Is "Fiscal Conservatism" Dead in Lake Forest? - Part 3

Yesterday we examined the actions of some of my colleagues (Voigts, Robinson, Hamilton) on the City Council for the past few months. Summarized briefly –

May 12 – They refused to ask department heads to seek 5% cuts in the 2015-16 proposed budget, failing to try to save a potential $2,000,000 annually.

May 19 – They refused to reduce the street sweeping schedule by 25% and save $200,000.

June 16 – They refused to allow Councilman Nick and me to set up an ad hoc committee to look at ways to save money in light of the $875,000 increase in the Police services budget.

July 21 – They refused to allow competitive bidding on a $96,000 newsletter and mailing contract held by an Anaheim company, denying a Lake Forest company the chance to compete and the City to save money.

This pattern of voting certainly doesn’t support the “fiscal conservative” position that involves reducing government spending, a policy that Council members Voigts, Robinson, and Hamilton claim they fully support.

Bear in mind, prior to 2015, Voigts and Robinson had voted for expensive iPads for their own use and use by Planning Commissioners, voted to spend $10,000 per year to make it easier for them to file state mandated forms, and allowed lavish travel expenses that let Council members spend thousands of taxpayer dollars with very few checks and balances.

We’ve seen a propensity to refuse to cut spending across a whole host of areas (the budget, the Police contract, the street sweeping contract) and a tendency toward a “do nothing” public policy (street sweeping, Police contract, budget, newsletter printing). Lest these trends suggest that my colleagues never do anything, let’s look at the affordable housing issue.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

A few months ago, at the same meeting that they refused to recommend Department Directors try to cut their respective budgets, my three colleagues on the Council (Voigts, Robinson, Hamilton) voted to allow a developer to pay “in lieu” fees instead of building affordable homes on site in a development that had been especially approved for them by converting commercially zoned property into residential. (Click here for my discussion on this subject).

Bear in mind that these three Council members accept money from developers and builders, and in the past two elections, developers and builders poured over $150,000 to get these men elected.

Using the best figures available to us, it seems that the “in lieu” fees would produce 4 affordable housing units while requiring the developer to build affordable homes on site would yield 30 affordable units. The profit to the developer is estimated to be considerable, since the “in lieu” fees are less than the profit gained from building 30 units at market rate, instead of being affordable. They are also better for the developer because building affordable homes is not everyone’s particular expertise, so that when Baker Ranch sells this property (which they intend to do rather than develop it themselves), not having affordable units in the mix makes the sale easier.

While the situation is clearly better for the owner (Baker Ranch), it is far less desirable for the City - we trade 30 units for only 4 units. Once again, you have to wonder how my colleagues who pride themselves as being “fiscal conservatives” can sign on to a deal that appears to economically dis-advantage the City, and by extension, the taxpayers. After all, if the City’s formula for affordable housing calls for 30 units to be built for the 250 units that Baker Ranch proposes to add, then we have a big shortfall that must be made up. Not only do we have the problem of the shortfall, we know from bitter experience that the City is not particularly adept at handling the building or managing of affordable housing, so we are asking our staff to re-engage in a process where they have already been shown to be weak.

Promoting a deal that short-changes the City makes no sense from people who call themselves “fiscal conservatives”. Councilman Nick and I voted against the deal.

Bear in mind that prior to this, Council members Voigts and Robinson allowed Brookfield and Trumark to do essentially the same thing. Once more, commercial land was re-zoned and developers were allowed to forego affordable houses by paying “in lieu” fees. Mayor Pro Tem Hamilton, not on the council at the time, voted for this as a member of the Planning Commission.

How can self-professed “fiscal conservatives” make decisions that obviously disadvantage the City?

MEALS ON WHEELS

On June 2 I introduced a motion sponsored by Age Well Senior Services to use the “closed council room” as a base for the Meals on Wheels program (Click here for my discussion on that subject) . Unlike all of our neighbors, Lake Forest does not support the Meals on Wheels program for our residents. Those in need in our City have to rely on the largesse of the cities of Mission Viejo, Laguna Hills, and RSM to use their volunteers and resources to feed our seniors, some 67 of whom currently receives meals, and another dozen who do not because they live too far away from the other cities. Allowing Age Well to use the “closed council room” would have no fiscal impact at all, as this room is rarely used. Once again, my colleagues rejected the idea. “They can wait until we build the new senior center” was the recommendation of Councilman Robinson. Apparently in his mind street sweeping had a higher priority than caring for our elderly citizens in need.

So, whether or not they are refusing to do anything, or when they are actually doing anything, the promise of “fiscal conservatism,” is not being fulfilled. Even worse, my colleagues even refuse to consider saving money, as they did with the budget and with the Police contract.

Tomorrow let’s look for some more indicators of “fiscal conservatism” and see if it is alive and well or whether it has become a slogan devoid of any real meaning.

COMMENTS

It came to my attention that at times the COMMENTS section of the Patch doesn’t work. I have no control over this. I can neither enable or disabled the Comments section nor can I delete or edit other people’s work. If you encounter this problem, please notify the Patch. If you want to discuss the issues raised in these articles you’re welcome to join over 300 of us at Lake Forest Town Square, or you can e-mail me individually, come to my office hours, or attend my Town Hall meetings.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Jim Gardner is on the City Council for Lake Forest. You can check him out on LinkedIn and/or Facebook and you can share your thoughts about the City at Lake Forest Town Square on Facebook. His comments are not meant to reflect official City Policy.

Dr. Gardner has office hours every Tuesday from 3 pm to 5 pm at the City Hall. In addition, he holds a mini town meeting every month. The next meeting will be on August 15 at 2 pm at the El Toro Public Library.

�&�C��Zu�|