At the Fiscal Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee meeting on March 30. Committee member Anthony (Tony) Bushala, appointed by Mayor Fred Jung and a prominent local political donor associated with Bushala Bros Construction, proposed two solutions to address the city’s budget shortfall. While Bushala is neither an elected official nor a city staff member, he has significantly influenced local politics through campaign contributions and independent expenditures. Additionally, he owns several properties in downtown Fullerton. Now, he’s advising the city on how to close its budget gap.

Bushala first proposed that the city ask prospective waste haulers, companies currently competing for a city contract, to provide a $10 million loan to help cover the city’s deficit. It effectively asks companies seeking to do business with the city also to finance its short-term fiscal needs.

This type of arrangement presents significant legal, ethical, and conflict-of-interest concerns, potentially contravening state-level competitive bidding laws, “pay-to-play” regulations, and public contracting statutes. It risks obscuring the distinction between procurement and financial influence, creating a landscape in which vendors compete not solely on service and price but also on financial concessions to enhance their standing.

Complicating this further, Valley Vista Services is among the potential contractors and has made significant contributions to a PAC closely associated with Bushala, Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform PAC.

Bushala’s second proposal was to create a Business Improvement District (BID) where bars and nightclubs would pay more than other businesses. At first glance, the argument appears straightforward: certain businesses create more police activity and more sanitation hours, so they should contribute more. But that’s not how BIDs are designed to work. Under California law, BID assessments must be tied to proportional benefit, not impact or perceived burden. In other words, you can’t simply charge a category of businesses more because they generate more activity; you have to show that they receive more benefits. This was explained in detail by Housing and Economic Director Sunayana Thomas at a previous meeting, yet that did not deter Bushala from pursuing this policy.

What’s being proposed here is not a neutral funding mechanism; it’s a selective cost shift aimed at a specific group of businesses. And if the justification is based on impacts rather than benefits, a BID may not be the appropriate legal tool at all.

Bushala owns multiple properties in downtown Fullerton and does not lease to bars or nightclubs. A policy that increases costs for those businesses would not affect his tenants in the same way and could shift competitive dynamics in the area. This raises the question: Is this about funding shared services, or redistributing costs in a way that aligns with specific property interests?

Fullerton is facing real financial challenges, and there are no easy solutions. The structure of decision-making matters just as much as the decisions themselves. When individuals with significant political influence and financial interests are helping shape fiscal policy, especially in ways that affect specific industries or involve companies doing business with the city, it’s not enough to simply consider the proposals. It’s necessary to examine the incentives behind them. Because good governance isn’t just about balancing the budget, it’s about ensuring that the way we get there is fair, transparent, and aligned with the public interest.

Listen to the full meeting here: