How Political Donor Tony Bushala Got Paid Tax Dollars to Renovate His Own Café
At the center of Fullerton, a city-owned train station café is getting a facelift. But who’s paying, and who’s profiting, raises deeper questions.
In 2024, the City of Fullerton awarded two contracts totaling $128,750 to a company owned by Tony Bushala, a local businessman and longtime political donor.
What makes this unusual isn’t just the dollar amount, it’s that Bushala leases the property being renovated, and the city is paying his own company to do the work.
Here’s what happened:
🚧 The Contracts
$33,750 — ADA compliance upgrades inside the Santa Fe Express Café, located at the Fullerton Transportation Center
$95,000 — Exterior plaster restoration and aesthetic improvements to the train station building
Both contracts were awarded to Bushala Brothers, Inc., the construction firm owned by the same person who leases the café on-site.
⚠️ Tenant + Contractor = Conflict?
It’s not illegal for a contractor to lease space from the city. But when the contractor is also a tenant being paid to renovate the very property they profit from, it creates a layered conflict:
The city covers the cost of improvements,
The contractor/tenant earns payment for the work,
And the tenant ends up with a nicer, more valuable business space, on the public’s dime.
This is not a hypothetical conflict. It’s real, it’s documented, and it’s already happened twice in one year.
📂 A Missing Paper Trail
To make matters worse, I reviewed the City of Fullerton’s 2024 Public Notices folder. Many city projects had Invitations to Bid publicly posted. These two did not.
That doesn’t prove the contracts were awarded without competition but it does mean the public wasn’t informed, and no notice of open bidding has been made available through the city’s usual channels.
🧾 What We Deserve as Taxpayers
Even if this type of arrangement has been in place for years, it demands public scrutiny. If improvements are necessary, great but why is the tenant's own company getting the job? And why wasn't the public invited to bid on it?
Cities have a duty to avoid even the appearance of favoritism, especially when public dollars, political donors, and city property are all involved.
🗣️ What Comes Next?
We need answers from City Hall:
Is this standard procedure for tenants?
Why weren’t these contracts subject to public bidding?
Are other tenants allowed to do the same?
Was any review conducted to avoid a conflict of interest?
If this practice is routine, it’s time for reform. If it’s an exception, it’s time for accountability.
📥 If you have insight or documents that shed light on this story or if you're a city employee or resident with experience in Fullerton’s procurement process, I want to hear from you. Email me at info@fullertontransparency.com.