the termination of the discussion on Tuesday, it was agreed that LAFCO would provide the city and Musser-Lopez with an analysis of what it would take to undo the annexation. As far as the fire truck—there will be fireworks come this Fourth of July: to be prepared—a promissory note on County Fire District letterhead listing the Needles Fire Department inventory and a commitment to first right of refusal and purchase back of any property by the Fire Department should it be restored upon the dissolution of the County Fire District’s Needles Service Area—including but not limited to, the fire truck.
By Wednesday an analysis was received from Rollings-McDonald which stated, “…if in the future the city would wish to reestablish its fire department under direction city authority, it could propose the detachment from County Fire, its South Desert Service zone and FP-5. This is a LAFCO action which would require an application, including a plan for service which would include a five-year fiscal feasibility analysis, and the same review process as before. This plan would need to show that the proposed change would be sustainable in order to be supported by the commission.”
There is one big hitch however…one that was not previously disclosed: a future dissolution of the Needles Service Zone and tax would be reliant on a commission’s decision that the county would agree that the loss of income from the Needles parcel tax add on was not detrimental to their operation. One can only assume that the more the county expands, the more they will become reliant on the parcel tax to a point that it will become impossible for them to give it up.
According to Rollings-McDonald, “One additional element that would be required to be considered is whether or not the removal of the City of Needles from the South Desert Service Zone would have a detrimental effect on the continuing viability of that regional service provider. That is not something I could predict at this time.”

By Count Friedrich von Olsen
I went into something of a panic early this week as I pondered exactly what I could find to write about. I concentrated but I just couldn’t come up with any ideas as this gave way to pondering, precisely, what the condition of my gray matter is at this advanced stage of my descent into decrepitude: Something akin to Swiss cheese, I surmise. A depressing thought, that! But I was rescued, you see, by none other than the State of California, which dropped  some subject matter right into my lap…
As I was looking over the agenda for this week’s County Board of Supervisors meeting, it leapt right up into my cortex: The State of California is giving the County of San Bernardino what is approaching an eleven million dollar grant, $10,668,372, to be exact. That is a good thing, some might say: state money tricking down locally. Now what is wrong with that?  Well, here goes: The grant, which is to come from the California Department of Public Health, will go to the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health to fight obesity. To use language put forth by Trudy Raymundo, San Bernardino County Director Department of Public Health, the grant is to be used for “providing comprehensive local nutrition education and obesity programs to assist county residents in establishing healthy eating habits and physically active lifestyles for the prevention of nutrition related chronic diseases (e.g., type II diabetes, hypertension, and heart related problems such as atherosclerosis).”
Ms. Raymundo told the board the money will be spend on “individual and group education, along with multi-level interventions and activities will be conducted. The aim is to engage residents and partners in developing policies, systems, and environmental changes in organizations and communities across the County that support improved nutrition. As required by the state, the  Department of Public Health will use these funds to collaborate and subcontract with other entities within the county to improve nutritional status and prevent obesity among the county’s low income population. This ongoing effort is expected to reach 35,000 individuals annually.” According to Ms. Raymundo,  $10,668,372  is meant to cover programs for three years running, over the period of October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2019, at a rate of  $3,556,124 annually…
In the interest of full disclosure here, I may have some personal issues that inhibit my sensitivity on this obesity issue. I am somewhat underweight. I have been so my entire life. I am described by one of my nearly life long acquaintances as “imperially slim.” (That should not be a surprise; I am after all, the Count!). And I understand that much of this weight issue is a matter, really, of genetics. I do not, for example, look down on those with weight problems. I do not think it is weakness of character that causes one to pack on the pounds. It is, for the most part, I believe a function of the metabolisms we inherited from our parents, our grandparents, our great grandparents, great great grandparents, all the way back to Adam and Eve or the apes in the trees or wherever it was that our ancestors originated…
My concern here is that this is an unrealistic undertaking and we are putting too much money into it. Isn’t it already recognized that being too fat is unhealthy? Isn’t being thin already something of a social ideal? And what need is there to reinforce that? Some things are self evident. I would think that if you are overweight you already know that. I am constantly reminded, every time I see my reflection in a mirror or glass that I am, ahem, imperially slim. I can’t imagine this self recognition factor would be any different for anyone of a different body mass.
And exactly how is this money to be spent? “The focus” according to Ms. Raymundo, “is to help low-income Californians establish healthy eating habits and
encourage a physically active lifestyle to prevent the onset of nutrition related chronic diseases…”
Are we to hire alimentary police? Will they patrol the restaurants and other dens of public gestation?  I can imagine, “Hey you, yeah you, Fatso, drop that cheeseburger. One more bite, and I’ll shoot…”
Surely, I jest. Still, I hope my point has been made. Is this a wise expenditure of our public money when there are better things to be done?

Daniel David Mikesell was born on March 22, 1910 in Shawnee, Oklahoma, son of Carl C. and Myrtle (Hayes) Mikesell. In 1918 the family moved to Needles, where Dan’s father, an engineer with the Santa Fe Railroad, established their home and where Dan attended grade and high schools, graduating in 1928. He then attended UCLA, where he majored in political science.
Mikesell worked in the lumber and construction field in Redlands in and later in Pomona as a sales manager. During World War II he was employed at the Douglas Aircraft Company in Long Beach as a supervisor in the wage administration department and was later in charge of the development department for the B-26 Light Bomber.
In 1945 Mr. Mikesell returned to the construction field, representing a wholesale materials firm. In 1948 he jointed the Celotex Corporation, producers of building and industrial materials, as the technical sales representative in charge of developing new product uses and merchandizing techniques. He was transferred to the Ontario office in 1950. An active and avid sportsman and conservationist, Mikesell became president of the West End Fish and Game Club for two years and was president of the Inland Council Conservation Clubs of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. He helped organize the California Wildlife Federation and was its first vice-president. He also served on the board of directors of the California Game Improvement Association and the Ocean Fish Protective Association. He organized the Junior Sportsman Club in 1952 and was involved in Boy Scout activities. On March 4, 1954, Mr. Mikesell announced his candidacy as Second District Supervisor. He won the election and served from December 6, 1954 to December 3, 1958, at which time he ran against the incumbent Eugene G. Nisbet, for the Republican seat in the State Assembly. Unsuccessful in this attempt, he was elected to the Ontario City Council and served as mayor of Ontario from 1960 to 1962. During this period he helped to organize the Friends of the Ontario Airport, and was the charter vice-president of that organization.
Mr. Mikesell was elected to a second term on the board of supervisors in 1962 and three consecutive terms thereafter. He served as chairman of the board from 1966 to 1968. During his tenure he distinguished himself in numerous capacities at the federal state and county levels. He served as president of the Southern California Association of Governments and as a director of the County Supervisors Association of California. While with the Supervisors Association, he served as the chairman of the public works committee for six years and was a member of the Fish and Game Commission, Finance Committee, Retirement Board, Water Resources Committee, Tax Study Committee, and others. Recognized as an authority in the fields of aviation and transportation, Mikesell was appointed to an unprecedented fourth term as the chairman of the Transportation Steering Committee for the National Association of Counties and earlier chaired that organization’s subcommittee on aviation. He was the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Noise Standards at the State Aeronautics Board and the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Flexible Transportation Systems. He was the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Flexible Transportation Systems for the State Department of Transportation. He was a member of the United States Department of Transportation’s Policy Advisory on a National Transportation Planning Study and was a member of the Federal Aviation Agency’s Airspace Utilization Committee. He was a member of the State Council on Intergovernmental Relations, a director of the California Water Resources Association, and was appointed to the Governor’s Earthquake Advisory Council.
Mikesell was chairman of the Chino Basin Water District Committee, founder and chairman of the I-15 Association, a member of the West Valley Transit Service Authority, organizer of the West Valley Planning Agency (which evolved into what is now San Bernardino Associated Governments – SANBAG, the county’s transportation agency), a member of several committees on aviation and president of the San Bernardino Chapter of the Air Force Association. He was a member of the Death Valley 49ers, a member of E Clampus Vitus, on the board of governors of the National Orange Show, and was the charter president of the Chaffey Booster’s Club and was active in several other organizations. He is a charter member of the Feather River Project Committee which helped to promote the routing of Northern California water to and through San Bernardino County. He was a member of Southern California’s Ten County Plan and he organized the 5-County Plan on the uniform design and construction of public thoroughfares in San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties. This was so successful that the Metropolitan Engineering Board gave that effort credit for having saved about 200-man-years of work and costs. Mikesell was appointed by President Richard Nixon to a National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws.
On September 8, 1976, failing health necessitated Dan Mikesell’s resignation from the board of supervisors after some eighteen years of service. Following his retirement, he served on the County Aviation Commission and the Economic Development Commission. The I-15/I-10 Devore Cutoff Interchange was named the “Daniel D. Mikesell Interchange” in recognition of his 20-plus years of effort to have the interchange constructed as a time-saver for traffic to Las Vegas and the desert areas.
Mr. and Mrs. Mikeell resided in Ontario. Mrs. Mikesell was the former Gabrielle Lucas, daughter of the late Mr. and Mrs. Vincent Lucas of Cucamonga. They were married for over 65 years. Their son, Daniel D. Jr. was the principal county counsel for Los Angeles County. Into the Third Millenium, Dan Mikesell continued to provide consulting services and enjoyed fishing and occasional golf as recreation.
He died on November 13, 2007 at the age 97.

BARSTOW — Racing aficionados are proposing to use a portion of Main Street for drag races in Barstow in November.
Brian Devincenzi is the primary organizer/sponsor of the event. The principal of Route 66 Drag Races, Devincezi has said he envisions an event reminiscent of those that are held at raceways in Las Vegas and Fontana.
The actual distance from start to finish in each race will be 330 feet. Total length needed to accommodate the vehicles, including slowing and braking distance will be 1,200 feet of roadway.
City officials want assurances that proper safety measures including K-rails will be in place for the

REDLANDS—The City of Redlands has approved budget for 2016-17 that anticipates a $64.4 million and $57.8 million in expenditures.
At the close of the 2015-16 fiscal year ending yesterday, June 30, the city had $10.3 million salted away in its reserves. The $6.6 million in excess of expenditures the city believes it will have accumulated over the next 12 months will be used in various ways. Potential economies over that period could boost the city’s unreserved balance to as much as $8.9 million.
The city will operate on a $64.4 million budget in 2016-17. Expenses are estimated at $57.8 million. The city expects a $93,451 surplus and $8.9 million unreserved balance on June 30, 2017.
City Manager Nabar Martinez has recommended some modest capital repairs and replacements such as $300,000 for replacing fire station roofs, $150,000 for sidewalk repair and another $150,000 to purchase two police cruisers.

HESPERIA—The Hesperia City Council last month approved a $78 million balanced budget for Fiscal year 2015-17, which begins today, July 1. That $78 million figure is $7.9 million more than its 70.1 million budget in just concluded 2015-16.
The City of Progress’s spending plan is balanced with regard to both its general fund spending and all of its capital and enterprise spending, which lies outside the general fund. The city will salt away ten percent of its available revenues for all city operations.
Although the city anticipates revenues from sales and use taxes in 2016-17 to be down slightly from 2015-16, revenue overall is expected to increase by $1.2 million this year over last.
The Water District, which comprises 32-percent of the overall revenue budget, is increasing by 29-percent or $5.8 million, which is primarily due to receiving $1.5 million from the Proposition 84 Drought Relief Grant and $4.7 million from the Proposition 1 Grant that must be used on the Reclaimed Water Distribution System project.

ADELANTO — The Adelanto City Council this week adopted a $45.3-million budget through all of its municipal funds, just three years after it declared a fiscal emergency.
Within the last year, the municipality of 31,765 has moved to shore itself up financially by legalizing the cultivation of marijuana within licensed facilities located exclusively within the city’s industrial parks.
While the city is not out of the financial woods or the red just yet, city officials are holding on to the hope that, having laid the foundation of allowing the city to host large scale lucrative cannabis growing operations, the city will be able to tap into a newly-created revenue stream by taxing those operations. This November, the city is putting a citywide measure on the ballot calling for city residents to give City Hall the authority to levy a five percent excise tax on those growing what are contemplated to be, through the application of advance horticultural methods, continual bumper crops. Adelanto, perhaps because of its financial desperation, has gotten in on the ground floor of the marijuana production industry, and could realize upwards of $10 million yearly as growers in the city are aggressively capturing the corner on the market.
Though the city has to this point limited its marijuana-permissiveness to cultivation operations and yet prohibits medical marijuana clinics or dispensaries from operating anywhere within city limits, city officials are looking ahead to the possibility that a statewide initiative to allow cannabis to be used recreationally will pass, and the city intends to have a leg up on other cities by being ready to rake in proceeds from cultivation, manufacturing, business-to-business distribution and transportation, testing and dispensaries.
In the meantime, Adelanto is dealing with fiscal reality and for 2016-17 will need to dip into its reserves because planned-for expenditures will exceed income by roughly $800,000 over the next 12 months, as things currently stand. The $45.3 million figure covers all manner of city spending, including its general fund, enterprise funds, capital funds and special projects. The general fund will see $12.4 million in revenue coming in and $13.2 going out. The difference will be made up by drawing from reserves, which now stand at just over $4 million

VICTORVILLE— The City of Victorville has adopted an overall 2016-17 budget that anticipates $183,689,725 in spending though all of its municipal funds, including $55.4 million in general fund expenditures, and $103,616,939 in spending through its various enterprise funds and $19,491,988 in special project funding.
Buried in those various allotments, the city has slated to carry out $35 million in capital improvements. do rev.
In meeting the city’s requirement to meet public safety requirements it is devoting $37.3 million to cover the costs of its $23.84 million contract with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, which provides law enforcement service, and $13.55 million for fire department operations.
The city did manage to work some economies into the budget by forging a deal with the county to split the cost of six paramedic firefighters. It is also engaging in what some consider to be double taxation by imposing on city residents, who have already paid through their taxes for the creation and operation of the fire department a fee for emergency response by the department.
Victorville is the fifth largest of San Bernardino County’s 24 cities, with a population of 115,903.