.

4/21/17 – As it was made public two months ago, the Banning City council had unanimously found City manager Michael Rock to be in violation of his professional ethics, after it was discovered that he had attempted to manipulate Banning’s 2016 City council elections ( see previous article and announcement here).

Since then, further facts have come to light that suggest Rock may have been involved in other actions that could have violated his professional ethics.

.
.

COUNCILMEMBER DON PETERSON CALLS FOR SECOND INVESTIGATION

As a previous victim of City manager Rock’s previous actions, councilmember Don Peterson has made a call for a second investigation. Peterson describes three incidents, each of which – if confirmed – could constitute further ethics violations.

.

.
.

ATTEMPTED INSTALLATION OF A DEVELOPER PUPPET ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION ?

Peterson points to a Facebook exchange between former councilmember Bob Botts and School Board Trustee Jan Spann. After resigning from the City Council in 2013 under dubious circumstances, Botts became a paid lobbyist for developer Diversified Pacific, who just received approval for a controversial 3,400 home development in Banning, named Rancho San Gorgonio.

Spann has long been a cheerleader for anything that Diversified Pacific proposes in Banning, which makes her a natural candidate of choice for the developer.

On March 19, both Spann and Botts communicated on Facebook how to best go about Spann’s appointment to the Planning Commission. The post has since been deleted, but a screenshot was captured prior to deletion :

.

.

.

 

.

The post implies that Michael Rock has an active involvement in the appointment process, even though he is not an election official for the City. The post further names councilmembers Art (Welch), Debbie (Franklin), and George (Moyer) as the “go-to” politicians to secure Spann’s appointment. This only makes sense, as all of these three councilmembers have benefitted from campaign donations that can be traced back to Diversified Pacific or its affiliates.

The post implies that there may have been a concerted effort, maybe even a conspiracy, to rig the appointment process in favor of Spann.

.
.

ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE 2016 ELECTION OF DANIELA ANDRADE

Peterson also points out that City manager Rock may have attempted to undermine the 2016 candidacy of councilmember Daniela Andrade.

An email by interim City Attorney John Cotti to Rock suggests that Rock was looking for reasons to disqualify Andrade, because her husband is currently a Banning School Board Trustee.

The full text of the email can be found by clicking here.

.

.

.

USE OF TAXPAYER RESOURCES TO FOMENT A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE BANNING INFORMER

Another disturbing email by Michael Rock suggests that he is trying to find reasons to bring a lawsuit against this publication, The Banning Informer.

In the email to the City Attorney (click here to view), Rock refers to The Banning Informer as an “illegitimate news service” and proceeds to ask for a legal opinion whether the content of this website constitutes “slander” against any councilmember or staff.

Rock further states that The Banning Informer appeared on the scene at the same time as Councilmembers Peterson and Miller were elected, suggesting the publication was created to support these councilmembers.

However, had Rock done his homework on the issue – instead of talking out of his ass – he would have realized that such a suggestion is beyond ridiculous. Both Miller and Peterson began to take office in January 2013, and a quick look at our website would have revealed that the The Banning Informer began publishing in October of 2009, over 3 years prior, and at a time when councilmember Peterson did not even live in Banning,

The offensive and derogatory remarks by Rock may have again violated his professional ethics, since taxpayer resources were used to further a personal vendetta against The Banning Informer, as well as the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press as a whole. To use public resources in such fashion may not only be unethical, but is also not authorized by law. Therefore, Rock’s actions may also violate criminal law, see CA Penal Code Sec, 424 (a), 2 PC.

.
.

CONCLUSION

The results of the first investigation showed that Michael Rock violated his professional ethics by involving himself in election manipulation, while “lacking credibility” in parts of his testimony he gave to the investigator (see pg. 7 of heavily redacted full report).

Now more issues are coming to light that raise even more questions about Michael Rock’s integrity. When will this menace finally be shown the door?

.

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK

 

 

 

.

2/18/17 – On February 14, Banning Mayor George Moyer read a prepared statement slamming controversial City Manager Michael Rock for inappropriately interfering in the 2016 Banning City Council election.

.

.

.

The Mayor’s statement, which was read on behalf of the entire council, referenced the findings of an independent investigation into Michael Rock’s conduct during the last election (view transcript here).

The investigation concluded that Rock, who is supposed to be politically neutral, had directed a subordinate to secure a candidate to run against incumbent councilman Don Peterson in District 2. The unnamed subordinate, who was a “City Department Head”, did not comply with Rock’s unethical demand. It is rumored that this person was a high level administrator in the Banning Police Department.

.

While Banning had its share of out-of-control, even corrupt City Managers, Michael Rock’s conduct undoubtedly takes the cake. His unprecedented actions constitute a severe ethics violation under Tenet 7 of the Code of Ethics of the International City Management Association (ICMA), which reads as follows :

.

When asked by the Mayor, Rock had no comment on the findings of the investigation.

Undoubtedly, Rock’s conduct gives reason for his immediate termination. However, no such action has been taken by the council at this time. The unnamed Department Head deserves our highest respect and gratitude for blowing the whistle on Rock, unafraid of possible retaliation by his boss.

.

JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG ?

When it comes to Rock’s misconduct, the Mayor’s public reprimand may however just point to the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

There is strong evidence suggesting that City manager Michael Rock’s election interference may not have been limited to just councilman Peterson’s election alone.

.

INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION OF DANIELA ANDRADE ?

A 2016 email to Michael Rock provides evidence that he may have used City resources in an apparent attempt to also undermine the 2016 candidacy of Daniela Andrade. Andrade ran unopposed in District 1.

The following email from City Attorney John Cotti indicates that Michael Rock had inquired about Andrade’s eligibility:

.

.

.

It is not within the authority of a City Manager to use his office to initiate a legal probe into the eligibility of a City council candidate. Using any City resources for such a purpose should therefore be viewed as unlawful and could potentially even constitute a criminal act under Penal Code Sec. 424 (a), 2 .

Within the City, determining electoral eligibility falls exclusively under the authority of Banning’s City Clerk, Marie Calderon. The Clerk is a sworn elected official, who is voted for by the people of Banning.

In this capacity, the Clerk is not a subordinate of the City manager. The email strongly suggests that it was Rock, not the City Clerk, that initiated the probe.

Given the above facts, it appears there is good reason to believe that Rock used his office in order to inappropriately attempt to undermine the election of Daniela Andrade as well.

It is rather surprising that at this time, neither the presumed target of the attempted interference, councilmember Daniela Andrade, nor anyone else, has demanded an investigation into this matter.

.

.

.

UNBELIEVABLE : THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS CONTINUE TO BACK ROCK

The preservation of the integrity of any election process is paramount in a democracy.

Once a free election is undermined, and an unelected government official can create a City council to his liking, government runs amok – and at that point the entire democratic process becomes merely a farce.

 

Unfortunately, despite clear evidence of inappropriate election interference, three councilmembers have choosen to ignore the red flags. They are actively obstructing the long overdue firing of Michael Rock, and with this are sending us a message suggesting that Michael Rock continues to deserve the public’s trust. 

The three councilmembers in question are : Debbie Franklin, Art Welch and Mayor George Moyer. Does anyone still believe that these three councilmembers have the best interest of the people of Banning at heart ?

.

CONCLUSION

Reminiscent of an unelected Soviet-style “Commissar”, Michael Rock has been caught operating as an underhanded manipulator of free elections. 

Rock has shown no remorse whatsoever for his actions: Despite being given ample opportunity by the Mayor, Rock failed to apologize to his victim(s), as well as to the Department Head he tried to compromise, and, most importantly, to the people of Banning, who’s trust he has betrayed.

And to top it all off, a corrupt council majority is now trying to convince all of us that the best way for Banning to move forward is to continue vesting our trust in the “leadership” of a confirmed election manipulator.

If you’re shaking your head now, you are probably not alone. Yes, Banning is out of control. It has been so for a very long time. And it will continue to be, simply because three equally worthless and corrupt councilmembers like it that way. Way to go Banning ! 

.

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK

.

1/27/16 – During last night’s council session, City manager Michael Rock along with City Attorney Anthony Taylor, refused a request by 60-year Banning resident Frank Burgess to publicly read a demand letter by his attorney into the record. None of the City council members seemed to be aware of the existence of this letter nor its content.
.

HERE IS THE LETTER THAT THE CITY REFUSES TO RELEASE :

.

SUMMARY AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

While it is too soon to assess the full impact of this demand, we can confirm that this letter demands that the City of Banning be broken up in several (5) voting districts, each one of which will furnish one candidate for City council. This will make it possible to get elected to the City council without even a single vote from Banning’s largest voting block, Sun Lakes.

Currently, the Sun Lakes gated community holds by far the largest voting block in Banning with 4,201 of the 12,171 registered voters. Candidates from outside of Sun Lakes have no physical access to the gated community and are restricted from campaigning there in ways they can campaign in the remainder of the City.

Recently Sun Lakes has even eliminated their traditional TV debate of the council candidates (see 2014 elections), which they traditionally broadcast on their proprietary TV channel.. Presumably this was done because Sun Lakes management (i.e.George Moyer) did not want Sun Lakes residents to hear all candidates speak. This maneuver gave an unfair advantage to Sun Lakes president George Moyer as candidate for City council, while candidate Jerry Westholder was being denied equal access to the Sun Lakes voting block. Largely unknown to Sun Lakes residents, Jerry Westholder lost the election.
.

WITHHOLDING THE DOCUMENT – A GOOD IDEA ?

It appears that the City manager’s attempt to suppress the demand letter is not only ineffective, but its suppression seems to make little sense. We cannot think of any legal or tactical advantage the City would gain by withholding the document.

Just because a document’s release may be exempt because it has a potential of “pending litigation” , this does not mean that the City is obligated to withhold it. Rather, the City must always weigh the interest of the public to know about the issues, against its interest to protect their legal position. Again, in this case no legal advantage is apparent from withholding the document.

Even more so, not providing the City council members with the letter, not even in closed session,  is nothing short of unconscionable.

.

CAN THE CITY PREVAIL ?

There are some factual errors cited in the demand letter. Over the last 15 years the City of Banning had a Mayor that was hispanic – Brenda Salas.

However, despite this factual inaccuracy, we believe that the City of Banning has only a very slim chance, if any, to prevail in this dispute. The demographics of Sun Lakes as Banning’s largest voting block will make it very likely that re-districting will become a realty, no matter if the City council likes it or not.

In this context it is also noteworthy that the Banning School District was previously forced to re-district, given the same scenario.

In short, we believe that the City has no reasonable chance of prevailing, regardless of how many hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars they spend on this litigation.

.

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK

 

.

Council Meeting Of January 26, 2016

The Council agenda was light this week, with the items primarily bookkeeping cleanup.

1. When redevelopment agencies of cities in California were dissolved by the State, there were still projects not completed and funds involved which were not expended. The State permitted these projects and associated funding to be continued under a new agency (the successor agency). The financial report of the financial position within this agency has to be reported to the State periodically, and the Council approved the latest financial report.

2. There are still $8,106,025 dollars available from bond proceeds from the tax allocation bonds from the dissolved redevelopment agency that was transferred to the successor agency. These funds must be spent on improvements within the arras specified in the bond prospectus (Ramsey Street and other downtown areas). These funds were transferred to the city to expedite the appropriate use of these funds

3. Landscape Disrict1 has a fee for maintenance by the city of its streets, parkways, media backup walls, drains and flood control. The fee is determined by the cost of these services. The Council approved that the Public Works director will prepare a report determining the cost of these services, and the fee will be established to cover those costs for the year.

4. The corporate yard is under construction. Some modifications have been made, and an additional $12,802 was approved for the engineering firm designing the project to cover this additional work. The construction contractor will provide $7,052.50 of that amount, so the actual additional cost to the city will be $5749.50.

Ed Miller
Banning City Council

Council Meeting Of January 12, 2016

A grant to the Banning Police Department for $10,000 from the year 2016 Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Allocation was approved. This grant is given directly to the City, and no City funds are required. The grant funds will be used to:

1. Begin evaluating body cameras for police officers to wear while on duty.
2. Upgrade the system which permits patrol vehicles to wirelessly download their video of operations.
3. Improve the data and evidence storage systems of the department.

The Council approved $23,010 to improve the equipment for the State 911Emergency system. These funds will be reimbursed later by the State 911 Emergency Communication Branch for the full amount.

Our city Attorney Lona Laymon has resigned, and interviews were held with applicants for the position. Anthony R. Taylor was approved as the Banning City Attorney. He is a partner in the same law firm as Ms. Laymon.

The Banning Business Center at 649 W. Lincoln Street has not been properly maintained, weeds have not been removed, windows not boarded up, homeless people have been living there, and several dangerous fires have occurred in that location. The Center was repurchased as separate parcels by three different owners, and it has been impossible to get sufficient monitoring of the property. The Council approved starting negotiations to place the Center into receivership, which is the first step to require better code enforcement or demolishing the Center.

Any large project requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The developer of the project is required to pay for this report. The City is involved, as the City is the lead agency with the contractor preparing the report. The City approved the expenditure by the developer of the Rancho San Gorgonio project of an additional $17,320 for this report However, no City funds are involved.

The City is required by the FAA to submit a five year plan of proposed improvements to the airport. The Council approved the plan, which is tentative. Any such improvements will be largely funded by grants from the FAA, and no City funds are involved at this time.

Ed Miller
Banning City Council

.

Council meeting of December 8, 2015

The Mayor for the next year was appointed by the Council. Don Peterson and Art Welch were nominated. Art Welch was elected by a vote of 3-2 . Council members Welch, Franklin and Moyer voted yes, Council members Miller and Peterson voted no.

The contract for Rachel Clayton as our new Administrative Services Director/Deputy City Manager was approved by the Council. The City Manager introduced her and summarized her background. She will begin to work for our city in several weeks.

All Redevelopment Agencies were dissolved by the State several years ago, and it is the responsibility of the city to complete all transactions started by the Agency as quickly as possible. The council approved payment of the remaining balance, and acquiring complete title to the property at 128 N. San Gorgonio Ave (initiated by the Redevelopment Agency). Similarly, the property at 60 E. Ramsey, with title under the Redevelopment Agency was transferred to the City.

The Redevelopment Agency had the authority to issue bonds, and issued bonds based upon the future taxes to be collected on areas under the control of the Agency. There are still funds available from these bonds, which must be used for projects related to redevelopment or improvement of our city. $8,367,000 still remains. $2,500,000 has already been allocated for improvements in Roosevelt Williams Park, and $2,000,000 to improve the Ramsey St. – Hargrave St. intersection. The remaining $3,867,000 was approved by the Council for installation of new 12 inch water mains along Ramsey St. from Sunset Ave to Highland Home Road ($1,357,000), and improvements of the median and curbs in the same area, and a left turn pocket at the Ramsey St. – Omar St. intersection ($2,500,000). There was discussion as to whether the latter was the best use of the funds, and the City Attorney was directed to add language that would permit future discussion and possible change of this item.

On Feb 29, 2006 the City Council passed an ordinance regarding the amount of area a building could occupy on a lot. A note was intended to be part of that ordinance, but not included. The note reads:
Up to 240 square feet of a car garage space is exempted from the total coverage for lots over 9,500 square feet. The council approved this addition to that ordinance.

An ordinance regarding electronic billboards was sent back for further review by the staff.

In accordance with new State regulations, the Council approved an increase of the maximum prize permitted at Bingo to $500, and increased the amount to be utilized for purposes other than prizes to $20%.

The Council approved the submission to the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) of a application for a grant to improve funds for renovations at the Community/Senior Center for new gym flooring, ADA approved restroom changes and other restroom improvements, doorway improvements, new lighting and other improvements.

The Council approved $16,000 for the fiscal year for legal advice in incidents involving “Use of Force” by our Police Department. These funds will not be expended if no legal action is required.

The council approved $52,000 for 18 months to the firm of Lynn Merrill to assist the city in satisfying all the Local, State, and Federal requirements for industrial waste control.

Ed Miller
Banning City Council

.

Council meeting of November 10, 2015

Chief Alex Diaz was confirmed as the acting Interim City Manager. The Council had hired a recruiting consultant to assist in obtaining a new permanent City Manager. The consulting firm received over sixty applicants, and recommended the top five for interview by the council. The interviews were held, and the Council selected Michael Rock to be our new permanent City Manager. Background checks are being performed, but assuming these will be positive , Mr. Rock was hired at a salary of $190,000 per year (the previous permanent city manager had a salary of $235,000 per year). He will start on November 12.

A contract for $25,700 was approved for yearly landscape maintenance of the areas around City Hall, the Police Station, the Fire Station, the Community Center, the Aquatic Center and the median on Ramsey street from Highland Springs to Highland Home Road.

The purchase of a new street sweeper for $300,618 was approved. The city streets have not been able to be swept since the old one broke nearly two years ago. This new one operates on compressed natural gas, producing significantly less pollution, and therefore the cost was covered by a grant from the Mobile Source Air Reduction Committee of the Air Quality Control District.

The funds from a community Development Block Grant were allocated to Lions Park to produce accessibility to Lions Park ($173,818) and the Teen Town Program of the Boys and Girls Club ($5000).
Electric utility rates are dependent on number of factors. The increase in home solar energy units, the increasing use of electric cars, the increase in our purchase of renewable energy ,and changes in usage require the Banning Electric Utility to reexamine the rate structure for electric charges. The last such analysis was performed eight years ago. A consulting firm was approved to perform such an analysis at a cost of $57,000. The results of this study will be presented in a workshop to the Council and city.

The city is part of a group of cities and power agencies that had previously entered into an agreement to purchase power from a future solar energy project. This would help the city satisfy the State requirement of having a larger percentage of its energy coming from renewable energy sources. The agreement was modified to give the lender for the project more control in case of a bankruptcy by the builder. In return, the city’s cost for the power will be reduced by approximately $460,000 over the term of our power purchase agreement.

An electric vehicle charging station has been built by our Electric Utility in the McDonald’s parking lot (at the McDonald restaurant near 22nd street). The owner had donated two parking spaces for this unit. The system should be in operation shortly, and a rate for electric usage was approved as:
$. 0168/kwh for Banning Residents
$ 0.276/kwh for non-residents.
These will be temporary rates until the comprehensive rate study is completed

Ed Miller
Banning City Council

 

Council meeting of October 27 ,2015

Interim City Manager Dean Martin resigned suddenly on October 20, and the Assistant City Manager/Police Chief Alex Diaz had become the interim City Manager at that time. Chief Diaz was officially appointed Acting City Manager until a permanent manager is appointed. This is expected in the near future.

Currently there are two senior engineering positions vacant in the public works department. Personnel is needed to review technical reports, evaluate and manage design project and capital improvement projects. A contract was approved with the Charles Abbot Associates to provide these services. The contract was for $125,000 for the remainder of this fiscal year, and the option to renew it at $175,000 per year for the following three complete fiscal years.

Although we seem far from the Santa Ana river, we are in the watershed management zone of the supply area for that zone. The Council approved joining that watershed Monitoring Program Task Force. Our city’s share of the expenses of that organization is $13,924.

Every five years the State requires our city (which owns its own water supply company) to submit an analysis to evaluate the adequacy and reliability of the water supply for all our present and future customers. A contract for $73,000 was approved for this study.

California (the only State so far) has lowered the acceptable level of hexavalent chromium (Cr 6) from the Federal level of 100 ppb (parts per billion) to 10 ppb. That level is equivalent to two teaspoons in an Olympic size swimming pool. There has been some confusion as a result of the change in standards. The amount of Cr 6 in our wells has not changed, only the standard.

Seven of our twenty four (24) wells have Cr 6 levels of approximately 15-25 ppb, still well below the Federal requirements, but above the legal levels by California standards . For comparison, the level of Cr 6 in the city of Hinkley, that made this contaminant famous in the movie about it (Erin Brokovic), had a level of the order of 400 ppb.
The contract for $73,000 was awarded to the Hazen and Sawyer company to evaluate our well system and develop a plan as to how to lower the Cr 6 levels to below the State requirements.

The purity of our drinking water has been evaluated by the E. S. Babcock company For the past several years. The contract for the next year for this analysis was approved for $65,000.

Comment: while we simply accept that healthy water is flowing from our faucets, these last items indicate only part of the efforts involved in keeping that water flowing and free from bacteria and other harmful elements.

Ed Miller
Banning City Council

.

Council meeting of October 13 ,2015

The Council approved an $8,000 contract with the HDL Company to prepare a report on the economic benefit to the city of the Village at el Paseo project. No bids were requested from other companies for this analysis, and whether this project is an appropriate use of Redevelopment funds was not analyzed. The report said that some aspects of the project needed be changed : the restaurant should be changed from a formal restaurant to a fast-casual one , and the two story mixed retail- office building should be changed to a single story building.
After approving payment of this analysis, the Village at el Paso project was officially approved to be turned over to the Vanir corporation with no changes except the starting dates for the project. The building to house the Probation office and the District Attorney’s office will start no later than December 15. The second phase will start no later than April 1, 2016, the third phase by January 1, 2017 and the last phase by December 1, 2017. The vote for approval was 3-1, with Council members Franklin, Welch and Moyer voting yes and Miller voting no.

The Council approved the first step in the process of refinancing at a lower interest rate the city’s $400,000 in redevelopment bonds (tax allocation bonds). The total saving to the city will depend on the interest rate obtainable. As with the other refinancing of the city’s bonds, if no savings can be made, there will be no cost to the city.

The Interim City Manager had been hired from a temporary agency until a permanent City Manager can be hired. Interviews with applicants for the permanent position will be held on October 28. The Council was asked to approve $20,000 in additional payment to the Interim City Manager because his payment from the temporary agency was below that specified for the position, despite the fact that the payment of the city to the temporary agency was higher than that amount. Several Council members said that the contract was with the temporary agency, and not with the Interim City Manager, and therefore did not concern the city. The additional payment was rejected 4-1 with Council member Welch voting to pay the amount.

A contract for $368,000 was approved to start construction at Lions park to provide required improvements to permit handicapped access to the park’s facilities.

Ed Miller
Banning City Council

.

.

 

Council meeting of September 8, 2015

The Council appointed Mr. Richard Krick to the Planning Commission by a 3-2 vote. Council members Welch, Franklin and Moyer were in favor, with Peterson and Miller opposed.

The minutes of the previous meeting were brought for discussion by Council member Miller. The minutes described in detail the comments of Council members and the comments of people at the meeting on all topics, except for the discussion of an extension of the review time for the Pearlman project (the project across from the courthouse). For that topic alone, only the names of the people talking were given, and the fact that they all opposed the project was hidden. Similarly, the strong comments of Council member Miller against the project were summarized in one vague sentence, which gave no indication that he spoke against the project. The contrast between the completeness of the minutes on all other agenda items and the brevity of the minutes on this issue is notable. After discussion, the Council requested the City Clerk to revise the minutes to include the comments of all who spoke.

The City Manager has the authority to grant contracts up to $25,000 without the approval of the Council. The City Manager presented a list of contracts he had approved during the last month for as-needed services such as plumbing, electrical, air-conditioning repair , and other services. The total cost of these contracts was $277,000. Councilman Peterson opened the discussion on the high total cost of these contracts. The City Manager stated that he is trying to get the staff to require bids for such contracts, and has gotten some of these from a bidding process. At the Council’s request, he will present information on how many of these contracts were the result of a bidding process at the next meeting.

The Council recognized Stagecoach Days as the signature event of our city, and approved $10,000 in cash and $10,000 in in-kind services (Police, etc.) to assist this event.

Our City Attorney Dave Aleshire informed the city that he was too busy to properly provide the services our city requires. The Council unanimously approved Lona Laymon of the same law firm as our new City Attorney. She had been the Attorney for our Planning Commission prior to this change.

The previous Council had approved $20,000 in the year 2013 for the initial cost of relocating existing utilities to permit the Sunset grade separation work to proceed. The exact final location and soil conditions were not known at that time. This Council approved an additional $16,000 to complete the work, now that the project is nearing completion, and the exact location for the utilities is known.

Improvements to the airport involving the replacement of four light poles that are currently too close to the runway and improved signs and markings were approved. An FAA grant of $127,000 will be applied to this work, and the city will provide $22,160. The staff will apply for transportation grants to cover most of that cost. There was considerable discussion as to the benefits and disadvantages of improving the airport. There have been several workshops on the future of the airport,. The airport could be a commercial advantage to Banning. However, the airport is not being well used and is subsidized by the city. Considerable tax revenue could accrue to the city if this area could be converted into a commercial zone. The problem with improving the airport is that if the airport is eventually closed and converted to other uses, all the funding provided by the FAA must be returned. The discussion as to the total overall benefit to Banning of keeping it as an airport, or searching for a developer, will continue.

The Council had been asked by the League of California Cities to approve their resolution concurring with a proposal by the State to improve roads and streets through increased vehicle registration fees and gasoline taxes. Instead of the above, the Council approved a resolution that city streets and highways need to be improved, but the Council is opposed to the State’s proposal of increasing fees and taxes to pay for these improvements.

Ed Miller
Banning City Council

 

Council Report for 6/23/15 : http://www.thebanninginformer.com/?page_id=8288

Council Report for 6/9/15 : http://www.thebanninginformer.com/?page_id=8276

Council Report for 5/26/15 : http://www.thebanninginformer.com/?page_id=8264

 

 

.

11/11/13 – Six candidates have applied to be considered for appointment to the Banning City Council. The Council had decided to make use of the appointment process in order to fill a vacancy created by Bob Botts’ recent abrupt resignation. The good news is that apparently none of the 6 candidates have ever held public office. This means that no matter who gets appointed, there will not be yet another ‘recycled’ politician appointed to the Council.

The Banning City Council will interview all 6 candidates and make the appointment in public session on November 19, 2013, at 1:30 PM.  Here are the candidates and their applications and resumes in the order they applied :

.

JERRY WESTHOLDER

Westholder is the lead pastor at Highland Springs Fellowship and a Police Chaplain formerly for the LAPD and currently for the Beaumont Police Department. Westholder has lived in Banning for over 13 years.

.

Westholder holds a Diploma in Pastoral Ministries and various Police training certificates. His resume and application can be found by clicking here.

 .

.

LYNDON TAYLOR

For readers of the Banning Informer, Lyndon Taylor needs no introduction. Taylor, a Sun Lakes resident, has not only contributed several articles to this website, but also is widely known for his successful fight against Banning’s proposed sludge plant (2009), alongside with Council member Ed Miller.

.

Taylor ran for Council in 2010, but lost to Bob Botts and Debbie Franklin. Now retired,  he holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Biology with a minor in Chemistry, a Master’s Degree in Biochemistry and a PhD in Planning and Management. Click here for Lyndon Taylor’s application and resume.

 .

.

GEORGE MOYER

George Moyer is a Sun Lakes resident who has lived in Banning for 10 years. He is widely known as a Board member and President of Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners Association.

.

Moyer holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Redlands. Before he retired, he worked many years as an estimator and sales manager for various companies in the construction industry. George Moyers’s resume and application can be found by clicking here.

 .

 .

MARY HAMLIN

Mary Hamlin has lived in Banning for 6 years and is a resident of Sun Lakes. Hamlin holds an M.A. in Organizational Management, a B.B.A. in Marketing and an A.S. in General Studies. In 2012 she founded the “Pass Job Connection” , an organization aimed at assisting local residents in seeking employment. Particularly, Hamlin’s organization teaches how to write effective resumes and how to conduct oneself during a job interview.

.

Hamlin’s resume shows that she has an extensive employment history with Los Angeles County  and also worked as a substitute teacher in the Banning Unified School District since 2008. Mary Hamlin’s resume and application can be found here.

 .

.

SONIA BARANDIARAN

Sonia Barandiaran has lived in Banning for the past 6 years. Barandiaran holds a Bachelor of Fine Arts – Music Performance. In the past, she has worked as a banquet manager as well as a housekeeper and nanny.

.

For almost 2 years, she volunteered as a  cook for Carol’s Kitchen , preparing about 200 meals each time. Sonia Barandiaran’s resume and application can be found here.

 .

.

.

DIEGO ROSE

Diego Rose is a Banning business owner and former nurse who worked at the San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital.

Rose is widely know for his criticism of San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital management, which ultimately lead him to file a formal complaint with the Riverside County Grand Jury. The Grand Jury largely agreed with Rose and subsequently issued a  rather devastating report on the San Gorgonio Hospital, faulting the hospital for unaccountability and failures (see previous story and Grand Jury Report). Diego Rose’ application can be found here.

 .

.

 CONCLUSION

There seems to be a wide variety of applicants to chose from, several of them with rather impressive resumes.

The good news is, that professional politician Bob Botts will not be replaced by yet another one of his kind, but rather by someone who has never held public office in the past.

.

 

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : Blatant Lies and Measure “D”

by Lyndon Taylor

Lyndon Taylor

.

4/7/12 – The current political propaganda associated with Measure “D” states that “Measure “D” won’t increase Your Taxes”!  This is an outrageous lie!

The current taxpayer funding for the hospital sunsets on June 30, 2012; after that time, there is no additional taxpayer obligation.

The statement of the San Gorgonio Hospital makes the declaration, “This is not a new tax”, which is obviously not true, were it not a new tax, there would be no need for this ballot measure.

Read the Measure “D” description, it clearly states that this in an “Ordinance Establishing Special Parcel Tax for Emergency Health Care Services”. Note the word “ESTABLISHING” – that means it is creating (starting) a new special Parcel Tax! If you are establishing a special parcel tax you are adding a new tax! Passage of the measure will establish a NEW TAX!

Further clouding this issue, it seems the Registrar of Voters is supporting this measure, as she has permitted taxpayer funds to pay for the mailing of a cover letter, on Hospital letterhead, advocating the passage of this measure.

The issue here is not whether or not the hospital funding is or isn’t a good idea; the issue is one of honesty in a political campaign and the apparent misuse of taxpayer funds by the Registrar of Voters to advocate a political position.

Whether or not you are in support of this measure, the means through which the Hospital and the Registrar of Voters have chosen to attempt passage of the measure calls into serious question the integrity of this elective process.

Until vital questions are answered, there is little choice but to vote “NO” on this measure.

.

Lyndon Taylor is a Sun Lakes resident and former City Council candidate. In 2009 he was a driving force in Banning’s successful “Anti-Sludge” petition drive.

Taylor holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Biology with a minor in Chemistry ,a Master’s Degree in Biochemistry and a PhD in Planning and Management.

.

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK

Where Did All the Money Go, or How to Waste Tax Money Without Really Trying!

by Lyndon Taylor

Lyndon Taylor

.

OVER 30 MILLION DOLLARS UP IN SMOKE !

2/27/12– That’s a conservative estimate of how much money the Banning City Council has squandered of your tax funds! Money that was literally thrown away on worthless projects, pie-in-the-sky schemes, and empty store fronts that resemble a Hollywood movie set more than they do thriving downtown businesses. With no oversight and no thought of sound stewardship of taxpayer money, the Council has been recklessly engaging in a spending spree that wouldn’t stop even when the Riverside Grand Jury told them to stop! What comes to mind are words like “reckless”, “irresponsible”, “egocentric” and “thoughtless”?

What may also be true is the Council’s apparent lack of business sense and an understanding of the present economic and social condition of our Nation. In any event, it seems the Council has been so wrapped up in their pet projects and personal interests that they have failed to keep watch of the big picture of the City’s deteriorating financial condition and the likely direction in which the State and Nation is moving.

It all gets back to planning, folks, you don’t build more stores and office space when you haven’t rented the space you presently have standing empty, you don’t buy real estate without having a detailed appraisal, you don’t buy a piece of property without knowing what you intend to do with it, and you don’t continue to give away money to a group after a Grand Jury tells you to stop it!

If all of this sounds a bit absurd to you, you’re starting to get the point! Absurd it is, but tragically it’s our money that the Council is enjoying; your tax money and mine, and as painful as it seems, a good deal of your money has been thrown away by this quintet of the careless.

The citizens of Banning clearly have a great deal at stake here, and ignoring the situation is not an option. Involvement is clearly the only alternative. It’s up to everyone to monitor this level of irresponsible behavior.

.

The following are examples of how our City government has gone astray, wasted tax dollars and squandered opportunity within the last five years:

.

1. SAN GORGONIO INN

The Council sold the San Gorgonio Inn property to a developer on a no money down deal where the developer does not have to come up with any cash at all for two years.  Developer will have secured foreign investors who will also be issued “Green Cards” as a reward for their investments.

The developer intends to build 70,000 square feet of office, retail, and restaurant space in an area that for years has had numerous empty store and office spaces (details).

TAXPAYER LOSS: $2.8 MILLION

.

In 2008, murder suspect Demario Jackson received over $ 500,000 from the City council

2. LOAN TO  MURDER SUSPECT DEMARIO JACKSON

In 2008,  the Banning City Council  Loaned now murder suspect Demario Jackson over $500,000 who promptly defaulted on the loan.  Council member Barbara Hanna received two campaign contributions from Demario Jackson, (details).

Jackson is currently awaiting trial for murder of a Beaumont resident.

TAXPAYER LOSS: $500,000 +

.

3.   ALL STAR DODGE

City Council purchased All Star Dodge as an “Emergency” purchase in 2009 for $1.2 million without an appraisal.

The Riverside Grand Jury faulted the City for proceeding in this manner, (see Grand Jury report).   For more on All Star Dodge, click here.

TAXPAYER LOSS: $900,000 – with a total cost to the taxpayer of over  $ 2.5 million

.

4.   HAVEN COFFEE HOUSE

The City of Banning spent $ 1.2 million in taxpayer money so the Haven Coffee house could open in late 2009; it lasted only a little over a year, (detailed story).

.

TAXPAYER LOSS: $1.2 MILLION

..

5.   WATER BOND PROCEEDS SPENT ON POLICE STATION

The Council votes to spend 15 million dollars of water bond money on the new police station (construction cost over $ 500/sqft.). The bond was placed in 2005 without the vote of the people and spending it on a police station violates constitutional law (Prop. 218). If this is money would have not been spent, no shortfall would have occurred in the Banning water utility.

TAXPAYER LOSS: $15 MILLION

.

6.   BANNING CULTURAL ALLIANCE

The Council ignores Grand Jury recommendations to “cease and desist” doing business with the Banning Cultural Alliance and instead give them even more money! – After the issuance of the Grand Jury report, another $ 111,500 went to the Cultural Alliance.  The cost to taxpayers in 2010 alone was approximately $ 300,000, (see Grand Jury report).

The total taxpayer money given to the Alliance exceeds One Million Dollars, with no comprehensive accounting available for the vast majority of this money!

TAXPAYER LOSS: $1 MILLION +

.

.

7. PURCHASE OF AN ART GALLERY

In 2008, the Council bought an art gallery with taxpayer money. Price tag: $ 450,000. The City vastly overpaid for the building. No significant tax revenue or jobs have been created.    

TAXPAYER LOSS: $350,000

.

8.  LOSS OF REVENUE AND JOBS DUE TO DEUTSCH PLANT CLOSURE

Between 700 and 900 jobs are lost when the Deutsch plant closes in 2009. Deutsch was Banning’s largest private industry employer.  No redevelopment funds were used to keep the plant in Banning. Banning utility rates have skyrocketed; with rates 30 % higher than surrounding communities, Banning can no longer compete.

TAXPAYER LOSS: JOBS AND TAX REVENUE

.

9.   PURCHASE OF USELESS LAND

The Council loses at least 2 million dollars in taxpayer money after they purchase 40 acres of unimproved land at the airport for $2,854,550.00 in 2007.

No one on the Council ever had a plan for this land; it is just as useless today as it was on the day they bought it.

TAXPAYER LOSS: OVER $2 MILLION

.

.

10.  PURCHASE OF LAND FOR SLUDGE PLANT

The Council threatened the health and safety of Banning residents when they tried to bring the infamous Liberty Energy Sludge Incinerator project to town. They spent $430,798 in taxpayer money to purchase land to locate the project; again, there was no appraisal.

TAXPAYER LOSS: $330,000

.

11.  BANNING BUSINESS CENTER

The Banning Business Center is a 150,000 sq ft commercial project that is located on 4^th and Lincoln St… On November 28, 2006 the City of Banning funded the project with $ 500,000 in taxpayer money. Since that time the project has remained unfinished; the 2-story structure has no windows and weeds are now engulfing the property everywhere, (more).

TAXPAYER LOSS: $500,000

.

.

.

12.   MULTIPLE “FACADE GRANTS” RESULTING IN EMPTY BUILDINGS

Façade grants were given by the City Council to improve the exterior of downtown business buildings with no control on what was happening or how the money was being spent. Some business owners were said to have laughed at the Council for giving taxpayer money away with no follow-up.

TAXPAYER LOSS: $2,480,000

( NOTE :  façade/ redevelopment grants without Haven and without Demario Jackson – see  pg 2+3 of this City document )

.

.

13.   PURCHASE OF LAND FOR THE NEW  COURT HOUSE

New Court House property – Purchased for $ 3,680,000 from a private party – was sold less than 2 years later for $ 1,009,000 to the State of California, (source : see “Ehline” transaction , pg. 1 of  this City document ).

.

TAXPAYER LOSS  $ 2,671,000

.

.

.

CONCLUSION

An impressive list of errors and an outright failure to perform the people’s business!

Sadly, since the inhabitants of the City Hall Council Chamber have demonstrated a dismal record in fiscal matters, the additional price that all of us must pay to stop the financial bleeding is to become watchdogs regarding everything the City Council is doing; how they are spending our money and what new schemes they are hatching.

It will involve close inspection of every City Council Agenda, contacts with Council Members on key issues, attending Council meetings and speaking our mind, discussing matters with our neighbors and friends, letters to both the Banning Informer and the local newspapers and finally, if all else fails, replacing the present Council.

This latter alternative (replacement) is a viable option, since a majority of the Council ( Barbara Hanna, Don Robinson, John Machisic ) will stand for re-election this coming fall. It may also be the simplest way to assure that this level of incompetence does not continue.

The time has come to ask, “When is fiscal mismanagement and the waste of tens of millions of tax dollars sufficient reason for a change in City Hall?”

Only the citizens of our City can answer this question.

What is your opinion?

.

Lyndon Taylor is a Sun Lakes resident and former City Council candidate. In 2009 he was a driving force in Banning’s successful “Anti-Sludge” petition drive.

Taylor holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Biology with a minor in Chemistry ,a Master’s Degree in Biochemistry and a PhD in Planning and Management.

.

.

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK

“RECLAIMED WATER”  – an analysis   –  Part 3 of 3

by Lyndon Taylor

.

12/22/11 – FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF RECLAIMED WATER

In the two previous segments of this exploration of the reclaimed water issue, we have examined the impact of the use of reclaimed water on the physical environment (e.g. the golf course at Sun Lakes and other areas watered by reclaimed water), and the human health implications of its use.

In this article, I will explore the financial implications of the use of reclaimed water.

Before doing so, however, I would like to make one point clear – a reclaimed water facility is NOT A SLUDGE PLANT! As many of you know, I was one of the leaders in fighting the City Council regarding their proposal to bring a sludge plant to Banning, but the proposal for a reclaimed water plant in no way is comparable to the City Council’s proposal to incinerate sewer sludge in our City.

That being said, let’s examine the financial aspects of this issue.

.

WHAT IS THE COST OF A RECLAIMED WATER PLANT ?

As close as it can be estimated at this time, the cost of the plant will be approximately $22 million. This will include a state-of-the-art plant for the capture and processing of water from the sewer effluent and it’s purification to standards currently accepted by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for reclaimed water.

.

HOW WILL THE CITY PAY THE  $ 22 MILLION ?

The City will obtain a loan from State Construction funds for the entire amount.  This loan will be amortized over a twenty-year period at an interest rate of approximately 2%.

.

HOW WILL THE LOAN BE REPAID ?

The loan repayment will be spread over the 10,000 property owners in the City of Banning that pay for “sewer“as a part of their utility bills. The approximate payment of $1,020,000 per year in principle and interest on this loan will thus cost property owners approximately an additional $102 per year, or $8.50 per month. This will bring the cost of sewer service in the City of Banning to approximately $25.00 per month. For comparison purposes, that’s still roughly half of what property owners in Beaumont are currently paying.

.

HOW DOES BANNING GET THEIR MONEY ?

As you delve deeper into the water issue it becomes apparent that complexities abound.

First of all, there is the demand issue:

As additional people and houses emerge in our city the demand for water logically increases. In addition to drinking water, cooking water, and bathing water, there are also industrial and business uses of water, watering our plants, lawns, and decorative areas, and yes, operating toilets and other waste processing devices.

Second, there is the supply issue:

Make no mistake, water is a finite resource, there is only so much of it, and when we run out of it we call it a “drought”. We saw that back in 2002; water was scarce and lawns weren’t watered and turned brown!

Our water here in Banning comes from wells scattered around the City. Some of these wells are 1,200 feet deep! Think for a minute how much it costs to operate an 800 horsepower pump to raise water that far, then raise it even farther (perhaps 2000 feet) to a reservoir! The wells allow us to take water out of the ground and use them in our homes and businesses. But where does the water come from, it come from rain and other means of restoring the ground water table.  To accomplish this, the City can find themselves buying water from State sources to restore the water table; this can become more intense in years of low rainfall.

Third, there is the cost factor:

Water, like everything else, costs money. The one thing we can depend upon is that in the next decade the cost of water will increase. That means that the cost of replenishing the ground water system or supplying water to the homes and businesses in our City will increase. It is probably not inaccurate to project that with population increase and other water demands in our city that water costs could increase by 20% or more in the next ten years.  Due to this, Banning will be at the mercy of the water purveyors.

.

ENTER RECLAIMED WATER

With this background, the concept of reclaiming water from the sewer effluent means that some of the water normally “lost” through watering green areas can be used to replace the potable (drinking) water presently used for this purpose. If the reclaimed water is sufficiently processed to assure health standards and environmental issues are addressed, there is a tangible benefit to be realized by pursuing this process.

In addition to the replacement of irrigation water, on a year-long basis some of this water can also be used to replenish ground water.

.

LOCATION OF THE FACILITY

There are presently several locations being considered in the City of Banning for this plant. One, three-quarters of a mile from Sun Lakes, another closer to the main part of the City and suggestions of other sites as well.

It would seem that since the Sun Lakes Golf Course would be one of the main users of reclaimed water (it currently uses 1,300,000 gallons of drinking water per day to water the course and surrounding areas!), that an alternative of placing the plant near the source of high reclaimed water use would be reasonable, particularly if the location of the reclaimed water plant could also be located near the intersection of main sewer lines from Sun Lakes and other residential and business areas.

.

THE BOTTOM LINE

What are the costs of using reclaimed water in comparison to the present system of using potable water? When one factors in the present cost of water and the cost of constructing the reclaimed water facility, the costs of reclaimed water versus potable water is nearly the same.  But one must bear in mind two factors, potable water rates are certain to increase, and once the cost of the plant has been eliminated, the cost of reclaimed water production will decrease. Thus, in the long run, reclaimed water will be significantly cheaper and will furthermore provide a means for the City of Banning to control their future with regard to water use, availability, and cost containment.

In the final analysis, if health and environmental issues can be properly addressed and monitoring assurances are put in place to guarantee safety of the end product, there is clearly a financial justification for a further exploration of this proposal.

The City of Banning, and in particular Duane Burke, is to be commended for their forward-thinking approach to solving the water problem that will continue to intensify in future years. Mr. Burke has provided exemplary leadership in this area and is conscientiously pursuing this problem with sensitivity to all of the complexities, both technical and human.

The water problem is not going to go away and clearly someone needs to plan for our future. Clearly, Duane Burke is doing just that. Well, that’s it – you now have all three aspects of the water problem here in Banning and you should have sufficient information to decide for yourself the answer to the issue.

For Part 1 of this article click here –  for Part 2 click here

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK

“RECLAIMED WATER”  – an analysis   –  Part 2 of 3

Lyndon Taylor

by Lyndon Taylor

.

11/1/11 – In my previous article I shared with you some thoughts on what one expert in golf course management had to say about reclaimed water and the health of the golf course.

.

RECLAIMED WATER AND YOUR HEALTH

In this article I would like to examine the impact that reclaimed water could potentially have on human health issues. Understand that I am not advocating a position with regard to reclaimed water, but I do believe that informed decisions are those that are made when all of the facts are laid before us. The final conclusion is yours, after considering the risks and benefits of this proposal.

As a starting point, let’s examine where the City of Banning is talking about using the reclaimed water. In a recent meeting at Sun Lakes it was revealed by the City that the plan is to use the reclaimed water on BOTH the golf course and the common areas at Sun Lakes. We must presume that by the common areas they are referring to those areas not on the golf course and not directly owned by one of the homeowners. Green belts, the area around the club houses, areas bordering the golf course, streets, and other non-golf course areas owned jointly by the Homeowners Association would seem to fit this definition.

Will you come in contact with the reclaimed water? Of course you will, particularly if you are a golfer, but even if you aren’t, you will come in contact with the common areas as you travel about in Sun Lakes and contact either the reclaimed water or its residue.

At this point, let’s examine what the State of Florida has to say about reclaimed water:

.

With regard to reclaimed water, “risks remain, such as the public’s exposure to viruses and parasites which cannot be killed by chlorine (source). Extremely small viruses can slip through the filtration system at the reclaimed water plant and carcinogenic chemicals, called THMs, are formed by chlorinating the extremely organic wastewater. Possibly toxic algae blooms may occur in the reclaimed water holding area. Reclaimed water can include pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupters from hospitals, homes and industry, which cannot be removed with current purification processes. Furthermore, reclaimed water is being tested using drinking water standards, which are inappropriate to the potential problems of purified sewer water.”

.

Florida’s Department of Environmental Health also makes the following recommendations:

.

• Do not drink reclaimed water

• There must be no body contact with reclaimed water and wash immediately and thoroughly after any contact with it

• Do not use reclaimed water on edible plants

• Keep pets and children off the lawns watered with reclaimed water.

• Do not get reclaimed water on cars or in swimming pools

• Do not get reclaimed water in private yards.

According to the presentation recently made at Sun Lakes, the filtration system is 90% efficient in removing harmful pollutants. A follow-up question should be, “exactly what pollutants are removed, and what pollutants are passed by the system?” If we assume (for the purpose of illustration) that the golf course receives 100,000 gallons of reclaimed water a day, then 10,000 gallons of water dumped on the golf course theoretically have pollutants of one kind or another!  Is this a risk we are ready to assume?

It is obvious that the wind blows in Banning and what is the impact of wind-borne pollutants getting into the yards of the homes surrounding the golf course? How about thinking about this during your next backyard BBQ?

.

EPA : VIRUSES FROM SPRINKLERS CAN TRAVEL UP TO 200 FT

Another point worth considering, according to the Environmental Protection Agency‘s “ Guidelines for Water Reuse”, viruses from sprinklers can travel up to 200 feet in the air, so even houses off the golf course or near common areas aren’t spared in this situation.

Please note that many cities also restrict sprinkler irrigation to times when the public is not present, as a further means of protecting individuals from contact with reclaimed water.

According to opinions released in a National Research Council Report in 1998,

The United States of America, and for that matter, the world’s scientific community, does not and will not know all of the toxic agents and carcinogens that may be able to make it through the reclaimed water process. It took decades until the risk of Chromium 6 materialized and there may be other substances out there equally harmful.  At this point, the National Research Council states that we do not even have tests available to determine many of the unknowns that may show up in water from the water reuse program.

In considering the environmental threats of reclaimed water, the Environmental Protection Agency reveals that there are five areas of major concern:

.

• Heavy metals
• Pathogens
• Nutrients
• Trace organics
• Inorganic compounds

Of this list, I would suggest that heavy metals and pathogens are of greatest concern; however trace organics could also have long-term adverse impacts on individuals ( see also : “Augmenting Drinking Water with Reclaimed Water” by Steven B. Oppenheimer, Ph.D).

.

As a final point, I would suggest the reader also consider the fact that the Sun Lakes community contains elderly people many of whom have compromised immune systems. In making a decision regarding the use of reclaimed water thought must be given to the potential impact this could have on those individuals least able to cope with biological threats.

Are these threats of reclaimed water worthy of consideration?

The final segment of this trilogy will be an examination of the financial implications of the reclaimed water proposal.

.

Lyndon Taylor is a Sun Lakes resident and former City Council candidate. In 2009 he was a driving force in Banning’s successful “Anti-Sludge” petition drive.

Taylor holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Biology with a minor in Chemistry ,a Master’s Degree in Biochemistry and a PhD in Planning and Management.

.

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK

“RECLAIMED WATER”  – an analysis   –  Part 1 of 3

Lyndon Taylor

by Lyndon Taylor

.

10/15/11 – The latest proposal out of City Hall in Banning deals with the use of reclaimed water to water the golf course and common areas of Sun Lakes. The plan calls for capturing the sewage outflow from that community and separating out the water for further processing.

The plant would be located some three-quarters of a mile from Sun Lakes (1320 yards away) and would serve to “process” the sewer water to a form suitable for watering the grass at Sun Lakes.

On the surface this sounds like a reasonable idea; recapture the water from sewage and use it again to water grass. But a closer look reveals at least three major factors that are worthy of a second look. The first of these is what is the impact of the reclaimed water on the golf course and surrounding vegetation? Second, what is the chemical and biological composition of the reclaimed water and what is the likely impact on the health and well-being of the inhabitants of Sun Lakes?  Third, what are the financial implications of this proposal; a cost-benefit analysis is in order to determine if it makes financial sense to spend $20,000,000 to $35,000,000 on the processing plant?

In future articles we will explore each of these topics, for now, let’s examine what has been said about the use of reclaimed water on golf courses.

Let’s start by turning to an expert in the field of golf course management; John Zupancic is the founder of SoilQuest International in Dodge City, Kan. He is an independent agronomist and consultant for the golf-course industry. Here’s what he has to say about the use of reclaimed water on golf courses:

“When it comes to water quality, water-treatment professionals do not speak the same language as those of us in the green industry. Wastewater people talk about biological oxygen demand (BOD), turbidity and bacterial counts while we horticultural types are concerned about electrical conductivity (EC) and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR).

.

BEWARE OF SALINITY

Salinity issues cause the biggest headache for us. Total salts can include calcium, potassium magnesium and sulfate and sodium chloride. The osmotic effect that they have on plants as they accumulate in the root zone is a problem as well as the negative, sealing effect that sodium has on soil structure and permeability. Raw, fresh water may already contain salts of calcium, magnesium or sodium-and it picks up more as it travels through a municipal water system. Sometimes fresh water is immediately adulterated as it is “softened” with soda ash (sodium carbonate) to decrease hardness or to remove iron and manganese. This process raises the pH to 8.5 (or more) and substantially increases the sodium and bicarbonate content while precipitating calcium and magnesium.

.

PASS THE SALT

Unfortunately, the waste-water-treatment process usually does not deal with inorganic salts. It is designed to remove solids, decrease organic matter and disinfect.

None of these steps diminish either the total salinity or the sodium content of the water. In fact, the total salinity of municipal water can increase by as much as threefold from the fresh-water source to the final effluent. The SAR may increase by a factor of 5 to 10 times.

You may find soggy turf on some golf courses irrigated with reclaimed water because the superintendents apply extra irrigation water to leach salts through the root zone. It is common to apply a leaching fraction of 15 to 20 percent more water than the turf needs to meet evapotranspiration demands.

As salts accumulate in the root zone over time, you may be forced to change turf species. Poa annua golf greens perform poorly under saline conditions. On some courses, the superintendents replaced Bermuda grass-which is fairly salt tolerant-even more salt tolerant with paspalum. You may need to replace sensitive trees and ornamentals due to increased salinity or toxicity from boron and chlorides.

The osmotic effect that they have on plants as they accumulate in the root zone is a problem as well as the negative, sealing effect that sodium has on soil structure and permeability. Raw, fresh water may already contain salts of calcium, magnesium or sodium-and it picks up more as it travels through a municipal water system.

.

SAVINGS AND COSTS

Your savings from reclaimed water use can be offset by increases in retrofitting, cultivating and amending soils. Some golf courses now deep-tine aerate all irrigated turf up to twice a year. They also incur expenses for gypsum applications and acid-based water treatment.

Retrofitting your irrigation system can be expensive. You must seal off cross connections between potable and reclaimed water and install back-flow valves at various locations. You’ll often need intake filters to prevent algae and suspended solids from clogging nozzles.

.

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS REGARDING EXPOSURE

You should use only potable water near homes, clubhouses and greens, so you must have two separate systems. In these cases, mark quick couplers and new-pipe installations with purple to indicate that reclaimed water is in use. You’ll need signs in English and Spanish around the property warning people not to drink the water.

Operators of inefficient or low-capacity irrigation systems face a dilemma due to concerns about exposing the public to potential pathogens because cities often restrict sprinkler irrigation to times when the public is not present. Local health regulations normally limit sprinkler irrigation only to the nighttime hours-commonly 8 to 6. Thus, the irrigation system must be capable of completing its cycle within 8 to 10 hours. If you want to irrigate during the day-to cool turf or dissolve a fertilizer-then someone must physically man the control box and ensure no one is nearby. Larry Stowell, a certified professional agronomist with Pace Consulting (San Diego, Calif.) says, “I feel sorry for low-budget courses that cannot afford the assistance that may be needed to effectively manage these resources.” Stowell recently reviewed some of the challenges at various California golf courses and is well aware of the need for a higher level of management. He recently assisted Big Canyon Country Club (Newport Beach, Calif.) in developing a contractual agreement with the Orange County Water District.

That contract binds the city of Newport Beach to pay for some of the retrofitting at the club. It outlines a minimum quantity of reclaimed water that the club must use annually and the city’s capability to deliver it at the needed rate in gallons per minute. Then it specifies maximum water-quality parameters for EC, total dissolved solids (TDS), SAR, adjusted SAR (SARa), bicarbonate, boron, chloride and sodium. If the effluent exceeds these limits for an extended period, the club retains the right to disconnect from the reclaimed water supply and use potable water until the city corrects the problem. The contract also includes provisions for further reimbursement by the city if damage occurs on the golf course. Stowell regrets that they were not able to tie the price to quality, stating, “Negotiations on price and quality should begin early. What other commodity can you imagine where price is not related to the quality of the product delivered?”

He fears that, in the future, we will see litigation throughout the country over these issues based on an implied warranty. In fact, a Texas farmer who used reclaimed water for years recently filed a $2 million lawsuit against a municipality and a beef packer over damage to his land. The case was settled out of court.”

For the Sun Lakes golf course operation, this could mean the additional expense of using 20% more water for watering the golf course, potential problems with soil chemistry, problems with sprinklers and irrigation systems, possible replanting of the grass, and increased maintenance costs to maintain the proper soil nutrient balance and pH (acid versus base) balance of the soil. Aside from the costs associated with the reclaimed water itself, these will be extra “hidden” costs that the Homeowners must pay to maintain their golf course.

Clearly, there is a need for further exploration of this concept from the standpoint of the operation of the Sun Lakes Golf course and common areas.

The use of reclaimed water also has health implications, particularly if used in proximity to homes around the golf course and the common areas.  We will explore those points in part 2 and 3 of this article.

.

Lyndon Taylor is a Sun Lakes resident and former City Council candidate. In 2009 he was a driving force in Banning’s successful “Anti-Sludge” petition drive.

Taylor holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Biology with a minor in Chemistry ,a Master’s Degree in Biochemistry and a PhD in Planning and Management

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK