Officials with the cities of Fontana and Upland recently opted to make substantial monetary payouts to claimants alleging police department misfeasance in circumstances where the wrongdoing alleged was less than clear-cut.
In both cases, taxpayers were fleeced because leadership in the respective cities was unwilling to test the oftentimes capricious nature of the court-and-jury system or withstand the confusion of public perception in the face of controversy the actions in question engendered. Nevertheless, the controversy those governmental entities sought to avert has intensified rather than abated because the nondisclosure clauses put into the settlements has heightened rather than diminished public curiosity about the illegitimacy of the backroom dealing their public officials are engaging in.
In Fontana, the parents of a burglar who in February was shot and killed by police after he was caught in the act during a break in and then attempted to flee were provided with a cool $1 million in response to a claim they filed against the city.
Amond Hawkins and Kenisha Kinard, represented by the Law Firm of Douglas Hicks Simplis & Perez, in March lodged that claim against the city based on the death of their son, Daverion Deauntre Kinard.
According to the Fontana Police Department, at approximately 10:30 p.m. on the evening of February 13, 2021, a resident of a home in the 16500 block of Casa Grande Avenue in north Fontana who was not present at the residence was alerted, through a video surveillance and digital relay and notification system, that there was an intruder on his property. The homeowner contacted the police department, which dispatched officers, including one subsequently identified as Johnny Tutiavake, to the Casa Grande location.
Upon reaching the home, the officers encountered Kinard, who had a criminal history involving burglary. An effort to take Kinard into custody failed, and he took flight, heading into a tract of homes under construction south of Casa Grande Avenue proximate to Justin Street and Heinz Way. Officers, having seen Kinard dart into the construction site where they believed he was hiding, summoned back-up assistance, intending to form a perimeter and then converge methodically toward the center of the site to find Kinard and take him into custody.
Before that occurred, however, Officer Tutiavake approached a portable toilet at the construction site and opened the door. As Kinard, who was in the mobile toilet, bolted forward in effort to again elude capture, Tutiavake discharged his service gun once, striking Kinard in the front thorax.
Thereafter, officers attempted to render assistance to Kinard, in vain, as his aorta had been ruptured by the gunshot. He died at the scene.
There was a video of the shooting captured on Tutiavake’s body camera.
A claim against a public agency is considered to be a precursor to a lawsuit. For legal action being pursued in state court in California, claimants must file a claim against a pubic agency within six months of the incident out of which the alleged damage occurred. The public entity can then acknowledge the claim as valid or reject it. Upon rejection of the claim, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit against the public agency pertaining to the alleged damage.
For reasons that are not clear, the City of Fontana and its police department, which acknowledged shortly after Kinard was shot and killed that he was not armed, has refused to release Tutiavake’s body camera footage of the February 13 incident.
Tutiavake was placed on administrative leave in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, but has since been reinstated to full duty, pursuant to a finding that he acted properly.
At the time of the February 13 incident, Kinard was on a probational release related to a previous burglary conviction, and was avoiding incarceration by having agreed to engage in no further violations of the law and submit to supervision.
In a full and final settlement of Amond Hawkins’ and Kenisha Kinard’s claim, they are receiving $1 million, have dropped their demand that the grainy nighttime video of the shooting be released and that they make no public comment with regard to the shooting nor any comments about the city or the department that might be interpreted as “disparaging.”
The City of Upland has just paid out over half of a million dollars to a woman who was given a temporary and tentative promotion from her senior administrative assistant position in the police department to that of executive secretary to the police chief and then returned to her senior administrative assistant post after the police chief came to the conclusion she did not have the requisite skill to hold the executive secretary slot.
The woman, Luz Elena Barrett, in April 2020 took an unanticipated leave of absence from her post as acting executive assistant to the police chief and the following month submitted a draft civil complaint to the city, threatening to file it in state court. The unfiled complaint contained allegations that Barrett had been the victim of racial/ethnic/gender discrimination. Barrett’s contentions hinged upon her experience during the nearly 22 months she had served in the executive assistant’s post with the department.
Darren Goodman moved into the police chief’s position with Upland, effective July 16, 2018, the first African-American to achieve the rank of police chief in Upland, and one of only a handful of African-American officers to have ever served with the department. Goodman, a graduate of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in 2015, where he studied local and state government executive management, held both a master’s degree in public administration from the University of Southern California and a doctorate attained at USC’s Rossier School of Education.
Goodman was previously a captain with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, with which his last assignment had been heading the Chino Hills Sheriff Station, where he served as Chino Hills de facto police chief overseeing the sheriff’s department’s provision of contract law enforcement service to the county’s southwesternmost city.
Barrett had begun as a clerical assistant with the department during the tenure of former Police Chief Martin Thouvenell. Thouvenell had departed as police chief in 2005, and over the next 13 years, Barrett had risen to the position of senior administrative assistant in the department, for which she was provided a $55,476.97 salary, $3,107.60 in overtime pay and $4,576.31 in other pay, along with benefits of $39,107.70 for an annual total compensation of $102,268.68 in 2017, the last full year when she was working in the capacity of senior administrative assistant.
Shortly after his arrival in Upland, Goodman promoted Barrett to the department’s vacant executive assistant at the insistence of certain colleagues who felt that the length of her time with the department warranted her promotion.
Barrett’s move into the executive assistant to the police chief post was a provisional one, contingent upon her demonstration of her ability to handle the assignment, whereupon she was to be given the full title of the position. Barrett’s remuneration in 2018, most of the later half of which she functioned as the department’s executive assistant, and in 2019, the entirety of which she was in the executive assistant billet, reflected a relatively modest increase in pay of around $2,000 annually for her having taken on the executive assistant assignment. In 2018, Barrett was provided with a $55,482.50 salary, $4,924.60 in overtime, $4,391.80 in other pay as well as $36,494.56 in benefits for a total annual compensation of $101,293.50. In 2019, Barrett’s salary was $57,586.11, she saw her overtime pay decrease to $395.93 and she was provided with other pay of $4,656.24 along with benefits of $39,299.16 for a total annual compensation of $101,937.44.
According to Goodman, he initially had confidence that Barrett would adapt to and hone the skill set necessary to function within the executive assistant position, and he strove to develop an amicable and trustful relationship with her.
Toward that end, Goodman has acknowledged, he and his family assisted Barrett with personal matters on a number of occasions, which extended to providing her with money to assist her with unexpected expenses beyond what she could afford based on her income. The conviviality that developed between the police chief and his executive assistant was reciprocal, and on occasion Barrett assisted Goodman and his wife in communicating with the Goodmans’ Spanish-speaking housekeeper. Barrett maintains, and Goodman acknowledged, that over a period of four months Barrett communicated by phone with the housekeeper and that on one occasion Barrett traveled to the Goodmans’ vacation home in San Diego County to meet with the housekeeper and translate for him.
Goodman contends that none of Barrett’s assistance to him and his wife was rendered on city time or at city expense, and that to compensate Barrett for her assistance, he had paid Barrett, as indicated in electronic bank transfer records. In addition, according to Chief Goodman, he provided Barrett with a week’s stay at his vacation home free of charge.
Goodman instructed Barrett that it would be best for her not to mention to anyone else at the department that she had stayed at his family’s vacation home.
Ultimately, Goodman came to the conclusion that Barrett, despite her clerical ability and fluency with the Spanish language, lacked the temperament and necessary skills to fulfill the role of executive assistant. He began documenting her shortcomings and, when his efforts to encourage her to better her performance through constructive criticism did not raise her performance to an acceptable level, he notified the city’s human resources department in March 2020 that he intended to return Barrett to her former classification upon the termination of her probationary period. Goodman maintains that Barrett either overheard his conversation with the city’s human resources director about his intention to implement Barrett’s demotion from the acting executive assistant post or that, as the lone member of the police department other than himself entrusted with a key to Goodman’s office, she had gone through papers relating to her planned demotion that were on his desk. The day before Goodman was to inform Barrett about her return to her former classification, she took a leave of absence.
Two weeks later, Barrett lodged a complaint with the human resources department in which she alleged that she had been subjected to mistreatment by Goodman, that she had been forced into working as a translator for him and that he had her do this personal work for him and his family while she was supposed to be working in her capacity as his executive assistant and was on the clock, and being paid as, a city employee. The complaint, a draft of a civil suit, stood as a claim against the city and Goodman for harassment and subjecting Barrett to a hostile work environment, while further maintaining Goodman had engaged in the misappropriation of department assets, that Goodman instructed or ordered Barrett to carry out personal errands for him on city time and that he had her forge a timecard to obtain city payment for the translation work she had done for the Goodman household.
On Friday, June 19, 2020, the Upland City Council, at that point functioning at four-fifths strength because of the resignation of former City Councilman Ricky Felix in May 2020, held a hastily-called closed-door meeting with then City Manager Rosemary Hoerning at which the tentative complaint against the city filed by Barrett was a topic of discussion, extending to what the council’s reaction should be. A suggestion, pushed by Hoerning, that some form of discipline should be directed against Goodman was considered but rejected in short order, as doing just that might be construed as an admission of the accusations contained in Barrett’s complaint. No authorization for any direct action was given. Three days later, on Monday, June 22, 2020, Hoerning, acting solely upon her own authority and with the backing of then-Mayor Stone, placed the police chief on administrative leave, citing the poor judgment exhibited by Goodman in his dealing with Barrett. When contacted by the Sentinel late in the morning of June 22, 2020 and queried about the suspension, Councilman Rudy Zuniga said he had not been informed in advance that it was going to take place. Councilwoman Janice Elliott likewise said she had no inkling of the action before it was announced. Zuniga and Elliot said there had been no authorization of the suspension in any vote taken.
A firestorm of protest among a cross-section of Upland citizens at what was perceived as a move toward sacking Goodman manifested. Virtually overnight, hundreds of lawn signs expressing support for Goodman were posted in neighborhoods all over Upland. Residents buttonholed and harangued the city council over Goodman’s suspension.
By June 25, it was widely known in Upland that Barrett’s accusation against Goodman consisted of her contention that she had assisted Goodman in translation and interpretation in his efforts to communicate with his family’s housekeeper, and that she had contended she had carried out that assignment while being paid by the city. Goodman marshaled evidence to demonstrate Barrett had forged the timecard she said supported her accusation.
On June 29, after the city had attempted but failed to prevent the widespread public surfacing of information relating to Barrett’s accusations against Goodman forming the grounds for the police chief’s suspension, Hoerning at the direction of Zuniga, Elliott and then-Councilman Bill Velto, reinstated Goodman.
Barrett, at the urging of her attorney, Bradley Gage of Woodland Hills-based Goldberg & Gage, held off on filing her complaint in Superior Court. Instead, in August 2020, Gage filed with the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing on her behalf a discrimination complaint against the city and Goodman alleging she had been harassed and subjected to a hostile workplace because of her race and/or gender.
Under normal circumstances, the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing will carry out an investigation to determine if a complainant has a prima facie case to proceed to court with, and if so gives the complainant a letter known as a “leave to sue.” The California Department of Fair Employment & Housing did not provide such a letter, but the city folded nonetheless, agreeing to pay out $495,000 to be divided between both Barrett and Goldberg & Gage, and another $50,000 to Barrett for lost wages. The settlement was signed off on by acting Upland City Manager Steven Parker.
Barrett had been on paid leave since April 2020. Between April 2020 and July 2020, she continued to be paid as if she were in the role of executive assistant to the police chief, which provides an annual salary of $57,586.11 plus roughly $40,000 in benefits. From July 2020 until she officially left the city’s employ on June 3, 2021, she remained on paid leave and was paid as if she were functioning in the role of senior administrative assistant, which provides remuneration of about $55,600 in salary, roughly $2,000 less than the executive assistant post, along with another $40,000 in annual benefits.
The settlement agreement, agreed to and signed by Barrett in May, calls for her to receive in addition to the aforementioned $545,000, the pay she was due up to her June 3 resignation, and that she is to forsake any further legal action against the city and Goodman. The pact further requires that both sides are to remain mum with regard to the entire matter. The settlement holds neither side to blame and makes no admission of wrongdoing by any of the parties. Money paid out under the settlement is for “non-economic damages and attorney’s fees.”
In this way, after not working for more than a year, Barrett, along with her attorneys, is to receive a payout equal to more than nine years of her annual salary.
A handful of Upland citizens expressed to the Sentinel outrage over the matter. While some conceded that Goodman should not have entangled his personal and family affairs with one of his subordinates, and that his having done so made rescinding her temporary promotion to the position of his executive assistant awkward, resident after resident expressed the opinion that Barrett’s assertion of discrimination was spurious. The settlement in excess of half of a million dollars that was conferred on her, despite her admission of having fraudulently altered her own timecard, was characterized in numerous ways, including being uncalled-for, a shake-down and a gift of public funds.
Similarly, 16.8 miles to the east, in Fontana, residents there were incredulous that the city’s taxpayers were on the hook for a million dollars to the family of a burglar, given that under California statute and established case law, law enforcement officers are authorized to use lethal force in the apprehension of a fleeing felon who represents a threat to the safety of an officer or a member of the public. Referenced was the department’s determination that Officer Tutiavake had acted properly and was reinstated to full duty as an indication that the shooting was both practically and legally justified, which would have obviated the need to settle the claim brought by Kinard’s parents.
-Mark Gutglueck

By Mark Gutglueck
The San Bernardino City Council this week confirmed that it is purposed to pursue censuring Mayor John Valdivia
Valdivia, who was elected to the city council to represent the city’s Ward 3 in 2011, reelected in 2015 and elected mayor in 2018, began his mayoralty in December 2018 in political ascendancy. He counted among his allies then-Fifth Ward Councilman Henry Nickel and then-Sixth Ward Councilwoman Bessine Richard. Valdivia had lent support to the council’s two newly-elected members, First Ward Councilman Ted Sanchez and Second Ward Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra in their successful November 2018 electoral bids, and this gave him a solid ruling coalition, as his only rivals on the council at that time were then-Seventh Ward Councilman Jim Mulvihill and Fourth Ward Councilman Fred Shorett. In May 2019, when Juan Figueroa, whom Valdivia had backed, won a special election to fill the Third Ward position from which Valdivia had resigned to become mayor, Valdivia appeared to have an airtight lock on the council and substantial sway over governance in the then-215,941-population county seat.
As mayor, Valdivia repeatedly made commitments to do the bidding of individuals and businesses making substantial contributions to his campaign fund as well as to those which hired his firm, AAdvantage Comm LLC, to provide them consulting services.  This meant he encouraged the council members over whom he had influence to support with their votes his campaign contributors or clients when those entities had issues pending before the city council. In a relatively short time span, this damaged Valdivia’s reputation. As Valdivia’s credibility as a dedicated and compassionate community leader eroded, first Nickel, then Ibarra and eventually Sanchez distanced themselves from him.
This worsened when three female staff members working within the mayor’s office and then a woman he had appointed to two city commissions accused him of making sexual advances to them. Ultimately, five employees who had worked in the mayor’s office, two men and three woman, filed suit against him and the city, saying they were pressured by the mayor to engage in improper and illegal acts, and had become aware of Valdivia’s bribetaking and trading political donations for official city action which favored those who provided him with money.
In the 2000 election cycle, Nickel and Richard were displaced on the council by, respectively, Ben Reynoso and Kimberly Calvin, as was Mulvihill by Damon Alexander. Richard and Figueroa had been Valdivia’s last remaining allies on the council. Valdivia had hoped that Alexander’s votes might prove out to be ones he could count on. Alexander realized, however, that Valdivia was isolated on the council, and that neither Reynoso nor Calvin were willing to join Valdivia’s coalition, making any affiliation he might form with the mayor pointless. Since December 2020, when the council as it is currently composed was installed, Valdivia has had control of but a single vote on the council, that being Figueroa’s.
The mayor in San Bernardino has limited voting power. He is permitted to vote on the hiring of employees and the appointment of commissioners and committee members, but cannot vote with regard to most other issues or decisions that come before the city council, with the exception of being able to vote to break a tie vote and to veto a 4-to-3 or 3-to-2 vote of the council.
Valdivia’s loss of control over the council represented an existential threat to his continuation not only as mayor but as a politician, increasing his need to raise money to fatten his already substantial political war chest, which currently stands at $394,622.54. Valdivia has continued to raise a substantial amount of money from donors such as Edward Atsinger III, Cole Burr, Tracey Burr, Canon Management DFT, Capitalist Masters Group, Phil Cothran, Dedeaux Properties, Brett Dedeaux, Del Rio Transportation, Diamond Chevrolet, DM Bertino, Josh Dome, Jimmy Espinosa, F4 Starhouse, Gant Trave, Michael Gay, Michael Giuliano, Cesar Gomez, Jerrod Gutierrez, Cody Holmes, JM Endeavors, JM Realty Group, KAL Freight, Don Kaplan, Joshua Kaplan, Troy Kirtley, George Kritikos, Jeremy Krout, Tak Lam, Nicole Landis, LeadNet, Lewis Pacific Partners, Hanhsing Li, Jose Limon, Longo Customs Service, Leonard Lundin, Stephen Matich, Pacific/Lewis Properties, Juan Zuniga, Woodrow Wong, Warmington Residential California, Vone SB LLC, Steve Velazquez, Aldi Ujkaj, Thienes Engineering, Mike Cox, Bradley Steege, Skyline Equities, Sigra LLC, Shryne Group, SGI Retail, Sergio’s Pallet Repair, Michael Sadeghian, SA Recycling, Geoff Rosenhein, Ezequiel Reynoso, Dinesh Ram, Provident Land Associates, Dipak Patel, Jonathan Pauls, Shina Park, Hae Park, and Panda Restaurant Group, largely by telling them or otherwise convincing them that he has control of the San Bernardino City Council.
Valdivia is at a crossroads. He has enough money to likely ensure his reelection as mayor in San Bernardino in 2022, as the more than $400,000 he will have by the time the campaign for mayor next year begins in earnest will allow him to buy television and radio ads, billboard visibility, tailor drafted and subject specific mailers to be sent selectively to the city’s voters in accordance with their ethnicity, political party affiliation, age, gender and income level. Nevertheless, because of the enmity he already has on the council, it is not likely that Valdivia will be able to accomplish much as mayor if he were to remain in that office four years beyond next year. If his donors catch on that he is unable to deliver to them the things he is promising, his future prospects of raising money will dim. For that reason, for some time he has been casting about to find another political office he can seek and succeed in winning, such as in the California legislature.
This year, prior to San Bernardino’s state of the city address, he arranged a VIP [very important person] reception to follow his speech, what was to essentially be a meet and greet with his campaign donors and political supporters. Rather than use the money he has accumulated in his electioneering fund to hold that event, however, he arranged to have the city defray the cost of the soiree, which was held at the Hilltop Restaurant on Kendall Drive. The owners of the Hilltop Restaurant are among Valdivia’s donors. The invitation list to the get-together consisted primarily of Valdivia’s political donors. He did not try to hide the baldly political nature of the conclave, and he did not extend invitations to six of the city council’s members. The sole member of the city council invited was Figueroa, the only member of the council with whom Valdivia is on good terms.
The use of public money for political promotions is illegal. The council moved to challenge Valdivia on what he was doing, even before the event was held. When he went through with the reception as planned, the council called upon the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office to investigate the matter, and it voted to consider censuring Valdivia.
Over the last month-and-a-half, momentum has built toward the council officially rebuking the mayor using the censure process.
Internally at City Hall, the forces in place are divided. In Valdivia’s corner are City Manager Robert Field and Director of Community and Economic Development Michael Huntley. Though City Attorney Sonia Carvalho spent months shielding Valdivia from accusations of wrongdoing and the claims of sexual harassment leveled at him by his former staff members, his often intemperate statements in public, including lashing out at her when she has made interpretations of the law not fully to his liking during council meetings, has soured her on the mayor. Many staff members make a show of cordiality toward him, but evince disdain for him in private. While Field has attempted to maintain a positive relationship with the entire council, his accommodation of Valdivia has not sat well with some of the council, in particular Councilwoman Calvin.
A contingent of residents who have been gunning for Valdivia have likewise accused both Field and Huntley of militating on the mayor’s behalf and enabling him in his pay-to-play shakedowns of those with project or permit applications before the city or who are competing for or have already attained contracts or franchises with the city. An unintended consequence of those accusations, accurate or not, has been to shunt Field and Huntley even further to the Valdivia side of the mayor-council divide.
If, however, Field has indeed used his authority as city manager to attenuate the effort to censure Valdivia, he has succeeded not so much in blocking it as delaying it.
This week, Assistant City Manager Rebekah Kramer authored a report to the council on the council’s previous request for a cataloging of its options in pursuing Valdivia’s censure.
In her report, Kramer endeavored to facilitate the council’s call to “establish whether there is substantial evidence to proceed, provide due process and decide whether to schedule a hearing and consideration of [a] final resolution of censure.” In doing so, Kramer set out a charge sheet against Valdivia which will likely be the blueprint for that action, which the council appears to be on a trajectory to pursue.
Kramer wrote, “A censure is generally understood to be “an official reprimand or condemnation; an authoritative expression of disapproval or blame.” The city council has authority to censure an individual councilmember. A censure is generally adopted by resolution and represents the opinion of a city council or other public body, but does not levy a fine, suspension, or other penalty. While there is no statute directly addressing censure, many local legislative bodies have adopted resolutions condemning inappropriate behavior and violations of policies and laws. A censure is one way of distancing the public agency from bad behaviors that interfere with the agency’s ability to conduct the public’s business. While censure does not remove an elected official from office, it may serve an important purpose by stating to the public that certain behavior is unacceptable to the other council members. It is a form of self-policing for elected officials.”
Thereafter, Kramer got down to brass tacks, and laid out the tentative reasons why the mayor should be officially rebuked. Valdivia’s alleged transgressions included, according to Kramer:
“1. Violation of Fair Political Practices mass mailing regulations. 2. Improper payment of subscription services to support text messages and communications for personal gain. 3. Using [a] personal political consultant to advise and prepare [the mayor’s] state of the city address. 4. Using city staff and expending city funds for personal or political purposes, including the planning and hosting of a personal mayor’s VIP reception. 5. Using a consultant hired by the city to videotape the virtual state of the city address to support the mayor’s personal VIP reception. 6. Submitting reimbursement claims for hotel and food unrelated to official city business. 7. Soliciting sponsorship from [the] Inland Empire Health Plan to offset [the cost of the] personal VIP reception and offering [the] Inland Empire Health Plan special invitations to the VIP reception. 8. Causing [the] city to expend thousands of dollars in investigations and lawsuits related to behaviors found to be inappropriate. 9. Violating the city charter by directing the city manager to fire city employees.”
Notably, because they carry with them the potential of exposing the city to legal liability, Kramer avoided mention of out and out instances of graft Valdivia is known or suspected of being involved in and it made no explicit mention of the accusations leveled at Valdivia in a number of lawsuits filed against the city.
There was some irony in Kramer’s authoring of the report. The ninth element of the charge sheet – directing the city manager to fire city employees – was a partial reference to Kramer herself. The Sentinel is reliably informed that among the city employees Valdivia was pressuring Field to fire were Kramer and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director Jim Tickemyer. Field did not accede to those requests, and Tickemyer remains in place. Though Field did not cashier Kramer, she has, the Sentinel is told, wearied of having to deal with the mayor, who has constantly pushed her to use her authority to take action that has not been authorized by the city council or the city manager. She has resigned, the Sentinel is told, officially effective August 12, but has already left the city. Human Resources Director Edelia Eveland is serving in her place as the interim assistant city manager. In this way, one of Kramer’s last acts as an employee with San Bernardino was to choreograph the city council’s censure of Valdivia.
As Kramer’s report stated, a censure carries with it no actual direct impact on an elected official’s status. It does, however, provide ammunition for a political rival to use in an effort to prevent the official from being reelected.
Censures are relatively rare. In recent years in San Bernardino County, five examples readily come to mind.
In 2000, the San Bernardino City Council censured then-City Attorney James Penman. At that time, San Bernardino city attorney was an elected position. Penmen was reelected in 2003, 2007 and 2011, but recalled from office in 2013.
In 2003, the Ontario City Council censured then-City Councilwoman Debbie Acker, who was consistently out of step with the direction the remaining four members of the council favored for the city. Acker opted out of seeking reelection the following year.
In 2014, the Ontario City Council considered censuring Councilman Paul Vincent Avila, who like Acker was perennially at odds with his colleagues on the council and was even more strident than she was in raising his objections and hurling insults at his rivals. The council instead of censuring Avila sanctioned him, an act that was distinct from a censure without any practical difference. In 2016, Avila lost his bid for reelection.
In 2017, the Upland City Council, four members of which were pushing for the shuttering of the city’s then-111-year-old fire department to effectuate the county fire department’s takeover of the city’s fire and emergency medical service, censured Councilwoman Janice Elliott for continuously indulging and facilitating residents’ protest of the move. The following year, Elliott, who was then in the middle of a four-year term on the council to which she had been elected in 2016’s at-large citywide election, was elected to represent the city’s First District in the first by-district election in Upland’s history.
In 2019, Winn Williams, who had been elected to the Chino Valley Independent Fire District Board of Directors in November 2018, was censured twice within the first eight months of his tenure on the board, once in February 2019 and again in July 2019. Williams remains on the board, and is scheduled to stand for reelection in 2022.
As the San Bernardino City Council took up the subject of the censure of Valdivia at its council meeting on Wednesday this week, Valdivia portrayed himself as an aggressive politician working on behalf of his constituents, and he painted his council rivals as obstructionists who were politicizing the circumstance for their own gain.
“I have been meeting with residents throughout our community for many, many months, one on one and learning from their perspective and issues,” the mayor said. “Of the topics that are most common amongst the residents are the need to address our city as a whole, and the desperate need to advance the game ball for Team San Bernardino. Most residents are ready and eager to support positive change that will boost San Bernardino’s future success. Unfortunately, as exemplified by Item Number Five on tonight’s agenda [the censure issue], too many city council members are obsessed with engaging in negative politics instead of providing community leadership. For example, I worked my tail off to bring responsible and world class development to our downtown. Beginning in the summer of 2019, I led and interviewed many developers which expressed interest and came up with a short list of top developers to come to San Bernardino. I made my recommendations to our city staff and spent time with them to deliberate and provide my recommendations for our city’s downtown. I encouraged the RFQ [request for qualifications] process, and then I led the city council to the RFP [request for proposals] process, and then politics entered in. As mayor, I worked hard to attract a major investor who would tear down the blighted Carousel Mall, and initiate the much needed renovations of our downtown. Instead of supporting this great opportunity, Councilmember Calvin and her allies rejected the investor solely because of political gamesmanship, halted the demolition study, and inserted herself with faulty accusations, and led this do-nothing city council, which is before you, to a standing halt. The result is that our big elephant in the room tonight is the Carousel Mall, which costs $700,000 to $800,000 in annual maintenance costs and security and board-up services. Now it has come to light that the council’s chosen developer does not have the capacity to do the necessary renovation. Thanks to Councilmember Calvin’s decision to choose politics over progress, San Bernardino is now back to square one on downtown development.”
Valdivia turned to Sanchez. “As mayor, I have also been meeting regularly with regional business leaders to attract new jobs for our families and reduce San Bernardino’s chronically high unemployment rate,” Valdivia said. “Yet, instead of embracing this new economic development, Councilman Sanchez has decided to play political games and instead push for a moratorium that would drive jobs and businesses away from San Bernardino.”
He next addressed Reynoso.
“As mayor I also helped a common sense solution to grind and remove the unsightly pile of concrete in the north end of the city,” Valdivia said. “Many other cities have successfully used this approach for concrete removal on site. Sadly, Councilman Ben Reynoso decided to play politics and killed the cleanup plan. Thanks to Councilman Reynoso, the ugly concrete pile is still there, with no timeline or plan for removal.”
Valdivia continued, saying “This do-nothing city council has it wrong and the voters and residents of this community have had it. They want real, tangible, pragmatic solutions and they want it now. So I ask these members and our community: ‘Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs you have brought to the West Side, Councilmember Calvin? What jobs and businesses have you attracted in your over 13 years of representing Fourth Ward residents, Councilman Shorett? What are you doing every day for residents of the Fourth Ward, Fred?’”
The mayor reached out to sting Alexander, accusing him of spending $5,400 of taxpayer money on ceremonial flags. He said the city council was more interested in “business cards, parking spots, name plates [and] fancy monogrammed shirts” than serving the city’s residents.
He charged the city council with valuing “politics over progress. A city council majority won’t support naming a permanent police chief for San Bernardino. They’re trying to fire our new city manager and rearrange the deck of a ship here called San Bernardino. The people of San Bernardino are fed up with this do-nothing city council who spends all of their time measuring drapes, counting paper clips and all of their time and energy spent on politics, yet our community suffers. Enough is enough, and it’s time for council members to get to work, to stop the negative political antics. It’s time for them to drop their meaningless censure resolution, and start supporting positive changes to make our city better.”
Valdivia’s sallies at the council did not dissuade it from its ineluctable march toward censuring him. Calvin sought to turn the matter into a factfinding effort, and she began to question Field about what he knew about the allegations on the charge sheet Kramer had created. Both Field and Valdivia insisted that the item before the council that evening was procedural to get the consideration of whether a censure should be made to the next level, and that evening’s proceedings were not intended to allow the sort of factual inquiry Calvin was pursuing to take place that night.
Shorett, who observed that in his speech Valdivia was “denying everything and blaming everyone else,” made a motion to have the process move forward, with staff fleshing out and providing evidence to support the charges outlined by Kramer so that they could be presented in a finalized form, after which a formal hearing to allow Valdivia to respond could be held. Thereafter, a vote by the council to censure or not censure Valdivia would ensue.
Councilwoman Ibarra brought up having two or three members of the council form a subcommittee to work on the language of the censure resolution. Shorett said that was not part of his motion, and the wording of the resolution could be arrived at after the independent investigation was completed to determine the facts of the matter.
Both Field and Carvalho emphasized the need for due process. Carvalho did indicate, however, that a portion of the investigation had already been carried out, which had involved the unearthing of “a thousand” pages of documents, some of which, she indicated, appeared to implicate Valdivia in what he had been accused of. Other accusations had yet to be fully documented and substantiated, she indicated.
Alexander seconded Shorett’s motion to have city staff and the city attorney continue with their investigation and upon its completion have the matter brought back for consideration of whether the grounds to create a resolution of censure existed. The measure passed unanimously.

Click on the image above to enlarge it.

NOTICE OF SALE OF AUTOMOBILE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sections 3071 of the Civil Code of the State of California the undersigned will sell the following vehicle(s) at lien sale at said address below on: 08/20/2021 09:00 AM
Year of Car / Make of Car / Vehicle ID No. / License No. (State)
21 GREA / 1GR1A0626MK225890 /556V360 CA
To be sold by CONTINENTAL TOWING 14601 VALLEY BLVD FONTANA CA 92335
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
Published on 08/06/21

NOTICE OF SALE OF AUTOMOBILE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sections 3071 of the Civil Code of the State of California the undersigned will sell the following vehicle(s) at lien sale at said address below on: 08/20/2021 09:00 AM
Year of Car / Make of Car / Vehicle ID No. / License No. (State)
11 TOYPTA / 4T1BF3EK7BU657226 /537HUJ CA
To be sold by CONTINENTAL TOWING 14601 VALLEY BLVD FONTANA CA 92335
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
Published on 08/06/21

CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso): CIVDS 2014752
SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): JACK RODRIGUEZ, JR. and DOES 1-25, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA, AUXILIADORA DORIAN CARMEN OBANDO and CRYSTAL GONZALEZ
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 infor-mation 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 despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion 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 presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte 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 corte le podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos 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 poniendose 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 por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 o mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direccion de la corte es): Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): JOHN S. BUZAS, SBN: 117797, GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES 801 PACIFIC AVENUE LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562) 436-9292
Date: (Fecha) July 1, 2020
Clerk of Court (Secretario)
La Shonda Richardson, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel July 16, 23, 30 & August 6, 2021
STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
Case No.: CIVDS2014752
ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA, AUXILIADORA DORIAN CARMEN OBANDO, and CRYSTAL GONZALEZ
Plaintiffs
vs.
JACK RODRIGUEZ, JR., and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants
To Defendant, JACK RODRIGUEZ, JR., and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Plaintiffs, ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA, AUXILIADORA DORIAN CARMEN
OBANDO, and CRYSTAL GONZALEZ, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 425.11, hereby state the nature and amount of damages being sought as follows:
1. ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA:
A. GENERAL DAMAGES:
(1) Pain, suffering, and inconvenience $30,000.00
(2) Emotional distress $5,000.00
B. SPECIAL DAMAGES:
(1) Medical expenses (to date) $3,047.31
(2) Future medical expenses (present value) $2,500.00
AUXILIADORA DORIAN CARMEN OBANDO:
A. GENERAL DAMAGES:
(1) Pain, suffering, and inconvenience $30,000.00
(2) Emotional distress $5,000.00
B. SPECIAL DAMAGES:
(1) Medical expenses (to date) $3,042.68
(2) Future medical expenses (present value) $2,500.00
CRYSTAL GONZALEZ:
A. GENERAL DAMAGES:
(1) Pain, suffering, and inconvenience $15,000.00
(2) Emotional distress $5,000.00
B. SPECIAL DAMAGES:
(1) Medical expenses (to date) $1,496.29
(2). Future medical expenses (present value) $500.00
Dated: September 8, 2020
GABRIEL& ASSOCIATES
By SAMUEL E. GABRIEL
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA, AUXILIADORA
DORIAN CARMEN OBANDO, CRYSTAL
GONZALEZ
JOHN S. BUZAS, SBN: 117797, GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES 801 PACIFIC AVENUE LONG BEACH, CA 90813
Telephone:(562) 436-9292
Facsimile: (562) 436-3131
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel July 16, 23, 30 & August 6, 2021

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER  CIVSB2118341
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Shannon Anjanette Griffin filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Shannon Anjanette Griffin to Shannon Anjanette Nichols
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: 09/08/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the 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: July 08, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in The San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/16/21, 07/23/21,  07/30/21, 08/06/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210006452
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lux Rejuvenation Aesthetics, 1835 W Redlands Blvd, Redlands, CA 92373, Medical Legal Management, 1835 W Redlands Blvd, Redlands, CA 92373
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/Maria Sanchez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/18/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/01/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
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).
07/16/21, 07/23/21, 07/30/21, 08/06/21

FBN 202100073333
The following entity is doing business as BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA 92335: BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA 92335
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
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/Julie Diaz
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 7/16/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JUNE 7, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
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 7/16, 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RICHARD WARMOUTH, JR.
CASE NO. PROSB2100233
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RICHARD WARMOUTH, JR.
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by KIMBERLY MICHELLE WARMOUTH, JR. in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that KIMBERLY MICHELLE WARMOUTH, JR. 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. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on AUGUST 25, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JULY 7, 2021
JUDGE STANFORD E. REICHERT
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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RUTH ELLEN MOORE
CASE NO. PROSB2100233
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RUTH ELLEN MOORE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JASON LEE LUNGER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JASON LEE LUNGER 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. S-36 at 9:00 a.m. on AUGUST 21, 2021 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.
Date: July 9, 2021
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 5/21, 5/28 & 6/4, 2021.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JUAN GONZALEZ SIERRA
CASE NO. PROSB2100213
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JUAN GONZALEZ SIERRA, aka JUAN GONZALEZ
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JUAN RICARDO GONZALEZ ESTRADA, in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JUAN RICARDO GONZALEZ ESTRADA, 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. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JULY 2, 2021
JUDGE STANFORD E. REICHERT
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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 5/21, 5/28 & 6/4, 2021.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
MARCIA FAYE HAMMOND
NO. PROSB2100293
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARCIA FAYE HAMMOND:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by BLANCA S. HAMMOND in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that BLANCA S. HAMMOND 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. S35 at 9 a.m. on SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
JUDGE STANFORD E. REICHERT
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.
Filed: JULY 8, 2021
Attorney for the Petitioner:
Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: team@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Blanca S. Hammond
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2114732
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: JAMES FLANNIGAN IV filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
JAMES*** FLANNIGAN IV to Flannigan IV, James
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: 09/15/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
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, 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: July 13, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30, 8/06 & 8/13, 2021
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ROGER LINDENMUTH
CASE NO. PROSB2100063
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ROGER LINDENMUTH has been filed by ERIC LINDENMUTH in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ERIC LINDENMUTH be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests that 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 NOVEMBER 4, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S35 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.
Eric Lindenmuth
1148 Stonewood Ct.
San Pedro, CA 90732
(310) 872 6599
el.photography@gmail.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 30 and August 6 & 13, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: EMMETT RICHARD WALKER
CASE NO. PROPS2100054
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of EMMET RICHARD WALKER:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by SHARON STONE WALKER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that SHARON STONE WALKER 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. S-36 at 1:30 P.M. on AUGUST 19, 2021 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: TECLA M. LUNAK (SBN 457090)
LAW OFFICES OF TECLAR M. LUNAK, A.P.C.
71-780 SAN JACINTO DR., BLDG A-3
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
Telephone No: (760) 834 8625
Fax No: (760) 834-8596
tecla@lunaklaw.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/30, 8/06 & 8/13, 2021.
FBN 202100073333
The following entity is doing business as BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA 92335: BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION SERVICES 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA  92335
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
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/ Julie Diaz
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 7/16/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JUNE 7, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
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 7/30, 8/06, 8/13 & 8/20, 2021
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007776
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: New Horizon Real Estate Investments, 10730 Church Street Unit 204, San Bernardino, CA 91730, Chris Butner Mortgages LLC, 10730 Church Street Unit 204, San Bernardino, CA 91730
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/Christopher Butner
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/29/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/01/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
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).
07/30/21, 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007712
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Swirls Soft Serve, 1217 W. Foothill Blvd, Upland, CA 91786, Mailing Address: 75 Camellia Court, Upland, CA 91786, Gazar Investments LLC, 75 Camellia Court, Upland, CA 91786
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/Gerard Azar
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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/ I1327
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).
07/30/21, 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007572
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Express Notary; Mountain Express Notary; Express Notary & Scan; Mountain Express Notary & Scan, 2562 Oak Dr, Running Springs, CA 92382, Mailing Address: PO Box 1948, Running Springs, CA 92382, Rita C. Nelson, 2562 Oak Dr, Running Springs, CA 92382
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/Rita C. Nelson
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/23/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/02/2021
County Clerk, s/ I5199
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).
07/30/21, 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007551
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: MRC Financial Services; MRC Insurance Services, 14807 Hillstone Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336, Richa G Chand, 14807 Hillstone Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336, Ravi S Chand, 14807 Hillstone Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: A Married Couple
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/Ravi S. Chand
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/23/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/01/2021
County Clerk, s/ I5199
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).
07/30/21, 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: LARRY VERNON JUDKINS
CASE NO. PROSB2100331
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LARRY VERNON JUDKINS has been filed by BARBARA L. NEWMAN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that BARBARA L. NEWMAN be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests that 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.
THE PETITION requests a $350,000 bond fixed. The bond will be admitted by an admitted surety insuere or as otherwise provided by law.
Decedent died on 1/08/2021 in HELENDALE, CA, a resident of San Bernardino County.
A hearing on the petition will be held SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S35 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Kimberly Tilley, Deputy
MAY 6, 2021
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.
The petition requests that a bond not be required.
The character and estimated value of the property of the estate is estimated at $464,000.
Filed: JULY 26, 2021
Attorney for Barbara L. Newman
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328 7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel August 6, 13 & 20, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
CESAR OSORIO
NO. PROSB 2100339
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of CESAR OSORIO
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JULIUS OSORIO in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JULIUS OSORIO 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. S36 at 9 a.m. on SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 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.
Filed: JULY 20, 2021
Judge Tara Reilly
Attorney for Julius Osorio
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel August 6, 13 & 20, 2021.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2119271
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: KHAREY JAMAL PERRY filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
KHAREY JAMAL PERRY to KHOREY JAMAL PERRY
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: 09/15/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
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, 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: July 23, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20 & 08/27/21, 04/16/21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB 2120037
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner:
RUDOLPH GONZALEZ filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
RODOLFO CLEMENTE GONZALEZ to RUDOLPH GONZALEZ
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: 09/14/21
Time: 9:00 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, 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.
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20 & 08/27/21, 04/16/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME NUMBER 20210007348
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: DYNAMIC SPA 1955 E FOURTH ST ONTARIO, CA 91764: YUEQING, INC. 8191 BOLSA AVE MIDWAY CITY, CA 92655
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/YAN QING DONG
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/16/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/12/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
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 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21& 08/27/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME NUMBER 20210008133
The following person is doing business as: GOT COOKIES? 6826 LUCERO DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92336:
JENNIFER L. JEEVES 6826 LUCERO DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92336
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/ JENNIFER L. JEEVES
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/06/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/13/2021
County Clerk, s/ I7122
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 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21& 08/27/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007343
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Sky Spa, 4012 Grand Ave, STE E, Chino, CA 91710, Mailing Address: 142 E. Bonita Ave 181, San Dimas, CA 91773, AGX Group LL, 142 E. Bonita Ave 181, San Dimas, CA 91773
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/Wei Xin
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/16/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/08/21
County Clerk, s/ I5199
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).
08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007868
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: DVK Consulting & Financial Svcs, 1128 W. Mission Blvd, Suite C, Ontario, CA 91762, Deyanira Brandon, 875 S. Mountain 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/Deyanira Brandon
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/30/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/22/21
County Clerk, s/ I1327
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).
08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007242
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: On Time Home Inspections, 10123 Hampshire St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Mailing Address: 10123 Hampshire St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Juan J. Tobin, 10123 Hampshire St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
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/Juan J Tojin
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/14/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/01/21
County Clerk, s/ I5199
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).
08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21
AFFIDAVIT
Notice
of
NAHIM GOVERNMENT PASSPORT
Nation of American Hebrew Israelite Monarchy referred to hereafter as, “NAHIM”,
attests it was established January 1, 2013 in the San Bernardino County, the California State,
as an “Independent Sovereign Government”, authorized by ‘law to exist pursuant to,
“Luther v. Borden US !,12;.LED 581. 1st Amendment Article 1l, 10th Amendment, & 11th Amendment.
‘’NAHIM’’ attest, the NAHIM GOVERNMENT PASSPORT is our “OFFICIAL IDENTIFICATION.” We have created our passport for the purposes of traveling worldwide, by air, land or sea; afforded the protection of “SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY” under the laws of the United States Constitution. We are centered on creating friendly relationships and communication with other countries worldwide for the ‘purpose of ministering salvation and the gospel of our heavenly father who is ‘OUR KING” Yhoah Ehyeh the creator of the heaven & earth in their countries.
‘’NAHIM’’ attest, the NAHIM Govemment is “Not” affiliated with the U.S. Government, nor any of it’s law enforcement agencies, yet we share the same goals of “HONORING/OBEYING’ the U.S. Constitution. All of our passport holders. “ARE AMERICAN BORN CITIZENS”.
This Affidavit of Notice can.be refuted by “ANYONE” within 30 days in a court of law by affidavit using U.S. Constitutional laws “ONLY” signed under perjury and notarized in the presence of a notary public proving the NAHIM Government passport is by U.S. Constitutional law “UNLAWFUL.” Should NO ONE refute this affidavit within the given 30 days of receiving it in a court of law, it is then DECLARED”, THE NAHIM GOVERNMENT PASSPORT IS A LAWFUL “SOVEREIGN PASSPORT TO POSSESS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS WHICH AUTHORIZES ITS EXISTENCE
AND USE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD.
Send your Affidavit of refute to:
E. Sog
NAHIM Government
General Delivery, San Bernardino, Ca 92402
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/02, 07/09, 7/16 & 07/23, 2021
FBN 20210005949
The following person is doing business as GARNISH PIZZA & GRILL 7890 HAVEN AVE. UNIT 15 & 16 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730:
NATION FOOD SERVICE INC 7890 HAVEN AVE. UNIT 15 & 16 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION REGISTERED IN CALIFORNIA C4264978
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/ PARVINDER SINGH
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/3/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: APRIL 10, 1990
County Clerk, Deputy I6764
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 07/02, 07/09, 7/16 & 07/23, 2021
FBN 20210006061
The following person is doing business as OPTIMA REEFER SERVICE 18960 CAJON BLVD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407: OPTIMA REEFER SERVIC, LLC 18960 CAJON BLVD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY REGISTERED IN CALIFORNIA 202114810451
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 F. VALENCIANO GUTIERREZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/08/21
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 07/02, 07/09, 7/16 & 07/23, 2021
FBN 20210006059
The following person is doing business as OPEN DOOR REALTY & INVESTMENT 8291 UTICA AVE STE A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
ROSA M ESTRADA 8291 UTICA AVE STE A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 [and] RICARDO CASTRO 8291 UTICA AVE STE A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
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/ ROSA M ESTRADA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/8/2021
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 07/02, 07/09, 7/16 & 07/23, 2021

FBN 20210007079
The following person is doing business as: SAYULITA 369 1315 HARD STREET UNIT B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); CESAR A. SIGALA ORTIZ 1315 HARDT STREET UNIT B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ CESAR A SIGALA ORTIZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/08/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB28202101SN

FBN 20210006838
The following person is doing business as: BEE CUTE FASHION 15764 COUNTY CLUB DR CHINO HILLS, CA 91709 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; MINDY RODRIGUEZ 15764 COUNTY CLUB DR CHINO HILLS, CA 91709; ELIZABETH M SALAZAR 15764 COUNTY CLUB DR. CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ MINDY RODRIGUEZ, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/01/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB282021002CV

FBN 20210006385
The following person is doing business as: RIVAS TRANSPORTATION 4620 LEROY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); JUAN ANTONIO RIVAS ORELLANA 4620 LEROY ST SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92404
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ JUAN ANTONIO RIVAS ORELLANA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/17/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB28202103MT

FBN 20210007041
The following person is doing business as: CHERRY REGISTRATION 14976 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT #300 FONTANA, CA 92335 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); GABRIELA J ALVARADO 14976 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT #300 FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ GABRIELA J ALVARADO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/08/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB28202104MT

FBN 20210007054
The following person is doing business as: CHALECO’S LOGISTICS 461 E. REDLANDS BLVD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS );[ MAILING ADDRESS 700 E. WASHINGTON BLVD COLTON, CA 92324]; JOSE G VALDEZ GALINDO 700 E. WASHINGTON ST. SPC #21 COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ JOSE G. VALDEZ GALINDO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/08/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB28202105IR

FBN 20210007451
The following person is doing business as: AND.STUDIOS 16803 MESA OAK AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); NAVA DAVID 16803 MESA OAK AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709; CHARLY PIZANO 16809 MESA OAK AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUN 15, 2021
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/ DAVID NAVA, PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/20/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202101RC

FBN 20210007079
The following person is doing business as: JIF ENTERPRISES 1508 BARTON RD #283 REDLANDS, CA 92373 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); KUSUMA R PHILIP 1508 BARTON RD #283 REDLANDS, CA 92373
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ KUSUMA R. PHILIP, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/12/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202102MT

FBN 20210007224
The following person is doing business as: LG AUTO SALES, LLC 1680 SOUTH EAST STREET B-232 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); LG AUTO SALES, LLC 1680 SOUTH STREET B-232 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ LAWRENCE M. GITONGA, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/14/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202103MT

FBN 20210007204
The following person is doing business as: OSCAR’S CONCRETE PUMPING 18618 GROVE PL BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); MIGUEL A GARCIA NUNO 18618 GROVE PL BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ MIGUEL A. GARCIA NUNO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/14/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202104MT

FBN 20210007202
The following person is doing business as: CHASQUI 8880 ARCHIBALD AVE UNIT E RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); LUQUEVAL INC 2450 S ATLANTIC BLVD COMMERCE, CA 90040
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ MANUEL G. LUQUE, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/14/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202105MT

FBN 20210007290
The following person is doing business as: ACADEMIA DE DANZA PROFETICA ALFA Y OMEGA 18467 BELLLFLOWER ST. ADELANTO, CA 92301 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); DOLORES ARREDONDO 18467 BELLFLOWER ST. ADELANTO, CA 92301
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ DOLORES ARRENDONDO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/15/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202106MT

FBN 20210007349
The following person is doing business as: THE 3 PET-A-TEERS 1824 N. MILLSWEET DR. UPLAND, CA 91784 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); [MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 1734 GLENDORA, CA 91749]; ARIAL V LOGAN 1824 N. MILLSWEET DR. UPLAND, CA 91749
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ ARIAL V. LOGAN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/16/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202107IR

FBN 20210007467
The following person is doing business as: BALANCE IN MOTION 1881 COMMERCENTER E DRIVE SUITE 200 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); [ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 411 EASTVAE, CA 91752]; TOO BE FREE RECOVERY INCORPORATED 1881 COMMERCENTER E DRIVE SUITE 200 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ STACEY Y. HARVEYFULLER, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/20/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202108IR

FBN 20210007350
The following person is doing business as: NO PRGM 24577 E MONTEREY AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; NATHAN MARQUEZ 24577 E MONTEREY AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUL 12, 2021
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/ NATHAN MARQUEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/16/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202109CV

FBN 20210007510
The following person is doing business as: NANI’S INMITABLE DESIGNS 11129 RIO SECO COURT ADELANTO, CA 92301( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); NANI’S INIMITABLE DESIGNS LLC 11129 RIO SECO COURT ADELANTO, CA 92301
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUN 26, 2021
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/ LEOLA MITCHELL, MANAGER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/21/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202110EM

FBN 20210007683
The following person is doing business as: CLUB SPIN 31514 YUCAIPA BLVD #D YUCAIPA, CA 92399 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); CLUB SPIN LLC 31514 YUCAIPA BOULEVARD #D YUCAIPA, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ KARLA ALANIS, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202101MT

FBN 2021007549
The following person is doing business as: CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE DESIGNS 18349 EUCALYPTUS ST HESPERIA, CA 92345 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); SAUL TREJO 18349 EUCALYPTUS ST HESPERIA, CA 92345
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 04, 2015
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/ SAUL TREJO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/22/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202102IR

FBN 20210007633
The following person is doing business as: RED’S HOLY SMOKES 2751 RECHE CANYON RD. SP 102 COLTON, CA 92324 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); CHRISTOPHER L HINE 2751 RECHE CANYON RD. SP 102 COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ CHRISTOPHER L. HINE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/26/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202103IR

FBN 20210007630
The following person is doing business as: PATRIOT PAINTING 1595 W HOLY ST RIALTO, CA 92376 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); JAMES L KEMPLE 1595 W HOLY ST RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ JAMES L. KEMPLE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/26/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202104IR

FBN 20210007545 STATEMENT OF ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTICIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
The following person is doing business as: THE ZUMBA ROOM 638 W. BASELINE RD RIALTO, CA 92376 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); BELEN DIAZ 638 W. BASELINE RD RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino County on 06/12/2017. Original File# 20170006873
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ BELEN DIAZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/22/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202105MT

FBN 20210007602
The following person is doing business as: EST AUTO REGISTRATION 582 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); MICHAEL A DE LA ROSA 582 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ MICHAEL A. DE LA ROSA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/26/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202106MT

FBN 20210007687
The following person is doing business as: THE MOBILE HOT HOSE 1666 W 11TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); DEVIN L HUMPHREYS 1666 W 11TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ DEVIN L. HUMPHREYS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202107MT

FBN 20210007656
The following person is doing business as: THE REAL ESTATE GUYS 3350 SHELBY ST SUITE #100 ONTARIO, CA 91764 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); LEONARD CALDERA 3350 SHELBY ST SUITE #100 ONTARIO, CA 91764
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ LEONARD CALDERA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/27/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202108MT

FBN 20210007681
The following person is doing business as: ALIGN HOMES 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE # 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ JOEL R. VALMONTE, C.F.O
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202109MT

FBN 20210007669
The following person is doing business as: ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE # 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE # 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ JOHN DOUGLAS GOTOYCO FONTAMILLAS, SECRETARY
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/27/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202110MT

FBN 20210007679
The following person is doing business as: CSG LIVING GROUP 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE # 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ JOEL R. VALMONTE, C.F.O
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202111MT

FBN 20210007607
The following person is doing business as: OPTIMUM REALTY GROUP 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ JOEL R. VALMONTE, C.F.O
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/20/2021
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
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202112MT

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the July 30 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

The City of Upland’s recent renewal of a sales tax springback arrangement with Holliday Rock has brought a wider-scale refocusing to the manipulation of taxing authority by which cities are able to divert – some have used the term steal – other cities’ sales tax revenues.
Holliday Rock is one of Upland’s largest and most successful businesses. For fourteen years, the City of Upland has returned, or sprung back, to Holliday Rock 40 percent of the city’s share of the sales tax paid by that company’s customers for the products it sells.
One of the facts of municipal life is that some cities employ as their managers and administrators individuals who are more sophisticated than do many other cities. As in the natural world, where the strong prey upon the weak, in the world of government, where money is the lifeblood that enables official action, programs and the provision of services, the smart take advantage of the less well-informed and less-worldly.
One concept by which money makes its way out of the pockets of one city and into the coffers of another is that of point of sale.
Point of sale is a relatively obscure element of financial function that stands at the intersection of business and government in California, and it applies to in particular the use of taxing authority to enhance the financial circumstance of municipalities.
The State of California imposes a 7.25 percent sales tax on most goods sold in California, with exceptions made for services, unprepared and non-snack food, meals delivered to elderly and disabled people or patents, student meals, medicine, prisoner of war bracelets, blood storage units, carbon dioxide, cogeneration devices, organic fuels, animal feed, original works of art, newspapers and periodicals, items sold at yard sales, oxygen delivery systems, racehorse breeding stock, real property, school yearbooks, teleproduction equipment, timber harvesting equipment, used mobilehomes subject to property tax, vending machine sales, wheelchairs, crutches, canes and walkers, such that seven-and-one-quarter cents is tacked on to each dollar paid in purchasing transactions throughout the state. Of those seven-and-one-quarter pennies that go to the state for every dollar spent, one of those pennies is reserved for and given to the city where those sales occur. If the sale does not occur in a city but rather in an unincorporated county area, that penny is routed to the county government.
In most circumstances, sales occur over the counter, from a store, one that is located unequivocally in a given jurisdiction, such that there is no confusion with regard to which municipality or county is due that one cent per dollar in sales tax that is collected. In virtually all circumstances, the merchant making the sale is responsible for collecting the sales tax at the time of the purchase, and is responsible for passing the sales tax collected to the state, which then makes the disbursement of that portion of the sales tax to the relevant city or county.
In some relatively limited cases, cities use what are referred to as sales tax springbacks to induce a company, usually one with a relatively large operation and a substantial quantity of sales, to set up shop within its particular jurisdiction. For example, city officials in a given city are likely to recognize that an entrepreneur who is contemplating establishing a car dealership has options of placing that business not only in their city but in a neighboring one or perhaps another location. Those officials recognize as well that it would behoove them and their city to host that car dealership so that they will see the benefit of the substantial amount of sales tax to be realized from the sale of large numbers of big-ticket items such as cars, SUVs, trucks and vans. To ensure the dealership locates in their city rather than elsewhere, those city officials will sometimes offer the dealership’s owner an incentive to locate his/her operation in their city, particularly if they know that the entrepreneur is considering locating the dealership in another jurisdiction. In such circumstances, those city officials might be willing to offer to refund to the car dealership ten percent or 25 percent or even as much as fifty percent of the tax money to be generated by that dealership for a set number of years to persuade its owner to locate in their city. These city officials justify these sales tax springbacks by the knowledge that 90 percent or 75 percent or even 50 percent of the tax revenue those car sales in their city will generate is preferable to zero percent of the tax revenue those car sales will generate if they are sold in another location outside that city’s boundaries.
The controlling factor, generally speaking, as to which governmental entity is to be the recipient of the sales tax from a sale consists of the location at which or from which the sale is made. This location is referred to as point of sale.
Mid-size, large and giant companies and corporations often function from a multiplicity of locations, however, and under California law, such entities are permitted to designate a single one of those locations as its “point of sale” for all of its California locations. Thus, a corporation or company can, for example, sell its goods in a few, dozens, scores or even hundreds of places, communities or cities around California, yet have those sales registered as emanating from one specific location or city. A company or corporation designating a city as its point of sale for the products that business is marketing thereby routes all of the sales tax generated from those sales, no matter where they occur in California, to that city.
Such is the case with Holliday Rock and the City of Upland. Holliday Rock, a mining operation/manufacturing operation which produces aggregate, ready mix concrete, asphalt and construction materials, has been in business since 1937. Holliday Rock has 32 operations in San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, Kern and Orange counties, including three in Upland, Ontario, Chino, Colton, two in San Bernardino and Adelanto in San Bernardino County, as well as in the City of Industry, three in Irwindale, Montebello, Santa Ana, Irvine, Westminster, Vernon, Long Beach, Palmdale, Antelope Valley, Perris, Romoland, two in Sun Valley, Lancaster, Santa Clarita, Canoga Park, Mojave, Tehachapi, Ventura and Bakersfield.
In 2007, the City of Upland entered into a 15-year operating covenant with Holliday Rock, which is set to expire on June 30, 2022. In exchange for Holliday Rock’s commitment to continue its Upland operation and use Upland as its corporate point of sale, the City of Upland in that covenant agreed to spring 40 percent of the sales tax Holliday Rock collects annually back to the company.
According to a staff report by Upland Development Services Director Robert Dalquest dated July 26, 2021 but written prior to that date, “Holliday Rock has continued to expand its operations since the time that 2007 agreement was approved, and the city has negotiated a new agreement to reflect resulting increased sales tax attributable to Holliday Rock facilities within the city.”
Dalquest’s report, which was forwarded to the city council by Acting City Manager Stephen Parker, was intended to orient the city council with regard to the circumstance involving the city’s previous sales tax springback arrangement with Holliday Rock and the point of sale issue in preparation of the city council’s vote, scheduled for the Monday, July 26 meeting, on extending the arrangement with Holliday Rock another 15 years.
The report deals far more explicitly with regard to the sales tax springback while dealing with the point of sale issue obliquely. The indirect discussion of the full implication of Upland being Holliday Rock’s point of sale was to avoid alerting Ontario, Chino, Colton, San Bernardino, Adelanto, the City of Industry, Irwindale, Montebello, Santa Ana, Irvine, Westminster, Vernon, Long Beach, Palmdale, Antelope Valley, Perris, Romoland, Sun Valley, Lancaster, Santa Clarita, Canoga Park, Mojave, Tehachapi, Ventura and Bakersfield that Upland is diverting the sales tax they would otherwise be receiving to its municipal coffers exclusively.
The money at stake is not insubstantial.
“Holliday Rock estimates that over the 15-year term contemplated by this new agreement, Holliday Rock’s activities will result in $3,252,769,492 in taxable sales revenues sourced to the city, with $13,011,078 in covenant payments from the city to Holliday Rock, and $19,516,617 in sales tax revenues retained by the city,” according to Dalquest’s report.
Understandably, Upland officials, including Parker, Dalquest and the five members of the city council, are in no hurry to alert officials with many of the other cities where Holliday Rock has operations of something at least some of them do not realize, which is that Upland has effectively picked their pockets of the sales tax revenue that would otherwise have come their way over the last 14 years and that for the rest of the current fiscal year and for the decade and a-half to come after that, it will be siphoning off the sales tax revenue due them from Holliday Rock’s business activity in their jurisdictions.
Upland’s preempting of the 21 other cities’ and four communities’ shares of the sales tax from Holliday Rock’s operations and its hogging of all of that sales tax revenue is considered, by some, to be poor form on multiple accounts.
Holliday Rock’s operations involve at least nine mining operations similar to its one in Upland, which entail the generation of dust and exhaust from the machinery used to unearth, crush, convey and load gravel, rock and other ore. All of Holliday Rock’s operations involve the use of heavy duty trucks, most of them diesel-powered, carrying substantial loads on local streets. The pollution and contamination the mining operations entail, the belching of diesel and machinery exhaust into the air and the wear and tear on the streets to and from the Holliday Rock operations represent health, safety and economic costs to those communities which see no monetary benefits or cost offsets from Holliday Rock in terms of sales tax revenue flowing into those cities or communities.
The operating covenant between Holliday Rock and the City of Upland for the fifteen years running between July 1, 2022 and June 30 2037 ratified by the council in a 4-to-1 vote with Councilman Rudy Zuniga absent stated, “Holliday Rock shall designate the City of Upland as the sole point of sale for a significant portion of products sold, including but limited to, through an internet website or phone sales which are designated for any location within California. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration shall maintain the appropriate master sales permits applicable to and required for the operation of the facility. Holliday Rock shall consummate all taxable sales transactions for company sales activities at the facility, consistent with all applicable statutory and California Department of Tax and Fee Administration regulatory requirements applicable to Holliday Rock’s company sales activities and the designation of the City of Upland as the ‘point of sale’ for a significant portion of owner’s Holliday Rock’s company sales activities at [the] facility.”
Upland’s point of sale arrangement with Holliday Rock to seize for itself all of the sales tax revenue from the corporation is a direct and proximate cause of the other 21 cities and four communities not getting the sales tax to which they would normally be entitled.
Even more pointedly, the manner in which Upland and Holliday Rock mutually induced one another into maintaining the 2007 arrangement for another 15 years has been questioned. Upland offered Holliday Rock the incentive of a 40 percent sales tax springback. Holliday rock, at least implicitly, threatened to make a location other than Upland its point of sale. Were there no point of sale agreement between Holliday Rock and Upland, each of the 26 cities or communities where the company has operations would come in for a share of the sales tax levied upon the Holliday Rock products. Through its springback pact with Holliday Rock, however, Upland has made it so that the company, over the next 15 years, will keep more than $13 million in sales tax its customers will have paid to buy its products. Many see this springback as a kickback, by which Upland is able, under a loophole in California law, to essentially legally bribe Holliday Rock into designating it as the point of sale for all of its products, and by so doing deprive the cities where Holliday Rock is operating of sales tax they should receive while capturing for itself sales tax from places outside of Upland’s jurisdiction. If the City of Gracious Living were not offering the monetary inducement to Holliday Rock, it would not be receiving that enhanced sales tax revenue, which many people feel Upland is neither ethically nor morally entitled to.
This week, the Sentinel sent letters to Adelanto City Manager Jessie Flores, Chino City Manager Matt Ballantyne, Colton City Manager William Smith, Ontario City Manager Scott Ochoa and San Bernardino City Manager Robert Field, asking them if they believed the city each of them worked for is powerless to resist the arrangement Upland has with Holliday Rock, or whether they felt, on the contrary, that there was perhaps a way to prevent the sales tax from business activity involving Holliday Rock in their cities from being diverted to Upland. The Sentinel inquired as to whether they felt that the diversion of sales tax money to another municipality through the point of sale ploy was something entirely in the hands of another governmental entity such as the Tax Franchise Board or the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, and whether they had explored their options in preventing the loss of the sales tax revenue they should have been receiving from Holliday Rock. The Sentinel asked if those cities had in the past fought a battle over this issue and not prevailed or whether there was a case where some other city waged such a battle in court or elsewhere, establishing a precedent that made taking this issue up moot or futile. If that was not the case, the Sentinel inquired of each of the city managers whether they would they consider exploring their cities’ options in that regard.
By press time, neither Flores, nor Ballantyne, nor Smith nor Field had responded.
Ochoa did.
Ontario is no stranger to point of sale arrangements with companies doing business within the 50-square mile confines of Ontario’s city limits, deals which have enhanced Ontario’s revenues. In his response, Ochoa acknowledged that there was a cut-throat competition amongst cities to increase their revenue. He insisted, however, that this dog-eat-dog ethos, while somewhat unseemly, was not a result of unprincipled city officials who are taking advantage of cities other than their own which employ city managers and administrators less sophisticated and aggressive than they are. Rather, he said, what is happening is more a product of a state government which has over the past several decades deprived cities of revenues that were formerly available to them, while creating circumstances wherein cities, which have been outcasts from the feast of government funding, must fight among themselves for the leftovers and table scraps. Accordingly, he indicated, he did not begrudge Upland the money it is realizing through its arrangement with Holliday Rock.
“Particularly in the wake of the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund takings of the 1990s, the ‘triple flip’ involving the reduction in vehicle license fees in the 2000s, loss of redevelopment in 2012, and the host of other state mandates along the way, cities in California have had to utilize whatever tools were still available to generate the general revenues needed for municipal services ranging from public safety to quality of life,” Ochoa said. “Sales tax sharing agreements are such tools. Until and/or unless the State of California rationally, comprehensively and strategically revisits the broad policy issue of intergovernmental revenue sharing, then my wager would be that cities will continue to unapologetically leverage the tools and rules as they currently exist.”
At their July 26 meeting, the four Upland City Council members present heard a presentation on the covenant from Dalquest and an exposition from Holliday Rock principal John Holliday with regard to his company. They then voted to extend the operating covenant between Upland and Holliday Rock for a decade-and-a-half, effective July 1, 2022. During the presentation and the council discussion, there was reference to the point of sale arrangement, but there was no explicit reference to its implication, that being the diversion of sales tax revenue from Ontario, Chino, Colton, San Bernardino, Adelanto, the City of Industry, Irwindale, Montebello, Santa Ana, Irvine, Westminster, Vernon, Long Beach, Palmdale, Antelope Valley, Perris, Romoland, Sun Valley, Lancaster, Santa Clarita, Canoga Park, Mojave, Tehachapi, Ventura and Bakersfield to Upland. The city council members came across as determined to deal with that aspect of the deal in the most indistinct way possible, one that was calculated to avoid alerting any of the officials or residents of the cities or communities deprived of that sales tax revenue from taking stock of the situation. Moreover, the council came across as being unwilling to acknowledge, even to themselves, what the full implication of their action was, let alone create a situation where they might have to explain why or justify Upland foreclosing on revenue that others would certainly contend should more properly go to other governmental jurisdictions where the taxable product was actually sold.
Nevertheless, while Upland’s officials were unwilling to enter into a polemic to justify their city’s monopolization of the sales tax revenue generated by Holliday Rock’s operations, a former governmental official was willing to defend Upland’s use of both point of sale and tax springbacks to fill its coffers.
Greg Devereaux stands rightly accused and convicted of being the most sophisticated and resourceful governmental functionary in San Bernardino County history, someone whose skillful and creative manipulation of the arcane and complex regulations attending governmental and intergovernmental operations were envied by his peers in municipal management and both highly valued and sought-after by elected officials.
In the early 1990s, as Fontana was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and possible disincorporation as a result of malfeasance, misfeasance and mismanagement on the part of its civic leadership, he initiated that city’s economic turnaround, first in the capacity of housing and redevelopment director and then, beginning in 1994, as its city manager. In the three years while he was at the helm in Fontana City Hall, Devereaux structured an economic recovery program and set in place both reforms and revenue-generating mechanisms that moved the city out of the red and into the black. So comprehensive was Devereaux’s recovery blueprint that only a portion of it had been put into action by the time of his departure, and his successor as city manager, Ken Hunt, not only survived but thrived the next 22 years as Fontana’s acting and thereafter full-fledged city manager by, essentially, executing the plan that Devereaux had put in place before he left.
In 1997, the City of Ontario, impressed by what Devereaux had achieved in Fontana, lured him away to become its city manager. In Ontario, Devereaux started with the advantage of serving a community that was already in decent shape financially. From that position, he intensified its economic primacy, utilizing the full panoply of what was available, including incentives such as sales tax springbacks in combination with point of sale arrangements to induce large corporations such as Cemex and Hewlett-Packard to make Ontario their California headquarters, facilitating residential, commercial and industrial development, while leveraging the city’s existing draws, including the Mills shopping mall and Ontario International Airport, as well as progress in Ontario’s neighboring communities of Chino, Upland and Rancho Cucamonga, to encourage further economic expansion in the city. By the time he left Ontario, it was economically head, shoulders and torso over the rest of the county’s cities, with approaching two-thirds of a billion dollars running through all of the city’s funds, making its municipal budget more than twice that of the next most prosperous city in the county.
In 2010, San Bernardino County poached Devereaux from Ontario, creating the previously nonexistent position of county chief executive officer into which Devereaux was hired as the replacement of what had previously been the county’s highest staff position, that of county administrative officer.
Devereaux left the county after seven years and is now the principal of Worthington Partners, a consulting company. Worthington Partners’ primary clientele consists of governmental agencies, such that at present nearly a dozen governmental entities are making use of Devereaux’s managerial expertise simultaneously. In his capacity as a municipal troubleshooter, Devereaux now earns more money than he did when he was San Bernardino County’s highest paid public official.
Whereas Upland officials were not willing to speak up for themselves and defend how their city is monopolizing all of the sales tax revenue reserved for municipalities generated by Holliday Rock’s operations, Devereaux rallied to their defense.
The ground upon which governmental entities compete for funding is an uneven one, Devereaux said, and the rules governing that competition defy the concept of fairness. Accordingly, he said, cities have to be aggressive and in some cases ruthless in pursuing revenues.
The fact is, Devereaux said, the agreement worked out between Upland and Holliday Rock was perfectly legal.
“I can understand how people can come to the conclusion that the covenant they have is unfair, but what I would point out is the state legislature made that deal possible,” Devereaux said. “If people perceive that to be unfair, then they should go to the state legislature to change the law. People are criticizing the city for doing something that is permitted under the law. The city did not put the state’s sales tax policy together. The state did that in a way that allows what you are discussing. The city is doing what the law allows. It is an awful lot to ask the city to follow the law and then criticize it for doing just that.”
Just like many things in life are unfair, Devereaux said, there are disparities in the way governments operate.
“I can take exception with all sorts of things,” Devereaux said. “Is it fair that one city gets 50 percent of the one percent property tax collected on the property in its city limits and other cities get virtually nothing from the collection of property tax? Is that fair? Maybe it isn’t fair, but that is what the legislature has set up. Is it fair that those cities next to the mountains where water runs down can charge its residents lower rates for water? Is that fair? Each city has its own circumstance and has to make the best of that circumstance. It isn’t fair that one city has a mall and another one doesn’t. Just because of one city’s location, it sometimes gets all that sales tax. If a mall developer came to a city and the members of the city council said to him ‘Don’t locate your mall here. Locate it in city next to us because they need the revenue more than we do,’ how long do you think those people would last in office?”
Devereaux continued, “When you look at the system of revenue distribution to local government, Proposition 13 skewed the system considerably.”
Proposition 13 was passed in 1978 by means of the initiative process. That initiative replaced the practice of annually reassessing property at market value with a system in which assessments are based on cost at acquisition. It also restricted annual increases of assessed value to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2 percent per year. Proposition 13 locked in existing property tax rates, including existing disparities.
“At the time Proposition 13 passed, there were cities that were being very responsible in some people’s minds and not taxing their residents heavily while there were cities that were increasing property tax all along,” Devereaux said. “The latter cities got a much higher percentage of property tax than the cities that were most responsible and kept their taxes low. This was unfair. I can go on. At its heart, you are talking about what is allowed as part of the system. You are talking about what is moral and what societal judgment is. Isn’t that what the legislature is for? If the legislature wants to change that system, it can do so.”
Upland was merely making use of an opportunity available to it, Devereaux said.
“The inequalities in how cities are being funded are rife, and to pick out one thing and say that shows something is wrong misses the bigger picture,” Devereaux said. “The bigger story is the inequities that are built into the system that need to be redressed. Until you do that, you are going to have cities in the system scrambling within the system to provide services at the highest level they can.”
In the same way, Devereaux said, it is perfectly legal for Holliday Rock to have negotiated with Upland to work a trade-off which obtained for it the 40 percent sales tax springback in return for making Upland its point of sale.
“It is not surprising that corporations will try to see who will give them the best deal,” Devereaux said. “If they don’t do that, they aren’t being responsible to their shareholders. It is not uncommon for a company to look at six or seven competing cities when they are deciding where they are going to locate.”
To survive, all cities need revenue, and the competition for that revenue among cities is fierce, Deveraux said. Some cities are more aggressive while engaging in that competition than others, he said.
“There are cities that have staff and leadership that are more entrepreneurial,” Devereaux said. “They understand they are in business, the business of running a city. I am not suggesting that cities are businesses, but there are city leaders who understand that if they want amenities for their community, they have to generate revenue. Some cities are more accomplished in doing that than other cities. In Ontario, when I was there, we held our own. We had the Mills. We had point of sale agreements with HP [Hewlett Packard], Cemex. There were many of those kinds of deals. But we weren’t the only city to do that. Ontario was entrepreneurial. Ontario really worked hard to have diversified revenues. In any jurisdiction where there are difficult financial and budgetary times, its leadership will try to cut their way into balance. Ontario always tried to earn its way into balance. There are different philosophical approaches. Our approach led us to trying to diversify the city’s revenue base. We wanted to have higher levels of service, high levels of public safety. We wanted well-equipped departments with high levels of training. We were an entrepreneurial city, determined to earn whatever we could and to use that to provide those services.”
“People think all cities have the same revenue bases,” Devereaux said. “They don’t. Each city has to find its own way because of those differences. Most people do not understand that every single city’s circumstance is different, and it is the structure that leads them to have to seek different sources of revenue. The system creates inequities because choices in many instances have not been given to the local jurisdictions. They don’t get to impose income tax. City councils can no longer raise property taxes. They can’t raise the sales tax rate. That has to be done by a vote of the people. Cities work within the system. If they are working within the system, what’s the problem? There may be a problem with the system, but you cannot rightfully criticize cities for working within it.”

The 16 of San Bernardino County’s cities which hold by-district elections and the county government are awork either determining whether they need to, or actually moving forward to, redraw their electoral district maps in the aftermath of the 2020 Census.
The U.S. Census Bureau is expected to release 2020 Census numbers toward the end of August. California’s statewide database will release the state’s 2020 redistricting data later, in October. Already, however, preliminary numbers, which are believed to deviate by no more than a few percentage points from the soon-to-be-available official numbers, are available.
The goal in redistricting is to create or maintain electoral districts which are as close as possible to being mathematically identical in terms of population. The census data is used to achieve that. It is possible that the growth in some communities has been uniform geographically, such that no shift or change in electoral districts or wards will be necessary. It is anticipated, however that changes will be made to some districts or wards in most of the county’s cities, as well as to at least two of the county’s five supervisorial districts.
In those jurisdictions where redistricting must be carried out, the governing boards of those governmental agencies will be the final arbiter of where district or ward lines will be drawn.
Traditionally and until quite recently, only two of the county’s cities had district or ward electoral systems – San Bernardino and Colton. Redlands in 1989 switched to by-district elections, but abandoned them after 1995.
Beginning in 2014, a number of lawyers based outside of San Bernardino County – R. Rex Parris, Milton Grimes, Kevin Shenkman and Matthew Barragan – began using provisions of the California Voter Rights Act to challenge cities for engaging in what was asserted to be racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting. Those law firms threatened to bring lawsuits against those cities which did not adopt by-district elections, replete with districts wherein so-called protected minority groups, which in practical terms in San Bernardino County meant Latinos, constituted a majority or a plurality. The intent was to all but ensure that members of those protected minority groups obtained representation on the respective city councils in those cities where the suits were threatened. Because the California Voter Rights Act contained a provision by which an entity bringing a lawsuit against a city to force it into holding by-district elections could not be held liable for the city’s legal costs if the suit was unsuccessful and because cities that did not prevail in such suits were consigned to paying a victorious plaintiff’s legal costs, most cities folded when threatened with such a suit.
A lawyer issuing such a demand letter to a city was entitled to a $45,000 settlement from the city upon the city complying with the demand. Thus, a spate of such demand letters were issued in the 2014/2015 timeframe. As a consequence, Highland, Chino Hills, Chino, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Redlands, Yucaipa, Big Bear Lake, Yucca Valley, Twentynine Palms, Barstow, Apple Valley and Hesperia transitioned to by-district elections. The districts that were drawn up for those cities and which have been used in the last two and three election cycles were based upon the 2010 Census.
Yet holding at-large elections in San Bernardino County are Montclair, Ontario Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Adelanto and Victorville.
21 of the county’s 24 municipalities have town or city councils consisting of five members. Colton and Needles have city councils with six council members and a mayor. San Bernardino has seven council members and a mayor. In all three of those cases, the council members are elected by-district or by-ward, and the mayors are elected at-large.
As part of the redistricting process, cities or towns are required to hold at least four public hearings at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of one or more council districts. At least one public hearing must be held before the council draws a draft map or the lines of the proposed council boundaries. At least two public hearings have to be held after the council has drawn a draft map or maps of the proposed council boundaries. At least one public hearing or public workshop must be held on a Saturday, on a Sunday, or after 6 p.m. on a weekday Monday through Friday. These public hearings must occur in buildings accessible to persons with disabilities.
Public input on the drawing of the map must, by law, be allowed.
Under Senate Bill 1018, cities have a degree of latitude in how redistricting is to be carried out. A city or town council can, if it chooses, perform the redistricting on its own. The city council can also appoint a redistricting advisory commission to assist it. A city or town can delegate the districting authority to a commission, and simply ratify by a vote the commission’s map. A city or town, through its council, can create a hybrid districting or redistricting commission. A council can also contract with a county redistricting commission or demographics company to provide it with a district map it can ratify.
National Demographics Corporation was used by a multitude of San Bernardino County’s towns and cities in assisting with the drawing of the electoral maps adopted over the last six years. It appears that company will be widely used during the upcoming electoral map redrafting effort.
National Demographics Corporation did come in for some degree of criticism during the drawing of district lines for many cities in 2016 and 2018, in that the maps drawn by the company appeared to favor the incumbent council members who had voted to retain its services. In case after case, the cities and towns adopted district voting or ward maps that were gerrymandered to provide incumbent councilmembers an advantage by placing them into districts that did not include other incumbents, and by timing the elections in such a way that the incumbents’ districts held elections at the end of the electoral cycle terminating with the elapsing of the close of the term the incumbents held as a result of their most recent at-large elections.
San Bernardino County’s cities and towns holding by-district or by-ward elections are under the gun to to adopt and submit a new map to the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters by the April 18, 2022 deadline that office has set so it can meet its cut-off dates for the preparation of election materials, such as the sample ballots and the actual ballots for the June primary and November gubernatorial/general election.

Without first exploring whether the City of Upland’s astronomical pension debt can be reduced, city officials in the 77,754 population municipality are inching toward an inevitable issuance of so-called pension obligation bonds to render, their advisors say, that arrearage more manageable.
That bond issuance will be for the accumulated debt of roughly $130 million so far. It will not redress the continuing debt going forward.
Upland is not unique among California cities in facing a financial crisis brought on by its commitment to providing generous – what many consider to be overly generous – retirement benefits to its municipal employees past and current.
Upland is at a crossroads, and its elected leadership now in place has the option of using California’s criminal statute relating to public employee conflicts of interest to rescind commitments to enhance the pensions of city employees that were made as part of an effort to keep an illegal enterprise engaged in by former Upland Mayor John Pomierski under wraps. As a consequence of the assistance virtually every one of the city’s employees of that time lent to the mayor, he and his graft-encrusted regime were able to stay in place for over a decade. Those employees, many of whom have retired and some who are still employed by the city, have already seen or will eventually see their retirement checks fattened as a result of their complicity in looking the other way while Pomierski and his associates were engaged in their misdeeds. Those giveaways of public money, tainted by the criminal conflict of interest the city’s employees and their unions engaged in to get those pension benefit increases, provides the city at present, if its council members have the will to do so, with the legal grounds to cancel the generous terms of those pension guarantees, thereby reducing the city’s enormous debt. It does not appear, however, that the current city council, which is being advised by city employees who have a personal interest in seeing those giveaways perpetuated, is willing to seek the remedy that will, conceivably, save Upland’s citizens in excess of $100 million over the next several decades. Nor does the council seem willing to have the city exit from the retirement system that, together with the corruption of City Hall, created the ongoing financial disaster it is beset with.
The City of Upland is a participant in CalPERS, the California Public Employee Retirement System. The terms by which Upland participates in CalPERS is similar to those of all of the other governmental entities that are engaged with the California Public Employee Retirement System. The city contributes a given amount of money to CalPERS for each city employee. The California Public Employee Retirement System then invests that money in a variety of financial instruments, including the stock market and real estate ventures. The return on, or earnings from, those investments is utilized to pay out the pensions to the retired employees.
The two most common type of pension systems exist as either a defined-contribution plan or a defined-benefit plan.
In a defined-contribution plan, the employer and employee make matching contributions on a regular basis toward the retirement fund set up for each employee. That money is either put into an interest bearing account or invested. Upon the employee’s retirement, money drawn from that particular retiree’s account is dispensed on a regular basis, monthly, quarterly, every six months or yearly, to that employee as his or her pension. In a defined-contribution plan, the amount of the employee’s pension is not guaranteed, but instead controlled by how much money is in that particular employee’s retirement account and the earnings from the interest or investments made by the money in that account. If the value of the investments go up, the amount of the pension goes up. If the investments fare poorly, the retiree’s pension goes down.
In a defined-benefit plan, the retiree is provided with a guaranteed pension based on the number of years of employment, the highest salary that retiree earned while employed multiplied by an agreed-upon percentage, usually between 2 percent and 3 percent, times the number of years the employee was employed in California’s public sector.
In a defined-benefit plan, such as that used by Upland, the employer accepts all of the investment risk relating to the retirement fund, such that if the investments over a given year fail to achieve the returns needed to meet the amount of the yearly payout guaranteed to the retired employee, the employer, such as a city or county, must then make up for the degree to which those earnings have fallen short.
The California Public Employees Retirement System is a defined-benefit plan, meaning all of the participants in it, such as the City of Upland, have guaranteed that those who have retired as city employees will receive the full pensions offered them when they were employed with the city.
During the strong economy of the late 1990s and early 2000s, the California Public Employee Retirement System was heavily invested in the booming stock market, which was advancing on the basis of rapidly prospering start-up technology companies. This phenomenon became known as the dotcom bubble. Based on the market’s performance, CalPERS was superfunded, and its investment earnings had created a circumstance where it reportedly had 140 percent of the money it needed to meet its obligations to all of its then-current pensioners. In the exuberance of this confidence and in the mistaken belief that the state’s public employee retirement fund would remain shipshape perpetually, along with the overall bright financial picture at that time, many municipal governments throughout California, including Upland, provided their employees with substantial salary and benefit increases.
In the years since, the ebb and flow of the economy, which included the so-called Great Recession which lasted from 2007 until 2013, has shown that the exuberance that led to the provision of those inflated benefits was unjustified. In order to keep up with the financial demands of those commitments, cities up and down the state find themselves reducing the level of services they provide and even reducing their current workforces so they can ensure that past employees are paid their pension stipends.
Upland, like virtually all other cities in the state, has experienced in the last decade financial strain as a result of the CalPERS-driven pension fund collapse. Compounding that was its unfortunate experience with Mayor Pomierski.
John Pomierski was elected Upland mayor in 2000. Domineering, manipulative and dishonest, Pomierski solidified his hold on the city by forming lock-tight political alliances with members of the city council. Virtually from the outset of his time in office he took advantage of his position of power and authority, and violated the trust the voters of the city had placed in him. He took bribes and accepted kickbacks from all order of business interests seeking permits or project approval from the city council, planning commission or community development department or those seeking contracts or franchises to provide goods or services to the city and its residents.
As Pomierski was enriching himself in this fashion, the circle of those who directly saw what he was doing or who had come to understand the depredations he was engaged in widened. In early 2005, he forced the departure of City Manager Mike Milhiser, who had held that post since 1996, conferring upon him a $200,000 severance package to buy his silence. Two weeks later, then-Police Chief Martin Thouvennell was persuaded to retire. Pomierski induced the city council to hire his hand-picked replacement for Milhiser, Robb Quincey, and he elevated a captain in the police department, Steve Adams, to police chief.
Because he had concerns that the circumstantial knowledge about his bribetaking and other illegal activities that existed among city staff might not contain itself, Pomierski made arrangements to increase employee salaries generally at City Hall and had the city go to a four-day work week. A handful of city employees were actively assisting Pomierski in shaking down those doing business with the city or those subject to its regulatory authority. The lion’s share of city employees, while not directly involved in Pomierski’s pillaging, were nonetheless cognizant or subliminally aware of what was taking place. As beneficiaries of the generosity being shown them in terms of the uprating of their salaries and benefits, they simply chose to passively ignore what the mayor was doing.
Quincey had been hired as city manager on a contract that provided him with a combined salary and benefits package of slightly less than $260,000 per year. Pomierski in time arranged to get the city council’s acquiescence in conferring upon Quincey a contract enhancement that guaranteed he would receive the same percentage increase in his salary and benefits that were provided to the members of the police department. Pomierski also designated Quincey to represent the city in its negotiations with the police officers’ union in the collective bargaining process by which the officers’ salaries and retirement benefits were set. During the slightly more than five-and-a-half years that he served as city manager, Quincey was provided with eight raises that boosted his combined salary and benefits from less than $260,000 per year to $429,000 per year, making him the second-highest paid city manager in California. Meanwhile, the members of the police department saw their salaries and benefits escalate significantly, such that their silence and investigative inactivity with regard to Pomierski’s activities was secured. At the pinnacle of the police department was Adams, who, like Quincey, was beholden to Pomierski for his professional and financial advancement. Adams at no point had his department act to bring Pomierski’s violation of the law to a halt.
Throughout his ten years and a little more than two months in office, Pomierski had a free rein and experienced no obstruction from anyone at City Hall with regard to the graft he was involved in, even as that activity intensified during the last five years he was Upland mayor. It was only after Thouvenell approached the FBI in late 2009 that any semblance of an effort to hold Pomierski to account was made. Nevertheless, even after a joint FBI/IRS task force on June 10, 2010 descended on Upland City Hall, Pomierski’s home and his business office as well as the homes and offices of several of his business associates, Pomierski maintained his domination of Upland’s city government. He continued to exact an under-the-table tribute from those who wanted to ensure they had an edge over their competition in securing city contracts or when they were seeking to get permission to proceed with their property development proposals or see their applications for business licenses or permits approved. With the dawn of 2011, in rapid succession, Quincey was suspended in January, Pomierski resigned as mayor in February and in March a federal indictment was unsealed in which the now-former mayor was charged with bribery. The following year, in April 2012, Pomierski pleaded guilty and was given a two-year sentence. In October 2012, Quincey was arrested and charged by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office with three felonies consisting of unlawful misappropriation of public money, gaining personal benefit from an official contract, and giving false testimony under oath. Quincey’s lawyer would later work out with prosecutors a plea deal for him on a reduced charge.
In the meantime, while Pomierski and Quincey were opening up the city treasury and handing money hand over fist to the city’s employees to keep them from going public with their knowledge about the criminality at City Hall, the bursting of the dotcom bubble – the precipitous drop in the value of tech stocks – took place, precipitating the economic downturn of 2007 and the ensuing six-and-a-half year financial slump. The collapsing of the national, state and local economy would have a devastating impact upon Upland as well as the California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s fiscal position. The abrupt drop in stock values meant that the California Public Employee Retirement System’s investments did not net the returns needed to keep the pension plan fully funded, resulting in cities and counties throughout the state along with the state government itself having to step up and make substantial payments beyond what they normally made to CalPERS. For cities like Upland, this meant money that otherwise was used for basic operations, paying salaries and providing services to residents was in short supply. That translated into layoffs and resultant manpower shortages and service reductions, along with delays in constructing new infrastructure, the deterioration of existing infrastructure and the deferring of purchasing new equipment and vehicles and the neglect of maintenance and servicing to city assets.
The difference between the total amount of benefits owed to all of a city’s current employees & retirees and the value of the financial assets devoted to that city’s pension plan is referred to, in municipal parlance, as an unfunded pension liability, what is more commonly understood by the public to be pension debt.
As of June 2012, the City of Upland had an $88,994,066 unfunded pension liability. That debt had reached $99,976,917 as of June 30, 2019, and then climbed more steeply thereafter, hitting $112,039,675 as of mid-fiscal year 2019-20 and $120,920,721 as of June 30, 2020. Unofficial documentation available to the Sentinel suggests that as of March 2021, Upland’s unfunded pension liability had climbed to $130,185,277.
In fiscal year 2020-21, 20.65 percent of the city’s operating costs were devoted to paying those who were no longer actively working for the city, as $8,996,364 of the city’s $43,559,950.78 general fund budget was utilized in paying off its pension debt.
Projections are that 11 years from now, in 2032, with more and more of the city’s current employees joining the rolls of the city’s retirees drawing pensions at ever higher and higher rates, the city will be expending more than 50 percent of its operating budget on paying pensions to former city employees, resulting in the city drastically reducing the municipal services it provides.
A significant factor in the pension debt crisis consists of the very generous terms contained in the formulas for those pensions. Generally speaking, employees are eligible to retire at the age of 55 to 60 and begin to draw a yearly pension equal to two percent of their highest annual pay, including salary and overtime, multiplied by the number of years they were employed in the public sector in California. Thus, a city employee who retires at the age of 55 and has achieved the paygrade of $100,000 per year and has 30 years of employment within the public sector would be eligible to draw an annual pension of $60,000 per year [$100,000 X .02 X 30] for the remainder of his/her life. Upon that former employee’s death, his or her spouse/widow/widower would be eligible to continue to draw a pension equal to half that amount, $30,000, for the rest of her/his life. The more an individual rises in the municipal ranks in the City of Upland, the more generous the formula. Senior administrative employees such as the city manager are eligible to draw a pension equal to his/her highest annual salary and add-on or overtime pay during that year times two-and-a-half percent times the number of years that person was employed in the public sector in California. Thus, a city manager paid $250,000 per year who retires at the age of 60 after a 35-year career as a public employee in California would receive an annual pension of $218,750 [$250,000 X .025 X 35] for the rest of his/her life, with his/her surviving spouse eligible to collect $109,375 yearly for the remainder of his/her life.
In this way, members of the city’s managerial echelon, subject to similar or the same rewards as the city’s line employees, have a disincentive to reform the pension system and its terms, as any action they take will impact their own retirement plans.
In the case of police officers, they are eligible to retire at the age of 50 and receive a pension of three percent times their highest level of pay multiplied by the number of years they have worked as government employees in California.
A circle of Upland residents sensitive to their city’s looming pension crisis years ago began a serious discussion over what steps could be taken to reduce the onerous burden of the city’s escalating pension costs and the resultant impact on ongoing and future municipal operations. Among the limited options contemplated was altering future employee contracts to reduce the level of benefits guaranteed to city personnel going forward. Another contemplated solution consisted of maintaining the level of benefits as they are but shifting the cost of participating in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System from the city to the employees themselves, meaning those employees – through payments deducted from their wages – would cover the cost of making annual payments the city is currently making to CalPERS, alleviating the taxpayers of that financial responsibility. Another approach that was floated called for using the collective bargaining process to work into the employment contracts with employees a cap on pension amounts at what might be considered to be a reasonable maximum – $100,000 annually, for example – that would still provide the means for retirees to live in dignity without breaking the public treasury. Another option discussed was for the city to pull out of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System altogether, paying off its debt to CalPERS, and instituting a municipal employee 403 (B) retirement program for those city workers which they pay for themselves, perhaps with some modest city contribution, similar to 401 (K) programs available in the private sector. Another contemplated option called for the city to utilize the legal leverage available to it and uniformly revoke the past salary and benefit increases provided to city employees under the Pomierski regime. Government Code Section 1090 renders null and void any contractual arrangement entered into by a public agency as a consequence of a conflict of interest. The contract negotiations Quincey engaged in with the police union while his contract entitled him to any concessions he made to the police officers constituted just such a conflict of interest. Thus, the enhancements the police officers received as a consequence of those negotiations, including the generous terms of their retirement packages, upon legal challenge, would likely prove unenforceable.
Larry Kinley, a 42-year employee and vice president with the Bank of America who oversaw its problem loan division, was elected Upland treasurer in 2016.  After acclimating himself to the office, Kinley in 2018 and into 2019 attempted to draw attention to the pension cost crisis facing the city by providing a running tab of the city’s unfunded pension liability in the monthly treasurer’s report he signed which gave a tallying of the city’s investments and reserve funds. Then-City Manager Rosemary Hoerning and Finance Manager Londa Bock-Helms, both of whom were on a trajectory to qualify, by the time of their retirements for pensions of, respectively, over $200,000 and over $120,000 per year, altered the treasurer’s report by erasing or whiting out the inclusion of the unfunded pension liability before that document was posted or provided to the city council and the public. Neither considered it to be in their personal interest to draw attention to the pension fund deficit issue, which likely would have encouraged reform that might reduce the eventual retirement benefits they are to receive.
In an effort to divert the momentum away from a reform of the underlying issue – the sheer magnitude of the pension system’s cost and the continual escalation of that cost – city officials sought to refocus the discussion from reform aimed at undoing the pension enhancements engineered by Pomierski to refinancing the debt.
Late last summer, city officials welcomed Suzanne Harrell, a financial advisor, into their midst. Harrell provided the city council with a sales pitch relating to the possibility of issuing pension obligation bonds as a means of defraying over time the exorbitant cost of the city’s unfunded pension liability.
Hailing pension obligation bonds as a debt management tool, Harrell said such bonds could be issued without requiring voter approval, such that their issuance could be subject to a judicial validation proceeding, which would require that a citizen or citizens go to the expense and trouble of going to court to prevent the city from issuing the bonds.
By issuing the bonds at a fixed rate of 3.3 percent, Harrell said the city could undertake a strategy by which the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the pension obligation bonds could be invested in high yield securities that would bring in a rate of return greater than the interest to be paid on the bonds. The money earned in this way could be applied to pay down the city’s pension debt, Harrell said. This involved a gamble that the city would most likely win, she said, essentially a bet that the stocks and other securities that Upland would invest the proceeds of the pension obligation bonds in will perform well and provide the investment returns hoped for.
Harrell endeavored to shoot down many of the arguments against pension obligation bonds, including that they would impact the city’s debt capacity and that they would commit the city to a longer debt service period. The city already is overburdened with debt in the form of its unfunded actuarial pension liability, Harrell said, and if the city realized a net gain between its return on the investments made with the bond money and the interest on the bonds, the city’s debt would be reduced. The city could, Harrell maintained, match the maturity of the bonds to a timetable of the city’s choosing, calibrating them so they coincide with the maturity, life or sunset dates of the city’s other debts, and refinance them after ten years if the city deems doing so necessary.
With attention to detail and timing, Harrell said, issuing pension obligation bonds could prove a sound and prudent way for the city to eliminate its existing unfunded pension liability, simply by investing the investment of the bond proceeds in financial instruments with a higher return than the interest cost on the bond debt.
Critics and naysayers such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Government Finance Officers Association have likened the use of pension obligation bonds to paying off the money owed on one credit card with another credit card.
Harrell minimized, indeed left out of her presentation entirely, mention that she stood to churn considerable fees for herself and her company if the city chose to issue the bonds and utilized the professional services she provided related to those issuances.
By the point that Harrell was making her presentation to the city council, in September 2020, Kinley, aghast at the way in which his efforts to bring the pension fund crisis to the attention of city residents was being thwarted by city staff and despairing of being able to prevent what he saw as the city’s inevitable march toward bankruptcy, had resigned, simultaneously opting out of seeking reelection in the November 2020 election.
The growing contingent of Upland residents concerned with the city’s quickly eroding financial condition brought on by its ever-mounting pension debt coalesced around Greg Bradley, who ran against two others, former Upland City Manager Stephen Dunn and Darwin Cruz, in the November election for city treasurer. Among those residents there was hope that Bradley once in office would have the strength and resolve to stand up to the entrenched forces at City Hall and within the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and city employee unions in a way that would reform the one-sided arrangement that is providing the City of Upland’s public employees with pensions that are on the order of five and six times as generous as those available in the private sector and which is on the brink of bankrupting the city and depleting its treasury. It was hoped Bradley would succeed where Kinley had tried but had been stymied, and that by doing so he would render the city’s finances into a far more manageable state, eliminating the future prospect of bankruptcy and heading off the impingement on city services.
During his ultimately successful campaign for treasurer, Bradley cautioned against blindly utilizing the pension obligation bonds-issuing solution to overcome the financial challenges brought on by the funding demands of the pension system.
“If elected, I would insist that we have a plan to stop adding new debt before we consider a bond to push off old debt. You can’t get out of debt while you’re adding new debt,” Bradley said at the time.
Upon consideration that Harrell’s advisement was compromised by the consideration that she and her firm stood to profit in some fashion if the city elected to issue the pension obligation bonds, the council at that point grew tentative, put off by the potential that the citizenry might conclude that they were depending upon direction from someone who had a conflict of interest. They resolved to have city staff delve further into the option and provide the council with fuller information before any issuance of the bonds was made.
Once he was sworn into office, Bradley consented to hearing city officials out with regard to their assertion that the city could reduce the red ink it was hemorrhaging in servicing its pension debt by creative borrowing, meaning, in essence, the issuance of pension obligation bonds. Both Hoerning and Assistant City Manager Steven Parker were clamoring for the city to utilize the pension obligation bond solution.
Some residents were pushing Bradley toward utilizing the provision of Government Code Section 1090 to rescind the generous terms of the employment contracts offered to city employees during Quincey’s management of the city as a means of buying those employees’ silence with regard to Pomierski’s criminal activity. Hoerning and Parker were having none of that. Instead, they steered Bradley toward the concept of refinancing the pension debt on terms that were represented as being preferable to what the city is now enduring by saddling the coming generations of Uplanders – the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Upland’s current taxpayers – with that debt by the issuance of bonds.
In March 2021, Hoerning and Parker elected to utilize a different advisor than Harrell to stand off a suggestion that the city might not have been getting the straight scoop from Harrell because of her financial stake in the city’s eventual decision. Nevertheless, the other experts Hoerning and Parker turned to in order to provide the city council with orientation with regard to this relatively obscure and complex means of financing themselves have their own financial stake in the outcome of the city council’s decision to utilize pension obligation bonds. Moreover, the firm that employs one of those advisors, Urban Futures, for reasons that were hidden from the city council, the city treasurer and the public, had a motivation to prevent the City of Upland from undertaking pension reform and instead defer the problem runaway pension costs represent into the future through some form of refinancing mechanism, of which a pension obligation bond issuance is the most likely option.
Hoerning and Parker utilized Julio Morales, a managing director with Urban Futures, and Ira Summer, an actuary who is well versed in public pension statistics, in an effort to convince the city council that issuing pension obligation bonds is the best approach to structuring a solution to Upland’s pension debt crisis. Providing legal background on the issuance of the bonds were City Attorney Steve Deitsch and Assistant City Attorney Thomas Rice, both of whom are partners with the law firm of Best Best & Krieger, which provides legal services to the city. Like Morales and Summer and their companies, the law office of Best Best & Krieger has a potential financial interest in the city issuing pension obligation bonds.
Pension obligation bonds can be issued by a city without a vote of its electorate – its residents, citizens and voters – to do so. Instead of a vote, the city can undertake a validation procedure, which is essentially a call to all people of standing, primarily the city’s residents, to lodge a protest in court against the bond issuance if they deem doing so to be called for. If no protest is lodged, the court gives the city clearance to proceed. If a protest is filed, then during court proceedings those contesting the issuance can seek to convince the judge hearing the matter to prevent the issuance.
At present, there is a likelihood that the City of Upland will use the same entity that is to carry out the validation proceeding for the issuance of the bonds as will be used for serving as bond counsel and disclosure counsel with regard to those issuances. Bond counsel and disclosure counsel are involved in the drafting of the documents relating to the issuance of the bonds, and certifying that the issuance passes legal muster. On the inside track for gaining that assignment is the law firm of Best Best & Krieger. By capturing all three of those assignments – validating the bond issuance, serving as bond counsel and then serving as disclosure counsel – Best Best & Krieger stands to gain as much as $1,006,389.57 in legal fees.
In providing their input to the city council throughout the process so far, neither Morales nor Summer nor Deitsch nor Rice engaged in any serious or meaningful discussion of the city’s pension reform options, such as ending its relationship with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System beyond precluding the concept by advising that it was unattainable or prohibitively expensive. Nor have Morales or Summers as the city’s financial advisors, and Deitsch and Rice, as the city’s legal advisors, engaged in a dialogue relating to switching the burden of defraying pension costs to the city’s employees or altering the terms of the city’s employee benefit packages either through negotiation or on the basis of the illegality inherent in the circumstances under which those benefits, during the Pomierski era, were derived, offered and accepted.
Morales acknowledged that in the current economic circumstance, over the last several years, pension funds dependent upon stock market and other investment returns have been about 75 percent funded, meaning cities have been perpetually subsidizing CalPERS.
Morales shot down the concept of the city moving out of its contractual arrangement with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and switching to a 403 (B) program, the public sector equivalent of a 401 K program, saying that CalPERS would not allow employees in its system to withdraw. He further said that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System would not allow a city that currently has its employees in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to hire new employees who were not automatically enrolled in the retirement system. Without making any citation to his authority for saying so, Morales indicated that doing so would be a violation of California law.
Morales told the city council it is not impossible for the City of Upland to leave CalPERS, but that it would cost more than paying off its current unfunded liability. Rather, he said, Upland could not buy its way out of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System for anything less than $490 million.
Morales continuously painted the option of issuing pension obligation bonds in the best light possible, acknowledging that doing so would create for the city new debt that would need to be paid, but he insisted payment of that bill would “avert a worse bill,” such that the city and its council would find itself and themselves “in a better position than you would have been” if it did not issue the pension obligation bonds.
Admitting the city could take the approach of having its employees pay more of their pension costs, Morales nevertheless said the best that would do is have some impact “around the margins” of the mounting debt issue. He told the city council that it would essentially prove futile for the city to seek getting out of its relationship with CalPERS or to strive to lessen its actual payments into the system, but should instead seek to use bonds to reduce the cost of financing its pension debt. Doing so at this point, he explained, would escalate the savings the city is to potentially reap, given the historically low interest rates in the financial marketplace at present.
At no point did Morales address the concept of the city using the violation of Government Code Section 1090 that Quincey engaged in to render the contracts the city had entered into with its police officers which escalated their pension benefits null and void. “You cannot undo these formulas,” Morales solemnly informed the counsel with reference to the pensions that Upland’s past and current employees are guaranteed through the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
While Morales acknowledged the city ran a certain limited risk in utilizing the pension obligation bonds option, explaining that the city would save money, relatively, by issuing the bonds as long as the earnings of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s investments remained higher than the interest on the bonds. If CalPERS suffered consistent or sustained low, flat or negative earnings on its investments, Morales pointed out, the relative advantage of issuing pension obligation bonds would be wiped out. He nevertheless said it would be to the city’s advantage to pursue the pension obligation bond issuance option and that doing so immediately while interest rates remain low offered the greatest chance of benefit to the city.
Urban Futures has long been involved in an advisory or consultancy role in Upland municipal operations. A major portion of the firm’s work consists of advising the city with regard to and then making the arrangements for debt refinancing. In doing so, Urban Futures stands to gain fees pursuant to the ancillary services it provides relating to the city refinancing its debt. Given the financial stake Urban Futures has in these refinancings, questions have arisen about the integrity of its advice.
Moreover, in this circumstance, Urban Futures, or at least some of its employees, have an interest in discouraging any options that might pertain to Upland exiting the California Public Employees’ Retirement System or altering the employee contracts the city entered into during the Pomierski era.
Steve Dukett from 2018 until 2019 served as Upland’s contract development services manager after having served, more than a decade prior to that, as an Upland municipal employee, in the post of development services manager. Dukett is one of three managing partners with Urban Futures. In addition to his work for Urban Futures, Dukett draws a significant amount of his personal income from CalPERS. Dukett served stints as the redevelopment or development director with the cities of Redlands, Upland, Hesperia, Ontario, Lancaster and San Bernardino. He was briefly, in the late 1990s, the interim city manager in Hesperia. His employment in Upland took place during the reign of then-Mayor Pomierski. At present he pulls a $173,071.80 public pension consisting of $119.863.44 per year provided to him by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System based on his 29.43 years with various municipal entities, as well as $53,208.36 from the retirement system Los Angeles County has for its public employees, based on the 12.42 years he worked there, including within the county administrative office.
At a March 2 workshop relating to the issuance of pension obligation bonds, Parker stated that the city at that point was utilizing both Urban Futures and Summer only for advisory and informational services. Simultaneously, the city is contemplating roles for both with regard to professional services related to the bond issuances.
Parker was formerly employed with Urban Futures. During a nearly five-month interim between the time he ended his employment with the Yorba Linda Water District in early July 2013 and the time he was hired on as the director of administrative services with the City of Stanton in late November 2013, Parker was among the stable of municipal advisors Urban Futures provided to its clients. In that span, he was employed as a consultant on loan from Urban Futures to the City of San Bernardino, serving in the capacity of financial manager in the county seat.
Since he has been in office, Bradley has continually huddled with Parker, who has by this point convinced the city treasurer that pension obligation bonds are the way to go. At least some of Bradley’s most passionate supporters in the 2020 election have expressed dismay at the way in which the city treasurer has been beguiled by Parker, and has signed on to the stratagem of taking on low-interest bond debt to finance a paydown on the city’s pension debt while forsaking any effort to reduce the debt prior to securing that financing by addressing the illegal activity that precipitated the increase in Upland municipal employees’ pension benefits.
The city council placed Hoerning on administrative leave in March, and the city parted ways with her the following month. Since that time, Parker has been acting in the capacity of interim city manager.
Parker has made steady progress in convincing not only Bradley but the five members of the city council that the city should move ahead with issuing the full $130 million in pension obligation bonds. In making that case, he has relied on a support network – consisting of Morales, Summer, Deitsch and Rice – who themselves have a financial interest in the city issuing the pension obligation bonds. It does not appear that the council and Bradley have taken full stock of the degree to which this may have compromised the integrity of the advice they are receiving.
At present interest rates stand at 2.5 percent/2.6 percent. The city is striding toward a vote by November to issue the bonds, at which point it is believed that interest rates will reach no higher than 2.8 percent to 2.9 percent. The city’s advisors have convinced Bradley and the council that issuing the bonds while interest rates are at historic lows are a “no-brainer,” and that the city most assuredly will see a financial benefit by refinancing its pension debt if upon doing so the interest rates are below 3.5 percent, and would very likely realize marginal inroads against its pension debt totals even if the interest rate climbs to as high as 4.5 percent. The sole risk the city runs in issuing the pension obligation bonds, the city council is being advised, consists of the off-chance that the stock market will tank in the six-to-eight month period after the bonds are issued.
While city officials maintain that they are being deliberative in the consideration of whether to issue the pension obligation bonds, the Sentinel has learned that Parker, now fully in control at City Hall, is moving forward with laying the groundwork for the issuance, including having committed to using J.P. Morgan as the bond underwriter.
Parker, Morales, Urban Futures, Summer, Deitsch, Rice and Best Best & Krieger are now stampeding the city council toward the inevitable issuance of the bonds by the threatening suggestion that if the city does not act now, the opportunity to realize a reduction in the cost of retiring the city’s contemplated future bonded indebtedness will be lost if interest rates should increase. As a result, the brow-beaten city council is on the brink of exercising the pension obligation bond issuance option.
Based on the increases in salary and benefits provided to city employees in the crucial 2006-to-2010 timeframe when Quincey was engaged in his conflict-entangled role of negotiating Upland employee contracts, utilizing the Government Code Section 1090 option to rescind the generous terms of the benefits provided to city employees under the reign of Pomierski and Quincey could have the effect of reducing the city’s current $130 million unfunded pension liability by what is calculated to be somewhere between $30 million to $50 million, meaning the city’s current pension debt could be reduced to $100 million or as low as $80 million. The city council, however, has given no indication it has the stomach to do so. Not only have their advisors refused to explore that concept, the council on its own does not have the will to confront the city’s employees and their unions over the matter. Moreover, the council is now in the middle of recruiting a new city manager, whom they will be calling upon to run City Hall. Saddling their new city manager with a situation where he or she must ride herd on a discontented workforce sore over having lost the overly generous benefits they feel they are entitled to would almost certainly rock the city’s boat unto capsizing, thereby consigning the city manager the council is going to hire in upcoming weeks to failure.
The council’s unwillingness to make a concerted effort to reduce the retirement benefits conferred upon city employees during Pomierski’s tenure as mayor has an impact beyond potentially reducing the current unfunded pension liability. Addressing the overly generous retirement benefits that have been in place for the past decade-and-a-half would give the city leverage to further downscale the future unfunded pension liability that is being created at present and will accumulate and increase in the years going forward. Reduction of the unfunded pension liability to date and reduction of the future unfunded pension liability potentially would provide Upland, at a point two generations hence, with savings estimated at upwards of $100 million. Given the current elected leadership’s fear of the city’s municipal employee unions and its inability to resist or see beyond the advisal of top city staff and the consultants staff has hand-picked to reinforce the script being writ large at City Hall, it is highly unlikely the council will seize the day and choose the more bold options that lie before it.
It is anticipated that on August 9, when the council next meets, it will make a decision to allow Parker, as he is recommending, proceed with putting all things in place to accomplish an issuance of the pension obligation bonds in November.
-Mark Gutglueck