SAN BERNARDINO (April 28)—Boeing is once again pulling up its stakes at San Bernardino International Airport, where for the last eleven months it has been flight testing 747 and 787-8 aircraft.
It was announced this week that Boeing will leave San Bernardino International in favor of Southern California Logistics Airport in Victorville.
The Seattle-based company, the world’s leading manufacturer of large scale passenger aircraft, last week signed a three-year $1.8 million lease at Southern California Logistics Airport, known by its acronym SCLA.
Boeing had a previous arrangement with San Bernardino International for test flights intended to shake out both  aircraft as well as the GE engines that power them, but left the facility three years ago after growing disenchanted with the way Scot Spencer, the airport’s former contract developer, was managing the facility.
In September 2011, the FBI conducted a search warrant at San Bernardino International Airport and many of Spencer’s corporate facilities and offices. In February 2012, the San Bernardino International Airport Authority – a joint powers agency combining the interests that the county of San Bernardino and the cities of Highland, Loma Linda, Colton and San Bernardino have in the airport – moved to break its contract with Spencer after a series of operational miscues at the airport, including the depletion of its aviation fuel stores to the point that planes flying out of the facility could not be refueled.
Spencer was subsequently criminally charged. In May of last year, Boeing resumed test flights out of San Bernardino.
The decision by Boeing to utilize Southern California Logistics Airport as the staging area for its systems flight testing, is a setback for San Bernardino International.
Though it has an ultra-modern concourse and terminal, which was completed at a cost of more than $136 million, San Bernardino International has virtually no commercial flight activity. There is little prospect that will change in the near future. It is in direct competition with Ontario International Airport as a hosting ground for commercial carriers and flights into and out of Ontario have diminished over the last six years as flights at Los Angeles International Airport have risen.
San Bernardino International Airport was formerly Norton Air Force Base, which was shuttered by the Department of Defense in 1994. Southern California Logistics Airport was formerly George Air Force Base, which was closed by the Department of Defense in 1992.

By Ruth Musser-Lopez
(May 1) Unpredictable and wild, circa eighty-five year old dips and timber trestle bridges are among those extraordinary characteristics of San Bernardino County’s desert section of California U.S. Highway Route 66 which make for a thrilling, one-of-a-kind ride. Yet, for safety reasons, timber trestle bridges cause government officials to shudder.
Just west of Daggett, “catching some air” driving fast across the dips on old Route 66 is a cheap but perhaps dangerous thrill that some bikers seek at their own risk.  It seems to be the general consensus of the public actively participating in assisting with the development of the Bureau of Land Management’s Route 66 Corridor Management Plan (CMP) that despite the inherent dangers of those driving irresponsibly there, to smooth the road out would be to alter the historic route’s integrity and lose some of its intrinsic charm.
Photo Courtesy Lardner/Klein
On the other hand, the timber trestle bridges are the “something old” along the corridor that some government officials seem to think are of immediate concern—they may not be that safe. If you drive the abandoned de-designated state route…you apparently may be doing so at considerable risk.
In a recent analysis by the County of San Bernardino, 128 “aging” 80-year (+/-) old timber trestle bridges are in the area between Daggett and Mountain Springs Road, reported Lardner/Klein Associates.  This number is “staggering,” according to Lardner/Klein  These 128 are “opposed to only 30 currently carrying automobile and truck traffic on U.S. Highway 66 across all other states and counties (including Los Angeles County, California) combined.”
Lardner/Klein also reported that according to the county analysis, the 128 bridges were constructed during the period of time from 1929 to 1935 and are included within a total of 136 bridges and large culverts in this portion of Route 66. Of the remainder, four are reinforced concrete bridges, three are pipe culverts, and one is a concrete box culvert.
However, maintaining the original character and charm of the route including the dips and bridges, is important to tourism with an increasingly large number of foreign tourists from Europe and Asia arriving each year desiring to visit the Grand Canyon via Route 66 from Los Angeles.  According to a study conducted by Rutgers University, these are high-income visitors who are staying longer and spending more than the typical passerby.
Stewardship strategies for Route 66 including the bridges and dips are proposed for consideration by the Route 66 Ad Hoc CMP Planning Committee – abbreviated simply as the “AHPC.”  The AHPC’s first “webinar” meeting took place on April 28, 2014, lead by Lardner/Klein Landscape Architects, P.C., a firm contracted by the Bureau of Land Management to assist with corridor management plan development.  According to Lardner/Klein, the proposed stewardship strategies are based on issues identified in public outreach conducted during initial scoping phases that took place between November 2013 through March 2014 at which time there was a bus tour, small group meetings, conference calls, public meetings, including a web-based meeting all conducted by Lardner/Klein.  The photographs in this article are courtesy of their contracted work for the federal agency.
Jim Klein, acting on behalf of the firm, said with regard to the strength of the bridges, that the route between Barstow and Needles built 80 years ago was never intended to bear the type of tonnage now being pulled by diesel trucks.  With maintenance, the bridges have held up under over-capacity weight even during an emergency redirect when I-40 was closed down due to a temporary hazardous condition.  In reference to the timber trestle bridges, he said that according to the county’s historian Roger G. Hatheway, “You can stick a pencil through them.”
Upon hearing this, one scenario that has been posed more or less as a question by San Bernardino County Sentinel editor Mark Gutglueck, “What are the odds of a catastrophic bridge collapse on Route 66 in the middle of the desert during the ‘perfect storm’ where two heavily-laden 18-wheelers, moving in opposite direction at the same time across a weak timber trestle bridge?”
The County of San Bernardino which maintains the section of Route 66 between Daggett and Mountain Springs Road, is currently conducting a study as a part of the “Dola and Lanzit Bridge replacement projects.”
Nearly all of the distinct segments of the road paralleling I-40 access have some bridges that are weight limited. According to Lardner/Klein, “San Bernardino County is faced with a difficult challenge of keeping the road open to all vehicles. A consulting firm for the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works is currently preparing a study evaluating the manner in which the state inspects and evaluates bridges on historic Route 66 in San Bernardino County, and how this translates into the posting of load limits.”
Timber trestle bridges may have originally been built to support the National Old Trails Road (circa 1912).  Made of what appears to be materials similar to modified railroad ties and cut up utility poles, they were not uncommon nationwide in the first couple of decades of the twentieth century—1900 through 1920 according to Lardner/Klein.  “Beginning about 1920, however, they began to be regarded by many highway design engineers as temporary structures, although they continued to be used in specific locales due to the fact that they could be erected quickly and inexpensively.
Lardner/Klein cited a 1920 book, by Milo S. Ketchum, C.E., entitled
“The Design of Highway Bridges of Steel, Timber and Concrete,” which states that “Timber Highway bridges were formerly quite generally used, and are still in use for temporary structures and in localities where transportation is difficult and where suitable timber is available.” In very simple terms, timber trestle highway bridges were built nationwide with a limited anticipated lifespan.
At the April 28, 2014 meeting of the AHPC, safety concern over the timber trestle bridges were on the agenda as the main subject topic.
The Archaeological Heritage Association suggested that the timber trestle bridges be studied by engineers as an example of what works in the desert’s arid environment.  “The bridges have proven to be durable and strong.  They have held up under tremendous weight over the years.  Perhaps the aridity of the desert has something to do with it. The wooden structures don’t deteriorate as quickly here as in wetter conditions back east.  So that we don’t lose the integrity and charm of the road’s character, maybe all that is needed is some in-kind buttress work to preserve these historic bridge features in place.  As far as weight limits, perhaps its time to consider making this portion of Route 66 a toll road, limit the weight of the vehicles coming across and use the tolls for maintenance of the route.”
Some protection for the road appears to be available through its potential listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).   Lardner/Klein said that in their review to date, the general consensus of preservation professionals is that the Route 66 alignment itself is eligible for the National Register, however, the transportation and related roadside features such as wooden trestle bridge structures or roadside architectural features will need to be evaluated separately for eligibility.  This opinion seems to imply that the bridges would not automatically be protected under a future Route 66 National Register status by simply being a feature of the road itself.   A study evaluating for NRHP status the individual eligibility of all of the 136 bridges and large culverts between Daggett and Mountain Springs Road on historic Route 66 is currently being prepared as part of the County of San Bernardino’s “Dola and Lanzit Bridge replacement projects.”
Lardner/Klein also reported the following findings with regard to that study:  “The County of San Bernardino currently maintains the 128 timber trestle bridges.  Of these 128 timber trestle bridges 127 are on National Trails Highway (NTH) the predecessor to Route 66, and one timber trestle bridge is on Ludlow Road, an original portion of the Route 66 alignment immediately to the west of Crucero Road.  Of the 127 timber trestle bridges/structures on NTH, 31 are not eligible for federal historic bridge repair and/or replacement funding as they are less than 20 feet in length and are officially classed as culverts and not bridges.
“By the mid-1940s, the State of California recognized the need to rebuild its aging timber trestle highway bridges statewide, and several articles were published by the Division of Highways detailing the need for reconstruction.  At this time, the State of California clearly recognized that all U.S Highway 66 timber trestle bridges between Daggett and Mountain Springs Road were quickly approaching the end of their design and economical service life.”
Yet, Lardner/Klein states,  “Seventy years later, the county of San Bernardino is attempting to maintain the same bridges—a very expensive and difficult task.”  But, the “California’s State Historical Building Code (http://www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/AboutUs/shbsb/shbsb_health_safety.aspx) – provides a tool for historic preservation,” which would alleviate some of the expense of maintaining historic properties.  The law provides that qualified historic structures would not be required to comply with current code standards. Alternative provisions in California Code Section 18961 provides for consultation with the State Historical Building Safety Board regarding the treatment of qualified historical buildings or structures.
Even so, raised are two potential issues and/or concerns with the application of the California State Historical Building Code as it applies to historic Route 66 on federal lands.  First, if any given bridge is determined not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, then it cannot be considered to be a qualified historic property thus it appears the alternative historic building code would not apply.  Second, if a property is considered to be eligible for listing, it is unclear whether utilization of a less restrictive State Code on federal historic properties is allowable if federal funds are involved.   Further, if the Federal Highway Administration’s funding process requires review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act guidelines then the utilization of a State Code may not be feasible.  Resolution of these issues and concerns over the course of the corridor management plan  project is anticipated.
Route 66/National Trails Highway is an important emergency alternative when Interstate 40 is closed due to a maintenance issue or emergency situations such as an accident on the highway.  It thus serves an important transportation function in addition to its historic scenic, recreational and local business uses.  It is used by at least two state agencies, the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans. However, according to Lardner/Klein the alignment has never been officially designated as an emergency corridor by the State of California despite repeated requests by the county of San Bernardino.  Failure to designate the road as an emergency corridor has rendered the route ineligible to receive federal or state funding targeted specifically for emergency detour routes.
We need to hear all of our San Bernardino County region candidates for state assembly and senate positions this election season say that they will endeavor to obtain designation of Route 66 through San Bernardino County as an emergency detour route. Consider this:  other bridges such as the “Big Mac,” the Mackinac suspension bridge in Michigan is under constant maintenance 9 months out of the year.  Isn’t an emergency escape corridor for the millions living in Los Angeles and the “Inland Empire” just as important?

Syndicated 2014, Ruth Musser-Lopez—Small quotes citing author, the Sentinel and publication date are permissible under copyright law.  Please respect the rights of those quoted herein by referencing source:  Lardner/Klein may be contacted at cart66cmp@lardnerklein.com.  Permission to reprint this article may be obtained by contacting Ruth at the Archaeological Heritage Association (AHA) 760/885-9374 or via email at Ruth@RiverAHA.org.

(April 29) Second District County Supervisor Janice Rutherford said she is seeking reelection in June because “I think it is important to continue with the reforms and progress we have made in the last four years. We have begun a tremendous cultural shift in county government away from the toxic politics of the past and toward accountability and performance measurements. I very much want to continue that work.”
Rutherford said, “The issues for the Second District are countywide issues as a whole. The cultural shift I mentioned is one that took place from a countywide perspective. With regard to issues that are particular to the Second District, the transformation of Lake Gregory is important, rebuilding the dam at the lake, getting on a regular dredging schedule and seeing the successful transition of the lake’s recreational amenities to CalParks. This is year one of that transition. This is important to the economic health of the Crestline community, that we see that program through.”
She continued, “Another issue on the west side of the district is continuing to work with the Foothill city of Rancho Cucamonga on the Front Country Trails System and access to and maintenance of the North Etiwanda Preserve.”
Rutherford said her concerns for the county went beyond the Second Disttict.
“Most of the other issues are pretty much countywide ones,” she said, “such as fixing the inefficiency of county government every resident is concerned about, the need to grow the local economy and the need to focus on moving those on public assistance to self sufficiency. We are also focused on how we continue to respond to the effect and consequences of the state prison realignment, which is putting dangerous criminals into our communities. We first need to find the revenue to hire more sheriff’s deputies to staff the High Desert Detention Center and get more patrol coverage. We need to acknowledge that the jobs of our probation officers have changed dramatically with regard to the new state policy and that we have to stay on top of their needs.”
Rutherford said the county also need to “take a look at fire and emergency response. The county fire department is significantly into the county general fund and that is not sustainable. Instead of being sustained by fire district funds, the county fire division is now getting $18 million in county general funds. We need to create ways of looking at emergency response and do things more creatively and efficiently.”
For the county as well, Rutherford said, “Another broad category is our reaction to the Affordable Care Act and  the newly insured portion of our population and the remaining uninsured portion of our population and the effect this will have on the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center. How many of our indigent population will still rely on county service? How does the county hospital shift its approach to a community that now has other options for health care?”
With regard to the preserve and trail systems in Rancho Cucamonga, Rutherford said she is “trying to see if we can get additional funding for the accurate GPA mapping of the trail system. We have to get that in place before working with community organizations on how to develop and maintain those trails and make sure there is both pedestrian and equestrian access to the trails.”
Rutherford said her approach to improving the district and county’s economic outlook consisted of “Finding how do we advocate with the state legislature and the governor to show that they are driving businesses out of the state. How do we make sure the South Coast Air Quality Management District doesn’t kill the logistics industry, which is what is keeping our local economy going? We need to work with our business and education sectors to reform our school system to produce graduates who  have the technical skills the next generation of employees need. We have to help our young people become entrepreneurs. It is not enough to import jobs and try to get international or national companies to locate here. We have to grow our own.”
Rutherford said, “My goal is that we all recognize we have taken a bit of a back seat in getting our house in order and  look at what programs give taxpayer the most bang for their buck. We should be giving those who receive public aid the skills to be independent. We are just starting that going and are  at the very beginning of the process. That is why I hope to be reelected, to continue to work toward that end, attracting more money and funding. We need more private foundation funding to replicate those programs.”
She said approaches to driving down the county fire department’s costs include “asking fire service to respond on how they deliver their services. Why do we have to roll a truck to every medical call? Who should transport if the subject has to go to the hospital? Is the fire district organized as to get the most efficiency?”
Rutherford is opposed by Randolph Beasley, a retired sheriff’s department scientific division forensic examiner. She said she compares favorably to him.
“I think I have a clear track record in supporting accountability and transparency in governing,” she said. “I’ve got a track record as a policy maker that has brought about some vibrant change in the county. I have helped restore confidence in county government that is worthy of continuing, to see what progress we can make in the next four years.”
A graduate of Ontario High School, Rutherford attended George Washington University before transferring to UC Riverside, obtaining a bachelor’s degree in political science. She obtained a master’s degree in American politics at Claremont Graduate School. She worked for State Senator Bill Leonard and then later rejoined his staff when he was on the Board of Equalization. She was on the Fontana City Council from 2000 to 2010. Married, she has two children.

(April 29) Ensen Mason is challenging incumbent county treasurer-tax collector-auditor-controller Larry Walker in this year’s election, Mason said, “because I don’t think the job is being done well. There is a  lot of corruption and financial mismanagement in county government. The responsibility for that should have fallen to the auditor-controller. These issues need to be made public. I think he is doing a horrible job in connecting with the people he is elected to serve. If you walked into a room full of people and asked each of them who among them had heard from him, zero would say they have had any word from him. A vital role is connecting with people.”
The county is seeing an inadequate return on the money it is investing under Walker’s watch, Mason said.
“The main problem is we have an extremely lazy investment policy stance,” Mason said. “The job of the tax collector is to collect the money and deposit it properly. The treasurer is responsible for depositing that money, accounting for it and then investing it wisely so that it grows properly or at least keeps pace with inflation. The county has a triple A credit rating, which sounds good, but that rating comes at a huge cost. We are basically getting no return on our money. We are getting very little return on our investment tools. We are sitting on short term instruments. The county’s money should be invested prudently and safely, but we should be seeing a decent return on our investments given the amounts involved. Prudence and a good return are not mutually exclusive functions.”
Mason continued, “The controller has an accounting function, which is supposed to focus on reporting and maintaining transparency. The auditor is usually responsible for keeping an eye on the other three people. The auditor reviews the controller’s reports and offers an opinion on the validity and accuracy of the information provided. Unfortunately, the way the county has designed it, the person in the position of keeping an eye on the others serves in the capacity of those entities having an eye kept on them.”
Mason said he believed that Walker has done a reasonably decent job in his function as treasurer, but has lagged behind with regard to his duties as treasurer, auditor and controller.
“I think he has done alright as far as collecting and receiving and counting and then depositing the money in the right place, at least as far as I can tell,” Mason said. “I do not think I would change very much in that regard.”
It was in the other three arenas, that Mason said his major differences with Walker lie.
If elected, Mason said he would depart from the county’s current investment policy.
“I would invest in a conservative portfolio that would return a reasonable rate,” Mason said in describing his difference with the treasurer’s office policy under Walker.
Mason said he had an even more substantial difference with Walker in regard to the merging of the functions of the tax collector treasurer with those of the auditor controller. In 1998, Walker, who was then Fourth District County supervisor, successfully ran for the post of auditor-controller/recorder. He was reelected to that post in 2002 and 2006. During that period, the position of treasurer-tax collector was an independently elected position. Prior to the 2010 election, the county moved to consolidate the treasurer-tax collector position with that of the auditor-controller, appointing Walker to replace former treasurer-tax collector Dick Larsen, and subsequently moving the recorder function into the assessor’s office, which is also an independently elected post.
Despite the objections of many at the time that the merger represented an unwise consolidation of duties, Walker consented to the change and seamlessly made the transition. Mason ran against Walker in the 2010 election, the first time where the voters were asked to elect one person to fill the consolidated treasurer tax collector auditor controller position. Walker, running as the incumbent garnered 128,033 votes, or 70.94 percent to Mason’s 52,445 votes, or 29.06 percent.
Four years later, Mason is engaging Walker in a rematch, looking for a different outcome based upon his belief that the county’s residents have had an opportunity to consider the disadvantage in having the county treasurer serving as a watchdog over himself. In this way, he is anxious to remind voters that Walker embraced the consolidation.
“They [the county board of supervisors] should not have done that,” Mason said. “By doing that they have lost an important check and balance. They eliminated one elected position from the county roster of officials chosen by the voters. Instead of having more accountability in the system to more people, you have less. That was a mistake. They could have redrawn the elective duties in a different way that did not give one person essentially all of the monetary collection, depositing, investing and accounting authority. This could have been done in a way that would have made more sense without eliminating the individual and independent layers of accountability.  If  I were elected, I would advocate having the auditor controller separated from the treasurer tax collector.
In examining the merger and Walker’s acquiescence in it, Mason said,”You have to look at his motivation. He received something like a $70,000 to $80,000 bump in pay when this reorganization went through. Did he think this was a good idea or did he just want to get paid more? The transition does not make sense from the standpoint of better accountability and accounting integrity. It only makes sense from the standpoint that somebody was going to make more money from doing it that way.”
Mason said voters should consider the implication of the consolidation as well as the degree to which accountability in the handling of the taxpayer’s money has been compromised, Mason said.
“The main difference between us is that I would not have accepted the merger,” Mason said. “I would have greater connectivity with the people. No one is listening to what the community has to offer. I think that should be changed. If I am elected, I would serve as the administrative head of all four departments, but I would separate myself from them and make sure that all four functions are independent of one another. If you are going to have those functions combined, they should be independent and the people overseeing them should be separate. They should be run as you would run separate companies, with separate oversight. You should have independent department heads who can have no influence over one another, to ensure the public’s interest is well cared for.”
In assessing why he makes a superior choice to Walker, Mason said,
“Honestly, I am the one legally qualified to do the job based upon the requirements. Look at the qualifications to run for this office. There are six specific ones. Mr. Walker would not be able to run for this position if he was not the incumbent. To run for this post, you need to be a CPA or have a bachelor’s degree in accounting. He has neither of those qualifications. That says something about whether he should be there in the first place. The only reason he is treasurer is he was on the board a long time before and he was appointed to the treasurer-tax collector position by the board of supervisors when it made the mistake of folding those roles into the auditor controller’s office. That is the only way someone without the qualifications could get into that position. If you ask him, he will tell you he is not a CPA and that he does not have a degree in accounting.”
Mason graduated from Piscataway  High School in New Jersey and received his undergraduate degree from Western Governors University in Salt Lake City. He also has an MBA in finance from the University of Redlands. He is currently employed as a certified public accountant and financial advisor. He formerly worked as a program system analyst for Boeing. He is a single father.

(April 30) Eleven of the 424 public elementary schools statewide identified by  California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson 2014 Calfiornia Distinguished Schools are located within San Bernardino County.
“It’s an annual honor to see the outstanding schools from our county recognized for the tremendous work they do with the students, staff and communities,” San Bernardino County Superintendent Gary Thomas said.
According to the California Department of Education, schools chosen for the Distinguished Schools distinction are among “California’s most exemplary and inspiring public schools. Schools selected for the Distinguished School Award demonstrate significant gains in narrowing the achievement gap.”
The schools so honored in San Bernardino County this year are Alta Loma’s Hermosa Elementary in the Alta Loma School District; Ontario’s Liberty Elementary School in the Chino Valley Unified School District; Chino Hill’s Gerald F. Litel Elementary in the Chino Valley Unified School District; Chino’s Chino’s Oxford Preparatory Academy in the Chino Valley Unified School District; Alta Loma’s Caryn Elementary School in the Etiwanda School District and Etiwanda’s Windrows Elementary School in the Etiwanda School District; Fontana’s  Oak Park Elementary School in the Fontana Unified School District;  Yucca Valley’s Yucca Mesa Elementary in the Morongo Unified School District Redlands’ McKinley Elementary School in the Redlands Unified School District and  Mentone Elementary School in the Redlands Unified School District; and Victorville’s Galileo Academy 101 in the Victor Elementary School District.

(May 1) NEEDLES—City council members in Needles,  San Bernardino County’s smallest incorporated city, on April 22 heard a report from the economic development consultant hired by city manager Rick Daniels that was long on hopeful projection. But two months after the only grocery store in town gave indication it was going to pack up and leave, the effort to interest other retailers in establishing operations in the city located on the western bank of the Colorado River has fallen flat.
Needles, which at the turn of the 19th to the 20th Century was San Bernardino County’s third largest city, is today the least populous of the county’s 24 incorporated municipalities. Once its population  exceeded 10,000. Today, it boasts fewer than 5,000 residents.
The town faces numerous economic obstacles and disadvantages. One is its remoteness. Driving distance from Needles to Barstow is 144 miles one way. The trip from Needles to San Bernardino is 212 miles. Much of the local population has an income that puts it below the poverty level. Because sales tax is lower just across the river in Arizona and slightly further north in Nevada, local residents simply take the bridge to patronized out-of- state stores and gas stations. This has deprived the local area of tax revenue for more than a generation, and has perpetuated a resultant deterioration in public facilities, infrastructure and institutions.
Last year, the city council gambled on hiring Rick Daniels as city manager. A former trash company executive whose first major public administration job was as the city manager of Desert Hot Springs, Daniels convinced the Needles City Council that he had multiple contacts within the private sector that could be utilized to facilitate the attraction of businesses to Needles.
To land Daniels, the city council offered him an initial salary of $197,000 per year with annual increases of $10,000, which was almost double what it was paying to interim city manager Dave Brownlee.
Sparking the economic transformation of Needles he confidently predicted he could effectuate proved a tougher job than Daniels anticipated and he subsequently convinced the city council that it should retain Michael Bracken as an economic development consultant.
For Bracken, however, the task has proven equally daunting.  In late March, the city was given an unmistakable signal of the further deterioration of its  economy, when it received word that Bashas’, the city’s only grocery store, will close on May 9.
On April 22 Bracken provided a report to the council on his efforts. He said he has coordinated with Amtrak in its effort to interest a commercial broker in managing the El Garces intermodal transportation facility and leasing it to various tenants. Bracken indicated he has dialogued with  Stater Brothers, Wal-Mart, Dollar General, Family Dollar, In-N-Out Burger, Five Guys Burgers, Rio Ranch Market, AutoZone, Circle K, Jersey Mike’s, Del Taco, 99 Cents Only, Farmer Boys Restaurants, Smart and Final Markets, Panda Express Restaurants, Dunkin Donuts and El Pollo Loco.
There is also a report that an Indian  tribe is interested in developing a casino at the corner of River Road and Broadway.
So far, according to Bracken, none of these prospects has panned out, but he said the city will continue its efforts to nterest corporations and businesses, large and small, local and national, in setting up shop in Needles.

By clicking on the portal below, you can access a PDF of  the April 25 Sentinel.

Sentinel 04-25-14

By Mark Gutglueck
(April 25)  The surfacing of long-buried criminal court documents indicates San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos withheld crucial information from a panel of Superior Court judges and county lawyers who provided the county board of supervisors with a persuasive recommendation to give  attorney Earl Carter and his law firm an  exclusive $20 million contract to perform indigent defense work at all of the county’s courthouses.
The documents in question pertain to Carter’s conviction in a criminal case, the details of which are so explosive their public airing would very likely have precluded Carter from obtaining the contract. Additionally, Ramos failed to inform the panel that oversaw the competition for the contract that Carter had not disclosed the conviction to the State Bar, an omission that could have resulted in Carter’s potential disbarment.
Instead, Ramos provided  Carter with a letter of recommendation, which was submitted to the indigent defense contract competition panel, providing part of the basis upon which the panel’s recommendation and the ultimate decision to award the contract to Carter and his firm was based.
Documents on file with the California Secretary of State and the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Office show that Carter and his firm have donated a total of $124,600 to district attorney Mike Ramos since 2004.
At its  March 11 meeting, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, in the words of County Chief Executive Officer Greg Devereaux, approved an agreement with Inland Defenders “to provide adult indigent defense services in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 annually and $20,000,000 total over the 30-month term of April 1, 2014 through September 30, 2016 with two additional one-year options if in the best interest of the county.”
The board’s decision stepped over five other law firms that submitted bid proposals for the work, which included providing what is known as criminal conflict defense in all four of the county’s judicial regions.
Competing with Carter’s firm, which had submitted bids for all four regions under the name Inland Defenders, were John Burdick, under the name Contract Defenders; Greenline Partners, headed by attorneys Daniel Greenberg and Raj Maline; Victorville-based attorney Robert Ponce; the law firm of Brown, White and Newhouse; and the law firm of  Skipper, Singer & Associates.
Inland Defenders was substantially underbid by two of its competitors for the contracts.    With regard to the contract for representation of the North Desert Judicial District, Inland Defenders, which tendered an annual bid of $1,847,880, for the work was underbid by both Greenline Partners, which bid $1,347,840, and Robert Ponce, who bid $1,500,300.
On the East Valley portion of the contract, Inland Defenders bid $3,085,680, which was $943,200 more than Greenline’s bid of $2,142,480.
Despite its higher bids, Carter’s firm was given the contract.
Conflict representation for a defendant without the financial means to hire an attorney to represent him/her comes about when the crime he/she is charged with involves [an]other defendant[s] of likewise modest financial means who is represented by the public defender’s office, which is dedicated to providing a defense to the county’s accused who are without the wherewithal to retain an attorney on their own. In those cases where one or more of the defendants is contending or may contend that he/she is being accused of a crime actually committed by his/her codefendant[s], a separate attorney is needed to prevent one defendant from being exploited by the defense put on by the other defendant.
Defense attorneys, including private attorneys, those employed by the public defender and conflict defenders, are the professional and procedural adversaries of prosecutors. For that reason, Mike Ramos’ advocacy for Carter during the conflict representation contract competition provoked consternation  among many who were aware of it.  A copy of the Ramos letter of recommendation, written last November,  soon leaked out, resulting in a minor scandal within the San Bernardino County legal community. The Sentinel has obtained a copy of that letter. It reads, in part:
“I have been the district attorney for the county of San Bernardino since 2003. We have the largest criminal caseloads in the state and I can say that our law and justice partners, including the defense bar, work hard at being efficient and seeking justice in our criminal courts. Mr. Carter’s defense attorneys’ work is no exception. These attorneys do not shy away from jury trials and are tough advocates for their clients, according to my attorneys who work with them and against them on a daily basis…  One may wonder why the district attorney is writing a letter for indigent defense attorneys, but it’s basic. They are tough, yet fair and ethical advocates as we seek justice for victims while protecting the rights of the accused.”
By late December 2013/early January 2014, the panel that had been selected by San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer Greg Devereux to evaluate the conflict criminal defense competitors, consisting of Superior Court judges Annemarie Pace and John Vander Feer as well as chief assistant county counsel Michelle Blakemore and deputy county counsel Phoebe Chu, were leaning in favor of Carter and his firm. A flap ensued, however, after it was learned that  on January 2, 2014 Inland Defenders was permitted, by fax, to submit to the county a revised fee schedule, merely one day before the intent to award was declared. That opportunity to revise its bid was not provided to any of the other competitors. Nor were any of the competitors other than Carter’s firm given an opportunity to see the other firms’ sealed bids.
On January 31,  prior to the board of supervisors ratifying the competition  panel’s recommendation, Greenline Partners submitted a letter of appeal in which the firm charged there was “faultiness [in] the evaluation process” or “biases” on the part of the evaluators and/or county officials. Ponce also dissented.
This resulted in what San Bernardino County spokesman David Wert said was a ”delay” in the approval as a multitude of issues pertaining to the Carter firm and the evaluation process were supposed to be subjected to another round of scrutiny. That delay entailed pushing the board’s consideration of the contract approval from February 11 until ultimately, March 11.  On that later date, the board, based upon the panel’s final recommendation and given assurance that all of the issues regarding Carter and his firm had been examined and resolved in his and its favor, signed off on the awarding of all four regional criminal conflict defense contracts to Carter’s firm.
Within the last fortnight, however, documentation demonstrating that Ramos withheld, both before Greenline’s challenge and thereafter, pertinent information relating to Earl Carter has surfaced.
In December 1985, the then-38-year old Carter was arrested by Riverside Police and charged with engaging in lewd activity in a public restroom at Fairmount Park.
The Riverside County District Attorney’s Office filed charges against him, case number 165599. Rather than endure a public trial in which the sordid details of the charges against him would be given an open airing, Carter, through his attorney Virginia Blumenthal, entered a guilty plea to the charge for which he had been cited, 647 (a) of the penal code, lewd conduct in public, paying a $350 fine. He  was placed on probation, which required that he stay out of Fairmount Park and undergo counseling.

Read the file on Earl Carter’s arrest and conviction by clicking on the portal below.

Earl Carter Case #165599

A member of the California Bar since 1975, Carter was required by law to disclose to the bar his conviction.
According to an employee at the Los Angeles office of the California Bar, however, Carter did not disclose his conviction to the California Bar. A woman who identified herself only by her first name, Frances, because she said her organization has a policy of not releasing the last names of its employees,  said Carter had failed to make the required disclosure. “It does not appear he reported  any kind of conviction with us,” Frances told the Sentinel.
Under Section 6068 (o) of California’s Business and Professions Code “It is the duty of an attorney to report the conviction of the attorney, including any verdict of guilty, or plea of guilty or no contest, of a felony, or a misdemeanor.”
A little more than a decade and a half after his conviction, Carter had acceded to become a relatively successful attorney, practicing in several counties throughout California, but with much of his work concentrated in the Inland Empire. In 2004, he began investing in the rising legal and political career of Mike Ramos, a Hispanic Republican who two years previously had ousted Dennis Stout, another Republican, as district attorney in San Bernardino County. Simultaneously Carter and his firm were making substantial contributions to other San Bernardino County politicians as well.
Documents on file with the county registrar of voters’ office show that Carter, together with his recently deceased law partner Jim Spring, and his law firm, Carter, Spring, Shank & O’Connor, have made  $88,500 in political donations to all five current county supervisors, including $38,000 to Gary Ovitt, $32,050 to Josie Gonzales, $12,750 to Janice Rutherford, and $1,500 each to both Robert Lovingood and James Ramos. The Sentinel has not tallied the amount of his and his law firm’s contributions to four other supervisors who have served in the last decade – Bill Postmus, Paul Biane, Brad Mitzelfelt and Neil Derry.
Carter obtained a return on that political investment. His firm,  Carter Spring Shank & O’Connor obtained  the criminal conflict defense contracts for two of the county’s four regions, with an $18.75 million contract to represent defendants in the East Valley as well as a $12 million contract to represent defendants in the county’s North Desert Region through December 31, 2013.
Through all of that advancement, Carter’s criminal history and his conviction remained, for the public and most but not all government officials, a buried secret.
In one quarter, however, Carter’s past was known. The district attorney’s office had access to NCIC – the National Crime Information Center, the data base run by the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department – and JDIC – the California Department of Justice’s Justice Data Interface Controller Network. Moreover, the district attorney’s office is a beneficiary of the agency- to-agency privilege by which law enforcement agencies, in this case itself and the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office and the Riverside Police Department, share information.
Prosecutors with the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office found themselves in court going up against Carter or members of his law firm on an almost daily basis.  While the board of supervisors was conferring the lucrative conflict criminal defense contracts on Carter’s firm, Ramos remained silent about Carter’s conviction, and his failure to inform the California Bar about it, which is itself a violation of Section 5057(o) of the California Business and Professions Code.
Throughout his silence, Ramos came to rely upon Carter, Carter’s partners and his law firm for making substantial contributions to his electioneering fund, donations that flowed in from Carter or his law firm at $2,500, $5,000, $7,000 or $10,000 a pop.  On April 12, 2004 Carter made a $2,500 donation to Ramos’s campaign fund. The same day, Jim Spring, Carter’s partner, made a $2,500 donation to Ramos, as well. On August 11, 2004, Spring provided Ramos’ campaign fund with $5,000. On May 6, 2005, Carter and Spring wrote checks to Ramos’ campaign fund, each for $5,000. Seventeen days later, on May 23, 2005, Carter and Spring again provided Ramos’ campaign fund with another $10,000, consisting of matching $5,000 checks.  Fourteen months  later, on July 21, 2006, Ramos received another $10,000 from the duo, again in the form of $5,000 checks. A year later, on July 13, 2007, Carter and Spring upped the tribute they paid to Ramos, each providing his campaign fund with a $7,000 check.  On May 27, 2008, Jim Spring donated $14,000 to Ramos’ campaign fund. On June 9, 2009, Carter and Spring each wrote separate $5,000 checks to Ramos’ campaign fund.  Two months later, on August 1, 2009, the law firm of Carter Spring, Shank & O’Connor provided a $10,000 check to Ramos’ campaign fund. On January 1, 2010, Carter Spring Shank & O’Connor gave Ramos’ campaign fund another $10,000. On May 21, 2010, Sean O’Connor, one of  Carter and Spring’s law partners, wrote Ramos’ campaign fund a $5,000 check. On May 18, 2011, Carter Spring Shank & O’Connor  donated $2,500 to Ramos’ campaign fund. On February 29, 2012 Carter Spring Shank & O’Connor donated $2,500 to Ramos’ campaign fund. On September 20, 2012, Carter Spring Shank & O’Connor donated $2,500 to Ramos’ campaign fund.
As time went on, the stakes grew higher until just a few years ago, Carter cemented his position as the most prosperous of defense attorney’s plying their trades at San Bernardino County’s courthouses.  Beginning in 2004, Carter had secured for his firm the first of what would be a series of  criminal defense conflict representation contracts  that would pay him and his firm at least  $50.75 million dollars.  Initially, Carter had to share the conflict representation spoils with other firms. By last year, Carter had a monopoly on the conflict representation in two of the county’s four regional divisions, both the East Valley and the North Desert Region. The law firm of  David Goldstein at that time did conflict representation  in the West Valley region of San Bernardino County and attorney John Burdick had the most modest of the conflict representation contracts, being paid  $1.875 million for his work in the East Desert region.
Last September, when the county undertook to renew the contracts countywide through a request for proposals process, Carter jockeyed  into position to seize an absolute monopoly of the county’s conflict representation work. He and his firm submitted proposals on all four regional contracts. Despite being underbid by two of its competitors, Carter’s firm managed to convince the selection panel to give it the nod. After word of the competition panel leaning in favor of Carter’s firm for all four contracts leaked out and Greenline Partners and Ponce raised their objections, the board hesitated in rubberstamping that selection and initiated what was supposed to be a review of the selection process and its criteria and the qualifications and bona fides of the competitors. As that review was under way, the county missed its earlier goal of ratifying the contract with Carter’s firm at the February 11 board of supervisors meeting.  Two days later, as the continuation of Carter’s firm’s status as the county’s preeminent conflict representation contractor hung in the balance, Carter on February 13, 2014, made a $4,100 donation to Ramos’ campaign fund, the maximum a single donor can make under the county’s recently enacted campaign finance limitation ordinance.
David Wert, the county’s official spokesman, who in February told the Sentinel that the approval of the contract had been delayed at that point because the county was intent on “thoroughly” reexamining the contract award process and the various competitor, this week told the Sentinel that neither county CEO Greg Devereaux nor the competition panel knew about Carter’s conviction, either at the earlier stages of the contract competition or later, when the reexamination of the panel’s tentative decision was under way. Nor did Ramos inform Devereaux or the panel, consisting of two of the county’s superior court judges and two members of county counsel, about Carter’s conviction, Wert said.
“We never heard about that,” said Wert.
Wert  said  the request for proposals contained language that required applicants to disclose civil judgments or criminal convictions but that Carter was able to sidestep that specific requirement because the county was seeking information with regard to criminal convictions relating to financial crimes occurring within the last decade.
“That would not have covered”  Carter’s conviction, Wert said,  since it was not “within the last ten years.” Nor did it involve “financial fraud or misconduct,” Wert said.
Wert was less exact about state regulations that require contract holders with public agencies to disclose criminal convictions in the course of the contract application process and he acknowledged that Carter’s failure to disclose his conviction to the state bar could result in complications with regard to his ability to fulfill the contract. Nevertheless, the possibility that Carter’s failure to disclose his criminal conviction might result in his being disbarred, Wert said, was “too long a road to look down .”
As to Ramos’ comportment, Wert indicated reluctance to pass judgment on his having militated in favor of Carter during the contract competition, given that the district attorney is an independently elected official outside the direct oversight of the county administrative office and the board of supervisors. ”I don’t know that what the district attorney does in terms of sending out recommendations or accepting campaign contributions is even something the board of supervisors can address,” he said. He then sought to downplay the effectiveness of Ramos’ letter of recommendation.
“I have serious doubts whether the evaluation panel considered the recommendation from the district attorney,” Wert said.
While acknowledging that Ramos left other county officials in the dark about Carter’s conviction, Wert refused to be drawn into commenting on the charges swirling around the county seat to the effect that the awarding of the conflict representation contracts for the county’s four geographical regions had been tainted by extortion and kickbacks.
“What the DA might have known since he had had access to the data base that contained that information before he wrote that recommendation…  is not something the county is going to get involved in,” Wert said.
In the last week, an electronic file containing copies of the documents pertaining to Carter’s arrest and conviction have circulated widely throughout the county. Given the previous publicity about the hefty political contributions that Ramos has received from Carter, members of the legal community have been openly remarking about the appearance of an extortion and kickback scheme involving them.
Sharon Caldwell, a long time deputy prosecutor with San Bernardino County serving under Ramos for the last eleven-and-a-half years who just retired, said she was aware of the speculation about Ramos extorting Carter in exchange for political donations.
“I don’t buy it,” Caldwell said of the extortion allegations, although she did say she believed Ramos accepting the money was tantamount to taking kickbacks.
“There is no need for extortion here,” Caldwell said. “This is a good ol’ boy thing. People are giving him [Ramos] way too much credit.  Earl gives him money and he makes sure good things go to Earl. It’s that simple. I think it is inappropriate for the DA to be making a recommendation for him. I think it is inappropriate for Earl to be making those contributions. It is absolutely appalling that if you have enough power and money you can buy the DA., but as far as him [Ramos] knowing about Earl’s history and agreeing to be quiet about it, I would never believe it.”
Robert Ponce, who underbid Carter’s firm for the conflict representation contract in the North Desert region, said he was troubled by the one-sidedness of Ramos’s letter to the evaluation committee.
“It is remarkable that he would write a letter about someone who was competing for the contract and not mention that he was convicted,” Ponce said. “I would be interested in what the state bar would say about the elected district attorney taking that kind of money from someone who is in an adversarial role and then writing a letter of recommendation for him.”
Ponce said that Carter was “brilliant when it comes to garnering influence” and he called the donations he and members of his firm had made to Ramos “another example of money being placed in the right hands.”
When queried  by the Sentinel about Carter’s provision of hefty political donations to Ramos and Ramos’ authoring of the letter of recommendation, Laurie Levenson, a former assistant U.S. Attorney who is now a law professor at Loyola Law School, said, “The appearance of it is troubling.  It gives the appearance of impropriety because by making those donations, he [Carter] looks as if he is currying favor with the district attorney. Although it may be permitted, I don’t think it is ethical.”
A relationship of the type Carter and Ramos have developed can compromise the processes of justice, Levenson said.
“Even if with this letter all the DA is saying is this is a zealous adversary who performs his job ethically and well, the impact is this may have helped him get the contract,” she said. “From my perspective you want both sides to be independent, zealous advocates and you don’t want the defense lawyer pulling any punches and you don’t want the DA providing better deals to the defense attorney’s clients because the defense attorney is making contributions to the prosecutor.”
Carter declined to respond to questions about why he felt compelled to donate to Ramos’ political fund in the amounts that he and his law firm have.
Both Ramos and his official spokesman, Christopher Lee, spurned the Sentinel’s effort to engage them on the topic of the district attorney’s relationship to Carter.

Read the Sentinel’s letters to District Attorney Mike Ramos and his spokesman, Christopher Lee, by clicking on the portals below.

Christopher Lee April 23, 2014

Mike Ramos April 24, 2014

(April 23)  Touted as a forward-looking regional planning agency, San Bernardino Associated Governments is chartered to serve as the transportation agency for all of San Bernardino County. All 24 of the county’s city’s have representatives, in the form of the mayor or a city council member, on its board, and each of the county’s five separate supervisors are likewise voting members of the panel, known by its acronym, SANBAG.
There is a degree of difference among government officials, however, in just how forward looking into the future the agency should be. A case in point is the extension of the Gold Line, which civic officials on the west end of the county are championing and which the remainder of the county’s officials, expressed through the prioritization of project planning by SANBAG, are somewhat less enthusiastic about.
The Metro Gold Line is the real and conceptual extension of what was once an entirely-Los Angeles County undertaking, the Pasadena Blue Line, which was later rechristened the Pasadena Metro Gold Line. After a fitful progression, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, known as Metro, committed enough planning and construction funding to the project to extend the rail line from downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena and now to Azusa, where a station there will open in late 2015 or early 2016.
Metro has undertaken a study for extending the system to Claremont/Montclair and wants to look even beyond that to undertaking a $950 million extension  to Ontario Airport. Ontario municipal officials, in particular, are enthusiastic about that latter possibility. Ridership at Ontario International Airport is down and, in the words of Ontario Mayor Paul Leon, “giving more than two million people in the San Gabriel Valley the opportunity to just step on the train to Ontario Airport and then get off and fly hassle free without having to battle traffic or worry about parking, we think, is the way to go. It’s the wave of the future.”
When Montclair and Ontario officials pushed SANBAG last year to undertake studies on the extension, SANBAG, which as a whole considers the extension of the Mettrolink commuter line to Redlands and the double-tracking of the Metrolink lines near Upland, Claremont, and Fontana to be more important rail projects than the Gold Line, balked. Moreover, SANBAG considers the Gold Line extension a low priority because it sees little prospect that funding for it will come available from any sources  anytime soon.
Leon is so convinced that the Gold Line extension would be of benefit to the city he represents that he managed to obtain an appointment to the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority Board of Directors as the city of South Pasadena’s appointee. In addition, Ontario city councilman Alan Wapner, who represents Ontario on SANBAG, also was given an appointment to Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority Board of Directors as a non-voting member, as the SANBAG liaison.
Leon told the Sentinel it is a challenge getting SANBAG to see the Gold Line extension in the same terms he does for a variety of reasons, including the lack of funding, competing priorities, and the sheer inertia of needing to line up so many personalities and political jurisdictions to proceed. Yet he is convinced that bringing the Gold Line to the airport is worthwhile and he emphasized the need for advanced planning so that the project can be expedited once the funding becomes available.
“I am speaking for myself, without having talked to my council, but I can say that  there is a desire by the city of Ontario to have the Gold Line terminate at Ontario Airport or in as close of proximity to it as possible. We want to have the full support of SANBAG in accomplishing that goal. I believe the future of Ontario and the future success of the airport is in concert with not only us obtaining ownership and management of the airport but having the Gold Line there. Saying how soon that can happen is very difficult since the financing is something leaders outside of the city have to agree to, not only SANBAG but the federal government.”
Leon said that SANBAG deprioritized expending any money for studying the Gold Line extension  and then revisited the issue, “giving it the same priority as most other down the road bus or rail line projects. Montclair stepped up and said they would make a $3 million loan to get the study done.”
Leon said it is hard for the public to understand the value of doing studies – which can cost millions of dollars – when there is no money to actually complete such projects available.
“The value is that years and years can go by with no funding there, but if you have an off-the-shelf plan that is ready to go when the funding does materialize, then you can move forward and not have to do that study and get in line with other projects, some of which are less valuable and less important,” Leon said. “The overall process takes a long time. You need to actually start to plan before the money comes available. You stay ahead of the curve that way.”
Leon said advance planning by this generation is needed to alleviate problems future generations will otherwise face.
“Government has to be visionary and look 50 to 100 years into the future so we don’t find ourselves in the position where we are in the Inland Empire when it comes to improving  the major traffic arteries and public transportation we are now dependent on and which are inadequate. It is a Herculean task of building freeways that are bigger and fatter nowadays. If the freeway system had been planned out in the 1930s and 1940s with an understanding of what was to come 75 years later, we would not be in the fix we are now. We need to think in terms of public transportation that will serve 5 million people, not today and not even tomorrow. The Gold Line is absolutely necessary for the future. But realistically, it is not something that will serve me or my generation. It will be my grandchildren, who are toddlers now, and their children who will be the ones that will be the commuters lining up at its turnstiles.”

(April 22)  The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on April 22 directed  county counsel to file a lawsuit against the two architectural and engineering firms county officials deem responsible for a major portion of the $29  million construction cost overruns on the county’s Adelanto Detention Center.
The construction bill on the project was originally slated at $90,951,937, but after a total of 29 change orders and contract amendments, the price zoomed  to $120,419,790.
Moreover, the total price tag on the project, including engineering, architectural, licensing and inspection costs, has reached $145,451,910, which was $25.45 million more than the $120 million projected to be the project’s overall price including a ten percent cost overrun contingency when it was approved in 2010.
The facility, located on 9438 Commerce Way in Adelanto, was formerly privately owned and run as a 706-inmate capacity institution known as Maranatha Prison. It was sold by its owner, the Moreland Family Trust, to the county in April 2005 for $31.2 million. The expansion added 1,392 new beds to the existing capacity of  the jail.
Prior to the public session of  Tuesday’s board meeting, the supervisors discussed legal issues pertaining to misfeasance on the part of  those responsible for the design of the project with County Counsel Jean-Rene Basle. Upon emerging from those closed door deliberations, Basle disclosed that the board had authorized his office to prepare litigation against Los Angeles-based Hellmuth, Obata  & Kassebaum and Jacobs Engineering Group.
The firm of  Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Incorporated, based in Culver City, was originally given a $4,466,000 contract to provide architectural service on the project. Nine amendments later, Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum’s contract has reached $10,438,396, an increase of $5,972,396.
It was stated that both Hellmuth, Obata  & Kassebaum and Jacobs were the parties responsible for design flaws  that resulted in inadequacies with the fire sprinkler and smoke detection and evacuation systems that entailed millions of dollars in additional construction costs, all of which were paid to Bellevue, Washington-based Lydig  Construction, the general contractor on the project.
In December 2010 the county awarded a $90,951,937 contract to Lydig Construction as the low bidder, after making a finding that  the bids received from S.J. Amorosa Construction Co., Inc. of Costa Mesa, California and Flintco of Folsom, California to be non-responsive.
Among the contract amendments that followed were the fifth one approved by the board of supervisors on  February 23, 2013,  in order to accommodate state fire marshal-mandated changes to the smoke control evacuation and automatic fire sprinkler systems, increase in number and size the heating ventilation and air conditioning structural roof supports as well as make further modifications mandated by the state fire marshal and various other agencies, providing Lydig with another $2,472,388 enhancement to the contract.
On May 21, 2013 the county made a sixth amendment to Lydig’s contract, this time relating to labor and materials for the revision of the smoke control systems and fire protection systems, to, in the words of county director of architecture and engineering Carl Alban, “convert the specified fire smoke dampers to smoke dampers as part of the revisions to the smoke control system” in the amount of $5,063,392.
On June 25, 2013, the board of supervisors approved an eighth amendment to the contract in the amount of $6,004,736 to cover labor, materials, labor impacts and acceleration costs related to the revision of the smoke control systems and fire protection systems, a portion of the cost of which was covered with Amendment No. 6.
On August 6, 2013, the board approved an eleventh amendment, providing Lydig with $709,533 for the installation of a third electrical service necessary to increase the available power for providing capacity for future upgrades of the facility; the installation of a fire booster pump to ensure the proper flow and functioning of the fire protection systems; the expedited procurement and delivery of smoke control panels and supervisory panels necessary to achieve the scheduled project completion date; and the relocation of smoke detectors in the dormitory sleeping areas as required by the Board of State and Community Corrections.
On November 11, 2013 the board approved a twelfth amendment to the contract for $415,952 to add twenty-seven dampers to the smoke evacuation ductwork, modify the glazing stops at master control, install fire wrap to ducts and dampers at specified locations and separate the dry zones at the housing units.
On December 17, 2013 the board of supervisors approved a thirteenth amendment in the amount of $304,450  for modifications to the electrical service yard, fire sprinkler system isolation in the support building and constructing foundation and adding position indication valve and monitoring devices for the fire booster pump, relocating  fire/smoke dampers, revising exhaust duct risers in the center core of the housing units and adding a control module to the master control fire shutter.
On March 25, 2014, the board of supervisors approved the fourteenth change order on the project, one for $336,682 to cover the cost of correcting overcurrent issues, improvements to water facility operations, balancing of the smoke control system, perform load bank testing of the generators and to carry out various corrective work.
Prior to a lawsuit being filed, county representatives will meet with corporate officers of both Hellmuth, Obata  & Kassebaum and Jacobs to ascertain if a settlement short of litigation can be forged.