Fullerton Park and Recreation’s director Hugo Curiel and manager Alice Loya
Fitzgerald appointee who motioned to bury all of this information with no discussion or action-introducing Gretchen Cox
Rubber stamp Commissioner Savage
Rubber stamp Commissioner Lang Mcnab
Rubber stamp Commissioner Stanford
| MS LOYA’S 11/2/2010 COUNCIL PRESENTATION | CORRECTING MS. LOYA’S PRESENTATION | ||||||||||||
| LEASE |
MANAGEMENT |
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT – USING CORRECT AMOUNTS FOR MANAGEMENT FEE & PRINCIPAL & INTEREST COSTS |
|||||||||||
| GROSS REVENUE | $2,230,000 | $2,230,000 | $2,230,000 | ||||||||||
| LESS: | |||||||||||||
| OPERATING COSTS | $1,140,000 | $1,140,000 | $1,140,000 | ||||||||||
| CITY LEASE REVENUE | $420,000 | – | – | ||||||||||
| AM. GOLF M. FEE | – | $500,000 | $670,000 | ||||||||||
| RZEDB DEBT | – | $36,520 | $203,323 | *Average cost to city for principal and | |||||||||
| interest over 20 years of the bond | |||||||||||||
| including 45% federal interest rebate. | |||||||||||||
| NET REVENUE | $670,000 | American | $553,480 | CITY | $216,677 | Actual Average City Revenue earned | |||||||
| Golf | under Management Agreement. | ||||||||||||
| Average yearly loss for city by changing from former Lease agreement to Management agreement ($420,000 – $216,677) = $203,323 | |||||||||||||
| Overstatement of average net revenues under the Management agreement = $553,400 less $216,667 = $336,332. | |||||||||||||
| Alice Loya claimed on 11/2/10 before council that the Mngmnt. A. would net an additional $133,480 dollars to the city while in fact it lost $203,323 dollars. | |||||||||||||
| * Total series A Principal $2,705,000/20 years = $135,250 + (total series A interest $2,475,381/20 years = $123,769 x .55 = $68,073) = $203,323. | |||||||||||||
| Therefore, Ms Loya’s presentation to the council that this change from a lease agreement to a management agreement would over the course of the bond bring in more revenue to the city was in fact not correct. | |||||||||||||
| Over the course of the 20-year life of the RZED Bond, the city will loose conservatively at least 4,000,000 dollars in net revenue and at the same time it takes on liablilites that did not exist under the former lease agreement. | |||||||||||||
| Please also note that under the lease agreement city revenues would have increased based on the increased gross revenues from the golf course which was already up over 13% from FY 2011 to FY 2014/2015 as reported by Ms. Loya in January, making this an even worse deal than the numbers above show | |||||||||||||
| Finally, the amount Ms. Loya presented to the committee last month for the Management fee for FY 2014/2015 of $587,000 is understated by $103,302 as the correct amount is actually $690,302 ($670,000 in base year times three one percent annual increases per contract terms.) | |||||||||||||
| The RZED Bond Debt amount per Ms. Loya is also grossly understated. The correct amount is (100K principal + ($185,550 int. X .55 = $102,053) = $202,053 and not $107,000 as Ms. Loya reported to this committee last month. | |||||||||||||
| Conclusion: The numbers as presented by Alice Loya to council on 11/2/2010 and on 01/11/2016, to the Park and Recreation Committee, misrepresent the financial benefit of the Management Agreeement (M.A.) over the former lease agreement. This resulted in the council approving a M.A. that will cost the taxpayers 4 to 5 million dollars in lost net revenue over 20 years. | |||||||||||||
|
ATTACHMENT:
Fullerton Golf Course Management Agreement 12/01/10, Page 12 of 23 reports of claims activities on a schedule and in a format reasonably acceptable to the City. City understands and agrees that with respect to all policies of insurance required under this Article 4 (whether such policies are maintained by City or by AGC), the portion of any losses, damages, and expenses paid with respect to such claims which is subject to a deductible amount or a self- insurance or a self-assumption amount shall be the sole responsibility of City. If at any time during the term of this Agreement, City desires to assume responsibility for handling of claims, the parties may amend this provision as provided in Section 11.8, subject to (i) the approval of the applicable insurance companies, and (ii) the reasonable approval of AGC. ARTICLE 5 – MANAGEMENT FEES In addition to the costs and expenses to be reimbursed to AGC pursuant to this Agreement, City shall pay AGC the Management Fee computed and payable as follows: 5.1 Management Fee. In consideration of AGC’s services during the Operating Period, City shall pay to AGC a “Management Fee.” For the first twelve (12) months of the term of this Agreement, the Management Fee shall equal Six Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($670,000) per annum (i.e., Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Three Dollars and Thirty Three Cents ($55,833.33) per month). The Management Fee shall increase on each anniversary of the Effective Date (until termination of this Agreement) by one percent (1%) of the Management Fee in effect immediately prior to the applicable increase. The Management Fee shall be paid to AGC, in equal monthly installments, in accordance with Section 5.2 of this Agreement. 5.2 Payment Schedule. If the Commencement Date does not fall on the first day of the month, then the Management Fee for the first partial month of the Operating Period shall be the pro-rata portion of the Management Fee and such amount shall be payable on the Commencement Date. Commencing with the first full month of the Operating Period, City shall pay AGC the Management Fee monthly in advance on the first day of the month to which it pertains. ARTICLE 6 – ACCOUNTS; WORKING FUNDS; RECORDS AND REPORTS 6.1 Bank Accounts. City shall establish bank accounts for the Facility at a banking institution or institutions reasonably selected by City, (which banking institution or institutions shall have branches located in close proximity to the Facility), such accounts to be in City’s name (the “City Accounts”). AGC shall also establish bank accounts for the Facility at a banking institution or institutions reasonably approved by City, (which banking institution or institutions shall have branches located in close proximity to the Facility), such accounts to be in City’s name (the “Facility Accounts”). AGC will deposit into the City Accounts all monies received by AGC from the operation of the Facility. City shall deposit all funds required to be furnished by City as working funds under Section 6.3 of this Agreement into the Facility Accounts, and AGC will disburse those monies from the Facility Accounts only for the purposes set forth in Section 6.2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing, AGC shall be entitled to maintain funds in reasonable amounts in “cash register banks” or in petty cash funds at the Facility. 03674-00081/1753550.8 12
|
|||||||||||||
#1 by We Deserve Better on March 15, 2016 - 10:54 pm
Tonight I watched the Fullerton City Council meeting. I saw Mr. Levinson present that Ms. Loya presented faulty numbers to the council in 2010 with a faulty conclusion that the Management Agreement was a better financial deal for the city. Therefore Ms. Loya recommended that the council approve the Management Agreement. Then I watched the segment where council can speak on any topic including the just concluded public comments. Each and every council member ignored Mr. Levinson’s comments. Council member Whitaker addressed the woman who said her company could perform the fixing of Laguna Lake cheaper than the company the city hired. He was concerned that we could have gotten a better deal. Now the deal the city chose was for a sum of approx. 500K. So a better deal might save the city 50K or 100K or some similar amount. Mr. Levinson talked about the city squandering 5 million dollars over the 20 year period of the 2010 bond issue. Once again Council member Whitaker took the politically safe way out by talking about Laguna Lake and not what appears to be the intentional loss of 5 million by the city. It appears that none of our council members are up to the task of looking out for its citizens 100%.
#2 by Reality Is..... on March 16, 2016 - 10:21 am
Sure they are. They just choose to ignore Barry and Joe no matter what they say. It’s really that simple. City Manager Feliz and Chief DannyBoy do the same thing. It comes to a point in time where if someone accuses you of things that aren’t true over and over and over and lies about you over and over and over, you just choose to ignore them in the end. That’s what is going on now. It happens all the time in politics, especially at the City level. If you go to any city anywhere in this state, there will be someone or a few people that are at every single city council meeting complaining or whining about something. No one listens. They just let them talk and don’t hear a word that person says. That’s where Joe and Barry are at right now. No one hears anything they say, except a few people on this blog. It was the same thing with Tony Bushala and Travis and his Klan back when they bought their way onto the city council with Tony’s $500,000 and the blood from Kelly.
Love,
DannyBoy
#3 by Privatize Public Safety on March 21, 2016 - 2:29 pm
…wonder what the city councils will look like when they don’t have the $50,000 to burn from the public safety unions?
#4 by Reality Is..... on July 7, 2016 - 8:46 am
We will never know. Donations will always be a part of politics. Always.
#5 by Bruce Whitaker - Shame On You on July 6, 2016 - 3:43 pm
When an extremely serious problem is presented to all members of the Park and Recreation Committee as well as all members of the Fullerton City Council by Mr. Levinson and not one of them bothers to ask him one question combined, you have a classic case of a corrupt city council that has no problem ignoring their fiduciary responsibilities.
The fact that Mr. Levinson was totally ignored by the council member who appointed him, Mr. Whitaker is even more mind boggling and disturbing. There is absolutely no way Council member Whitaker can justify his total abdication of his council responsibilities with regard to that matter. Mr. Whitaker it was you who should have resigned from the council sir and left Mr. Levinson to continue to do the good work for the people of Fullerton you and your colleagues shamefully refuse to do sir.
Finally, it should make every Fullerton citizen that voted for Council member Whitaker extremely angry to realize that he helped to bury the truth about the Fullerton Golf Course Management Agreement with American Golf Corporation and the related bond issue that combined will cost the taxpayers 4 to 5 million dollars over a 20 year period.
#6 by Reality Is..... on July 7, 2016 - 8:49 am
I’ve said it many times. All government leaders and politicians have been ignoring Barry and Joe for years. I can understand why.
Doesn’t Barry and Joe ignore Chief DannyBoy? Don’t they ignore Joe Felz? So they get ignored back?
Human instinct is that way. If someone hates you and everything about you and everyone below you, why would you even fake listening or liking anyone?
Joe and Barry are ignored by many. Always have been and always will be. There is no faking it with Joe and Barry. They hate city personnel and police and fire, and they all hate Joe and Barry back. That’s why Barry had to go.
#7 by Anonymous on July 7, 2016 - 2:53 pm
The reason Mr.Levinson was terminated was simply because he was not a RUBBER STAMP like the rest of them. Mr. Whitaker apparently could not afford to have someone he appointed consistently doing his job and telling the truth to the people of Fullerton.
#8 by Anonymous on July 7, 2016 - 10:19 pm
If you think “doing your job” means making spurious outlandish claims not backed by fact, then sure.