Voters will go to the polls Nov. 6 to pick who will represent them on the City Council.
Ahead of the election, all candidates were invited to share information about themselves and answer questions about their priorities and local concerns for this voter guide. In each city, all were asked the same questions and given the same word count for their answers.
In Fountain Valley, eight are vying for three seats on the City Council.
Candidates
Kim Constantine, 52, business woman (kimc4fv.com)
Glenn Grandis, 54, major account manager – high technology (fvstrong.com)
Patrick Harper, 54, CPA/owner (harper4fvcc.com)
Tam (Nick) Lecong, 71, owner, (votenicklecong.com)
Tom Nguyen, 50, business owner (tomqnguyen.com)
Dave Osborn, 68, Co-CEO (electdaveosborn.com)
Patrick Tucker, 48, vice president
Michael Vo, 55, Incumbent, Financial representative
Question 1: What are your top two priorities if elected?
Kim Constantine: Besides helping 405 Improvement Project information get to the people, as our freeway, streets, and bridges will be negatively impacted for 7+ years, I will ensure Measure HH revenue pays down much more unfunded staff pension liability. I will ensure Fountain Valley Crossings area businesses are not replaced with 6+story high Bella Terra style housing – and that the area does not become all housing. I’m fine new housing elsewhere in FV with traditional zoning.
Glenn Grandis: 1. Fiscal Discipline – Our city faces a pension liability debt of $95.6 Million. I will provide fiscal discipline to make sure we do not spend beyond our means and pay off this debt as quickly as possible. This burden should not be passed on to our children and grandchildren; 2. Responsible and Measured Growth – Growing existing and new businesses in our community without changing our Nice Place to Live – No High-Density Housing.
Patrick Harper: Keep our community safe and balancing the budget with no new taxes. The voters passed the measure HH 1% sales tax increase for 20 years, and it should be spent wisely to address pension liabilities and maintain strong police and fire services.
Tam (Nick) Lecong: Increase public safety by reducing drug abuse and homelessness, and pay down our City’s unfunded liabilities.
Tom Nguyen: Keep Taxes Low & Grow Opportunity for our residents.
Dave Osborn: If elected, my top priorities would be to keep the city fiscally sound while at the same time improve the quality of life in Fountain Valley.
Patrick Tucker: Fountain Valley needs sensible growth. The OC/405 Expansion and FV Crossings Projects are upon us. We need leaders that understand the needs and workings of such projects. I can and I do. Council Members should keep their constituents informed, and I will. Another very important issue is transparency and accessibility to our City Hall. City Hall should be open every weekday, including Fridays. City Council should allow folks to speak for 5 minutes to address their concerns. It is important to hear from our neighbors & residents.
Michael Vo: Enhance Economic Development and Maintain Public Safety has always been my top 2 priorities when I was elected to Fountain Valley city council since 2010. I started the Mayor Business Outreach Program in 2013 to meet with local businesses and large enterprises to retain/attract revenue producing establishments to the city. I have approved the hiring of 13 new police officers within the last 12 months and additional personnel to fire department to meet with the new challenges resulted from AB109, Prop 47 and Prop 57.
Question 2: How should the city balance paying off debts, such as pension liabilities, and building reserves with meeting residents’ needs? Should it involve finding new revenue or trimming the budget?
Kim Constantine: Both. Measure HH, the sales tax increase, was intended for unfunded staff pensions. In attending the Oversight (now Advisory) Committee Meetings, it was disturbingly clear from the first meeting the sales tax increase would be extended past the 20-year term. If elected, I will ensure much more unfunded staff pension liability is paid down with Measure HH revenue … that additional $11.5+ million annually. It is not “free money” by any means.
Glenn Grandis: The city has to pay off our debts as quickly as we can, saving millions of dollars in interest payments. The city can both increase revenue and continue to trim our budget of wasteful spending. The savings of doing both of these things will allow us to pay off our debts early and allow us to maintain the quality infrastructure our residents expect.
Patrick Harper: First, no new taxes. Sales tax and property tax are the city’s primary revenue sources, so being business friendly and supporting redevelopment will help raise these revenues. On the budget trimming side, we must constantly review expenses to identify opportunities to provide services at equal or lower costs. For example, the city recently changed insurance carriers which will save $600,000 per year.
Tam (Nick) Lecong: We should trim our budget in order to pay off our liabilities, instead of raising taxes. We are experiencing a favorable economic climate. This is the time when we should pay down our unfunded liabilities.
Tom Nguyen: The best answer for finding new sources of revenue is growth. Policies that encourage investment and business activity will increase receipts for the city without raising taxes.
Dave Osborn: Fountain Valley is on the right track in paying off its underfunded pension liabilities and should, based on current finances, be able to get out of debt early. I believe economic development is the best way to continue to have financial stability in Fountain Valley, along with being very efficient in our spending.
Patrick Tucker: Curtail excessive, unnecessary spending. Use 20-25% of Measure HH funds to pay down The City’s unfunded pension obligations.
Michael Vo: To achieve financial stability, Fountain Valley’s finance department is now operated on a 20 years plan. The city is on target to pay off all obligations in 20 years or sooner. The 2018-2019 budget will have $6.5 millions surplus which is being put to city’s reverse to pay down the liability and to maintain AAA credit rating. The city is actively attracting revenue producing enterprises by show case at National Trade show with a city personnel dedicated to Business Development.
Question 3: What should the city’s role be in encouraging the development of low-income housing units? Would you support a mandate or an incentive of some kind?
Kim Constantine: I don’t support a mandate – would consider incentives to see if this would be in the absolute best interest of our city. Earlier this year, the City approved rezoning to mixed-use the approx. 162-acre Fountain Valley Crossings, the largest redevelopment in city history, then promoted it in tradeshows. If City Hall has their way, you will be seeing super expensive 6+story high Bella Terra style housing there and all that goes with it.
Glenn Grandis: The State of California has a mandate of how many low-cost housing units must be available in our city. Fountain Valley will adhere to all state-mandated regulations to avoid being fined.
Patrick Harper: In general, I think the market should determine the supply of housing units in the city. The state has required a certain number of low-income housing units and there are some incentives in place for developers, so as a city we can identify possible sites for low-income housing, but ultimately it is up to private parties whether they will build it.
Tam (Nick) Lecong: Mandates impose undue financial hardships on property owners. Owners should be encouraged and incentivized to build, not be saddled with more regulations.
Tom Nguyen: I believe that an increase in available workforce housing in particular will help the market correct for shortages throughout Orange County. I do not support mandates on renters and I oppose ineffective government control of our real estate.
Dave Osborn: One of the challenges facing Fountain Valley is the lack of available land that can be developed without demolishing something else. I would be in favor of more affordable housing units as long as they fit in with our city’s general plan. An incentive program might be a good solution for some potential homeowners. However, any incentive plan that might be provided should be able to pay for itself.
Patrick Tucker: We must shrink governmental size and “reach” at all levels of government. We live in a free market society, if a project makes sense, it will come to fruition. I would not support a mandate at all. We could look into some sort of incentives.
Michael Vo: Fountain Valley has met the state requirement of low-income housing units. The city has been actively zoning for these units and finding developers to partner with this mandate. There is a dedicated fund has already been set aside from the city’s housing authority for low-income housing of 10 millions dollars for these projects.
Question 4: Communities across the state are grappling with rising pension and other post-employment benefit costs. What do you think needs to be done to deal with this problem?
Kim Constantine: The City of Fountain Valley has previously made appropriate adjustments in this area. I would be open to take another look at it and go from there. The City of Fountain Valley has quite an unfunded pension liability – and that was the REAL purpose of the recent 20-year sales tax increase (Measure HH) that was on your ballot two years ago. It brings in an additional $11.5+ million dollars in revenue annually.
Glenn Grandis: The City of Fountain Valley has implemented a multi-tier pension system that has all new hires after Jan. 1, 2013 contributing 100% to their employee portion of pension costs. I support this plan. I commit to making sure we pay down the remaining pension debt liability of $95 million, by utilizing and overseeing the Measure HH sales tax increase and by expanding revenues by adding new business, saving millions of dollars in interest payments.
Patrick Harper: The pension reform passed in 2013 is a good start, but ultimately the voters will have to decide if they want to continue to support defined benefit plans and other post-employment benefits for public employees. The long-term costs can be very high and variable depending on investment returns, lifespans and benefit levels. More transparency to the costs is a good start so voters and legislators can make more informed decisions.
Tam “Nick” Lecong: We need to control runaway costs and take advantage of good economic conditions to pay down our unfunded liabilities.
Dave Osborn: Obviously, we are dealing with a flawed plan from the beginning when the pension plans were clearly unattainable based on the formulas that were used. The answer is finding a balance between the employees’ contributions and those of the employer. The plan has to be realistic, affordable and fair to the employee. This can be done with everyone involved contributing and understanding the viability of any sound plan. If it’s unattainable it won’t work.
Tom Nguyen: I will work to strengthen our city by initiating a budget review that will include, reducing costs and increasing efficiencies. I will also work to grow economic opportunity while keeping taxes low for our city, making sure that long-term planning around pensions is done in a responsible way.
Patrick Tucker: I feel it is imperative that Fountain Valley pays down their unfunded pension obligations, using the monies generated by Measure HH. In the future, city leaders must have the character and fortitude to negotiate fair pay, pensions and benefits for our public safety and city personnel. The current system is unsustainable, and must be reformed.
Michael Vo: Fountain Valley employees are now paying 100% of their pensions cost. The city has implemented Tier 2 and Tier 3 for all the new hired which greatly reduced the city obligation to CalPERS and other retirement benefits.
Question 5: On the ballot this November, voters will be asked to decide on whether to repeal the recently enacted increase to the state gas tax. What is your position on the gas tax?
Kim Constantine: We are taxed enough. REPEAL THE GAS TAX!
Glenn Grandis: I support the repeal of the gas tax as this does not benefit the citizens of Fountain Valley or businesses in our community.
Patrick Harper: I support repeal of the gas tax. Any tax increases should be put to the voters and this was not. Furthermore, California needs to spend our tax dollars more wisely when constructing roads. According to a 2015 auditor’s report, 62% of Caltrans projects were over budget and they had little, and often no, cost control measures, and that Caltrans often fails to even track project costs.
Tam “Nick” Lecong: I am designated a Gas Tax Repeal Hero for the City of Fountain Valley.
Dave Osborn: The gas tax passed by the CA legislature should be repealed. It is unfair to continue to tax California residents every time the legislature wants to fix something. The added tax is costing every average driver in California around $400 per year. Taxpayers are tired of being taxed and then the revenues not being used for their intended purposes.
Tom Nguyen: Politicians in Sacramento have not provided the leadership on infrastructure that we need. Our roads, bridges, and highways are in poor shape. Unfortunately funds that have been collected for our roads have not always been spent properly in Sacramento. I will use our city’s voice to encourage elected officials in the state capitol to look for better ways to re-balance use of taxpayer money so that increases in gas taxes are not necessary.
Patrick Tucker: Repeal it! The gas tax was imposed upon the citizens of California and was never put on the ballot for us to vote on. California’s tax burden is already far too excessive. Elected and appointed officials must “reign in” the out of control spending. Lets start by abandoning the bullet train project.
Michael Vo: Any increase in tax should be voted by the people. The recent increase in gas tax was not. I will vote no as Californians are most likely paying the highest tax in the country.
Question 6: The high cost of housing in California has spurred increased interest in rent control. On the ballot this November is Proposition 10, which would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Act. What are your thoughts on rent control?
Kim Constantine: While I am not in favor of high rents, I don’t want to place limits on property owners as I prefer less government. Fountain Valley is a “nice place to live,” yet is not necessarily immediately affordable for those wanting to buy a home. At the same time, we have a low crime rate and thriving, quality schools attended by local children and also many who live outside of Fountain Valley.
Glenn Grandis: I do not support rent control in the City of Fountain Valley. I do support Prop 5 which supports amending Proposition 13 (1978) to allow homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled to transfer their tax assessments, with a possible adjustment, from their prior home to their new home. It is a win-win for seniors and our city.
Patrick Harper: I am generally not in favor of rent control because I think the market should determine the level of rent.
Tam “Nick” Lecong: I believe in the free market of rent properties. We should not address the issue of lack of housing through a distortion of the free market.
Dave Osborn: I am opposed to repealing the Costa-Hawkins Act (Proposition 10). Although there is definitely a need for more affordable housing, placing controls on rent is not the answer. We need to develop more homes and let the marketplace dictate the cost.
Tom Nguyen: Rent control is not an effective way to address the shortage and high cost of housing. We need solutions that make productive use of our available real estate and that consider ways to keep costs of living low while maintaining freedom in the marketplace.
Patrick Tucker: I am a proponent of free markets and private property rights. Our government, at all levels, manipulates our rights and our freedoms. If a particular rental unit is too expensive for someone to afford, I would suggest they search for a property that fits within their budget.
Michael Vo: Costa-Hawkins Act should not be repealed as it has served its purpose. I believe the state requirement of local cities to comply/to provide low income units to the communities was a way to help the burden of the high cost of housing. Federal Housing aid (Sec. 8) has also played its role regarding this issue.
Question 7: Proposition 64 authorizes the legalization of marijuana, while granting local jurisdictions the authority to approve or deny certain marijuana-related businesses. What are your thoughts on marijuana legalization to date and what do you think of your own community’s policies on marijuana?
Kim Constantine: I am fine with marijuana legalization for people who need medical marijuana. I would be willing to look more into this matter to see what is in the absolute best interest to our residents, businesses, and visitors to our city. So far, Fountain Valley City Council wants no part of it, as we have seen previously.
Glenn Grandis: Currently Fountain Valley does not allow for dispensaries of any kind in our city. I would like to see that policy continue. A potential compromise for those who need medical marijuana would be to allow an “Uber” type delivery service, in unmarked vehicles, pre-paid, for those who cannot travel to other cities for this type of medication. It would also increase the revenues to the city without increasing crime or exposure to children.
Patrick Harper: In 2015 as a member of the Planning Commission, I voted against allowing marijuana dispensaries in Fountain Valley. Our police do not support having these businesses because they think it could lead to increased crime and public safety issues, and I agree.
Tam “Nick” Lecong: I support the City of Fountain Valley’s ordinance banning marijuana businesses.
Dave Osborn: I live in Fountain Valley. Our city has voted to prohibit the sale of marijuana. I voted against the legalization of marijuana in California but I do recognize that the majority of voters approved it. I do believe that medical marijuana seems to be a viable alternative for many suffering from various ailments. I am against the abuse of all drugs, both legal and illegal.
Tom Nguyen: There is a great deal of misinformation and confusion around the marijuana rules in California. We need to clarify for business owners and our communities what is legal and not legal. We can do this responsibly with consideration to both our public safety and to our quality of life within the community.
Patrick Tucker: My personal convictions, as it pertains to this topic, are irrelevant. The voters have spoken at the ballot box. I feel the current Council has not done enough to seek the desires and opinions of our residents. When I am elected, I will seek the will of our residents, and act accordingly. The folks of California have a voice, elected officials should listen.
Michael Vo: Prop 64 has also allowed local control of legalization. There are still so many unknown issues to marijuana-related businesses to decide one way or another.Fountain Valley has voted in Nov. 2017 to preemptively ban commercial marijuana.
Question 8: Senate Bill 54 limits the role of state and local law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration laws. The law has drawn legal challenges from some localities which want the flexibility to work with the federal government. What do you think of SB54?
Kim Constantine: While federal immigration laws must be enforced, it is not the job of the Fountain Valley police to engage in the work of immigration enforcement. I believe it would undermine the community trust in the police. The police should merely inform ICE when they have arrested an illegal immigrant who has committed a crime – nothing more than that.
Glenn Grandis: SB54 is currently being challenged in the court system. When this is decided in the courts, our city will follow the law that the judicial system determines to be legal.
Patrick Harper: I am not in favor of sanctuary city or sanctuary state legislation. Immigration is a federal issue and states and local law enforcement should be able to freely cooperate with federal authorities on immigration issues.
Tam “Nick” Lecong: The Supremacy Clause of our Constitution requires that states follow federal immigration laws.
Dave Osborn: I am opposed to SB54. I am a strong believer in supporting our law enforcement agencies in any way possible.
Tom Nguyen: Upholding the rule of law is my first commitment to our citizens. This includes local, state and federal law. I will work with our law enforcement professionals to ensure that we keep our neighborhoods and places of business safe. This should include a working relationship with all levels of law enforcement, and for this reason I do not believe that SB54 is a good development.
Patrick Tucker: SB54 is detrimental to the welfare and safety of our society and should be repealed. Proposition 47 must also be repealed. California needs to take a good hard look at our future. It is essential that we stop vilifying victims and law enforcement, and glorifying criminals and thugs. It is essential to a civilized society. I back the Blue!
Michael Vo: Before 2016, the federal government had a different view on immigration policy than it is now. Federal government set immigration policy for the country. Because federal law supersedes state law, I oppose SB54.