I have proudly served this community for the past 4 years. During this time I have kept my promise:

• to improve community communication
• protect our open space and trail system,
• plan for responsible, community- directed development,
• protected our community from increased crime
• support our business community and
• maintain a fiscally responsible City government.
  
  The equestrian community is facing considerable challenges that need to be addressed.

• People are buying equestrian properties and converting them to non-equestrian uses

• As the community has grown up around the trail system, there are areas that are no longer safe to cross

• As portions of the city were developed, trails were included but not always successful in making them equestrian friendly- steep inclines, crossings on blind curves, crossings where there are metal grates, such as casino ridge

• There are portions of the trail system that are not interconnected or do not align as you cross a street

• The equestrian community is threatened as the economy shrinks and household dollars and “new riders” become scarce.

• We do not have an adequate emergency system to handle our larger animals. Many of your members performed heroic feats during our fire emergency to save horses that were in danger. Although their actions are applauded, they placed themselves and the animals they were saving in danger.

I believe we can do something to encourage the equestrian lifestyle in our community and hopefully stem the tide of homeowners purchasing your properties for non-equestrian uses and improve the participation of the community in equestrian activities.

• I support and feel we can together do a better job of marketing the equestrian lifestyle and encourage others to participate:
  • an equestrian day in the City on Bernardo Yorbas Birthday or some other notable individual
  • along with a community outreach program

• I cannot change the heavy traffic challenges (for example in the town center) that create a huge risk to your animals and you the rider, but together we can strengthen the trail system by evaluating the entire trail system and continue to correct the crossing challenges.

• I have and will continue to work with the developers for the Murdock and Sage properties so their trails are connected appropriately and at a grade level that is safe for the rider and horse

• I do support the concept of a community stable or equestrian center. If the City has a parcel of land that is viable, I support privately funded facilities with a low cost land lease.

• Our current codes allow for private homeowners to house horses in greater numbers on their properties with a CUP. We can make that process easier to allow for the additional stalls, if the need presents itself.

• I support coordinating efforts with the Equestrian Coalition of Orange County  to formalize a large animal evacuation plan. I do not support the City performing this function because I know you are all sensitive to having the horses counted and the possibility of licensing. I believe this goal can be accomplished- equestrian to equestrian without government intervention.

I understand you are disappointed in the Equestrian Study that spent 70K of your dollars without a positive result. I did not support that study because it focused on one site only and one type of facility only.  I feel the outcome could have been different had multiple sites and sizes of facilities been reviewed.

I have and will continue to advocate on your behalf to improve safety on the trails, prevent encroachment and support the equestrian lifestyle in the City of Yorba Linda.
I hope to have your support in the upcoming council election.

I received unanimous support from the Yorba Linda City Council directing staff to post the salaries and benefits of the Council and the various job categories of our staff. The City of Bell City Council and City manager have embarrassed all of us who serve our communities. In light of their transgressions, I felt it was best to make our compensation easily available to members of our community. To view this information, go to:

http://www.ci.yorba-linda.ca.us/~ci26/component/content/article/4-urgent-news/525-city-council-and-city-employee-salary-and-benefit-information

The Yorba Linda City Council today announced the selection of an Interim City Manager. The Council met in a specially called closed session on Saturday, July 3rd and decided to appoint long time Yorba Linda resident and former Parks and Recreation Director, Steve Rudometkin as the Interim City Manager. Contract terms are yet to be announced.

Rudometkin served the City from 1977 to 2007. He became the Department Director in July 1980 and retired from a similar position in the City of Pomona in February 2009. Upon retirement, Rudometkin formed his own consulting business called SR Consulting Inc. Since establishing the business, Rudometkin has worked for the City of Aliso Viejo and most recently as the Interim Director of Yorba Linda’s Park and Recreation Department.

Mayor John Anderson stated that the selection of Rudometkin was unanimous and said “The City Council is very excited to have Steve rejoin the staff in this new capacity. He had an outstanding career here during the City’s formative years and we all felt that he would be a tremendous asset in this new role.”

Rudometkin stated that he is thrilled with the appointment and “looks forward to working with the City Council and staff for the next six months.” Rudometkin will be working alongside current City Manager Dave Adams through a transition period.

Anderson stated the selection of Rudometkin will allow “the current workload to continue and will provide the City Council enough time to talk about a permanent selection for the City Manager position.”

BACKGROUND

The City of Yorba Linda sewer system is divided into two separate districts with the boundary near San Antonio Road. The eastern portion of the system, about 42%, is owned and controlled by the City of Yorba Linda. The western portion, about 48%, is owned and controlled by the Yorba Linda Water District.

The City sewer system is a gravity fed system approximately 73 miles in length made up of manhole covers and connecting pipe segments.

The City of Yorba Linda, the operator of the eastern portion of the sewer system, has the right and responsibility to properly fund and maintain the eastern portion of the system. As a City provider, we are mandated to develop and fund a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) that prevents untreated or partially treated wastewater to be released into the waters of the United State or create a nuisance. The plan also outlines the steps to be taken if an emergency response is required to protect the public health and the environment.

We are required to perform annual inspections of the sewer system and repair any damage in compliance with the California Water Codes and Regulations.

THE ISSUE

The annual sewer fee is added to the tax bill for single-family dwellings. The western district controlled by the Yorba Linda Water District has been charged $66.00 per year per residence while the eastern district controlled by the City of Yorba Linda has been charged only $19.47 per year. The actual cost for providing the service in the east including a small reserve for repairs and emergencies was calculated to be $86.28. Currently the cost between the actual cost to provide the service and the funds collected is being taken from City General Fund at an annual cost of $500,000. This means that the western district is subsidizing the loss in the eastern district and the city is losing $500,000 per year.

The City cannot raise rates without a state mandated Proposition 218 vote where the City must ask residents for approval to raise the rates. On May 19, 2009, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the Notice of Public Hearing for a rate adjustment. Notices were sent to the affected property owners indicating the proposed rate increase. If 50% +1 of the affected property owners protested the rate increase then the rates would remain at the current level.

At a cost of $3,000 not including City staff time, the notices were sent to about 6,500 property owners. Only 37 protest votes, less than ½% were received.

The Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), the cost to implement the program and the results of the Proposition 218 vote were presented to the City Council. At that public hearing, members of the community supported the rate increase and no member of the public spoke against the rate increase.

With only 37 protest votes received and no negative public comments, it was obvious that the community understood the value of maintaining the sewer infrastructure and was willing to pay the additional $66.81 per year to do so.

I only received one email from a former City Engineer that questioned the amount of the increase. Judging from the staff report and the consultant’s report, the rate increase was justified.

Mayor Mark Schwing, Mayor Pro Tem John Anderson and Councilwoman Nancy Rikel voted to overturn the community’s approval of the Proposition 218 Vote. Councilman Jim Winder and myself voted to increase the sewer fees as approved by the public. As a result of this decision the City’s General Fund will continue to lose $500,000 per year to make up the difference.

The reason? The majority based their decision on the % of increase rather than the actual amount of money which was reasonable and necessary to help balance the budget for the sewer system and was approved by the public.

At the last Council Meeting on October 20th, a staff report was presented to give away the sewer system owned by the City of Yorba Linda to the Yorba Linda Water District. Mayor Pro Tem John Anderson advanced this idea after he voted against the public approved increase to keep the system operating at a deficit. Giving the sewer system away had not been discussed by the entire City Council in public nor had the staff been directed to study and develop a report on this issue to be presented to the City Council.

MY CONCERNS

1. Schwing, Rikel and Anderson voted to overturn the will of the people by voting to continue operating the sewer system at a deficit of $500,000 annually.
2. The Yorba Linda Water District would like to take over the system but only if the system is given to them free of charge.
3. The sewer system has a potential value in the of millions of dollars.
4. The City Council now has asked to study this again:
   • Evaluate the value of the sewer system.
   • Determine if there are companies that would competitively bid for this system.
   • Determine what the community benefit would be to allow the Yorba Linda Water District to assume responsibility for the system. My understanding is that the Water District is planning to raise the sewer rates soon but did not want to do this so close to the large water increases imposed last September.
   • Discuss whether we can do another Proposition 218 vote this year to raise the rates to an undetermined amount at the cost of another $3,000 plus staff time.

CONCLUSION

This is frivolous, wasteful spending of taxpayer money that defies the will of the community and will continue to deplete our General Fund.

On January 13, 2008, the City Council will be having their second workshop addressing the housing element. To see the official City documents regarding this issue, go to: Housing Element Page.

At this site you will be able to read the Housing Element document, the appeal the City made to reduce the number of units we are required to provide and the presentation that was made to Council June 18, 2008.

We are facing a challenge.  There are three main issues. One, what is affordable housing and who would qualify for these units? Second, what is it that we are really required to do? Third, how much density will this community tolerate and what are the consequences of non-compliance? 

What is affordable housing and who qualifies?

 Yorba Linda has been allocated 2,039 units of varying affordability we need to provide.  The definition of affordability is based on the area mean income.  Our area, Orange County, had a base mean income in 2007 of $78,700.  The definitions of the varying levels is based on a percentage of that number adjusted for the number of family members.  To simplify the discussion I will present the income levels for families with two members and four members signified next to the listed affordability levels

Yorba Linda’s Regional housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation was:

                                                                                                  # units                                    Income 2/4 member families

Very low (50% mean income)                                         460 units                                    $34,650/ 43,300

Low (80% mean income)                                                 371 units                                    $55,450/69,300

Moderate (120% mean income)                                     412 units                                    $75,550/94,450                 

Market rate                                                                           796 units                                   

I went to www.salary.com to see the potential income levels of those who may live or work within our community. For consistency, I looked at the income levels from the 10%-50% range indicating an individual just starting off in their career vs. someone who may have 2-3 years experience.

                                                                         10%                                    50%                                    housing for 2-person family

Paralegal Secretary                                    $36,000                  49,000                                    very low / low

Auto mechanic                                            $28,000                  33,000                                    very low

Physical Therapist                                    $60,000                  69,000                                    top limit low/moderate

Associate Pastor                                        $42,000                  60,000                                    very low/ top limit low

Certified Nurse Assist                               $22,000                  26,000                                    extremely low

Aircraft Mechanic                                    $63,000                  84,000                                    upper limit low/moderate

Receptionist                                               $22,000                  32,000                                    extremely low/very low

Nurse                                                           $57,000                  60,000                                    upper limit low/moderate

These may be new graduates starting in their careers, young families or single parents that may not have a second income potential

What are we really required to do?

We must make a good faith effort to provide the opportunity to construct affordable housing in our community.

We are not required to build the units, but we are required to make zoning changes within our community allowing the units to be built.  We are not required to tear anything down to build the units. But we are not be able to stop an individual who owns property in the re-zoned areas to build affordable housing at a higher density if they are providing affordable housing. With Measure B, the Right to Vote initiative, anything over 10 units per acre would require voter approval of the project.

We can, as a City Council, control the land use if a projects does not match the surrounding area. If a project is turned down, it can be challenged in court.

How much density will this community tolerate?  What are the consequences to not complying with the State mandate?

We are a low-density bedroom community that historically has not tolerated high- density construction. One of the reasons this City chose to incorporate was to stop the building of multiple apartments buildings within our community. Yorba Linda was designed to have a rural, small town atmosphere.

With the passage of Measure B, the Right to Vote initiative, this community has the opportunity to approve or reject any project exceeding 10 dwelling units per acre. The challenge is balancing the need to comply with the state mandated numbers, the limited amount of available land and the community’s adversity to high density projects.  In addition, we need to have land available for tax generating businesses to sustain the economic health of our community and its amenities.

There are communities that have been cited by the courts for not complying with their housing numbers. Mission Viejo settled prior to have a court mandated housing project that would not fit with their community’s interests. Folsom was not as fortunate and was sued and found to be in non-compliance. They were forced to re-zone areas of their community for high-density housing.  Additionally, the State can take away our ability to issue permits for pools, new construction, room additions, etc until we comply with our housing mandate. These are heavy-handed techniques that can have serious consequences in our community. I have not heard of a community that has had this occur, but it is within the purview of the court/ state to impose this restriction.

If we end up in a lawsuit against the State or housing advocates group regarding our housing numbers, our legal fees would be a general fund expense and not be reimbursed by our insurance carrier. There is a high probability we would lose this court case and be forced to comply with the state mandated numbers. We could at that point lose control of where the re-zoning would occur and the densities that would be allowed.

Does this community want to spend general fund dollars to fight the state and/or housing advocates regarding its RHNA numbers? What is your opinion? What constructive ideas do you have?