According to the county, “The Registrar of Voters (ROV) is working closely with several city and town clerks to explain to local candidates an error that led five office-seekers to believe they had qualified for the Nov. 5 ballot when they had not.

On Friday, August 9, after the candidate filing period closed, the ROV discovered a clerical error that affected the evaluation of nomination petition signatures for city candidates.  To ensure each candidate met their nomination petition requirement, ROV staff reevaluated all petitions for the city candidates. As a result of this reevaluation, eight candidates were determined to be impacted.

This affected candidates in the cities of Highland, Rialto, Hesperia, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Twentynine Palms and the Town of Apple Valley.

Five of the eight candidates did not meet their nomination requirements, and therefore, did not qualify as a candidate for the ballot. The ROV immediately communicated this change of status to these city clerks. These five candidates may file a legal challenge to request relief from the courts. Any legal challenges must be resolved by Aug. 29, after which no changes can be made to the ballot.

Three of the eight candidates had the opportunity to obtain additional signatures due to the extension of the candidate filing period through 5 p.m. Wednesday.  These deadlines were extended because the incumbents in those contests had not filed candidacy papers.

These findings were promptly addressed by performing subsequent audits to confirm the findings. In the future, these additional audits will be added to our candidate filing processes and our petition signature review processes.

The mission of the ROV is to conduct the County’s elections in a fair, accessible, secure, transparent, and efficient manner, upholding the highest level of election standards and accuracy, while always providing excellent customer service to the diverse population it serves.

The Registrar of Voters values its partnerships with the city clerks and continues to provide its assistance throughout this process.”

The California Department of Food and Agriculture has declared an end to the Oriental fruit fly quarantine in the Redlands area following eradication of the invasive species.
On September 27, 2023, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the California Department of Food and Agriculture imposed a quarantine in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The quarantine covered 102 square miles of San Bernardino County. Redlands, which is one of the communities in San Bernardino County which has preserved significant portions of historic agricultural property, was at the epicenter of the infestation.
According to APHIS, 1,200 acres of commercial agriculture production of citrus, apples, avocados, peaches and other stone fruits were affected.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture, known by its acronym CDFA worked in coordination with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, and the San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner in arresting the migration of the pest, doing so with the cooperation of the local populace, which complied, for the most part, with orders to refrain from removing fruit from trees and further demands that they not move any produce from their property. If fruit fell from trees, residents were urged to double-bag it and place it in a trash bin rather than green waste bins or other organic refuse designations.
Work crews consisting of a combination of California Department of Food and Agriculture and U.S. Department of Agriculture employees, California Conservation Corps crews, and private contractors specializing in fruit removal then methodically worked their way from one end of the target area to the other, going on to private property to pick up the contaminated, or potentially contaminated, fruit, disposing it into containers from which it was impossible for the flies, larvae or maggots to escape.
California and its fruit industry have been buffeted over the years by several pests, including Mediterranean, Mexican, Tau, melon, peach and guava fruit flies. Oriental fruit flies are most easily distinguished from other flies by their yellow color.
The oriental fruit fly, previously known by the scientific name, Dacus dorsalis and now referred to as Bactrocera dorsalis, is a species of tephritid fruit fly that was endemic to Southeast Asia. It is a major pest species, with a broad host range of cultivated and wild fruits. Having left its native Asia, it is a highly invasive pest that now has a presence in at least 65 countries. It is believed to have invaded Hawaii in 1945 as a contaminant of military material returning from the western Pacific war zone, in particular Taiwan and the Mariana Islands. Fruit imported to the mainland from Hawaii is generally fumigated to prevent the pest from coming her. But fruit brought by travelers, most likely from Hawaii but also from Southeast Asia and other Pacific islands has likely allowed the flies to get into California it is believed for the first time in 1960, at which point it began to immediately ravage fruit and vegetables. Eradication efforts by the CDFA and the United States Department of Agriculture have been an ongoing struggle since then.
According to the CDFA, female flies lay eggs in groups of three to 30 under the skin of host fruits. Larvae tunnel through the host and emerge approximately 10 days later. Flies mature into adulthood in 10 to 12 days and usually live up to 90 days. Adult flies are strong fliers and can travel as far as thirty miles for sustenance. This aggressive search for food allows the pest to infest a region quickly
The lifting of this quarantine signals the successful completion of a nearly 11-month-long collaborative effort to eradicate four unique invasive fruit fly species (Tau, Queensland, Mediterranean and Oriental) from seven quarantine areas across seven California counties — San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Clara, Sacramento and Contra Costa.
“This was an unprecedented situation for California to experience this many active invasive fruit fly quarantines at one time,” said Victoria Hornbaker, director of CDFA’s Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services Division. “The response to these destructive invasive species was an enormous effort, and thanks to the cooperation of residents, the agricultural industry, and our government partners at the local and federal levels, we’re incredibly proud to have successfully lifted all active invasive fruit fly quarantines in the state of California.”
Officials said the USDA made critical investments in the response with personnel and funding, and that commitment underscores the importance of ongoing investment in pest exclusion activities.
According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, “It’s important to remember that the threat of new fruit fly introductions remains. Left unchecked, they can endanger the state’s natural environment, agriculture, and economy. Agricultural officials urge residents to follow simple precautions and stay vigilant for signs of invasive species. To help prevent any future introductions, residents should:

• Cooperate with agricultural officials and allow them access to your garden to place traps, inspect plants, conduct necessary treatments or remove potentially infested produce.
• Buy fruit trees and vegetable plants from licensed California nurseries. Purchasing agricultural goods from uncertified sources can spread invasive pests. Source your plants locally and responsibly. To find a licensed nursery near you, visit CDFA’s Directory of Licensed Nurseries.
• Inspect your garden for signs of invasive fruit flies or maggots and report any findings to CDFA at 1-800-491-1899 or your local county agricultural commissioner’s office.
• When entering the United States from another country, avoid bringing agricultural products — including fruits or vegetables. Help us protect our agricultural and natural resources and California’s unique biodiversity from invasive fruit flies — please Don’t Pack a Pest (www.dontpackapest.com) when traveling or mailing/receiving packages.”

More can be learned about this invasive species and how to protect the county’s fruits and vegetables at  CAFruitFly.com, rivcoawm.org or awm.sbcounty.gov.

Attack On CIM Guard Revives Chino Valley’s Death Row Inmate Transfer Misgivings

The resourceful though unsuccessful attempt on the life of a correctional officer by an inmate at the California Institution for Men in Chino has revived concerns about security issues involving the influx of Death Row inmates at the facility.
At roughly 8:30 p.m. on Sunday evening August 11, 2024, Kevin G. Roby, 60, clad only in boxer shorts, exited his housing unit and was observed by penal officers shortly thereafter.
Prison guards shouted orders at Roby to return to his housing unit as he began to walk toward the main prison yard. Roby continued and when several officers approached him and employed chemical mace in an effort to restrain him, he used a “shank,” a metal blade he or someone else had fashioned in one of the prison’s workshops which he had pulled from his underwear, to stab one of the guards in the side of his head, opening up a four-inch gash, but failing to reach the victim’s jugular vein or carotid artery.
There were contradictory reports about the action Roby had engaged in. In one account, it was related that the convict had used the element of surprise in wielding the makeshift knife. In another version it was put forth that he had armed himself with the knife and had it in his hand while he was yet heading toward the prison yard and had issued warnings that he would kill anyone in the yard well before a Code I response was ordered and several of the corrections officers formed a skirmish line in order to close in on him in a methodical fashion. Another variation held that Roby had bolted toward the line of correction officers, managing to stab a single guard before he was swarmed by at least six others. Continue reading →

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CIV SB 2422295
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS:
Petitioner STEPHEN PAIGE & ASHLEY BEIRING filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
BRONSON GUNNER GEORGEI to BRONSON GUNNER LEE PAIGE
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: August 26, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Department: S37
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
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.
Gilbert G. Ochoa
Judge of the Superior Court.
Filed: July 15, 2024 by
Ariel Barajas, Deputy Court Clerk
Stephen Paige
15006 Mustang Lane
Fontana, CA 92336
(909) 917-39221
spaige19@gmail.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 25 and August 2, 9 & 16, 2024.

FBN 20240004940
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
CARNICERIA EL TORO 1329 E 4th STREET ONTARIO, CA 91764; EL TORO MEAT MARKET INC 1329 E 4th STREET ONTARIO, CA 91764
Business Mailing Address: 1329 E 4th STREET ONTARIO, CA 91764
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of California under the number 5782545.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: July 1, 2023.
By signing, 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 179130). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
/s/ MAURICIO ANTONIO JERONIMO FIGUEROA, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/24/2024
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy J7527
Notice-This fictitious 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 business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Originally published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on June 7, 14, 21 & 28, 2024. Corrected on July 26, August 2, 9 & 16, 2024.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JOYCE H. HALL
CASE NO. PROVA2400674
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JOYCE H. HALL has been filed by STEVE HALL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that STEVE HALL be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests that the decedent’s will 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 SEPTEMBER 3, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. at San Bernardino County Superior Court, Fontana District
Department F3 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
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 Steve Hall:
JAMES LEE, ESQUIRE SBN: 110838
LAW OFFICE OF MARC E. GROSSMAN
100 N. EUCLID AVE, SECOND FLOOR
Upland, CA 91786
jim@wefight4you.com
Telephone: (909) 608-7426
Fax: (909) 949 3077
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on August 2, 9 & 16, 2024.

Continue reading →

Southwest Airlines will no longer be flying from Ontario International Airport to Bellingham International Airport in Washington state, Syracuse Hancock International Airport in New York, George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, and Cozumel International Airport in Mexico.
Alan Wapner, the president of the Ontario International Airport Authority Board of Directors was not immediately available for comment.

In a development that environmentalists celebrated as turning the corner on a decades-long effort to safeguard the ecology of a mountain canyon some four miles from Lake Arrowhead, the U.S. Forest Service has ordered BlueTriton Brands, the bottler of Arrowhead® Spring Water, to discontinue its diversion of water in the San Bernardino Mountains.
In a letter dated July 26, 2024, San Bernardino Mountain District Ranger Michael Nobles informed BlueTriton it must “cease operations” in the San Bernardino National Forest and remove all of the siphoning and drafting equipment along with its pipelines used to collect and transfer water from Strawberry Canyon, located above the 5,000-foot elevation, to a facility further down the mountain.
In a quick turnaround, BlueTriton on August 6 sued Nobles, four of his U.S. Forest Service supervisors and the U.S. Forest Service in federal court in Washington D.C.
The illegal diversion of water from Strawberry Canyon in the San Bernardino Mountains has been ongoing for more than 90 years. Those profiting by the diversion have perpetuated it year after year, decade after decade for what is approaching a century by blurring the distinction between water high up on the mountain with water lower down on the mountain.
Beginning in 1930 and then more aggressively in the later 1930s, 1940s and 1950s into the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, BlueTriton and its numerous corporate predecessors, all under the aegises of the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company, Arrowhead Springs Corporation, Arrowhead® Water Corporation and Arrowhead® Mountain Spring Water Company, utilized adits – horizontal passages bored into rock for drainage purposes – to draft water in Strawberry Canyon. Continue reading →

More than 14 months after the headhunting firm San Bernardino hired to assist it in recruiting a replacement city manager failed to maintain security with regard to a host of the candidates who were being considered for the job, the city council voted to make a payout of $800,000 to one of those applicants who was offered the city manager’s post and then elected to turn it down, only to be fired by the city council he had betrayed when he sought the San Bernardino job.
It now appears Steven Carrigan and his attorney have been able to exploit for their own personal benefit one of the dirty secrets of the municipal managerial profession which for generations has put the taxpayers at a disadvantage when dealing with powerful local government insiders who are in a position to structure their contracts and the rules by which they are considered for employment and, ultimately in many cases, hired.
Part and parcel to these lopsided and as often as not corrupted power relationships is the excessive secrecy of local government operations, a practice that serves the interests of the high-paid public servants as opposed to the residents and citizens who pay their salaries.
As summer dawned last year, Steven Carrigan was in place as the city manager of Salinas, a position he had held since January 2021. Prior to his hiring in Salinas, he had worked in the public sector for 24 years, including eight years near the beginning of his career as the economic development director in Stockton, followed by a stint as the assistant city manager of 25,000-population Sanger in Fresno County. In 2013, he was hired as the city manager of 37,000-population Los Banos in Merced County and in 2015, the city council with 84,000-population Merced, the county seat of Merced County, hired him as city manager on a three-year contract. That contract was extended, but in 2020, with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, his efforts to readily adhere to the health precautions and COVID-related mandates imposed by Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom rubbed several Republican members of the Merced City Council, in particular its then-mayor, the wrong way and he resigned rather than be terminated. He managed to land on his feet in Salinas several months later, however.
Carrigan perhaps would have remained in Salinas for quite some time. He had initiated a personal relationship with the superintendent of the Salinas City Elementary School District, Rebeca Andrade, and therefore had a reason to remain in 163,542-population seat of government in Monterey County. There did not appear to be any insurmountable challenges in the running the city and there were no overt outstanding personality conflicts with any of the city council’s seven members, although the council had aggressively reviewed his performance early in 2023. Continue reading →

In a highly irregular development, the Upland City Council today made what was a virtual last-minute change to the revenue-producing measure its members had resolved to place before the city’s voters last month.
On July 22, the Upland City Council voted to ask the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters to put an initiative on the November 5 ballot that would have revamped the city’s current business licensing fees, permits and taxing schedule, which have been in place for more than three decades.
The changes to the business licensing fees and taxes were to have, if passed, city officials predicted, provided the city with somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 million more in revenue than it currently collects.
Waiting until July to make that request of the county elections office was considered to have been a tardy undertaking. Generally speaking, those putting a measure onto a ballot require upwards of six months of lead time, as the elections office has a deadline in November to place measures on California primary election ballots voted on in March in presidential election years; February to place measures on California primary election ballots voted on in June in gubernatorial election years; and July for the November ballot when a presidential or gubernatorial general election is held.
For common citizens, who must formulate the ballot measure and generally must gather thousands and thousands of signatures on petitions to qualify those proposed measures to be on the ballot, many months of signature gathering must take place before submitting the proposal prior to the November, February or July deadline. For governmental entities, which can use the official authority of an elected decision-making body to bypass the signature gathering requirement, less lead time is required but some temporal cushion is still required in order to hash out among that elected leadership the contents of such proposed measures.
Today, August 9, at 5 p.m., was the deadline to lodge with the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters a request – including all relevant paperwork and augmenting documentation – to place an item on the upcoming November 5 ballot. Yesterday, Thursday, August 8, Upland City Clerk Keri Johnson posted at 12:30 p.m., that is, at half-past noon, notice of a “special” meeting of the Upland City Council to take place at 12:30 p.m. today. On the agenda for that meeting was, in addition to oral communications from the public relating to the two items to be heard, action to “Consider adopting resolutions placing a sales tax measure on the November ballot” and to “consider adopting a resolution withdrawing a general tax measure from the November 5, 2024 ballot relating to business license taxes.”
Though Johnson had characterized the meeting as “urgent,” word reaching the Sentinel was that the move was a calculated one that had been planned at least weeks, more likely months and maybe more than a year in advance.
According to a knowledgeable and well-placed individual, city officials entered into a precisely coordinated effort to have not just one over on the city’s residents but two over on the residents by springing the first measure relating to the revamping of the business tax and business permit schedules on them belatedly and then crossing them up once more with a different measure calling for a citywide sales tax add-on. The purpose, the Sentinel is informed, was to not only get an early indication of those who would have a knee-jerk reaction against the city’s taxing proposal but get those ready to militate against the tax to squander attention, focus and maybe even money in fighting something that wasn’t going to be on the ballot.
In 2022, city officials placed what was ultimately designated as Measure L on the ballot, asking Upland residents to consent to imposing on themselves a one-cent sales tax override. A small but committed and efficiently-operating contingent of Uplanders worked against the tax proposal, generating handbills, mailers and signs, while facilitating the efforts of former Upland City Councilman Glenn Bozar and former Upland Treasurer Larry Kinley in authoring both the official rebuttal of the argument in favor of Measure L and the official argument against Measure L, which was included in the election packet and sample ballot that was sent by the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters to all voters in Upland about six weeks before the election.
While city officials are constrained by state law from utilizing taxpayer money to support a measure, virtually all employees at Upland City Hall were in favor of Measure L, based in no small measure by assurances delivered to them by the city manager and the assistant city manager that Measure L’s passage would make giving them the raises they were seeking possible.
Though municipal employees by a better than 19-to-1 margin supported the sales tax initiative, ultimately, Upland’s residents rejected Measure L, with 10,222 voters or 44.6 percent in favor of it and 12,697 voters or 55.4 percent opposed to it.
Similar assurances to those given two years ago have now been delivered to city employees that passage of the measure placed on the ballot by today’s action will guarantee their raises will be forthcoming in Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
On July 26, Upland’s representative in the California Assembly, Chris Holden, met with several dozen Jewish voters, with whom he was going over multiple issues of common interest facing his district, the Southern California region and California in general. At that event, which was four days after the Upland City Council had voted to pursue getting the first version of the measure they were promoting, which limited itself to altering the city’s business license fees and taxing formulas, for a vote in November, Holden conveyed to those in attendance that a measure to impose an added one cent sales tax on shoppers in Upland was to appear on the ballot in November. In his presentation, Holden indicated the matter had been thoroughly thought through, with precise predictions of how much money the tax would generate for Upland if it passed. Holden had knowledge of what Upland’s mayor and city council were going to do, 13 days before the item was placed on the special meeting agenda and 14 days before the action was taken.
At today’s special meeting, only a relative handful of residents had been able to react to what the city suddenly had on tap.
One group not caught flat-footed was the Upland Police Officers Association. That group’s president, Officer Gabe Garcia, made a pitch for the measure.
“Our Upland Police Department is committed to protecting our community, but we face significant challenges,” Garcia said. “Our equipment is outdated. Replacing just our handheld radios will cost $1.3 million. We also have fewer officers per thousand citizens than most neighboring cities. While other cities have 1.9 officers per thousand residents, Upland has only about 1.0 officers per 1,000. This strain is unsustainable. This measure will provide resources needed to hire more officers, replace outdated equipment and expand our capacity to fund these growing challenges. It will help fund the technology that will make our investigations more effective and give our officers the tools they need to protect you and your family. This is not just about a tax. It is about making an investment in the future of Upland. Public safety is at the heart of this measure.”
Mayor Bill Velto was also provided support in his quest to get the one-cent-per-dollar additional sales tax in place by Brian Taylor, who was on hand to put a good word in for the measure.
Taylor said, “I’m here to support this tax measure. Yeah, our city needs it. The cost of everything is going up. We’re trying to retain our police force. We don’t have the money to pay them. Well, this 1 percent tax is going to help a little bit with that. Everyone [is] complaining about potholes. It takes money to do all of this. We need to generate funds. We [are] all aware of that. I think this is the time to do it. Put it on the ballot and let the residents fight about it.”
Upland Assistant City Manager Stephen Parker said that “Upland’s residents enjoy a high quality of life, but the city’s bedroom community status keeps it at a financial deficit compared with other neighboring cities who have a more robust commercial development.”
For that reason alone, Parker said, seeking the sales tax override was justified.
In questioning Parker, Third District Councilman Carlos Garcia, perhaps inadvertently, elicited a response from the assistant city manager that seemed to indicate the city had intended to go with the sales tax proposal all along. Garcia referenced, and Parker then confirmed, that the city had carried out a survey of 400 residents to ascertain whether there was adequate support for the sales tax imposition in order for the measure to pass. Without there being any disclosure of what the precise results of that polling had been, the tenor of the questions and answers was that the survey results indicated there was some prospect the measure would pass.
Councilman Garcia said, “About a year-and-a-half-ago, residents voted against this.” He then made reference to some polling data relating to the proposed measure.
“I’d like to know, in this current polling, tell me exactly how many people were polled?” Garcia said. “What was the percentage of people that were polled?”
When Parker indicated 400, Garcia responded, “Only 400 were polled. Right now, in the uncertainty of the economy, I think it’s the wrong time to do this. We talked about transparency. I think, in the year-and-a-half time that passed, that it is still too early to get to that point.”
City Clerk Keri Johnson acknowledged before the council voted on the matter that the language of the ballot measure had not been accurately disclosed when the item was placed on the agenda. “There was a change to the ballot language after the posted meeting agenda that was also posted on-line,” she said.
First District Councilwoman Shannan Maust said the council should not be shy about having Upland residents reconsider taxing themselves two years after they soundly rejected doing so.
“I see nothing wrong with asking the residents, [given] where we are today,” Maust said, “because in two years what has happened, from my accessibility to the public, I’ve had the majority come to me and ask to get this back on the ballot.”
Maust suggested the measure failed in 2022 because that balloting corresponded with California’s gubernatorial election, when the turnout was not as heavy as it is during presidential elections. She prognosticated that with more people voting less than four months hence, the sales tax measure will pass.
“There will be a larger pool of voters to see it,” she said of the measure in November. She said that voters in the First District told her they didn’t vote because the president, the mayor and she were not on the ballot two years ago. She did not mention, however, that this year, in the three races in Upland at stake, Mayor Velto, she and incumbent Treasurer Greg Bradley are running unopposed.
Two of Upland’s residents who did make it to the meeting said they were not fooled by what the city council had done.
Mark Walters said, “The posting of this emergency meeting was announced yesterday at 12:30 p.m., exactly 24 hours before this emergency meeting. We all know this was done with much secrecy and the optics prove this council is not transparent at all. I also noticed it was not posted anywhere on social media until I grabbed it this morning, because we know this is an attempt to slip the measure in without much opposition. My biggest question is why did you choose today of all days to have this emergency meeting instead of last month, last week, a couple of months ago? Could it be because both persons [on the council – Velto as mayor and Maust as councilwoman] – running for reelection are running unopposed and it’s too late to run against you?”
Walters continued, “I must applaud the mayor and mayor pro tem for their theatrics at last week’s city council meeting.”
Walters then gave a rough rundown of an exchange between Councilman James Breitling, who is currently Upland mayor pro tem [i.e., the vice-mayor], and Velto which took place on July 22.
“I am paraphrasing, since I can’t remember the exact verbiage,” Walters said, and then quoted Breitling to the best of his memory. “‘Mr. Mayor, why don’t we request a sales tax increase to gain $32 million rather than just the $3 million to $4 million we would receive with a business tax increase?’” Walters said, quoting Breitling.
He then quoted Velto’s response during the July 22 meeting: “‘Well, this was put on the ballot for a vote in 2022 and the city lost that ballot measure. It appears the citizens do not trust the city council and we have to earn their trust before trying this again.’”
Walters then addressed the council directly.
“Bravo on the theatrics, but I have to admit, it looks like it was scripted from an elementary school drama class,” Walters said. “Well, mayor and city council, you are absolutely correct: We cannot trust the city council. I am deeply sorry that I supported many of you up there, but I will make sure that I will never make this mistake again. Each and every person up on the dais has claimed to be fiscally conservative as part of their election platform, but these actions are not from a fiscally conservative view. The definition of a fiscally conservative person is as follows: Fiscal conservatives advocate tax cuts, reducing government spending, free markets and deregulation.”
Mike Nunez told the council, “Such taxes [are] both unnecessary and detrimental to the economic wellbeing of Upland citizens. It is important to consider the financial burden placed on the residents by implementing a new sales tax. A one-cent increase may be seen as insignificant at first glance. However, when applied across various purchases it can accumulate substantially over time. For the low- and middle-income families, even a small increase in tax can exacerbate existing financial constraints. Rather than imposing a new tax on an already vulnerable population, city officials should explore alternative funding sources or reprioritize budget allocations to address fiscal deficits without passing the burden onto the taxpayers. Moreover, it is crucial to evaluate the effectiveness of previous tax increases in Upland. Historical data indicates that many promises made during past campaigns for increased taxation in other cities often remain unfulfilled and lead to misallocation of funds. This raises legitimate concerns regarding transparency and accountability in how taxpayer money is spent. Therefore, in endorsing any tax, local government should prove a track record of judicious fund management to restore the public trust. While funding essential services is vital for maintaining a thriving community in Upland, implementing a one-cent sales tax poses significant risk without guaranteed benefits. Residents deserve transparency in governance that respects the financial contributions we make.”
Second District Councilman James Breitling said he favored putting the tax proposal on the ballot and he called on the voters to approve it.
“Every day we wait, the price to fix our infrastructure goes up significantly,” he said. “While the city has proven to be fiscally responsible, our revenues have not kept up with the rising cost of providing essential services.”
Mayor Velto said he was enthusiastic about the sales tax because “65 percent [of the sales tax Upland currently receives] comes from people who do not live in our city.”
Velto said the city will use the money to pay for things it needs.
“I hear comments daily about our roads and how bad they are,” he said.
He blamed the failure of the tax measure in 2022 on a “small group that lied about what the money will be used for.”
He said residents who voted against the measure in 2022 are telling him they made a mistake and will support it this time around.
He dismissed suggestions that he and the council had pulled a fast one by baiting the city’s residents by introducing the business permit fee revamping measure on July 22 and now switching to the sales tax proposal measure.
He said the usual suspects were telling lies about what the council had done.
“We hear opposition to it [the new sales tax measure], that this was done under some shady circumstances,” Velto said. He raised his voice, angrily asserting, “Voting is not a shady circumstance. Offering it to the public is not a shady circumstance. This council makes a decision as to whether or not to allow the residents to vote for or against it.”
Velto scoffed at the idea that the city’s voters in 2024 will turn down the opportunity to tax themselves as they did in 2022.
“I get a lot of emails and phone calls, a lot more than this small group that opposes this,” he said. “The lies that were put in the last election about what the money was going to go for is false. This time you’re going to hear the truth from those who are supporting it.”
Velto said the city, its employees, his council colleagues and he have all done a pretty damn good job for the residents of Upland.
“You know what I got to think?” Velto asked, rhetorically. “I got to think the residents are pretty satisfied if Greg Bradley had no one run against him, if Shannan Maust had no one run against her, and if no one chose to run against me, and I’m the biggest target in this city and they could have come out and run against me.”
Now it’s time for the residents of Upland to reach down deep into their pockets and do the right thing, Velto said, and come across with some money.
“This is what this council has done: We have worked hard over the last four years,” the mayor said. “We worked hard to earn the trust of the residents and we’re asking you to support this, because it’s all about making Upland a better place to call home.”
With Councilman Rudy Zuniga participating remotely from his workplace, the council voted 4-to-1 with Councilman Garcia dissenting to adopt the resolution to put the sales tax on the ballot in November. Garcia joined with the others in approving the two formalities that went with having the registrar of voters accommodate putting the sales tax on the November ballot. Councilman Garcia voted against the final motion to remove the business license revamping measure from the November 5 ballot.
The Sentinel made phone calls to the mayor and the four council members, seeking from them an explanation of why they switched from the earlier approved placement of the business license revamping measure on the November 5 ballot to supplanting it with the sales tax measure, and further seeking from them comment on the report that the late application with the registrar of voters for the first measure and its replacement with the second measure was a strategy worked out well in advance of the myriad actions in this regard. Only Zuniga answered the Sentinel’s call. He said, “Now’s not a good time for me to talk. I’m working a double shift. Thank you for being understanding.”
Neither the mayor nor the other council members returned the phone messages left for them by the Sentinel. The Sentinel fired off an email to all five, posing, essentially the same questions. Neither the mayor nor the council members responded by press time.
-Mark Gutglueck