Limited Spending 

A couple decides to begin saving money for a trip they want to take to a far-off getaway
Their plans require they put part of their paycheck into a “trip fund” each payday. They do this
for 2 years. When they are 6 months away from leaving on their long awaited vacation, their car
breaks down. Now, the couple cannot get to work which causes them to lose income. Although
they have been planning on taking their trip in 6 months, they must now use the money from
their “trip fund” to repair/replace their broken down car. This allows them to get back to work and
continue making money, however, it also forces them to push their travel plans back another 
2 years! This couple made the right decision.

According to its proposed budget, the City of San Diego is expected to receive over $1 billion in 
revenue in 2010. This amount is “projected”. The actual amount is not known until taxes and 
other City fees are collected throughout the year. If you read the City’s budget, every dime
of “projected” revenue is budgeted to a specific program or department. By “earmarking” 
every dime, the City must reallocate funds in order to pay for any unforeseen expense
during the year.

Just as the couple above had to reallocate their “trip funds” for a higher priority issue, I would 
like to see the City reallocate funds currently going to non-essential city functions into higher
priority programs, such as water recycling and reservoir augmentation.

Throughout the year, the City’s budget office will update the City’s projected revenues for the 
year. Sometimes, they report a drop in projected revenue which means the City has budgeted
for more money than it will receive.  If elected to the city council, I will endorse a policy that 
requires the City to cut the budgets of all departments and programs by the same percentage
as what is “updated” by the budget office. Therefore, if the budget office declares a 2% drop
in projected revenue for the City, every department and program budget will be reduced 
by 2% immediately.

We, as private residents, do not have the luxury of spending more than we make without dire 
consequences. The City should be held to the same standard.  

Water Reclamation 

Part of San Diego’s attraction is its arid climate. This is also part of its problem. The area just 
doesn’t have local water resources to support our large, continually growing population. For this
reason, we have had to import 80-90% of our water from the Colorado River and Sacramento
Delta. (Source: http://www.sandiego.gov/water/quality/#a). Now, we find these sources are not
able to keep up with our water demands. This requires that San Diego take action to reclaim 
some of the water it uses on a daily basis and recycle it for future use.  

The City has built two Water Reclamation facilities to help with this need. The North City 
Water Reclamation Plant and South Bay Water Reclamation Plant can treat a combined 45 
million gallons of wastewater each day. (Source: 
http://www.sandiego.gov/water/recycled/index.shtml) The City has begun laying a “purple-
pipe” water distribution system to areas near each of these plants so customers can utilize the
reclaimed water for irrigation, manufacturing and other non-drinking purposes. The cost of
laying this purple pipeline to allow individual customers to hook-up to it has proven to be 
extremely expensive to the taxpayers.

Due to a lack of customers and the cost of building a new pipeline, only a portion of the 
reclaimed water produced at these facilities each day will ever be used by an end customer. The
majority of the water is put back into the sewer lines and pumped to the Pt. Loma Wastewater 
Treatment Plant then out to the ocean outfalls miles offshore. As your Councilman, I would
propose a plan that would guarantee 100% of the reclaimed water produced each day in San 
Diego would be used by an end customer.

According to the City of San Diego’s “Rules and Regulations for Recycled Water Use and 
Distribution with the City of San Diego”, September 2008 Section 3.11 “Authorized Uses of 
Recycled Water” states, “The uses of recycled water may include…recreational impoundment.”  
This same document defines “recreational impoundment” as “a body of water used for 
recreational activities including, but not limited to, fishing, boating, and/or swimming.” That
sounds a lot like lake, river or reservoir water to me.

If elected, I will endorse and support a single, “purple-water” main pipeline be constructed to 
take recycled water from the above mentioned water reclamation facilities directly to the area’s 
nearest reservoir as part of a reservoir augmentation program. This program is badly needed as
most of our region’s water reservoirs are severely below their capacity. For example, the San
Vicente and Sutherland reservoirs are at 37.9% and 11.9% capacity, respectively.  Source: 
http://www.sandiego.gov/water/recreation/levels.shtml

A second major source of potential reclaimed water is from our storm drain system. All storm
drain water runs directly to our bays and ocean via pipes, streams and rivers. If elected, I would
suggest the City construct a cistern system along 5 major storm water outlets throughout the city.
Storm water could be captured in the cisterns and pumped to the water reclamation plants for 
treatment before being pumped up to the reservoirs. From the reservoirs, the water will flow to
one of San Diego’s three Water Treatment Plants to be processed and treated before being 
pumped to customer’s homes as potable water.

Drinking water is the most important resource in our city’s future. We must begin constructing
an infrastructure that will reduce San Diego’s reliance on imported water now.    

San Diego Stadium 

I am a Charger fan. Like thousands of San Diegans, I would like to see the team stay in San Diego.  
It is my opinion that our City government has shown very little interest in helping keep the
Chargers in San Diego. As your councilman, I will work to be an advocate for the Charger’s cause
to stay in San Diego. I don’t endorse spending funds from the City’s general account to help pay
for a stadium, but I do endorse working with the Chargers to come up with a plan to privately 
finance a new stadium.

In 2005, the City of San Diego budgeted $19 million to pay for the operation of the Qualcomm 
stadium site. There was more than $50 million of deferred maintenance accumulated at
Qualcomm. The City owed almost $60 million on the bonds it sold in 1996 in order to add more
seating capacity. That same year, the Chargers proposed the following to the City: 1) To build, at
their own expense, a Super Bowl-quality stadium, 2) To assume the risk of all cost overruns on 
the stadium’s construction, 3) To be responsible for all operation and maintenance costs for the
stadium, 4) To pay off in full the $60 million in bonded indebtedness owed by the City, 5) To make
traffic and infrastructure improvements at the Qualcomm site estimated at a $150 million to $175 
million cost to the Chargers, 6) To sign a new 25-year lease with the City, 7) To work with the NFL 
to guarantee as many Super Bowls as possible at the new stadium over the life of the lease and 8) 
To pay for the construction of a 30-acre public park along the San Diego River*.  

Here’s what the Chargers asked from the City:  1) 60 acres of the Qualcomm site.

The City refused the deal.

Why?

The Chargers were proposing to spend around $650 million dollars to turn a piece of City property 
that sucked almost $20 million out of our general fund each year into a site containing a new, state-
of-the-art stadium, 30 acres of parkland, improved roads and infrastructure and 60 acres of new 
construction to include residential and commercial properties (which would bring tax dollars to the 
City every year). When you do the math, the Chargers were offering to spend approximately $10.8
million for each acre of land they wanted to develop. In 2005, that wasn’t good enough for our city
council.

By way of comparison, in 2008, our city council approved the sale of 0.233 acres of commercial 
land in Mission Valley to a company utilizing that land to conduct its business**. The council
approved a sale price of $460,000 for the parcel. The land actually sold for $500,000. At that
price, the value of that commercial land in Mission Valley was approximately $2.1 million per acre
(based on the sales price approved by the city council, it was worth less).

How is it the City of San Diego felt $2.1 million for an acre of commercial land in Mission Valley 
was adequate in 2008, but $10.8 million for an acre of commercial land in Mission Valley was not 
adequate in 2005?

The San Diego Chargers organization has shown patience and respect for the people of San Diego.
The relationship between the Chargers and this city deserves more effort from our city council 
members. If the Chargers leave San Diego, the City will ultimately need to pay for the demolition
of the stadium, environmental clean-up of the site, and grading and improvements to the site 
depending on what is decided to take its place. In addition, San Diego State football would most 
likely come to an end with no suitable stadium option for the school available.  

As your councilman, I will work with the Chargers in an effort to find a place and a financing plan
beneficial to both the team and the City. In 2010, the Qualcomm site will cost the City over $18
million to operate and maintain. Also, the city still owes over $50 million on the bonds issued to
increase seating capacity inside the stadium. The stadium site creates a negative cash flow for the
city. In business, many people would “cut their losses” on such a property. As your councilman, I
will advocate that we sit back down with the Chargers to discuss a new solution to this important 
issue.

*FACT SHEET: THE CHARGERS’ STADIUM PROPOSAL, October 19, 2005

**COUNCIL UPDATE – STATUS OF APPROVED PROPERTY SALES Revised 1/5/2009:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/090106propertysales.pdf