Restaurant owners sought $6.1M
Sandra Emerson, Staff Writer
Created: 05/28/2011 10:13:32 PM PDT
UPLAND – The City Council has rejected a $6.1 million claim for damages filed in April by the owners of the Chronic Cantina.
Chronic Cantina is seeking damages resulting from the revocation of its conditional use permit in April 2009.
Last month, the limited liability company’s attorney, Brian McCormack, said litigation would be pursued if the city rejected their claim.
However, McCormack could not be reached for comment.
Should the case head to trial, Chronic Cantina will seek treble damages under the RICO Act, increasing the $6.1 million to more than $18 million.
They would also seek attorney fees as well as general, exemplary and punitive damages.
Mayor Ray Musser said he thinks the council made the right decision.
“We handled it correctly, so we feel strongly that it was handled correctly, so we’re not bracing ourselves,” Musser said. “Hopefully, it’s behind us. Time will tell. I feel they have misconceptions and they’re lumping two situations together and that’s not correct, so we’ll see.”
Chronic Cantina, which is owned by Keith Scheinberg and Dan Biello, accuse former Mayor John Pomierski, former Building Appeals Board member John Hennes and Police Chief Steve Adams of extorting money from them in order to allow Chronic Cantina to stay open.
According to the complaint, Chronic Cantina paid Pomierski, Hennes and Adams $15,000. The three city officials demanded an additional $25,000. When the business owners did not pay, the council revoked their conditional use permit.
The council pulled the permit on the basis of an increase in police calls to the restaurant.
Chronic Cantina representatives have claimed in court that the calls actually were made elsewhere in the city, but attributed to the restaurant to justify the revocation.
To read entire story, click here.
How much is this going to cost the city? Mayor, Building Commisioner, Police Chief, Police Captain, Fire Chief and Fire Marshal/Inspector all involved! How can these people still be working for the City? Should be at the very least on administrative leave until the investigation is complete. Oh ya, that’s right, the city isn’t even looking into it! Oh my gosh, how much is ignoring everything going to cost? Hey Musser and Filippi, thought transparency was the new norm? Why are you not finding out the truth about the Chronic Cantina debacle? Obviously something is wrong here and you are doing nothing! Especially when a fire marshal/inspector is named and involved.
Rumor is the fire chief got rid of the one fire inspector partly because of the Chronic Cantina. Maybe they should ask that fire inspector that got fired some questions? I’m sure he has quite a story and probably not very good for those involved!
Hey Council. You have to ask yourself, Why was the fire chief the only “city official” specifically named in JP’s indictment?
Probably wouldn’t like the answer.
Nobody in the city wants to know the truth. They would have to do something. Easier to ignore everything until they are forced to do something!
Guess a person with an open mind and paying attention might ask himself this?
If Chief Adams in ANYWAY tried to cover for Mr.Q in his domestic violence issue, then in ANYWAY not promote a Sergeant for doing his job, then suddenly the Chief is on sick leave because of stress when there should not be any, even though the timing is all in close proximity to VERY QUESTIONABLE decision making is suspicious.
IS there a chance Chief Adams has stink attached to this issue too?
The city officials might think the Chief’s credibility is still intact, but I sure would not want these particular set of circumstance before a Jury in light of EVERYTHING going on and try and defend closing down a local business.
Typical scenario here:
Hey…did you hear about the city official who fraudulently bilked Upland for thousands and thousands of dollars?
Yeah, but there’s that fire chief, and that ladder truck, and that fire station, and that ladder truck, and wait – did you hear about the ladder truck? Yawn.
Seriously, the next article could be about kittens and you peole would blather on pathetically about how the corrupt fire department has something to do with said kittens, and…that ladder truck. It’s gotten old, and people clearly don’t agree other than your two or three fellow blatherers (though the more I read the more I think that all three or four of you are the same person).
But back to the point of this article. Sounds like the Chronic Cantina was not exactly family friendly, and a hot spot for people who enjoy having the police called on them. Just do a google search on customer reviews and you can hear what the public has to say about the place. Here’s one review:
“…So everything was going good, then in a 1-2 month span this place spiked in violent events. Police were being called out way too often because there were lots of fights. Kids were getting stabbed. Some bargoer was shot in the parking lot walking to his car. After the attempted murder, I guess Upland had seen enough…”.
Here’s another, from an Upland forum (by the way, check out the public forums – TONS of posts from residents and non-residents about how much of a hot-spot for trouble the CC was. You’ll see that the majority of Upland residents were happy to see it shut down):
“I’m all about partying and having a good time but I have to agree with the city wanting to close down Chronic Cantina. I used to go to that location when it was “The Cellar”. But now since it has changed owners it host nothing but “low lifes”. There a group of cowardly punks that go there all the time to catch someone by themselves to jump them, and just as the police are about to arrive they run back into the club after beating up some poor unsuspecting patron. When the police get there the employees of Chronic Cantina didn’t see anything. It’s obvious that they’re friends with these cowards”.
I find it interesting that the same group of commenters on this blog who unfairly slander the fire department every chance they get also stand behind and show strong support for a business who clearly deserved to have their licenses revoked. It’s unfortunate that we have people in this town who have more respect for businesses that attract thugs, gang-bangers, and crime rather than decent people who are committed to saving lives and keeping our town safe.
Whose side are you people on? I don’t for one second believe the ridiculous accusations that our fire department is corrupt or is putting us in harm’s way by use of a certain kind of fire truck. Funny how you don’t question that the CC is suing our city for over $6 million dollars in a frivoulous lawsuit, instead you continue to bang your drum calling for the fire chief’s head. That says a lot about the kind of real “concern” you have for our city.
Anonymous (03/30/11): You’ve hit the nail on the head, all right. When the Chronic Cantina was open, I used to drive by there all the time on the way to/from In-N-Out and take a look at the riffraff in the parking lot. If I were a Giant’s fan, I would feel safer at Dodger Stadium, and that’s BEFORE the increased police presence at Dodger Stadium.
I don’t know how long you’ve been following this blog, but the group “Concerned Government Workers for Change” is not just attacking the Upland Fire Department (actually they are not attacking the FD at all – it’s only the Fire Chief and his purported highly-paid friends in the FD), but also the Police Chief, Finance Director, etc. Without a doubt, their main focus is Fire Chief Antonucci, so the majority of the group must be, as they say, comprised of past and present fire personnel. They are not so much on the side of the Chronic Cantina as they are on the side of anyone who they think can bring Antonucci to his knees. Someone has a beef here, that’s for sure.
If you’ll notice, this attack group is not called “Concerned Upland Citizens for Change.” This group is comprised of government workers, some of whom, I’m willing to bet, do not even live in Upland. Throughout their posts on the infamous ladder truck, “increasing the manpower” is mentioned several times. Translation: Overtime. Some firefighters must be unhappy that they’re not getting what they used to get in overtime. I wonder sometimes if these are union hit pieces.
“Government Workers” constantly cite the pay of Upland’s highest officials in their attempts to get the citizens of Upland all riled up. More pay for the Upland officials means less pay for the rank-and-file Upland government worker. That’s what’s really going on here. There have been cutbacks in staff and decreased hours for many city workers, so the line staff are upset. However, as we all know, the private sector is not too happy with ANY government worker, even the line staff right now, so “Government Workers” pretends the ladder truck campaign is all about safety and what’s good for the citizens, not about what’s in it for them.
I am a government worker myself – I work for the County of San Bernardino. Ask the majority of County employees why they sought employment with the County and they’ll tell you, if they’re honest, that it was pay, benefits, job security, and retirement. My fellow coworkers care about the job they do and do it well, but those four things are utmost in their minds, not doing what’s best for the citizens. Mind you, I didn’t say they don’t care about the citizens – only that their pay, etc., come first. “Government Workers for Change” is no different. Right now, many of my coworkers are furious that they haven’t had raises in a while. They perceive that those at the top are overpaid and that this is the reason they haven’t had a raise. This may well be true. However, “Government Workers” shouldn’t lie about it and pretend it’s about the safety of the citizens when it’s not. With regard to Chief Antonucci, it’s obvious that it’s also personal.
Finally, Anonymous, there is more than one “blatherer” as you put it, but they are the same three or four, like you said. I can tell because certain bloggers repeat the same phrases (“good riddens” instead of the correct “good riddance”) and other misspellings (not just typos) over and over again when they’re not pasted.
I meant “Anonymous 05/30/11).”
@Get Real, if you only knew the truth!
@Anonymous – You are an idiot. That simple! Go ahead and keep standing up for your Fire Chief and the rest of the morons! Everyone within the Upland City government is Fed Up with the executive staff. Especially the top 3 or 4 and the fire chief is one of them. So is the Police Chief and Finance Director. Answer and justify this one?
1. Item #1 – Type IV fire engine – Upland Today
a. Upland Today (Spring 2011)
New Fire Equipment Adds to Readiness
The Upland Fire Department has purchased a new Type
IV firefighting vehicle, perfectly suited to serving Upland’s
historic neighborhoods, as well as the narrower streets that
are often present in historic areas.
Fire equipment has grown in size over time as equipment
has advanced and become more complex. While
these innovations are well suited to most suburban environments,
many modern engines are a tight squeeze for
Upland’s smaller streets. The Fire Department’s identification
of the need for a Type IV vehicle came just as the City’s
Redevelopment Department was notified that the City
was to receive additional Community Development Block
Grant funding via the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009. The new Type IV is a welcome addition
to Upland’s existing fleet of firefighting vehicles and makes
up an essential component of Upland’s overall firefighting
arsenal.
In accordance with the above article that was published in the Upland Today, Spring 2011, the new Type IV Fire Engine was purchased for the “historic neighborhoods, as well as the narrower streets that are often present in historical areas” This new Type IV fire engine is currently stationed and assigned to fire station #162 at 2046 N. San Antonia Avenue as “Patrol 162”. No Upland historical areas are located within this response district.
Eligible Activities (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development)
Over a 1, 2, or 3-year period, as selected by the grantee, not less than 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. In addition, each activity must meet one of the following national objectives for the program: benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or address community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community for which other funding is not available.
Also the Type IV fire engine was purchased with “Community Development Block Grant funding via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” No areas within fire station 162’s response district are designated as CDBG qualified areas and does not meet the above “Eligible Activities of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development”, thus violating Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Fact: Upland Today notified the public that the Type IV engine was “perfectly suited to serving Upland’s historic neighborhoods, as well as the narrower streets that are often present in historical areas.”
Fact: The Type IV engine is assigned and stationed at fire station #162, 2046 N. San Antonio Avenue as “Patrol 162″.
Fact: Fire station 162 response district is all newer development with NO recognized historical areas.
Fact: Intentional Misinformation
Fact: Community Development Block Grant funding via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was used to purchase the Type IV engine.
Fact: The Type IV engine is assigned and stationed at fire station #162, 2046 N. San Antonio Avenue as “Patrol 162″.
Fact: NO declared CDBG areas are located within fire station 162’s response district.
Fact: NO areas within fire station 162’s response district are considered low-and moderate income as required in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Eligible Activities.
Fact: Violation of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Fact: Misuse of funds
QUESTIONS:
(1) What was the justification used in-order to purchase the Type IV fire engine using CDBG funds?
a. Is a written justification for the CDBG funds on file?
b. Was the written justification for the historic areas of Upland? As stated in the Upland Today article?
(2) Why is the Type IV fire engine assigned and stationed at fire station 162?
a. Why is the Type IV fire engine not stationed at station 161 for the historic areas as noted in the Upland Today article?
(3) How is this piece of fire equipment being utilized as stated in the Upland Today article of the written justification of the CDBG funds?
a. Are there written policies and procedures designating response procedures for the Type IV fire engine?
b. Is this Type IV fire engine manned or a reserved piece of equipment?
i. If it is a reserve piece of equipment, how can it meet the partial response criteria as stated in the Upland Today article?
i. If this piece of fire equipment is “perfectly suited to serving Upland’s historic neighborhoods” due to “many modern engines are a tight squeeze for Upland’s smaller streets. The Fire Department’s identification of the need for a Type IV vehicle “, why is it not a part of the primary response for identified historical neighborhood areas?
(4) Why was this misinformation of the Type IV fire engine published?
a. Why is misinformation by the fire chief still being tolerated?
(5) Did the city (fire chief) violate any statutes or laws by not employing the Type IV fire engine as stated for justification of CDBG funds?
a. Yes, Violation of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
(6) Is this type of misuse of CDBG funds criminal?
a. Very probable, AG’s office investigates.
(7) Can city leaders correct this misuse of funds and misinformation by the fire chief?
a. Yes, initiate internal investigation and hold responsible parties accountable, or AG’s office can conduct investigation.
@Anonymous – Can you answer those questions, or Get Real, can you?
We don’t like liars and the fire chief has been caught in numerous lies and nothing has been done about it! The Police Chief has been caught and is going to get his disciplinary action soon. And the Finance Director has some tough questions to answer also.
Just answer the above questions. Don’t double talk like you normally do!
It is great to see “Government Workers” trying to correct the misdealings of their so called leaders! Keep it up GW’s and things will have to change!
@Get Real – Let’s get real! You got mad last time you were exposed. Now you are not disputing any of the truth, you are just trying to change subjects to deflect the truth! You claim not to know Antonucci, but yet you talk and refer to him as if you are close friends. Once again you are exposed!
Anonymous, it doesn’t matter if Chronic Cantina should have been closed down (which is likely true) but if crimes were committed by city officials in order to do so, the city is liable. If JP and the other 3 get convicted it will certainly bolster Chronic Cantina’s case.
I’m no happier than you that we may be on the hook for millions, but this mess involves the ex-mayor, police and fire departments and it is not going away anytime soon. It’s time for our officials to dig in and get to the bottom of it, wherever it leads, even if it means the dismissal of the fire chief, police chief, or anyone else involved. Some of them are likely worthy of termination for other issues as well.
Pigs-Very well said!
@Get Real and Anonymous – Just check out the Daily Bulletin yesterday (30 May) in the opinions section. People are confused because of people like you! The citizens of Upland do not understand the dangers that the fire chief (not personal attack) has placed them in by the decisions he has made.
“Purpose of truck” – The residents of Upland know there is a problem, but due to you and your deliberate misinformation and “change the subject tactics”, they are confused as to what the problems are. Obviously the majority of citizens see your ladder truck and fire personnel and question it’s need and use! And the Daily Bulletin publishing the fire chief’s very biased view without the facts was incomprehensibly nonchlant and reckless.
Let us tell you this, if you don’t think Uplanders are smart enough to figure out your little games to keep your dirty little secrets, you better look again! The dam of secrets has a hole in it and the hole is getting bigger thanks to the citizens of Upland! Soon the dam will break and you will have to answer for your misdeeds!
@Anonymous – One more thing and then I am done with you! This is from me, FedUp. You are either incompetent or part of the corruption.
Please explain to everyone that reads this blog how our group has become a “strong support for a business who clearly deserved to have their licenses revoked.” and “It’s unfortunate that we have people in this town who have more respect for businesses that attract thugs, gang-bangers, and crime rather than decent people who are committed to saving lives and keeping our town safe.”
Way to divert the truth once again! Why don’t you defend the issues we have brought up instead of “attacking” us, and diverting the truth from yourselves?
Once again, where in any statements have I, or anyone else, shown strong support for th CC? We have just questioned the actions of the people that are involved and the tactics that they incorporated with this business. What other businesses within Upland had to exclusively pay fire department personnel for “stand-by” operations? Or had the Police Department stationed in the parking lot, was that the CC sub-station? (just a joke to lighten the situation, please don’t twist the joke into something you can confuse people with)
We agree this business was not what we wanted in our city either, but rules, laws and regulations need to be followed so that this kind of frivoulous law actions can’t be taken against the city. You have failed to do that! That is not, in your words, “stand behind and show strong support for a business who clearly deserved to have their licenses revoked.” That is having integrity and enough sense to do your job correctly!
Fed Up and the rest of your followers: I can’t answer your questions because I’m not in the fire service, but that doesn’t really matter. The problem is, even if someone did have answers to your questions you wouldn’t actually care. Anytime someone responds to your accusations, you berate them and accuse them of being the fire chief or one of his “cronies” as you like to put it. If someone responds in defense of the fire department decisions, you accuse them of being part of the “corruption”, and liars. So really, what’s the point of responding with facts? It wouldn’t make any difference because you just can’t debate with irrational people. Why is it that the ex-fire inspector that you guys like to use as the mascot for your vendetta has posted here telling you that he doesn’t want to be associated with your group? That says a lot right there.
By the way, I did read the Daily Bulletin and found this letter from a reader:
“The members of so-called Concerned Government Workers for Change have done a good job of exposing themselves as an ignorant and misinformed group of people as demonstrated in a recent article concerning the use of the Upland Fire Department ladder truck.
Their “ready, shoot, aim” approach to what really is a non-issue showcases the group’s lack of research, education and understanding regarding fire apparatus functions and resource allocation in a community.”
The fire chief was hired to manage the fire department and I’m assuming that includes it’s resources. Frankly, he doesn’t and shouldn’t have to explain every single decision he makes to people like you who try to make issues out of non-issues.
I don’t think the public is confused, as you say. It appears to me that the public understand that the department has the best interests of the public in mind, and they are more confused by people like you who slander good people and try to push your personal agenda under the disguise of being “concerned for change”.
To Fed Up – I am one of the 5 members who sit on the CDBG committee for the city of Upland. Due to warranty issues, the fire truck you are referring to is not in service. It is my understanding the truck is being worked on at Station 2. Once the truck is ready to go into service it will be permanently housed at Station 1 in accordance with CDBG rules and regulations. Please know the members of the CDBG committee take our responsibility seriously. Every decision is executed pursuant to government regulations and is in the best interest of our city. Further, we acknowledge if we are
found to be out of CDBG compliance we would lose funding for the city.
Insiders saying that the FBI on to Quincey and “unnamed” planning commissioners.
@ Anonymous and Fed Up: You thought I got mad the last time I was exposed? You are too funny! Mad? Hardly. Exposed? Here’s the truth (try it, you might like it): I have never met Antonucci and if my life depended on it, I couldn’t even pick him out of a lineup (Musser I could, but that’s about it). You and your little group are getting no sympathy from the citizens of Upland because your rants are coming across as a vendetta against the Fire Chief and, to a lesser degree, the Police Chief and Finance Director – not as concern for what’s best for the City of Upland, as you would have us believe. I’m actually getting sick of having my city maligned by the likes of you.
What exactly has Antonucci done to make you and your group hate him so? By constantly smearing his name and not presenting the facts in a neutral manner, it seems to many of us that it’s personal between you and the Fire Chief. Do you think the citizens of Upland really care about your personal battle with the Fire Chief? Where I may have been neutral at first, I tend to root for the underdog (the one with no voice here), so you know whose corner I’m in now. You put me there.
I still maintain that your group, Concerned Government Workers for Change, was formed because of dissatisfaction with your pay, benefits, lack of promotions, etc. The reason Antonucci has received the brunt of your complaints is because we have a nice new fire truck and nice new fire station that cost millions of city dollars and he is the one who had a hand in getting them. Yes, every time one of you passes by the new fire station (AKA Upland Palace) or sees that ladder truck, it’s a painful reminder to you that you had hours cut, pay frozen, benefits reduced, etc. One of the bloggers in your group (City Worker, I believe) posted something to the effect that everyone had to take cuts except the Fire Department. Well, what does that tell us about the true motive behind your group? Obviously there is resentment from some city workers that the Fire Department didn’t have to take as many cuts as other departments.
For the record, as a citizen of Upland for 40 years, I like having a ladder truck and nice looking fire stations. I don’t care where the ladder truck is based or any particular engine, for that matter. All I care about is that someone from the Fire Department responds to my house if I put in the call. I also like having the helicopter. I did some research on the Internet and was proud – yes, proud – to see it helping other communities that aren’t as lucky as we are to have a helicopter of their own. I want this city of mine to have the best, so your group is indeed barking up the wrong tree. If there have been any cuts in services to the citizens of Upland because of the ladder truck/type IV fire engine or the Upland Palace, I’m not feeling or seeing it.
With regard to the recent letter to the editor in the DB about the ladder truck: Yes, I read it. The writer is not confused – he’s ignorant. Joyriding in the parking lot? Come on. He commented that it was unnecessary to have the ladder truck in the Albertsons parking lot while the firefighters did their shopping. I used to work for a large grocery chain years ago. When firefighters come in to buy their groceries – mind you, they live in that firehouse three days straight and have to eat – they must be prepared to jump into the truck and respond if a call comes through. I saw it happen many times. Do you think they ride over to the grocery store in their private vehicles and then race back to the station to get on the truck? Use your heads.
Finally, until the Chronic Cantina could be legally shut down, the Police Department had no choice but to make it a “sub-station,” if you will. Its mere presence kept the crowd in line. I can’t think of any other business that had the reputation for trouble as they did at that time. Would you prefer that someone get stabbed to death and have the PD and FD respond later or would you prefer that the PD try to keep the stabbing from happening in the first place? The cost of that extra protection is a burden on the taxpayer and the CC should have paid it.
Anonymous – Way to not answer any of the questions and deflect the truth, as usual. You have proven my point! GetReal – Ignorance at its finest! Deborah DiCrasto – You have been lied to. How long has the Type IV engine been accepted by the city? Also look at the picture within the Upland Today. P162 right on the bumper of the vehicle. That designates it as Patrol 162 that is assigned and responds from fire station 162. Whoever told you due to “warranty issues” lied straight to your face!! The city is out of compliance, but they have an opportunity to fix the non-compliance before all information is sent to the AG’s office. Also correct the lies that have been told to you and others! FACT: New Type IV engine is permanetley assigned to fire station 162 (N. San Antonio Ave.) as Patrol 162.
Get Real and Anonymous – See how easy it is to tell the truth without deflecting it! Whoever lied to Deborah DiCastro needs to be disciplined! Integrity!!!!! That is waht the citys executive staff lacks and needs to re-establish!!
Deborah DiCrasto – (WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU READ THIS) You have been lied to. How long has the Type IV engine been accepted by the city? Also look at the picture within the Upland Today. P162 right on the bumper of the vehicle. That designates it as Patrol 162 that is assigned and responds from fire station 162. Whoever told you due to “warranty issues” lied straight to your face!! The city is out of compliance, but they have an opportunity to fix the non-compliance before all information is sent to the AG’s office. Also, you need to correct the lies that have been told to you and others! FACT: New Type IV engine is permanetley assigned to fire station 162 (N. San Antonio Ave.) as Patrol 162.
@Deborah, Wow! I had to read your posting several times to make sure I have it right. “Warranty issue”, really? That’s what you were told? I am not sure, have to check with my friends, but normally a fire engine warranty is only for a year. Upland has had their TypeIv engine well over a year now.
And it’s not even in-service? Wow! A piece of fire equipment for over a year and it’s not even in-service? Wow! I’m just sitting here shaking my head trying to comprehend this. You need to pursue this issue. Now the CDBG funds are in jeapordy due to one individual.
Please, Deborah. Due your own investigation and find out the truth!
I’m not deflecting Fed Up, I simply pointed out how you respond to people here and why people won’t debate you, and you proved my point, as I knew you would. Someone gave you facts and you accuse them of being lies and ignorance. Typical. And you wonder why people aren’t giving you the “facts” you demand?
You don’t work for the Upland fire dept so therefore all you can do is speculate about why the truck says P162 on it, or why it’s out for warranty. Are you privy to the warrany agreement between the department and the manufacturer of the engine? How do you know it’s only for a year? You don’t. Every day you smear the Upland fire chief with your wild speculations and bitter resentment, and you’re starting to sound like a crazy lunatic/stalker. It’s becoming a bit alarming.
@Anonymous – so where are your facts? “the ex-fire inspector that you guys like to use as the mascot for your vendetta has posted here telling you that he doesn’t want to be associated with your group?” What a fact! You are right, that individual has refused to be a part of our group. So what does that have to do with any of the issues from above? “Anytime someone responds to your accusations, you berate them and accuse them of being the fire chief or one of his “cronies” as you like to put it. If someone responds in defense of the fire department decisions, you accuse them of being part of the “corruption”, and liars. So really, what’s the point of responding with facts?” Uuuuuu, hurt me with your facts. Once again, change the subject so people can’t see the real truth! Thanks, again for proving what I said by calling me names.
You call it deflecting, I call it pointing out the obvious. We’ll agree to disagree.
Fed Up – many of your own “facts” are based on speculation. If you go back and read through numerous responses to your comments, you’ll see that you have been asked questions that you never got around to answering. You seem to do a lot of deflecting yourself.
Regarding the fact that the ex-fire inspector wants nothing to do with your group, your question is: “So what does that have to do with any of the issues…”
Well, I believe it has a lot to do with your “issues”. I think it attests to your character and the real motives behind your rantings. Either the ex-fire inspector doesn’t agree with some of your allegations or he has realized just how absurd your group is. Either way, his public statement that you not involve him in your vengenda (yeah I made that word up) further damages your credibility.
I think most people would agree that disgruntled city workers lack the credibility to discredit the reputation of someone they have a beef with without providing solid evidence to their allegations. Your “evidence” is largely based on speculation.
I am in pursuit of the truth. Thank you.
Could you please let me know where the facts are wrong or just speculation as you put it. And you just defelcetd yourself away from the 7 questions below. Can you answer any of them?
1. Item #1 – Type IV fire engine – Upland Today
a. Upland Today (Spring 2011)
New Fire Equipment Adds to Readiness
The Upland Fire Department has purchased a new Type
IV firefighting vehicle, perfectly suited to serving Upland’s
historic neighborhoods, as well as the narrower streets that
are often present in historic areas.
Fire equipment has grown in size over time as equipment
has advanced and become more complex. While
these innovations are well suited to most suburban environments,
many modern engines are a tight squeeze for
Upland’s smaller streets. The Fire Department’s identification
of the need for a Type IV vehicle came just as the City’s
Redevelopment Department was notified that the City
was to receive additional Community Development Block
Grant funding via the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009. The new Type IV is a welcome addition
to Upland’s existing fleet of firefighting vehicles and makes
up an essential component of Upland’s overall firefighting
arsenal.
In accordance with the above article that was published in the Upland Today, Spring 2011, the new Type IV Fire Engine was purchased for the “historic neighborhoods, as well as the narrower streets that are often present in historical areas” This new Type IV fire engine is currently stationed and assigned to fire station #162 at 2046 N. San Antonia Avenue as “Patrol 162”. No Upland historical areas are located within this response district.
Eligible Activities (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development)
Over a 1, 2, or 3-year period, as selected by the grantee, not less than 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. In addition, each activity must meet one of the following national objectives for the program: benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or address community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community for which other funding is not available.
Also the Type IV fire engine was purchased with “Community Development Block Grant funding via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” No areas within fire station 162’s response district are designated as CDBG qualified areas and does not meet the above “Eligible Activities of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development”, thus violating Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Fact: Upland Today notified the public that the Type IV engine was “perfectly suited to serving Upland’s historic neighborhoods, as well as the narrower streets that are often present in historical areas.”
Fact: The Type IV engine is assigned and stationed at fire station #162, 2046 N. San Antonio Avenue as “Patrol 162″.
Fact: Fire station 162 response district is all newer development with NO recognized historical areas.
Fact: Intentional Misinformation
Fact: Community Development Block Grant funding via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was used to purchase the Type IV engine.
Fact: The Type IV engine is assigned and stationed at fire station #162, 2046 N. San Antonio Avenue as “Patrol 162″.
Fact: NO declared CDBG areas are located within fire station 162’s response district.
Fact: NO areas within fire station 162’s response district are considered low-and moderate income as required in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Eligible Activities.
Fact: Violation of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Fact: Misuse of funds
New Fact: Someone informed Deborah the reason the Type IV engine is at station 162 is because of “warranty issues”.
New Fact: Upland fire department has had this piece of fire equipment over a year now.
New Fact: According to Deborah, the Type IV engine has not even been put in-service yet
QUESTIONS:
(1) What was the justification used in-order to purchase the Type IV fire engine using CDBG funds?
a. Is a written justification for the CDBG funds on file?
b. Was the written justification for the historic areas of Upland? As stated in the Upland Today article?
(2) Why is the Type IV fire engine assigned and stationed at fire station 162?
a. Why is the Type IV fire engine not stationed at station 161 for the historic areas as noted in the Upland Today article?
(3) How is this piece of fire equipment being utilized as stated in the Upland Today article of the written justification of the CDBG funds?
a. Are there written policies and procedures designating response procedures for the Type IV fire engine?
b. Is this Type IV fire engine manned or a reserved piece of equipment?
i. If it is a reserve piece of equipment, how can it meet the partial response criteria as stated in the Upland Today article?
i. If this piece of fire equipment is “perfectly suited to serving Upland’s historic neighborhoods” due to “many modern engines are a tight squeeze for Upland’s smaller streets. The Fire Department’s identification of the need for a Type IV vehicle “, why is it not a part of the primary response for identified historical neighborhood areas?
(4) Why was this misinformation of the Type IV fire engine published?
a. Why is misinformation by the fire chief still being tolerated?
(5) Did the city (fire chief) violate any statutes or laws by not employing the Type IV fire engine as stated for justification of CDBG funds?
a. Yes, Violation of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
(6) Is this type of misuse of CDBG funds criminal?
a. Very probable, AG’s office investigates.
(7) Can city leaders correct this misuse of funds and misinformation by the fire chief?
a. Yes, initiate internal investigation and hold responsible parties accountable, or AG’s office can conduct investigation.
Anonymous, please let me know what are not the facts in this. We don’t hide the truth, we want the truth to come out. Look at all those facts below that show the ladder truck was misutilized! I wasn’t going to repost the top portion of the letter, but since you decided to quote the letter in an earlier post, I felt it was appropriate. Alot of research past the response letter!
To the author of MISINFORMED GROUP
Thank you for your comments in the letters to the editor section of the Daily Bulletin. Your claim of our group being misinformed and the lack of fire protection being an accused “non-issue”, by yourself, shines through your true ignorance with the subject. I guess it does not work that way with you, snap decisions and opinions. Before you place yourself on that high and mighty horse, you may want to do a little research yourself.
We have given all of the following information to the Daily Bulletin but they have elected to ignore the facts. The article you have decided to defend is extremely biased and one sided. Lack of initial fire suppression activities is a major issue to any community. Sorry you do not feel the same way.
Here is the truth; the Upland ladder truck responds as the ONLY piece of fire equipment from fire station 164 for the entire fire station 164’s response district. Let us repeat that, the ONLY response piece of fire equipment from fire station 164. The ladder truck does not have a water pump for firefighting operations or fire suppression efforts.
It does have a compressed air foam system of 500 gallons of water and 60 gallons of foam that was specifically purchased for vehicle fires. The CAFS does not meet any interior structure fire suppression attack requirements (State or Federal). Even in the Pierce Manufacturing Operations manual for the CAFS states “Establish the water supply to the pump”.
We notice that the ladder truck/quint that your department operates has a water pump for initial attack and firefighting operations. The Upland ladder truck does not. In the article you defended it mentions “position papers” by the fire chief and the city manager. Well, in these position papers it states the ladder truck can hook up to a hydrant and perform interior fire suppression operations. You know as well as we do that is false. You must maintain proper nozzle pressures for an effective firefighting stream. Just hooking up to a hydrant cannot perform those basic functions.
Our concern has always been that the ladder truck cannot be the ONLY emergency response piece of equipment from a fire station for the entire response district of that fire station. We maintain, respond a fire engine that can initiate interior structure fire operations not a ladder truck with no water pump. Or respond a fire engine with the ladder truck (as Rancho and Ontario do), not just the ladder truck by itself.
By the way here is our research that proves our position:
1. National Fire Protection Association Requirements
a. NFPA 18A – Standard on Water Additives for Fire Control and Vapor Mitigation
NFPA 18A: Standard on Water Additives for Fire Control and Vapor Mitigation provides guidance for professionals responsible for purchasing, testing, listing, and using water additives for the purpose of fire control and flammable vapor mitigation.
i. Chapter 4 Uses and Limitations
Section 4.2 Limitations
b. NFPA 1145 – Guide for the use of Class A Foams in Manual Structure Firefighting
NFPA 1145: Guide for the Use of Class A Foams in Manual Structural Fire Fighting presents fundamental information for agencies planning to use Class A foam for structural fire fighting and protection. Provisions in this document address foam properties and characteristics, proportioning and discharge hardware, application techniques, and safety considerations.
i. Chapter 6 Foam Operations
ii. Chapter 7 Operational Safety
c. NFPA 1201 – Standard for providing Fire and Emergency Services to the Public
NFPA 1201: Standard for Providing Fire and Emergency Services to the Public provides recommendations for the structure and operation of emergency service organizations:
• Municipal and private fire services dealing with financial, personnel, and emergency management
• Prevention activity including public education, code enforcement, and fire investigation
• Communications
• Equipment and facilities
NFPA 1201 also outlines the roles and responsibilities regarding fire service response capabilities to fire suppression, emergency medical services, and special operations, including hazardous material response. The document provides guidance on mutual aid, and fire department mandates relating to emergency management.
i. Chapter 4 Governance and Administration
Section 4.3 Concept of Risk
Section 4.4 Master Planning
Section 4.8 Asset Control
Section 4.10 Risk Management Plan
Section 4.12 Emergency Management Program
ii. Chapter 5 Engineering
Section 5.2 Community Planning
iii. Chapter 8 Emergency Operations
Section 8.4 Safety/Health/Risk Management
d. NFPA 1250 – Recommended Practice in Fire and Emergency Services Organization Risk Management
NFPA 1250: Recommended Practice in Fire and Emergency Services Organization Risk Management establishes minimum criteria to develop, implement, or evaluate an emergency services organization risk management program for effective risk identification, control, and financing.
i. Chapter 4 Risk Management as a Function of Management
Section 4.1 Concept of Risk
Section 4.5 Risk Management Plan
Section 4.8 Risk Management Process
ii. Chapter 5 Identifying and Analyzing Risk Exposures
Section 5.1 Risk Assessment
Section 5.2 Risk Identification
Section 5.3 Risk Analysis
Section 5.4 Establishing Priorities
iii. Chapter 6 Formulating Risk Management Solutions
Section 6.1 Risk Management Solutions
Section 6.2 Risk Control
e. NFPA 1500 – Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program
NFPA 1500: Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program. This essential document provides the protocols required for everything from fire fighter training, vehicles, and tools to emergency operations, incident stress, and protective clothing and equipment.
i. Chapter 6 Fire Apparatus, Equipment and Drivers/Operators
ii. Chapter 8 Emergency Operations
f. NFPA 1710 – Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations
2010 edition of NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments governs the organization and deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations, and special operations to the public by all career fire departments.
Follow up-to-date requirements relating to staffing levels, deployment of resources, response times, and levels of service.
• Revisions clarify that arriving company resources should be able to handle an offensive attack on a low hazard occupancy, or provide emergency medical care to up to two patients.
i. Chapter 4 Organization
Section 4.2 Fire Suppression Services
ii. Chapter 5 Fire Department Services
Section 5.2 Fire Suppression Services
g. NFPA 1901 – Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus
2009 NFPA 1901 defines the requirements for new automotive fire apparatus designed to be used under emergency conditions for transporting personnel and equipment, and to support the suppression of fires and mitigation of other hazardous situations. This important Standard covers everything from pumpers to aerial fire apparatus to special service apparatus, such as rescue vehicles and haz-mat vehicles, as well as quints and mobile foam apparatus.
i. Chapter 6 Initial Attack Fire Apparatus
ii. Chapter 8 Aerial Fire Apparatus
iii. Chapter 9 Quint Fire Apparatus
iv. Chapter 16 Fire Pumps and related equipment
v. Chapter 21 Compressed Air Foam Systems
vi. Annex D – Guidelines for Front Line and Reserve Fire Apparatus
So please if you are going to stick your nose into a situation that you don’t have all the facts about, “do your homework next time” and find out the truth and all the facts before you insert foot into mouth. You have done a good job of exposing yourself as an ignorant and misinformed individual. You are right the Ladder Truck pulling up in front of my house would be a welcome sight as long as a Fire Engine is along side of it in-order to initiate interior structural fire suppression operations (because just hooking up to a fire hydrant or the Compressed Air Foam System does not meet the needs required for interior structural fire attack).
Respectfully,
Concerned Government Workers for Change
Did you not read the part where I mentioned that I don’t work for the fire deparment? As I already told you, I don’t have specific answers to your questions. However, you can cut and paste from the National Fire Protection Association Requirements manual and call it research all you want, but that doesn’t mean your “facts” are correct.Not everything is as black and white as you’d like it to be. The Upland fire department may have very legitimate reasons for managing their equipment the way that they do, and perhaps there will be a good response to your questions. I highly doubt it though since anytime someone tries to present facts you would just accuse them of being lies anyway.
It’s funny how you say that the “The article you have decided to defend is extremely biased and one sided”. Your rantings are the epitome of bias and being one-sided.
I don’t buy for one second that our fire department is putting lives at risk with the management of their equipment. Sorry, but I’ll put trust in the fire chief and our firefighters – people who know what they’re doing – not someone with a personal vendetta.
You double talk a good game! You ask for facts and you just dismiss them away. Two issues before you; Type IV engine and the dangerous misutilazation of the Ladder Truck. You did not address any of the issues factually, you just doubled talked your way around and skirted the issues. You even went as far as changing the subjects to deflect the real truth. Once again, thanks for proving to everyone how insignificant and closed minded your judgements are.
Here is the truth; the Upland ladder truck responds as the ONLY piece of fire equipment from fire station 164 for the entire fire station 164’s response district. Let us repeat that, the ONLY response piece of fire equipment from fire station 164. The ladder truck does not have a water pump for firefighting operations or fire suppression efforts.
It does have a compressed air foam system of 500 gallons of water and 60 gallons of foam that was specifically purchased for vehicle fires. The CAFS does not meet any interior structure fire suppression attack requirements (State or Federal). Even in the Pierce Manufacturing Operations manual for the CAFS states “Establish the water supply to the pump”.
@FedUp – Wow, you have been busy. Just disregard Anonymous, some people like keeping their eyes closed. I don’t wish this on anyone, but if he has a fire at his home, let the Ladder Truck be the first one there. He will then see what other know. Unfortunatley!
I get home from work and all this has been going on.
@Anonymous – You keep saying its personal and vendetta and vengenda (which I personnaly like). I don’t see where any of these people have made anything personal. They have stated facts. Why is that personal? If these “issues” are the result of one manager, and they are holding him accountable for his decisions and actions, how is that personal?
Fed Up: You say the article in the DB on the ladder truck was biased and one-sided. No members in your group agreed to give their name (I know, retaliation), so it shouldn’t surprise you that most of the article consisted of quotes and information from individuals who did give their name. You have said that some of your group consists of retired/former government workers. Why didn’t one of them man up and give their name to lend some credibility to the article from your perspective? No guts, no glory…
Like a broken record, you keep accusing me and others of deflecting the truth. I only answer questions to which I know the answer. I have posed many questions to you, however, none of which you’ve answered. I had to hear the answers from others on this blog or from the newspaper. I had questions about the fire truck and did my own research on the foam and capabilities of the truck. I asked you a question that you couldn’t or wouldn’t answer, but the DB article did. You refused to answer a question I felt was important in determining your sincerity about the safety of the fire truck. Specifically, I asked you if you live in the area served by Station 164 (on Campus) or if you even live in Upland. You can still answer me… I’m waiting. You see, if you lived in that area, I could understand why you might be concerned. As you most likely don’t, I have asked myself why someone would go to such great lengths about something that doesn’t affect them. What is the real motive here? I recall quite a few posts that said “Fire Antonucci” and that “Antonucci has a big fat ego,” among other things. Is that fact or opinion? I thought we were sticking with nothing but the facts here. Sounds personal to me.
When this whole campaign against Antonucci started, the first missile fired was the “wasteful spending” of the fire truck and how the City of Upland didn’t need it in any way, shape, or form. Then you backtracked somewhat and admitted that there could be a need for the truck, but that you didn’t like how it was being utilized. Next were the “Upland Palace” and the type IV engine, citing the costs. When that didn’t seem to get the Upland citizens up in arms, you moved on to make this campaign about safety. Now it’s about all the rules and regulations that are supposedly being broken.
I have a suggestion for you. Instead of threatening the Upland City Council to take all your complaints to the AG’s office, just do it!!! What are you waiting for? They’ll sort it out. The City Council doesn’t seem too scared by your group, so they must know something you don’t (like the truth). If Antonucci is guilty of any grievous misdealings, you’ll get your wish soon enough.
Finally, Fed Up, you state it’s a FACT that Antonucci has “intentionally” given out misinformation. If misinformation has been given out, how could anyone but the man himself know if it was done intentionally or not? Did he tell you? If you indeed know, for a fact, that he has intentionally given out misinformation, you must be Antonucci!
Anonymous and Get Real, you are really not going to like this. Proof of intentional misinformation? Instead of defending try accountability, changing and correcting!
More misinformation and half truths
1. Daily Bulletin article dated 2/12/2011 “Ladder fills city need” and Daily Bulletin article dated 5/15/2011 “Anonymous Attack”
Ladder truck fills city need
In 2010, it took 17% of Upland’s responses
Sandra Emerson, Staff Writer
Created: 02/12/2011 07:07:40 AM PST
UPLAND – When the city’s large 100-foot ladder truck drives through the city with its lights blazing, some may wonder why a city with virtually no tall buildings needs such equipment.
But Upland Fire Chief Michael Antonucci said there are several reasons ladder trucks are needed within a community.
In 2010, the truck was called to more than 1,100 incidents within the city, more than 17percent of the department’s total responses, the chief said.
“Any building that has a roof beyond the reach of the tallest ground ladder carried by the fire engine or service company requires an aerial ladder truck at the scene,” Antonucci said.
If the tallest ladder is 35 feet, then the maximum building height it can reach is about 28 feet due to the angle the ladder must be placed in order for a firefighter to climb it, he said.
At about 60 feet tall, San Antonio Community Hospital and the construction on a new four-story addition set to begin soon justify the need for a ladder that tall, he said.
Antonucci said he does not know how many times the ladder has been extended, but has seen it in use a number of times over the last month.
It was called to a fire at Sycamore Presbyterian Housing Complex on Feb. 2, and it was used to battle a fire at Cable Airport last month, which destroyed a hangar and three planes.
Upland purchased the truck in 2008 for $1million using developer fees. It is stationed at Fire Station 164 at 19th Street and Campus Avenue.
The truck is also used as the city’s heavy rescue unit which is able to respond to building collapse, major vehicle accidents, trench rescues as well as explosions.
The average cost to run an engine with fuel and maintenance is $13,000 per year. The ladder truck costs about $19,000 a year, Antonucci said.
Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario each have two ladder trucks and Chino has one, he said.
As the newest councilman, Gino Filippi said he is the least familiar with the equipment, but he understands the need due to some of the city’s tallest buildings.
“I do understand that with the 60-foot height of San Antonio Hospital and the new construction, the four-story addition, facilities such as the hospital, Upland High School or even Chaffey College to our east, justify such a need,” Filippi said.
Anonymous attack
Group criticizes ladder truck usage
Sandra Emerson, Staff Writer
Created: 05/15/2011 10:07:49 PM PDT
UPLAND – The Fire Department’s use of its 100-foot ladder truck has come under some scrutiny by an anonymous group of citizens.
A group calling itself Concerned Government Workers for Change has been sending emails and posting on websites its concerns about public safety due to some of the tactics used by the Upland Fire Department.
The person who has been sending the e-mails would not comment on the record.
In response to the emails, Interim City Manager Stephen Dunn put together a position paper with input from various city officials, attempting to answer some of the group’s concerns.
“The council needs to know how the staff feels on those issues, whether we think it’s a concern or not,” Dunn said.
Upland firefighter Dustin Griffin climbs a 100-foot ladder truck. A group calling itself Concerned Government Workers for Change say the ladder truck does not have proper firefighting capabilities, a charge the city denies. (Will Lester/Staff Photographer)
“Obviously, if safety is concerned, then we would be dealing with that right away, but we don’t think it’s a safety concern. It’s easy for them to cry wolf.”
Fire officials in two neighboring cities have said they see nothing unusual in Upland’s use of the ladder truck.
The fire staff at Station 164, where the ladder truck is housed, has found the emails to be upsetting.
“It’s disheartening,” said Ed Weaver, a fire engineer. “I don’t understand their motive.”
The 100-foot ladder truck was purchased in 2008 with developer fees. This is the city’s third ladder truck since 1980.
In 2010, the ladder truck responded to 1,168 incidents, which represents more than 17 percent of the department’s total responses, according to department statistics.
It is being housed at Fire Station 164 near the Colonies development and serves about 12,000 residences.
The truck is used as the city’s heavy rescue unit, which is able to respond to building collapses, major vehicle accidents, trench rescues and explosions.
The anonymous group questions the department’s use of the ladder truck as a fire responder and claims it does not have proper firefighting capabilities.
The truck is being used as a first-response vehicle for financial reasons, said Upland Fire Chief Michael Antonucci.
“The plan was to open the Colonies fire station with an engine and a ladder truck. However, due to the downturn in the economy and the effects on the Fire Department budget, we could only place a ladder truck in service for emergency responses,” Antonucci said.
Fire Station 164 houses a fire engine and a regional command unit. The fire engine is not staffed because of budget issues, he said.
Joel Cascadden, the battalion chief at Fire Station 164, said Antonucci made the right decision putting the ladder truck in service, because it’s multifaceted.
Because of the budget crunch Upland and many other fire departments are experiencing, the department had to make the situation work.
“I think it’s an excellent way to provide overall good service for the city of Upland,” Cascadden said.
The truck makes 1,200 gallons of foam that absorbs heat better than water and has an expansion ratio that water does not have, according to the staff report.
The truck contains 60 gallons of water for the foam mix and can tap into fire hydrants in most parts of the city and all of the Station 164 area.
The foam hose allows for firefighting inside burning buildings. However, because of Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules and the department’s staffing levels, no Upland unit can enter the interior of a structure until other units arrive, according to the staff report.
The arrival time for the next responder is four to five minutes, and multiple engines respond to every fire.
Consequently, regardless of whether the first responder is an engine or ladder truck, firefighters would need to wait to enter the structure until the next responder arrives. Of all the situations in which the ladder truck has responded, there has never been a situation that the unit could not handle, according to the staff report.
Kelley Donaldson, the public information officer for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department, said Upland’s use of the ladder truck is not unusual.
“We have the same situation in Rancho, where we have two medic trucks, that probably are considered ladder trucks, that are first-response units,” Donaldson said.
“The thing that’s special and unique about the truck itself is it’s equipped with rescue equipment – the jaws of life for traffic collisions – and then also, because of the aerial ladder, it’s primarily used for structure fire responses.”
Ontario Fire Department has two ladder trucks in use but has a different system than Upland’s.
Ontario’s trucks are used for fighting structure fires that benefit from the use of the aerial ladder as well as a heavy rescue unit, but they are not typically first- responders, Deputy Chief of Operations Ray Gayk said.
“They will respond to a medical aid or medical type of call in their area if the engine company is not available, but they’re backed up by another engine,” he said.
“Everyone uses their equipment a little bit differently,” he said. “I’m not saying something is wrong or right. It’s whatever way works better for their community.”
Gayk said he was not familiar in detail with the way Upland uses its ladder truck but that using it as a first responder is not abnormal.
“They’re providing the best service they can with what they have,” Gayk said. “Everyone else is having budget issues as well. There are many different ways to do public safety. I think some people get upset when they don’t really know the whole story.”
End of Article
Here is the truth; the Upland ladder truck responds as the ONLY piece of fire equipment from fire station 164 for the entire fire station 164’s response district. Let us repeat that, the ONLY response piece of fire equipment from fire station 164. The ladder truck does not have a water pump for firefighting operations or fire suppression efforts.
It does have a compressed air foam system of 500 gallons of water and 60 gallons of foam that was specifically purchased for vehicle fires. The CAFS does not meet any interior structure fire suppression attack requirements (State or Federal). Even in the Pierce Manufacturing Operations manual for the CAFS states “Establish the water supply to the pump”. Also, Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario does not respond a ladder truck as the ONLY piece of firefighting equipment for an entire response district. An fire engine is also assigned to the response district along with the ladder truck. (That is a huge difference that the Daily Bulletin did not report)
Before you say it, a fire engine can also be configured the same way the ladder truck is for rescue, vehicle accidents etc..
Someone earlier stated that it was a good thing we had the ladder truck for the 210 freeway. What about the 10 freeway? No ladder truck responds to accidents on the 10 freeway, only fire engines. Why? Ontario could, but has determined no need for an initial response.
Never the less, Misinformation is the subject.
a. “Ladder truck fills city need” (2/12/2011)
i. The average cost to run an engine with fuel and maintenance is $13,000 per year. The ladder truck costs about $19,000 a year, Antonucci said.
b. “Anonymous Attack” (5/15/2011)
i. “The plan was to open the Colonies fire station with an engine and a ladder truck. However, due to the downturn in the economy and the effects on the Fire Department budget, we could only place a ladder truck in service for emergency responses,” Antonucci said.
Fire Station 164 houses a fire engine and a regional command unit. The fire engine is not staffed because of budget issues, he said.
c. The ladder truck costs $19,000 per year . An engine cost $13,000 per year, in accordance with the Daily Bulletin article “Ladder truck fills city need” dated 2/12/2011. But, In accordance with the “Anonymous Attack” Daily Bulletin article dated 5/15/2011, “However, due to the downturn in the economy and the effects on the Fire Department budget, we could only place a ladder truck in service for emergency responses,” Antonucci said; and also “The truck is being used as a first-response vehicle for financial reasons, said Upland Fire Chief Michael Antonucci.”
Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci in his own words – The truck is being used as a first-response vehicle for financial reasons, said Upland Fire Chief Michael Antonucci.
Fact: In accordance with Fire Chief Antonucci, the Ladder Truck was placed into service due to the downturn in the economy and the effects on the Fire Department Budget.
Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci – “The fire engine is not staffed because of budget issues, he said.”
Fact: The average cost to run an engine with fuel and maintenance is $13,000 per year. The ladder truck costs about $19,000 a year.
Fact: It costs more per year to run the Ladder Truck instead of an Engine, in accordance with Fire Chief Antonucci’s own budget numbers.
Fact: It is more cost effective to run an engine instead of the Ladder Truck, by $6,000 per year.
Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci proved in his own words that a Fire Engine is more cost effective than the Ladder Truck (by $6,000 per year).
Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci stated the reason for the fire engine not being staffed is due to budgetary issues, but yet the ladder truck costs more to utilize than a fire engine. Fire Chief Antonucci contradicts his own reasoning for staffing the ladder truck instead of the fire engine.
Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci continues the misinformation to the city leaders and the public.
Questions:
1. Why did the Fire Chief officially state that due to budgetary reasons he could only put the Ladder Truck in service, but in an earlier article he proved it was more cost effective to put an Engine in service instead of the Ladder Truck?
2. Fire Chief Antonucci proved in his own words that a Fire Engine is more cost effective than the Ladder Truck (by $6,000 per year), so why did he continue to run the Ladder Truck if it was (in his own words) due to financial reasons and effects on the Fire Department budget?
3. If it is more cost effective to run an Engine due to budgetary reasons, Why did the Fire Chief utilize the Ladder Truck instead of an Engine?
4. Why did the Fire Chief place the safety of the public at risk for over a year by misutilizing the Ladder Truck as the ONLY “first-reponse vehicle” for an entire response district?
Also Anonymous and Get Real, did you know that 10 years ago the City Council, Fire Chief and City Manager determined their was not a need for a fully staffed truck company within the city of Upland? What additional development has occurred that would change that requirement? Like your “ignorant” person in the Daily Bulletin said, “To this day I have not seen any building located within Upland boundaries that would require a ladder of this height.”
One building, that is not even built yet, justifies $1.5 million dollars? Mutual Aid? Did you know that the Ontario Ladder Truck is actually closer to SACH than the Upland Ladder Truck?
@Deborah DiCrasto – I am very interested in what you find out.
The truck was moved up to station 2 approximately 4 months ago in an effort to resolve the warranty issues. Station 1 did not have the necessary room to accomodate this, thus the reason for the temporary relocation of same. The city is hoping the truck will be in service by July 1 of this year. At the time the truck is placed in service, it will permanently reside at station 1 to service the southern quandrants identified as low to moderate income households, pursuant to CDBG regulations.
The picture of the truck portrayed in Upland Today was taken at station 1. For inventory purposes, the finance dept. has tagged the truck P162, as that is where it is at PRESENT. The truck will reflect the appropriate identification once it is transplanted to its permanent home..station 1.
The truck was purchased with ARRA funds and appears to be in full compliance with CDBG/HUD regulations. I hope this clarifies all concerns referencing CDBG non compliance issues.
Very good. But ask these questions. Why has that vehicle been at Station 162 for “warranty issues”? Or in other words, what are the “warranty issues”? “warranty issues” do not take more than 4 months to correct. Sounds fishy! Also, just to let you know, the original plan was to have this vehicle stationed at 162 and be used for wildland fire response. Why has it taken so long to put this vehicle in service?
I do like the answers, but something just doesn’t sound right. Over 4 months for “warranty issues”. “Finance department” tagging it P162? I’ll tell you someone lied to you on that one. The finance department has nothing to do with “tagging” a piece of fire equipment. The fire department identifies a vehicle by it’s use and station assignment. Thus Patrol 162.
How long has the fire department had this truck? And it is still identified as P162? If it has not been placed in-service due to “warranty issues”, why did they identify it as P162? If it was going to station 161 as a permanent home, why not identify it as P161 from the very beginning? You do not identify a truck due to it’s temporary move to another station (exception is with magnetic identifiers for a reserve piece of equipment). The P162 is a permanent identifier placed on this vehicle because it is assigned to fire station 162.
Please look into this further and find out the real truth. I truly hope it is going to station 161, but they did not plan to do that until they were pressed with the facts of CDBG non-compliance.
FedUp and Deborah DiCrasto, they lied to you. That fire truck has always been assigned to station 2. They blew smoke up your a**, as usual. They are just covering their tracks because they have been caught in their lies. They told you a complete lie.
Did you know that fire station 2 is the wildland response fire station? That bunk that someone fed you about “warranty issues” is just that, bunk. The fire chief has always planned on using the new Type IV engine as a wildland vehicle inorder to try to make some money.
This engine has always been assigned to station 2 ever since it got here. There were never any plans to put it at station 1, the chief was/is going to use it for wildland fire response.
You know what is really humorous? Someone telling Deborah that finance has something to do with the number on the engine. “For inventory purposes, the finance dept. has tagged the truck P162, as that is where it is at PRESENT.” I can’t stop laughing on that one. I’d like to know who told her that one, I’ve got some swamp land in Florida to sell.
Fed Up: You selectively read (or hear) what you want and ignore the rest. You are guilty of putting words into peoples’ mouths that aren’t even said.
Do you understand that there’s a difference between intentionally giving out wrong information and unintentionally giving out wrong information? Honest mistakes are made, you know, and it’s not a crime to do so. Having said that, I see no evidence whatsoever that Chief Antonucci has intentionally given out wrong information from the articles you posted.
Do you know what it means to “prove” something? You constantly state that Antonucci “proved” in the articles that it was more cost effective to put an engine in service instead of the ladder truck. He didn’t prove anything. He merely stated that it costs $13,000 a year to operate an engine and $19,000 a year to operate the truck. Was he lying about those figures? Is this your idea of intentional misinformation? Where in any of the articles did Antonucci actually come out and STATE it was more cost effective to run the engine? Just because the engine costs less to run than the truck doesn’t mean it’s more cost effective. You and your simple math simply subtracted one figure from the other and came up with $6,000. Whatever is cheapest is most cost effective, right?
Antonucci was QUOTED (that’s a statement you can hold him to) as saying that the plan was to open the Colonies fire station with an engine and a ladder truck. Is that the truth or a lie? That sounds like the truth to me. The cost of running both the engine and truck, using the figures above, would have been $32,000 a year. Choosing not to run the engine saved $13,000 a year. The big question: Since the budget didn’t allow running both the engine and the “multifaceted” ladder truck, which would be more cost effective?
You said a fire engine can be configured the same way the ladder truck is for rescue, vehicle accidents etc. They why aren’t they configured that way to begin with? If a tanker carrying petroleum were involved in a multi-car accident on the (210), send the modified engine, right? It was me, by the way, in an earlier post, who mentioned the benefit of having the ladder truck stationed so close to the (210) freeway. I mentioned it before and I’ll mention it again – Upland surrounds both sides of the (210) freeway. The (10) is surrounded by Ontario and Montclair as well. Quite frankly, I don’t give a hoot how Ontario chooses to respond to a call – that’s their decision. Why do you assume they are right and Upland is wrong? Earthquakes and collapsed buildings are both real possibilities. The ladder truck is a valuable piece of equipment and it’s better to be prepared than to have regrets later.
In the article, the City of Upland states the ladder truck has proper firefighting capabilities. You disagree, I know. However, since the City feels that way, as does Antonucci, we are presented with two scenarios: Running an engine that can’t do everything vs running a ladder truck that can do everything, even though it might not be the first choice to respond to a fire (that’s not to say it can’t put out a fire). You can try to make the engine into a ladder truck wannabe, but it’s still putting lipstick on a pig and there’s no ladder. And at what cost? This is the reasoning behind Antonucci’s decision to go with the truck, of course. The ladder truck, though slightly more costly to run, gives bigger bang for the buck. Is that so hard to understand?
Here are some examples of simple cost vs cost effectiveness.
1. You buy a cheapo pair of jeans for $10 that fall apart after a few washings instead of a $30 pair of jeans (we’re talking men’s jeans here) that last for years. Which was more cost effective? By your reasoning, the cheapo jeans, of course.
2. You’re the administrator of a private school and can hire any teacher you want. You need two teachers, but can only afford one. Who do you hire, the one subject teacher at a lower salary or the teacher credentialed in multiple subjects at a slightly higher salary? Which is more cost effective?
Do you understand that cost effectiveness is not the same as simply subtracting two figures?
So now I’ll go down some of your list of facts…
1. Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci in his own words – The truck is being used as a first response vehicle for financial reasons, said Upland Fire Chief Michael Antonucci.
Is this misinformation? I think not.
2. Fact: In accordance with Fire Chief Antonucci, the Ladder Truck was placed into service due to the downturn in the economy and the effects on the Fire Department Budget.
Is THIS misinformation? Again, I think not.
3. Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci – “The fire engine is not staffed because of budget issues, he said.”
Where’s the misinformation here?
4. Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci proved in his own words that a Fire Engine is more cost effective than the Ladder Truck (by $6,000 per year).
He DID?!?!?! He just gave the costs, that’s all. You are putting words in his mouth, Fed Up. He never said that at all. You are the bearer of misinformation here.
5. Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci stated the reason for the fire engine not being staffed is due to budgetary issues, but yet the ladder truck costs more to utilize than a fire engine. Fire Chief Antonucci contradicts his own reasoning for staffing the ladder truck instead of the fire engine.
Fire Chief Antonucci didn’t give any reasoning for his decision, believing the reader was smart enough to figure it out for themselves.
6. Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci continues the misinformation to the city leaders and the public.
Is that a fact? Or your opinion? Do you know the difference between fact and opinion?
You state that 10 years ago the City Council, Fire Chief, and City Manager determined there was not a need for a fully staffed truck company within the City of Upland. Again, who says they were right? Is the Fire Chief from back then part of your little group? That would make sense. You will believe anyone but the current Fire Chief, right? You can’t compare how Rancho and Ontario respond with their ladder trucks, either, because they are much larger cities and have greater resources to pay for the extra coverage.
Finally, why would you give any credence to someone who thinks the Upland FD joy ride in the ladder truck at San Antonio Community Hospital and have no business parking the truck at the grocery store to get groceries when you know it’s standard procedure? Since you put the word “ignorant” in quotes, you must disagree and find him quite intelligent. Two peas in a pod, you are.
@ Get Real, Just for you!
22.AntiCorruptionUnit on June 3rd, 2011 6:28 am
Thanks FedUP for the correct information.
I just read the Sentinel’s article. WOW those captains are making over $200K a year with their benefits. It appears Captain Jack West just left the Department. QUESTIONABLE circumstances too!!! He should have just retired, there is a cloud above him.
EVER ask yourself why MOST high ranking police and sheriff’s official seem to go out on a MEDICAL. THEIR last ditch effort to squezze the system for a few more bucks, THAT SIMPLY!! JUST look around you in other locations.
The City of Upland is OVERBOARD big time with their pay and benefits to management. Hmmm guess who would be first to get cut, the rank and file employees. We will cut services to the citizens so our management team can continue to cash in. IT’S obvious at this point.
Here the street cops who do the real work can’t get anything, now I know why, their freakin bosses are racking in the cash. General city workers I am sure are in the same position.
JUST how many supervisor’s do you need in the Police Department to run a city of 76,000 people? Upland is NOT crime ridden.
If you think these managers are overwhelmed with paperwork and physical work your drinking kool-aid for breakfast. I BET my ass they have to LOOK busy most of the time. I’d be checking the trunks of their city cars looking for a set of golf clubs myself.
If this scandal had not broke, the empire building would have continued.
This crap is nothing but a smaller version of what we are seeing at the City of Bell.
The City needs to hire a new Chief of Police from the OUTSIDE. It’s time to demand answers from Chief Adams.
Adams being out for a full year MILKING his stress leave is only going to cost the City more money when he does decide to retire. His sick time and vacation time even though out on stress continue to BUILD.
When rank and file employees are involved in misconduct they do not have the luxury of having high blood pressure for a year or so before they get terminated.
Adams and many more are simply using the LAW to their benefit. As we CLEARLY see now, ADAMS and many others like him ignore it when it benefits their agenda’s, but will throw it in your face if you violate it.
If Thouvanell comes back to the City, you’ll have more of the same in due course.
Get rid of the Fire Chief he is building his own little impire too!!!. Get a freakin fire truck that can squirt water on a real fire whether it be a structure or brush fire.
Quit this “look at my new toy” and competing with the Jones’s from surrounding cities.
@ Get Real – I really need to say no more. You have shown your true colors! According to you everyone is wrong, except Antonucci! Unintentionally giving out wrong information? Over and over and over and over and over? Not an “honest mistake”. Or maybe just plain incompetence? Which one could it be? I like the way another blogger put it:
Get rid of the Fire Chief he is building his own little impire too!!!. Get a freakin fire truck that can squirt water on a real fire whether it be a structure or brush fire.
Quit this “look at my new toy” and competing with the Jones’s from surrounding cities.
Get Real, it is time to Get Real and stop hiding. Your last blog is utterly ridiculous. Blame everyone but Antonucci! Well guess what? Antonucci is the one that made the comments and the decisions. Blame Antonucci!!!!!!!!!!!
“Honest mistakes are made, you know, and it’s not a crime to do so.”
Fed Up, you just love that paste key, don’t you?
Is that paste job from ACU supposed to answer the questions I posed to you? Were we talking about the Police Department? I must have missed something. I answered some of your questions, but you didn’t answer ANY of mine, as usual. I can understand why.
Fed Up, you still don’t seem to understand the concept of what it means to be “cost-effective.” When Antonucci could only afford to run either the engine or the fire truck, he had to determine the city’s needs, weigh the alternatives, and choose the option with the highest effectiveness relative to its cost. Sometimes the most cost-effective alternative seems to be the least expensive; many times it’s not. In your mind, it’s really pretty simple, isn’t it? Fire engine, $13,000; fire truck, $19,000. Bingo! The fire engine is the most cost-effective. Analysis never entered your mind.
Here’s a scenario for you. Suppose you were working on a home project and needed two slightly different tools, but couldn’t afford both. I bet you would give this some serious thought. Would you buy the more expensive tool if, in addition to doing an excellent job at what it was designed for, it could also function like the other tool – not quite as well, but acceptably well? Or would you buy the less expensive of the two tools – the tool with only one function – and let your project sit unfinished for months on end, driving your wife nuts? If you would buy the less expensive tool, I give up. You’re either stubborn or… I won’t say it.
Now for your questions, which I thought I answered.
Questions:
1. Why did the Fire Chief officially state that due to budgetary reasons he could only put the Ladder Truck in service, but in an earlier article he proved it was more cost effective to put an Engine in service instead of the Ladder Truck?
2. Fire Chief Antonucci proved in his own words that a Fire Engine is more cost effective than the Ladder Truck (by $6,000 per year), so why did he continue to run the Ladder Truck if it was (in his own words) due to financial reasons and effects on the Fire Department budget?
3. If it is more cost effective to run an Engine due to budgetary reasons, Why did the Fire Chief utilize the Ladder Truck instead of an Engine?
4. Why did the Fire Chief place the safety of the public at risk for over a year by misutilizing the Ladder Truck as the ONLY “first-response vehicle” for an entire response district?
Answers:
1. Antonucci never “proved in his own words” that the engine is more cost-effective. His stating that the engine costs $13,000 to operate and the truck costs $19,000 to operate only proves the cost, not the cost-effectiveness, which requires some analysis. 2. Antonucci never “proved in his own words” that the engine is more cost-effective (see answer #1). Rather, he determined that the ladder truck is the more cost-effective of the two, which is why he continues to run it.
3. Who said it is more cost-effective to run an engine? In this case, Antonucci has decided that it’s not.
4. Your opinion, not fact. Your small group of firefighter friends believe this; however, other firefighters (who have given their names) have been quoted as saying there is nothing unusual about Upland utilizing the fire truck this way. You can believe who you want, but it’s not fact.
Fed Up, reading your last post… where did I say “everyone” is wrong, except Antonucci? The liberties you take with comments people make is amazing. YOU are the one who thinks only you are right and that you know EVERYTHING!!! When you said the City Council, Fire Chief, and City Manager determined there was not a need for a fully staffed truck company within the City of Upland 10 years ago, I asked you “Who says they were right?” Well, who does? Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. You don’t know for a fact. I didn’t say they were wrong. You put words in my mouth, as you like to do. When I said Ontario can handle a call however they chose, that’s not saying they’re wrong either. You, on the other hand, think EVERYTHING Antonucci does is wrong. I don’t know every decision he’s made, so I can’t say every decision he’s made is right. Your group has a vendetta against him. You just said it again. Blame Antonucci! For what?
Here are my questions for you.
1. For the third time, do you live in northeast Upland or in the city of Upland? I want to know why you’re so concerned about all things Upland when you don’t live here.
2. Do you even work for the City of Upland? Or are you being fed material from others?
3. Your group has stated “Antonucci is a liar” on this blog and that you have caught him in several lies. Give me a couple of examples of what you consider a lie without mentioning the fire truck or the type IV engine for that matter.
4. Do you still believe Antonucci gave out misinformation regarding his reason for utilizing the fire truck? Antonucci NEVER stated the engine was more cost effective. You put words in his mouth, but won’t admit you were wrong (show me the quote, stating the engine is more cost-effective, without just giving the actual cost of the equipment).
5. If you don’t believe Antonucci’s reason for utilizing the fire truck (that it’s the most cost-effective), what is the real reason?
6. What does your group want exactly?
@ TheWowFactor: Yes, honest mistakes are made. Fed Up has repeatedly stated that Antonucci “proved in his own words that a Fire Engine is more cost effective than the Ladder Truck” when, in fact, he did not. Is that a lie, intentional misinformation, or an honest mistake?
Amazing! All your questions have been answered, but you don’t realize the facts when they are in front of your face. Open your eyes!
Myself Get Real, looking at the very clear and unmistakable lack of cost effectiveness on management salaries alone, that are glaring and cannot be explained away, I don’t think I’d be aruging a few thousand dollares between two type of fire trucks and talking about how awesome the Fire Chief is on cost effectivness.
The city has wasted a ton of money just trying to make certain things go away. COST effectiveness is in the toilet in Upland at this moment.
It appears more than a couple high up in the City were asleep at the wheel, while others played and padded their pocket books at the moment, and for the future. Hmmm, where else are we seeing that. ALL over comes to mind.
In the case of Upland, the evidence has become overwhelming the poop discovered in this case, started at the top and has rolled downhill.
The Fire Chief is at the top. If you wish to say he was a clean as a whistle, was not part of any empire building and KNEW nothing that was going on around him, OKAY!! Then he too wasn’t paying attention, not only to what was going on in the City, but going on around him and everywhere else.
DO ya think the Fire Chief like any other high ranking official needs to rub elbows with the very suspects in this case to get his agenda full filled? Do ya think the Chief had to play politics to get that ladder truck purchased from his list of toys he’d like to get for himself or his guys?
A mere cost effective savings of $6,000 or so dollars is something I would not try and argue when others were trying to obtain hundreds of thousand in salary and benefits to include the Chief. All self serving motives.
It was a gravy train and the Fire Chief right along with the others were standing in line with their hand out.
The fire trucks are just a small part of the big picture and that is obvious to those paying attention.
With the scandals that are breaking loose all over this state and the country most people are starting to think if your a politician or government official, YOU MIGHT just be a crook until proven otherwise.
a. “Ladder truck fills city need” (2/12/2011)
i. The average cost to run an engine with fuel and maintenance is $13,000 per year. The ladder truck costs about $19,000 a year, Antonucci said.
b. “Anonymous Attack” (5/15/2011)
i. “The plan was to open the Colonies fire station with an engine and a ladder truck. However, due to the downturn in the economy and the effects on the Fire Department budget, we could only place a ladder truck in service for emergency responses,” Antonucci said.
Fire Station 164 houses a fire engine and a regional command unit. The fire engine is not staffed because of budget issues, he said.
c. The ladder truck costs $19,000 per year . An engine cost $13,000 per year, in accordance with the Daily Bulletin article “Ladder truck fills city need” dated 2/12/2011. But, In accordance with the “Anonymous Attack” Daily Bulletin article dated 5/15/2011, “However, due to the downturn in the economy and the effects on the Fire Department budget, we could only place a ladder truck in service for emergency responses,” Antonucci said; and also “The truck is being used as a first-response vehicle for financial reasons, said Upland Fire Chief Michael Antonucci.”
Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci in his own words – The truck is being used as a first-response vehicle for financial reasons, said Upland Fire Chief Michael Antonucci.
Fact: In accordance with Fire Chief Antonucci, the Ladder Truck was placed into service due to the downturn in the economy and the effects on the Fire Department Budget.
Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci – “The fire engine is not staffed because of budget issues, he said.”
Fact: The average cost to run an engine with fuel and maintenance is $13,000 per year. The ladder truck costs about $19,000 a year.
Fact: It costs more per year to run the Ladder Truck instead of an Engine, in accordance with Fire Chief Antonucci’s own budget numbers.
Fact: It is more cost effective to run an engine instead of the Ladder Truck, by $6,000 per year.
Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci proved in his own words that a Fire Engine is more cost effective than the Ladder Truck (by $6,000 per year).
Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci stated the reason for the fire engine not being staffed is due to budgetary issues, but yet the ladder truck costs more to utilize than a fire engine. Fire Chief Antonucci contradicts his own reasoning for staffing the ladder truck instead of the fire engine.
Fact: Fire Chief Antonucci continues the misinformation to the city leaders and the public.
Questions:
1. Why did the Fire Chief officially state that due to budgetary reasons he could only put the Ladder Truck in service, but in an earlier article he proved it was more cost effective to put an Engine in service instead of the Ladder Truck?
2. Fire Chief Antonucci proved in his own words that a Fire Engine is more cost effective than the Ladder Truck (by $6,000 per year), so why did he continue to run the Ladder Truck if it was (in his own words) due to financial reasons and effects on the Fire Department budget?
3. If it is more cost effective to run an Engine due to budgetary reasons, Why did the Fire Chief utilize the Ladder Truck instead of an Engine?
4. Why did the Fire Chief place the safety of the public at risk for over a year by misutilizing the Ladder Truck as the ONLY “first-reponse vehicle” for an entire response district?
AND
Fact: Upland Today notified the public that the Type IV engine was “perfectly suited to serving Upland’s historic neighborhoods, as well as the narrower streets that are often present in historical areas.”
Fact: The Type IV engine is assigned and stationed at fire station #162, 2046 N. San Antonio Avenue as “Patrol 162″.
Fact: Fire station 162 response district is all newer development with NO recognized historical areas.
Fact: Intentional Misinformation
Fact: Community Development Block Grant funding via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was used to purchase the Type IV engine.
Fact: The Type IV engine is assigned and stationed at fire station #162, 2046 N. San Antonio Avenue as “Patrol 162″.
Fact: NO declared CDBG areas are located within fire station 162’s response district.
Fact: NO areas within fire station 162’s response district are considered low-and moderate income as required in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Eligible Activities.
Fact: Violation of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Fact: Misuse of funds
QUESTIONS:
(1) What was the justification used in-order to purchase the Type IV fire engine using CDBG funds?
a. Is a written justification for the CDBG funds on file?
b. Was the written justification for the historic areas of Upland? As stated in the Upland Today article?
(2) Why is the Type IV fire engine assigned and stationed at fire station 162?
a. Why is the Type IV fire engine not stationed at station 161 for the historic areas as noted in the Upland Today article?
(3) How is this piece of fire equipment being utilized as stated in the Upland Today article of the written justification of the CDBG funds?
a. Are there written policies and procedures designating response procedures for the Type IV fire engine?
b. Is this Type IV fire engine manned or a reserved piece of equipment?
i. If it is a reserve piece of equipment, how can it meet the partial response criteria as stated in the Upland Today article?
i. If this piece of fire equipment is “perfectly suited to serving Upland’s historic neighborhoods” due to “many modern engines are a tight squeeze for Upland’s smaller streets. The Fire Department’s identification of the need for a Type IV vehicle “, why is it not a part of the primary response for identified historical neighborhood areas?
(4) Why was this misinformation of the Type IV fire engine published?
a. Why is misinformation by the fire chief still being tolerated?
(5) Did the city (fire chief) violate any statutes or laws by not employing the Type IV fire engine as stated for justification of CDBG funds?
a. Yes, Violation of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
(6) Is this type of misuse of CDBG funds criminal?
a. Very probable, AG’s office investigates.
(7) Can city leaders correct this misuse of funds and misinformation by the fire chief?
a. Yes, initiate internal investigation and hold responsible parties accountable, or AG’s office can conduct investigation.
ACU, did I say the Fire Chief is awesome? I don’t consider anyone awesome (that’s a pretty strong adjective).
I do agree that $6,000 is a relatively piddly amount in the overall budget to be arguing about. However, the fire truck seems to be the bone of contention with Fed Up and he’s using it as a major issue in his attempts to get Antonucci fired. Choosing the ladder truck over the engine was probably a relatively easy decision for Antonucci to make – it didn’t require a lot of analysis, I’m sure. Nevertheless, when one speaks of cost-effectiveness, one must weigh the alternatives before making that decision. It’s not just based on initial cost alone. That Fed Up still can’t comprehend the difference and that he still insists Antonucci STATED the engine was more cost-effective when he did not, makes me wonder about everything else he says. Fed Up is flat out wrong and his constant ramblings about it make him look like a fool. Antonucci stated the engine costs $13,000 to run and the ladder truck costs $19,000 to run. That is no lie and that’s all he said. My agreeing to this fact does not mean I think Antonucci is awesome. It does, however, make me think Fed Up lacks reading comprehension skills. I don’t know how people like him vote intelligently on the issues, quite frankly. He probably asks his friend, John, who or what he’s voting for and then does the same.
With regard to accusing Antonucci, Adams, and Dunn of not knowing what was going on, when people are guilty of deliberate wrongdoings, they don’t wave those wrongdoings in front of others to see unless they’re stupid or want to be caught. Considerable effort is usually put into hiding those wrongdoings by the guilty party. To work cohesively and productively as a group, are we supposed to look at all our coworkers as someone who can’t be trusted? Let’s get off this everyone is guilty by association mentality, shall we, and focus on those who are truly guilty of any wrongdoings.
You’ll be relieved, Fed Up, that I’m not going to waste any more energy on your comments after this, so go ahead and get the last word in (paste away – no one’s reading anymore).
OMG, just heard the council was stupid enough to put Dunn in as City Manager. Will the nightmare of Upland ever cease? Thats like the pot calling the kettle black.
Ok, congratulations Mr. City Manager. You have a huge cloud over you. Start doing the right thing for Upland, not yourself and the executive staff. Man, I bet there was a big sigh of relief from several people within the executive staff.
Well Mr. City Manager, time to step up and take charge. #1 on your agenda of change and to re-establish any integrity to the city: The Fire Chief! Lets see if you can do what has to be done! Or will you allow the corruption, lies and incompetence continue to prevail?
@Deborah DiCrasto – How’s those answers working out for you now?
40.Deborah DiCrasto on June 2nd, 2011 10:19 am
The truck was moved up to station 2 approximately 4 months ago in an effort to resolve the warranty issues. Station 1 did not have the necessary room to accomodate this, thus the reason for the temporary relocation of same. The city is hoping the truck will be in service by July 1 of this year. At the time the truck is placed in service, it will permanently reside at station 1 to service the southern quandrants identified as low to moderate income households, pursuant to CDBG regulations.
The picture of the truck portrayed in Upland Today was taken at station 1. For inventory purposes, the finance dept. has tagged the truck P162, as that is where it is at PRESENT. The truck will reflect the appropriate identification once it is transplanted to its permanent home..station 1.
The truck was purchased with ARRA funds and appears to be in full compliance with CDBG/HUD regulations. I hope this clarifies all concerns referencing CDBG non compliance issues.
1. Item #1 – Type IV fire engine – Upland Today
a. Upland Today (Spring 2011)
New Fire Equipment Adds to Readiness
The Upland Fire Department has purchased a new Type
IV firefighting vehicle, perfectly suited to serving Upland’s
historic neighborhoods, as well as the narrower streets that
are often present in historic areas.
Fire equipment has grown in size over time as equipment
has advanced and become more complex. While
these innovations are well suited to most suburban environments,
many modern engines are a tight squeeze for
Upland’s smaller streets. The Fire Department’s identification
of the need for a Type IV vehicle came just as the City’s
Redevelopment Department was notified that the City
was to receive additional Community Development Block
Grant funding via the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009. The new Type IV is a welcome addition
to Upland’s existing fleet of firefighting vehicles and makes
up an essential component of Upland’s overall firefighting
arsenal.
In accordance with the above article that was published in the Upland Today, Spring 2011, the new Type IV Fire Engine was purchased for the “historic neighborhoods, as well as the narrower streets that are often present in historical areas” This new Type IV fire engine is currently stationed and assigned to fire station #162 at 2046 N. San Antonia Avenue as “Patrol 162”. No Upland historical areas are located within this response district.
Eligible Activities (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development)
Over a 1, 2, or 3-year period, as selected by the grantee, not less than 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. In addition, each activity must meet one of the following national objectives for the program: benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or address community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community for which other funding is not available.
Also the Type IV fire engine was purchased with “Community Development Block Grant funding via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” No areas within fire station 162’s response district are designated as CDBG qualified areas and does not meet the above “Eligible Activities of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development”, thus violating Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Fact: Upland Today notified the public that the Type IV engine was “perfectly suited to serving Upland’s historic neighborhoods, as well as the narrower streets that are often present in historical areas.”
Fact: The Type IV engine is assigned and stationed at fire station #162, 2046 N. San Antonio Avenue as “Patrol 162″.
Fact: Fire station 162 response district is all newer development with NO recognized historical areas.
Fact: Intentional Misinformation
Fact: Community Development Block Grant funding via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was used to purchase the Type IV engine.
Fact: The Type IV engine is assigned and stationed at fire station #162, 2046 N. San Antonio Avenue as “Patrol 162″.
Fact: NO declared CDBG areas are located within fire station 162’s response district.
Fact: NO areas within fire station 162’s response district are considered low-and moderate income as required in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Eligible Activities.
Fact: Violation of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Fact: Misuse of funds
New Fact: Someone informed Deborah the reason the Type IV engine is at station 162 is because of “warranty issues”.
New Fact: Upland fire department has had this piece of fire equipment over a year now.
New Fact: According to Deborah, the Type IV engine has not even been put in-service yet
QUESTIONS:
(1) What was the justification used in-order to purchase the Type IV fire engine using CDBG funds?
a. Is a written justification for the CDBG funds on file?
b. Was the written justification for the historic areas of Upland? As stated in the Upland Today article?
(2) Why is the Type IV fire engine assigned and stationed at fire station 162?
a. Why is the Type IV fire engine not stationed at station 161 for the historic areas as noted in the Upland Today article?
(3) How is this piece of fire equipment being utilized as stated in the Upland Today article of the written justification of the CDBG funds?
a. Are there written policies and procedures designating response procedures for the Type IV fire engine?
b. Is this Type IV fire engine manned or a reserved piece of equipment?
i. If it is a reserve piece of equipment, how can it meet the partial response criteria as stated in the Upland Today article?
i. If this piece of fire equipment is “perfectly suited to serving Upland’s historic neighborhoods” due to “many modern engines are a tight squeeze for Upland’s smaller streets. The Fire Department’s identification of the need for a Type IV vehicle “, why is it not a part of the primary response for identified historical neighborhood areas?
(4) Why was this misinformation of the Type IV fire engine published?
a. Why is misinformation by the fire chief still being tolerated?
(5) Did the city (fire chief) violate any statutes or laws by not employing the Type IV fire engine as stated for justification of CDBG funds?
a. Yes, Violation of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
(6) Is this type of misuse of CDBG funds criminal?
a. Very probable, AG’s office investigates.
(7) Can city leaders correct this misuse of funds and misinformation by the fire chief?
a. Yes, initiate internal investigation and hold responsible parties accountable, or AG’s office can conduct investigation.
Get rid of all the bums!
It’s very easy to find out any matter on web as compared to textbooks, as I found this paragraph at this web site.
I stumbled on this site today. Great fun. Keep up the good work!
Hello it’s me, I am also visiting this web page regularly, this web site is truly pleasant and the users are actually sharing pleasant thoughts.