Archive for October, 2011

 THE PASADENA STAR-NEWS IS REPORTING NEWLY HIRED PASADENA PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SIOBHAN FOSTER IS SUBJECT TO A LAWSUIT!  THE SUIT WAS FILES BY FORMER CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ADMINISTRATOR, SEAN GILL IN 2010, WHO WAS TERMINATED WITHOUT EXPLANATION BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE. GILL DESCRIBED RIVERSIDE AS THE CITY TAINTED WITH CORRUPTION.  FORMER RIVERSIDE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SIOBHAN FOSTER RESIGNED IN SEPTEMBER 2011, TAKE A POSITION IN PASADENA AS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR UNDER CITY MANAGER MICHAEL BECK.   ACCORDING TO A PRESS RELEASE BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, SIOBHAN FOSTER WAS “APPOINTED” BY PASADENA’S CITY MANAGER MICHAEL BECK TO THIS POSITION.  NOW MICHAEL BECK ALSO WORKED FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AS ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER UNDER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON.  THE OFFICE CAME UNDERFIRE VIA THE ALLEGATIONS OF ILLEGALLY PURCHASED GLOCK FIREARMS, BADGES AND COLD PLATES.    FIRED IN MAY 2011, FORMER DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY RAYCHELE STERLING ALSO ALLEGED THE STEERING OF CONTRACTS WITHIN FOSTER’S OFFICE TO A SELECTIVE OR PREFERENTIAL GROUP OF CONTRACTORS.  IS THIS THE STORY THE RIVERSIDE PRESS ENTERPRISE WOULDN’T COVER?

The city fired me when I tried to make people aware of their corruption. Its been going on for years. Brad Hudson, Siobhan Foster and Tom Boyd all deserve to be fired for their corruption along with half of the city council. People think Bell is corrupt, I hope they keep digging into the City of Riverside. If Ed (Former Councilman Ed Adkinson) becomes mayor, wait and see how much more work his firm receives.

—Sean Gill, to Press Enterprise comments

OTHER RELATED TMC ARTICLES:

RIVERSIDE: FIRED EMPLOYEE ALLEGES CITY OFFICIALS AWARDED MILLIONS IN CONTRACTS WITHOUT BID

RIVERSIDE: DUCK TAPING A MOUTH HAS A PRICE: A CITY GONE ROGUE

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: PUBLIC WORKS FOSTER’S & BOYD’S THE BID PROCESS!

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: FUZZY MATH AND THE BID PROCESS IN THE SEWER, BUBBLES UP THE USUAL SUSPECTS

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: THE BID PROCESS IN THE SEWER! THE STINK KEEPS BREWING, THE GROUND KEEPS A SHAKING..

HOW MANY INSTANCES OF OVERSIGHT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE A FRAUD?

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT!  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

MAYOR!  YOU TAKING A PICTURE DOESN’T  COUNT AS A CITATION.  WHO TURNED THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS ALL GREEN?  STEVE WAS THAT YOU?  NOW LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!  IS THAT RUSS IN THAT BLACK CAR? GREG WE HAVE A POSSIBLE PENDING LITIGATION AGAIN.  GARDNER DID YOU FIX THAT CAMERA YET?

Red-light cameras are designed to take a picture of a car’s license plate if the driver runs a red light. These cameras are popping up in city after city as officials theorize that if drivers know they’re being watched, they’ll be less likely to run the lights. But do they work? Or is it just another way to increase city revenue from traffic tickets?  Well, according to study after study, rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and therefore, raise insurance premiums. In fact, the only studies that have shown any benefit to red-light cameras were either done by the IIHS ( Insurance Institute for Highway Safety).  The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras since insurance companies can profit from red-light cameras by way of higher premiums due to increased crashes and citations.  Biased studies, absolutely!  The most recent study revealing the truth about the cameras was done by researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health.  “The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work,” said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health.   “Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at intersections.”  Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, studies from Virginia,   and studies from Ontario  have all reported cameras are associated with increases in crashes. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs. The only studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained “major research design flaws,” such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were always conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Apparently, the findings have been known for some time. A 2001 paper by the Office of the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives reported that red-light cameras are “a hidden tax levied on motorists.” The report came to the same conclusions that all of the other valid studies have, that red-light cameras are associated with increased crashes and that the timings at yellow lights are often set too short to increase tickets for red-light running. That’s right, the state actually tampers with the yellow light settings to make them shorter, and more likely to turn red as you’re driving through them. In fact, six U.S. cities have been found guilty of shortening the yellow light cycles below what is allowed by law on intersections equipped with cameras meant to catch red-light runners. Those local governments have completely ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided instead to utilize red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead. The cities in question include Union City, CA, Dallas and Lubbock, TX, Nashville and Chattanooga, TN, and Springfield, MO, according to Motorists.org, which collected information from reports from around the country. This isn’t the first time traffic cameras have been questioned as to their effectiveness in preventing accidents. In one case, the local government was forced to issue refunds by more than $1 million to motorists who were issued tickets for running red lights.  Some have even gone to the extent of questioning the constitutionality of it all.  Others are stating that every American Citizen has the right to face their accuser, and not an innanimate object such as a red light camera.  Others are stating they are unenforceable because they are impropery served, therefore can be legally ignored.  Others recommend to completely avoid them using side streets, since some of these intersections have become accident pits.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE DOCUMENTS AND STATISTICS AS PROVIDED BY HIGHWAYROBBERY.COM

AND A LIST OF ALL CAMERA TOWNS INCLUDING THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE 

Apparently, the findings have been known for some time. A 2001 paper by the Office of the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives reported that red-light cameras are “a hidden tax levied on motorists.” The report came to the same conclusions that all of the other valid studies have come to, that red-light cameras are associated with increased crashes and that the timings at yellow lights are often set too short to increase tickets for red-light running. That’s right, the state actually tampers with the yellow light settings to make them shorter, and more likely to turn red as you’re driving through them. In fact, six U.S. cities have been found guilty of shortening the yellow light cycles below what is allowed by law on intersections equipped with cameras meant to catch red-light runners. Those local governments have completely ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided instead to utilize red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead. The cities in question include Union City, CA, Dallas and Lubbock, TX, Nashville and Chattanooga, TN, and Springfield, MO, according to Motorists.org, which collected information
from reports from around the country. This isn’t the first time traffic cameras have been questioned as to their effectiveness in preventing accidents. In one case, the local government was forced to issue refunds by more than $1 million to motorists who were issued tickets for running red lights.

Then there are the snitch tickets, sent out by the police in an effort to fool the registered owner into identifying the actual driver of the car.   The truth about traffic cameras is that the real motivation behind the programs is revenue, not safety.  For this reason, the systems are often rigged to guarantee a large yield of tickets. In Fairfax County, at the intersection of U.S. 50 and Fair Ridge Drive, the yellow light was shortened just three days after the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors signed a contract to implement red-light cameras in October 1999.  When the longer yellow time was restored in
2001, violations decreased by 90 percent.  In 2007, the Virginia Department of Transportation documented a 29 percent increase in accidents and a 19 percent increase in injuries at red-light camera intersections. This is because drivers slam on their brakes or speed up to try to avoid getting a camera ticket, thus causing more accidents. If Virginia lawmakers are really interested in safety rather than revenue, they will follow Georgia’s lead and lengthen yellow lights and ditch their traffic cameras.

I have never personally received a red light ticket by the camera but I think it does more harm than good. There is one in Riverside off Arlington and Indiana street that caused an accident as the flash was too bright and caused the driver to have a seizure and she was hit and she died as a result. Also there are other crimes the city or county can spend it’s money on besides a camera to catch and ticket drivers who run red lights.  – Nicole Lewis, Commenter on the PE

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT!  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

UPDATE: 10/25/2011: 1:00 pm CITY COUNCILS SESSION DURING PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION: THE QUESTION OF MANIPULATION OF THE TIMING OF THOSE CAMERA’S COME UP MICHAEL ARCT STATES THERE IS NO STANDARDS, LEGAL MINIMUMS FOR A LEFT HAND TURN IS 3.0 SECONDS.  COMMON SENSE TO LEGALLY MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN SAFELY IT TAKES 3.6 SECONDS, WHICH YOU WILL FIND AT THE INTERSECTION OF TYLER AND W. BOUND 91, RUNNED BY CAL TRANS.  IF YOU GO TO VAN BUREN AND INDIANA RUNNED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, A LEFT HAND TURN IS 3.0 SECONDS.  ALSO ASKED IF COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS WILL ABSTAIN FROM THIS VOTE SINCE HIS BROTHER, RON ADAMS REVIEWS RED CAMERA PHOTO VIOLATIONS FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE.  TMC FOUND RON ADAMS NAME ON THE CITY MANAGER’S DISCRETIONARY FUND FOR CONTRACTS UNDER $50,000.00 FROM FISCAL YEARS 2008/2009 AND 2009/2010, ATTACHMENT “C”.  DURING EVENING SESSION PRESENTATION, 67% OF THE THE RED LIGHT CAMERA PHOTO’S ARE THROWN OUT, THUS REENFORCING THE PREMISS OF AN INNANIMATE OBJECT BEING MORE INACCURATE THAN PREVIOUSLY PERCEIVED.  MORE SO, WHEN DRIVERS APPROACH A RED LIGHT INTERSECTION, THEY BECOME MORE FOCUSED ON THE LIGHT AND THE CAMERA, THUS THEIR ATTENTION OFF THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF THEM, AS WELL AS BICYLCLIST AND PEDESTRIANS.  THIS BRINGING TO THE FOREFRONT A SAFETY ISSUE NOT ADDRESSED.

UPDATE:10/25/2011: 9:00pm: COUNCIL APPROVES REDLIGHT CONTRACT 5/2. WITH NO VOTES BY COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS AND CHRIS MAC ARTHUR.  STILL FOR THE MOST PART THIS DECISION REFLECTS HOW REGRESSIVE OF A CITY WE ARE AS OPPOSED TO BEING PROGRESSIVE.  THE KOO-LAID KEEPS FLOWING, AND COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS DIDN’T ABSTAIN FROM THIS VOTE, EVEN THOUGH HIS BROTHER RON ADAMS, BENEFITS.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT RUNNING A RED LIGHT BECAUSE NO ONE THINKS WITH INTENT TO RUN A RED LIGHT.  IF YOU ARE IN THE LEFT HAND LANE TO MAKE A LEFT TURN YOU ARE AT THE MERCY OF THE LIGHT ON THAT TURN.  MORE VIOLATIONS ARE MADE WITH LEFT HAND TURNS, DUE DIRECTLY TO THE TIMING, NOT BECAUSE OF THE DRIVERS INTENT TO RUN A RED LIGHT.  THE COUNCIL DOESN’T REALIZE THE EXCESSIVENESS OF THE THE $500.00 FINE, SOME CALL IT HIGHWAY ROBBERY OR POLICING FOR PROFIT.  STUDIES HAVE SHOW THAT RED LIGHT CAMERA TOWNS HAVE DETERED VISITORS ALTOGETHER.  NOT TO MENTION, PARKING CITATIONS.  BUT WHAT DOES THE COMMUNITY EXPECT WITH THIS COUNCIL, THEY DIDN’T LISTEN TO US WHEN WE EXPRESSED OUR OPINION REGARDING AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE.  OTHERS SAY SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE OBLIGATORY REASONS FOR THEIR DECISIONS.  IN PAST YEARS THE CITY WOULD JUST SPEND, SPEND, SPEND; NOW THEY ARE FINING, FINING, FINING, TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE OF MONETARY WAIST WASTE. 

UPDATE:10/26/2011: Allegations by city employee insiders indicate that there are city employees who have had red light infractions and are removed.  One was actually promoted up the ranks.  Many in the community are asking the questions of double standards.  While Councilman Mike Gardner feels if you run a red light you should pay the excessive $500.00 fine.  The questions the community is asking, are there different rules for council people, city executives and employees compared to the community?  Well, the dirt keeps coming in!  Employee insiders are also alleging that Former Councilman Frank Schiavone and girlfriend whom have had dozens of infractions, just get them removed.  It appears that the infractions allegedly go to the city and Councilman’s Steve Adams brother, Ron Adams who works at city hall, and are then  removed from further action.

UPDATE: 12/11/2011: EVEN CITIES SUCH AS PHARR, TEXAS HAS DECIDED TO REMOVE RED LIGHT CAMERAS, AND HAVE FOUND THEIR IS  NO DICERNABLE SAFETY BENEFIT.  WHAT MAKES THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE FEEL THEIR IS?  IS IT THE SAME AS THE STREETSWEEPERS GOING DOWN THE WOODSTREETS FOLLOWED BY CITATION VEHICLES AS WOODSTREET RESIDENTS HAVE INDICATED, FOR NO OTHER REASON BUT TO ISSUE CITATIONS.  COUCILMAN MIKE GARDNER CONTINUES TO TURN A BLIND EYE ON REALITY, AND CONTINUES TO SUPPORT A SILENT EAR ON THE COMMUNITY.  EVEN PHARR CHIEF OF POLICE RUBEN VILLESCAS AGREES, WHILE OUR CHIEF OF POLICE SERGIO DIAZ CONTINUES TO SUPPORT “STATUS QUO”.  CHIEF OF POLICE RUBEN VILLESCAS STATES, ” FEW, IF ANY, ACCIDENTS ARE FOR RUNNING A RED LIGHT”.  THERE IS NO DOUBT, THAT THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE NEEDS REAL LEADERSHIP, WHICH STANDS TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY AT LARGE, AND THEIR IS NO REASON WHY MANY IN THE COMMUNITY SHOULD BE INTIMIDATED BY THE LEADERSHIP THAT EXIST.

EVEN REDLANDS AND LOMA LINDA REMOVED RED LIGHT CAMERAS.  REDFLEX, THE AUSTRALIAN BASE COMPANY, DENIED LOMA LINDA REQUEST TO REMOVE THEM.  IT APPEARS THE CITY REMOVED THEM THEMSELVES.  BUT MANY CITIES ARE FINDING OUT WHAT KIND OF CUSTOMER SERVICE THEY HAVE.

UPDATE: 03/28/2012: RED LIGHT CAMERAS WILL END THIS WEEK IN LA, TICKETS WIPED CLEAN.  COUNCILMAN MITCH ENGLANDER STATES RED LIGHT PROGRAM WAS FLAWED FROM THE BEGINNING.  FINES WERE EXCESSIVE.  A CBS INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT ACCIDENTS WENT UP AFTER THE RED LIGHT PROGRAM WAS IMPLEMENTED.

CALL COUNCILMAN MIKE GARDNER AND LET YOUR VIEW BE KNOWN:  951-826-5991 (office), 951-941-7084 (cell), email:  mgardner@riversideca.gov

Andy Melendrez in the spotlight as the Vice Chair of the Public Safety Committee.  The renegotiation of the red light cameras to extend the contract with Redflex Traffic Systems, a company originating in Australia.  While most cities are disbanding them, will the City renegotiate at a operating loss?  Just like the parking debacle or the Fox Theatre which runs at a deficit.  When does a bad business decision cross the line of the city’s fiscal responsibility to it’s constituents?  Will this also mean Councilman Steve Adam’s brother Ron Adams will be at work reviewing photo’s again?  Nepotism, or just keeping it in the family?  Look’s like this contract does include the “cost neutrality” clause, which the city signed last contract in August 2006, whereby the city will not have to pay Redflex the full rent if there aren’t enough fines to cover the cost?  The city states that it has taken in $11,366,513.00 thru June 30, 2011, but expenditures or operating cost have come out to $12,474,366.00, which of course, more than we are taking in.  The cities negative cash flow is $1,107,853.00, therefore according to my calculations, the city has been running at an approximate 9% loss, and claiming at anyone time this 9% loss in only temporary as at any given time there is a four month delay until this gap is filled.  But the reality so far with this program, is that expenditures are more than revenue received at any given time, and the program continues to run at a deficit.  Many question the stats used by the city, and state there our Redflex stats and then there are City stats.  (Item #12).  

Close session for the consideration of City Manager candidates.  Just when we were all getting use to Interim City Manager Scott Barber.  Why not just hire Scott?  He is familiar with the City and has a good working track record.  Remember the last time the City hired outside it’s comfort zone. (Item #2).

Continuation of the fringe benefits and salaries of the Fire Dept Union, Police Dept Union, Service Employee’s International Union, and Executive Management employees. (Item #3).

Annual report of the activities of the Board of Public Utilities, got to here this one. (Item #5). 

As if downtown business’s don’t have it tough enough, the city would like to levy a new assessment tax on business’s to fund the Riverside Downtown Partnership at an amount of $370,000.  Many business owners have asked the question, what has Riverside Downtown Partnership really done for downtown businesses? Many would like to see it just go away, since it answers to the city as opposed to the merchants. (Item # 17).

WHO WILL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER NEXT WHEN THE AUDITOR COMES ASKING QUESTIONS? CHECK BACK WEEKLY…THAT IS, EVERY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY! WE’LL EVEN PROVIDE THE DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. CALL YOUR LOCAL ELECTED COUNCIL PERSON AND THE MAYOR AND REQUEST THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT BE DONE BY STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG OF THE CITY HALL BOOKS.  

HAVE THERE BEEN MORE PROCEDURAL GLITCHES OR RED FLAGS THAT HAVE RECEIVED THE ATTENTION OF INTERUM CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER THAT HAVE YET TO BE MENTION SINCE HUDSON SKIPPED TOWN?    TMC RECOMMENDS THAT SCOTT WITH THE HELP OF ANDY REQUEST A FORENSIC AUDIT!  IT’S EASY, I EVEN LOOKED UP THE NUMBER FOR YOU, 916-445-2636, ASK FOR JOHN.    IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, THE NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS COME UP RIGHT! 

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT!  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

TWO UPCOMING STORY!  THE $5.4 MILLION OVERSIGHT AND THE COMINGLING OF REDEVELOPMENT AND GENERAL FUND MONIES. 

HOW MANY INSTANCES OF OVERSIGHT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE A FRAUD?

” I AM NOT ASKING ANYONE TO DEFEND ME, I AM ASKING YOU TO JOIN ME AND STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT, WHAT IS JUST.” -CITIZEN ACTIVIST CHAZ STEVENS

CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, PAUL SUNDEEN, STATES THERE IS A POTENTIAL  5 MILLION DOLLAR BUDGET GAP HEADING INTO 2012-2013 FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2012. CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER, STATES IT IS MANAGEABLE, WHILE RESIDENTS REMAIN CRITICAL OF THE CITY’S FISCAL MANAGEMENT.   

Barber and Sundeen have no concerns about how the City will make payments on debt because : a) they are part of the team that created the enormous mountain of debt, and b) the payments on the debt are the responsibility of City taxpayers/ratepayers. Success has many fathers. Failure is an orphan.  -whosincharg, commenter on the PE

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!

THE PRESS ENTERPRISE IS REPORTING THAT CITY OFFICIALS ARE EXAMINING HOW MONEY BUDGETED OR APPROPRIATED FOR COUNCIL ASSISTANTS, ALSO KNOWN AS LEGISLATIVE FIELD REPRESENTATIVES,  IS BEING SPENT.   QUESTIONS AROSE AFTER THE REVIEW OF HOW ONE COUNCILMAN USED THESE FUNDS.   IN 2010 THE LEGISLATIVE FIELD REPRESENTIVE’S POSITION BECAME FULL TIME WITH A SALARY RANGING UP TO $52,000.00 WITH BENEFITS.   AT ONE TIME THIS POSITION WAS PART TIME AND CONTRACTUAL, THEN BECAME FULL TIME AND SALARIED.  THE DETAILS OF HOW MANY COUNCIL PEOPLE UTILIZED AN ASSISTANT, AND THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE ASSISTANT POSITION OVER THE YEARS APPEARS HAZY AND NOT QUITE DOCUMENTED.  A BIG JOB FOR INTERIUM CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER WHO IS TRYING TO HASH IT OUT THE QUESTIONS, OR AS HE STATES “FERRET OUT”.  THIS WHOLE MESS CAME TO THE FOREFRONT BECAUSE THESE MONIES WERE ACTUALLY BUDGETED AND APPROPRIATED FOR THESE LEGISLATIVE FIELD REPRESENTATIVES ONLY.  WELL COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS UTILIZED THESE FUNDS FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  DON’T GET ME WRONG, INSTEAD OF PAUL USING THE $50,000.00 FOR AN  ASSISTANT,  HE FELT THESE FUNDS WOULD BE BETTER SPENT IN THE COMMUNITY,  AFTERALL IT IS THERE MONEY.  THE ONLY PROBLEM WAS THAT THESE FUNDS WERE ALLOCATED FOR ONE PURPOSE, AND ONE PURPOSE ONLY, FOR USE ON AN ASSISTANT.  OF COURSE, WE HAVE ALL HEARD THIS QUOTATION,
INGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE FOR BREAKING THE LAW.  SINCE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EXECUTIVE PERSONEL ARE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD, THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER, OTHERWISE THIS WOULD BE A VIOLATION. DAVIS STATED THAT FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON TOLD HIM HE COULD USE THESE FUNDS TO HIRE AN ASSISTANT OR USE THE MONEY FOR THE COMMUNITY.  BUT APPARENTLY WHAT HUDSON DIDN’T TELL DAVIS, WAS THAT THE FUNDS CAN ONLY BE APPROVED ON A ONE-TIME BASIS THROUGH THE CITY MANAGERS OFFICE, OTHERWISE TO REGULARLY SHIFT THESE FUND FROM THEIR BUDGETED OR ALLOCATED PURPOSE REQUIRES A COUNCIL VOTE.  THIS GOT ME THINKING, IT IS WELL KNOWN OF THE TENSE WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON AND COUNICLMAN PAUL DAVIS.  FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO WELL KNOWN OF HUDSON’S ALLEGED INSUBORDINATION TOWARD DAVIS.  THE QUESTION IS, WAS COUNCILMAN DAVIS SET UP?  AFTERALL, IT WAS HUDSON’S JOB TO SERVE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNICIL PEOPLE.  REGARDLESS, ALL SEASONED COUNCIL PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW BY NOW IF YOU VOTE FOR ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR A PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM, IT MUST BE FOR THAT ITEM AND THAT ITEM ONLY, TO DO ANYTHING OTHERWISE WOULD BE MISSAPPROPRIATION.   THIS HOT TOPIC IS NOT OVER YET, IT HAS BEEN SENT OVER TO DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR MORE HASHING OUT, OR AS INTERIUM CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER STATES, THESE ARE QUESTIONS “TO FERRET OUT”.  THE QUESTION OF MISSAPPROPRIATION SHOULD NOT TAKE LONG FOR A SEASONED INTERIUM CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER, UNLESS IT’S HUNTING SEASON.  ARE THERE MORE PROCEDURAL GLITCHES OR RED FLAGS THAT HAVE RECEIVED THE ATTENTION OF BARBER THAT HAVE YET TO BE MENTION SINCE HUDSON SKIPPED TOWN?    TMC RECOMMENDS THAT SCOTT REQUEST A FORENSIC AUDIT!  IT’S EASY, I EVEN LOOKED UP THE NUMBER FOR YOU, 916-445-2636, ASK FOR JOHN, OR BETTER YET, BRING IN CITIZEN AUDITOR VIVIAN MORENO IN, SHE WILL FIGURE IT OUT.

UPDATE: 10/18/2011: THE PRESS ENTERPRISE, DAN BERSTEIN, HAD THIS TO SAY ABOUT FERRETS AND THE DEEPER PHILOSPHICAL QUESTIONS WHICH NEED TO BE FERRET OUT…

UPDATE:10/20/2011: PRESS ENTERPRISE OPINION: COUNCIL SPOILS

UPDATE:12/08/2011: NO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS! WHEN FUNDS ARE SET ASIDE FOR A PARTICULAR USE, THEY ARE NOT MEANT TO BE USED FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT, AND THAT SHOULD BE A GIVEN… TMC BELIEVES THAT ASSISTANTS SHOULD NOT EVEN BE USED.  CITY STAFF SHOULD BE UTILIZED.  THE QUESTION IS, WAS FORMER BRAD HUDSON GIVING BAD ADVICE, OR FURTHER, WAS CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS NEGLIGENT IN PROVIDING PROPER AND CORRECTED ADVICE?

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT!  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

Assistant City Manager Deanna Lorson came under the TMC radar when found that a lease contract was signed for new restaurant called Elephant Thai to go into a redevelopment area, after Governor Brown signed a stay on all redevelopment activity, especially entering into new contracts.  But I guess the city knows best? They may need the help of Best, Best & Krieger to defend this one, since this is part of the abuse the governor has been speaking about.  Self Appointed Citizen Auditor Vivian Moreno brought this to Council and Ms. Lorson’s attention last Council Meeting.  She advised her that she needs to be checking with her City Attorney Greg Priamos about that one.  All TMC can say is Slick…  How many instances of oversight does it take to make a fraud? 

More City negotiations with Redevelopment properties and interested parties post Governor Brown enacted stay on all Redevelopment activity. (Items #3) with Best, Best & Krieger For the Best, Best & Krieger Offices, (Items #4) with the Mission Inn Hotel & Spa for the BioKorium Building , (Item #5) the City of Riverside for 3737 Main Street with their own Redevelopment Agency,  & (Item #6) negotiations with Johnny Rockets and Redevelopment. 

Possible litigation by Claimants: Riverside Community College and Riverside County Office of Education vs. are infamous Redevelopment Agency.  What did they do this time? Call Best, Best & Krieger to the rescue or can our fearless city attorney battle this one out single handedly?   Well it appears the Riverside City Redevelopment Agency has defaulted on redevelopment money which should have transferred to these educational institutions, all educational institutions statewide are suing cities based on this premise.  Good reasoning to abolish RDA?  (item #7).   

Prepared by Rhonda Strout, Human Resource Department, an amendment that employees will pay 100% of their employee contribution to CALpers. (Item #27). Upcoming story regarding Rhonda Strout and the Human Resources Department.  Are we bringing back the love contract article?

(Item #31) a change order for $111,121.36 requested by Elite Bobcat Services. 

(Item #34) Legislative Reports with the City of Riverside’s lobbying group, League of California Cities.

WHO WILL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER NEXT WHEN THE AUDITOR COMES ASKING QUESTIONS? CHECK BACK WEEKLY…THAT IS, EVERY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY! WE’LL EVEN PROVIDE THE DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. CALL YOUR LOCAL ELECTED COUNCIL PERSON AND THE MAYOR AND REQUEST THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT BE DONE BY STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG OF THE CITY HALL BOOKS.   WITH A NEW INTERIM CITY MANAGER, SCOTT BARBER, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE NEEDS BASELINE NUMBER AS DONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN ORDER TO ASSURE BALANCED NUMBERS AND TO CLEAR POSSIBLE DISCREPANCIES OF THE GENERAL LEDGER BOOKS. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, THE NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS COME UP RIGHT! 

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL TMC HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE FOR NOW…

COMINGLING CAN BE USED FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES, BUT NOT FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES, TO BE USED OTHERWISE WOULD BE CONCEALMENT.

THIS WAS AN OPEN LETTER SENT TO COUNCIL WOMAN NANCY HART, FROM SELF APPOINTED CITIZEN AUDITOR VIVIAN MORENO, AFTER THIS WEEKS FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING:

Dearest  Council Woman Nancy Hart,

What a pleasure it was to attend your finance committee meeting. As I was walking out I heard you walking behind me saying something like : I am spending 100s of hours on this and I should be doing something else, And I should leave this up to the experts. ( am I correct you were speaking or referring to me) If you would like a sit down session to discuss this matter I will be happy to meet with you.  Now I need to respond.

Response: The fiscal responsibility of our city is very important to me , my family, my friends, my neighbors, the elderly and the disabled. I have a right to ask, to question, to view, every document that I have questions about.  This is called the public records Act. It was put in place just for this purpose.

Some people fish, knit, sew, I review public documents. What I choose to do with my time is my business not yours.

If the City of Riverside sets the pattern for review of Financial statements monthly and the previous year 2010 they are all accounted for and NO commingling of funds. What is a citizen to do when  in 2011 they are all over the place with statements and general -enterprise fund documents  MISSING. If they were all in their right place I wouldn’t have to bother anybody. If there is only one person, (as stated by Paul Sundeen, referring to me), in the entire city of Riverside looking at financial statements whats the big deal. All I’m saying if you have the process in place it should easily be accessible.   It was interesting to me that you yourself did not know where the financial statements were located on your website.

Your comment about “leaving it up to the experts” . Your experts  have a restaurant in City Hall that was over 3 mil and it doesn’t bring in a dollar to the city.  You have a new  library in Orange Crest  that has a closed café. You have a Fox Theatre that has a million plus  deficit each year in operating costs. You have 149 transferred   properties, “Questionable”. Your experts Commingle funds. Your experts signed an illegal contract with a restaurant (Elephant Thai) post Redevelopment stay. Above all your experts have put us in 1.7 billion dollar debt that we cannot pay and I believe you know it. So why should we listen to your experts!

As a politician you should be happy for us that we do take an interest in city politics and we want a better understanding of how our local government works.  Going thru the documents of the City of Riverside and telling the story is like reading a novel, but I know all the characters.  No worry, I do this on my free time.

By the way we  will be attending the MORR Conference next week, Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform, in San Francisco. We will be speaking on Commingling of Redevelopment funds, transferred properties,  inter fund and inter agency transfers, and signing contracts while a Redevelopment stay is in place .  My goal is to be an expert in Municipal Finance so where ever I choose to live I can have an impact.

Thank-you, Vivian Moreno,  Self Appointed Citizen Auditor

Nancy,

This is easy reading.  While you leave commingling up to your  experts, I have concerns. I know California Code Section 66006 has to do with impact fees, but you get the idea, I’m still learning.

CAL. GOV. CODE § 66006 : California Code – Section 66006

(a)If a local agency requires the payment of a fee specified in subdivision (c) in connection with the approval of a development project, the local agency receiving the fee shall deposit it with the other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. Any interest income earned by moneys in the capital facilities account or fund shall also be deposited in that account or fund and shall be expended only for the purpose for which the fee was originally collected.

(b)(1)For each separate account or fund established pursuant to subdivision (a), the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscalyear, make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year:

(A)A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.

(B)The amount of the fee.

(C)The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.

(D)The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned.

(E)An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.

(F)An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, as identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 66001, and the public improvement remains incomplete.

(G)A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan.

(H)The amount of refunds made pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 66001 and any allocations pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 66001.

(2)The local agency shall review the information made available to the public pursuant to paragraph (1) at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after this information is made available to the public, as required by this subdivision. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including the address where this information may be reviewed, shall be mailed, at least 15 days prior to the meeting, to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting. Any written request for mailed notices shall be valid for one year from the date on which it is filed unless a renewal request is filed. Renewal requests for mailed notices shall be filed on or before April 1 of each year. The legislative body may establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service.

(c)For purposes of this section, “fee” means any fee imposed to provide for an improvement to be constructed to serve a development project, or which is a fee for public improvements within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 66000, and that is imposed by the local agency as a condition of approving the development project.

(d)Any person may request an audit of any local agency fee or charge that is subject to Section 66023, including fees or charges of school districts, in accordance with that section.

(e)The Legislature finds and declares that untimely or improper allocation of development fees hinders economic growth and is, therefore, a matter of statewide interest and concern. It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature that this section shall supersede all conflicting local laws and shall apply in charter cities.

(f)At the time the local agency imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, it shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance.

COUNCIL WOMAN NANCY HART DID RESPOND, IT WAS A PERSONAL EMAIL,  HOPEFULLY SHE WILL POST IT!

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!

CLICK ON THE PIC FOR THE HD EFFECT!

TMC staff thanks all who have supported us and quietly supported us.  In trying times we look for leadership and find none. There are new fees, fines and taxes.   We find gross fiscal mismanagement of funds.  We find government enacting new restrictions of what we can and cannot do on our own properties.  Restrictions and higher fees for violations on vehicles. All we ask, is that the government balance their check book, we have to.  TMC wants the City of Riverside dirt, if you have it, we want it, for example, mismanagement of funds, affairs, illegal property transfers etc.  Email us anonymously at thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com with your dirt.

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!

UPDATE: THE DIRT IS ROLLING IN, AND IT’S ALMOST TIME TO PICK-UP THE TRASH!  THANKS RIVERSIDE!

TALKING ABOUT TRASH, DAN BERSTEIN OF PE IS REPORTING FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON FILES A CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE ALLEGING A TRASH TRUCK BACKED UP INTO HIS 2011 DODGE.  CLAIM AGAINST TAXPAYER NEGLIGENCE: $1,075.00, BUT ACTUAL COST $1,434.00.  BUT IF YOU EVER LOOKED AT HIS DISCRETIONARY FUND AND THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND, NON OF THE NUMBERS MAKE SENSE EITHER.

Again is this another display of our culture favoritism and selective treatment within the gates of emerald city? (Item #9).  The ambulance debacle, government again interfering with the free market system to the point of allowing a monopoly?  City councilman Paul Davis was right to ask the question if it’s the cities policy to allow one ambulance company, American Medical Response, in the city.  Does this violate antitrust laws?  What’s quite interesting is that the city issues franchise agreement to control who runs non-emergency ambulance services.  Any ambulance company is allowed to apply, but the clincher is AMR is the only company to be issued one.  The city firefighters union opposes Mission Ambulance’s bid to serve Riverside.  Why would a firefighters union get involved in the business of rendering an opinion?  Questions are continually raised in regards to union influence in the city, and to the extent of special interest request.  But you have your answer as to why no other franchise agreements were ever issued over the last 50 years.  But again, the city can save money by placing more services up for bid.  (Item #9) Again, is the city and the firefighters union involved in a monopoly? And are the firefighters unions really looking toward the health and safety of the public?  In City Council session,  The Public Safety Commission will be recommending that the Council deny Mission ambulance from attaining a franchise agreement.  Get this, the Public Safety Commision is made up of the City Council, Chris Mac Arthur, Nancy Hart and Andy Melendez.  Further, Fire Chief Steve Early will actually be conducting the assessment of Mission ambulance’s application, and rendering an opinion to the Public Safety Commision.  Yes, I’m not making this up, it’s incestuous.  Can you guess what is going to be their decision?  In addition, the City pays AMR for certain training services to the Firefighters etc., in addition, AMR has had their own set of problems.  But it appears that according to the references in favor of Mission Ambulance, that the city would turn a blind eye to the health and safety of Riversidian’s in favor of alleged special interest.

UPDATE: COUNCIL VOTES TO DENY MISSION AMBULANCE A FRANCHISE, EXCEPT FOR COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS.  AMR HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAMPAIGN’S OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, INCLUDING DAVIS.  MISSION AMBULANCE CONTRIBUTED TO DAVIS ONLY.  BACK IN 2009, CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHARGES WERE FILED AGAINST AMR’S PETER HUBBARD, WHO WAS ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE RIVERSIDE POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION.  MISSION AMBULANCE WAS CORRECT IN SAYING THAT MISINFORMATION HAS BEEN FED.  MISINFORMATION SUCH AS CHIEF STEVE EARLY STATEMENT THAT MISSION AMBULANCE MAY NOT RESPOND, IF THEY WERE CALLED, BECAUSE OF A COST FACTOR.  COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS ALSO STATED MISSION AMBULANCE REFUSES TO RESPOND TO PEOPLE WHO CANNOT PAY.  AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE IS CONTRACTED FOR 911 SERVICES WITH THE CITY, AND YOU ARE ONLY CALLED IF CONTRACTED FOR 911 SERVICES.  MISSION AMBULANCE WOULD LIKE TO SERVE THE RETAIL END, AND CONTRACTS INDIVIDUALLY WITH PROVIDERS, AND SHOULD AND COULD HAVE THE OPTION TO CONTRACT FOR 911 SERVICES AT THE STANDARD CONTRACTS RATES IF ALLOWED.  MISINFORMATION ON THE DAIS?  CHIEF EARLEY RECOMMENDED THE APPLICATION BE DENIED, BUT WAS AT A LOSS OF WORDS TO RATIONALLY EXPLAIN IT.  WHEN ASKED BY PAUL DAVIS AS TO THE DETAILS OF THE DENIAL, CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS WAS THEIR TO RESCUE AND SPIN, AND REMINDING EVERYONE OF THE ISSUE AT HAND.  THIS WAS REMARKABLY DONE MORE THAN ONCE AS TO CEASE COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS’S QUESTIONING.  IN RELATION TO THIS PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR, A CLOSE OUTSIDE FRIENDSHIP IS ALLEGED BETWEEN CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS AND PETER HUBBARD WHO HAVE BEEN SEEN AT FAMILY GATHERINGS, NOW RAISING QUESTIONS AGAIN OF CONFLICT INTEREST.  FURTHER, COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS WAS ALLEGED SEEN HAVING DRINKS WITH PETER HUBBARD AT RIVERSIDE’S SALTED PIG RESTAURANT ON 10/11/2011.  WOULD THIS HAVE ANY EFFECT ON HIS DECISION MAKING ON THIS ITEM AS A COUNCILMAN?   HOW ABOUT THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNCILMAN AND MAYOR PRO-TEMP CHRIS MAC ARTHUR, EVEN THE MAYOR HIMSELF, RON LOVERIDGE?  AND LET’S NOT FORGET THE INFAMOUS BAD BOY’S THEMSELVES, BRAD HUDSON AND TOM DESANTIS.  WHAT ABOUT THE MILLIONAIRE’S CLUB?  WOULD MISSION AMBULANCE HAVE A LEGAL CASE AGAINST THE CITY UNDER THESE GROWING CIRCUMSTANCES?  DOES THIS NOW MEAN ONE FOR THE FIRE CHIEF, AND ONE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTEREST OF THE UNION BROTHERHOOD? WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE CITY’S INCESTUOUS RELATIONSHIPS EFFECTING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE THE COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE, WITH POSSIBLE GRAND VIOLATIONS OF ANTITRUST LAWS?

Talking about firefighters their still negotiating their salaries and fringe benefits in closed sessions again under (Item #5), with you guessed it , the firefighters union etc.  Hopefully they’ll be negotiating low, because the city can’t afford to pay them more.  After all, the city will be at a standstill by next year 2012 when bonds come due. Maybe we should do as Norco did, dissolve their City Fire Department and bid out. In their case they went with Cal Fire/ Riverside County Fire Department,  or another alternative for saving money is go back to the Volunteer Fire Department. Another idea would be to dissolve RPD, and bring in the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in order to save money.  Excessive pensions is placing a large dent in the Cities budget. It’s no secret that 70% to 80% of a cities budget goes to payroll. (Item #5, Closed sessions of course).  This is a good reason that the City Charter needs to be modified, and whereby items as this should be in open session to be scrutinized by the public, and these closed door sessions leave an open door to abuse, at taxpayer expense.  And that my friends is how the city rolls..

Parking Citations Amnesty. Parking always a problem in Riverside and excessive violation fees at $41.00 a pop is another.   Won’t work, people have no money, honest! (Item #16)  The idea proposed by Public Works Director Siobhan Foster is that the end result of the amnesty program, the city will bring in $33,925.00 in revenue.  The actual total revenue expected from the amnesty program is $125,025.00.  But this figure will be offset by the initial expense of the taxpayer have in the amount of $91,000.00 to implement the plan.  THE BOTTOM LINE, IT ORDER TO BRING IN 27% BACK IN REVENUE, IT WILL COST THE TAXPAYER BY THE OFFSET COST, 73%.  I WOULD ALSO ASSUME THAT THE PERCENTAGE IS HIGHER DUE TO THE COST AND ATTEMPT TO RECOVER PRIOR COST TO THIS PROPOSAL, THEREFORE THE REVENUE BROUGHT IN FROM THE AMNESTY PROGRAM WOULD ACTUALLY BE LESS THAN 27% AS INDICATED.  NOW WE KNOW WHY SIOBHAN FOSTER IS MOVING PLACES, AND PASADENA PICKED HER UP LIKE A BAG OF CLEAN SOCKS!

One more week to go on naming city hall!  But after the item #9 debacle, we all know how that is going to turn out as well…  Bad news for Rin Tin Tin…

UPDATE:10/18/2011: A VERY SENSITIVE AMR CANCELS LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MURRIETA OVER A COUNCILMAN’S STATEMENT.  MURRIETA URGES COMPETITIVE BIDDING ON AMBULANCE CONTRACTS.    DID THEY ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM TAKING $1.4 MILLION IN “BLOOD MONEY” TO LOWER RESPONSE TIMES AS ALLEGEDLY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE TOOK?

UPDATE:10/29/2011: WHILE COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS BELIEVE OUTSIDE AMBULANCE COMPANIES WOULD NOT PICK THOSE WHO CANNOT PAY WITHIN THE CTY, IT APPEARS THE COUNTY HANDS OUT A STIPEND, AN ENCENTIVE ETC. TO COVER THAT COST. 

UPDATE:12/08/2011: ACCORDING TO THE STATE AGENCY THAT OVERSEES COUNTY MEDICAL SERVICE PLANS, RIVERSIDE OFFICIALS DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO STOP QUALIFIED AMBULANCE COMPANIES FROM FROM PICKING UP PATIENTS IN THE CITY.  THE QUESTION MANY CITY RESIDENTS ARE ASKING, IS THE CITY VIOLATING ANTITRUST LAWS?

UPDATE:02/13/2012: THE STATE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (EMSA) STATES THAT THE CITY AND COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE OVERSTEPPED IT’S AUTHORITY IN LIMITING AMBULANCE SERVICES.  COULD THE $1.4 MILLION AMR PROVIDES RIVERSIDE EACH YEAR FOR PARAMEDIC TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT CONTRIBUTE TO HOW THE CITY VOTES ON ISSUES THAT IMPACT AMR?  OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE $1.4 MILLION ALLOWS AMR TWO MORE MINUTES TO THEIR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESPONSE TIME.  JUST LIKE HAVING A BAD BURRITO, IT JUST DOES’T SIT WELL IN THE STOMACH’S OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTS.  BRUCE BARTON, DIRECTOR OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AGENCY, ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY WAS IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF AMR AS OF 2004.  COULD THIS CONTRIBUTE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OUTCOME?

UPDATE: 05/11/2012: COMMMENTER ON THE PRESS ENTERPRISE REGARDING THE AMBULANCE MONOPOLY IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE..

No,  what’s going on, you’ve got three mayoral candidates who already know from debates and feedback this is a major campaign issue and they don’t want to have to make any decisions about it before the June election. Gardner must think that most of us just got off the turnip truck yesterday based on his comments. But you know what? People in this city are capable of independent thought without being patronized. This whole ordinance was written back in the late 1980s to protect Goodhew Ambulance which was tied in heavily through the people connected to the city council and mayor at the time. It’s a shame that nothing’s changed since even though the city’s grown both in size through annexations and through its population.  The ambulance companies should call the Office of the Inspector General and ask him or her to initiate an investigation of the Federal Anti-Kickback statute. At best, there’s potential for a huge conflict of interest including financially in this case, but looking at the lettering of the statute, it might be more than that.   Exceptions or “safe reservoirs” for this law pertain to trying to avoid monopolies in high-need areas not create one. I’m sure if the inspector general has to start an inquiry into what’s going on, the City Council will be in a rush to reschedule its workshop.   – Mary Shelton, University of California, Riverside

WHO WILL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER NEXT WHEN THE AUDITOR COMES ASKING QUESTIONS? CHECK BACK WEEKLY…THAT IS, EVERY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY! WE’LL EVEN PROVIDE THE DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. CALL YOUR LOCAL ELECTED COUNCIL PERSON AND THE MAYOR AND REQUEST THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT BE DONE BY STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG OF THE CITY HALL BOOKS.   WITH A NEW INTERIM CITY MANAGER, SCOTT BARBER, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE NEEDS BASELINE NUMBER AS DONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN ORDER TO ASSURE BALANCED NUMBERS AND TO CLEAR POSSIBLE DISCREPANCIES OF THE GENERAL LEDGER BOOKS. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, THE NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS COME UP RIGHT! 

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL TMC HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE FOR NOW… THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S MOST “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE.

Have you thought what you are going to say to your constituents, and ready for the debates?  It’s your turn to respond, or will you need a time out?  It will be tough run in 2012, with bonds payments due, tax increments decreasing, the city will not have a penny to spare.  It’s coming soon to a voting booth near you.  TMC welcomes the democratic process and the vote of the people to bring fresh new leadership to the City.  Candidates entering the fiery race are battle harden veterans of Riverside politics.  Councilmen, Mike Gardner, Andy Melendrez and William “Rusty” Bailey.  In addition, Former Councilman Ed Adkinson will entering, as well as a few surprise late comers.  Criticism has been propagated toward Councilman Mike Gardner and Councilman William “Rusty” Bailey of whom recently ran for Council postions in April 2011, but then decided the Mayor’s position was one to be attained.  One blog has venomously trashed Councilman Bailey for interfering with the voting process, to the extent of calling his actions treasonous and unpatriotic. I wasn’t sure what country I lived in for a moment, I was assured it was still the USA.  We all have had family members who have fought in foreign wars,  all to maintain the freedoms that we have today.   It is not my belief that anyone can upset the vote, this simply is part of the democratic process.  To claim that it will, would imply fixing the vote.  We cannot be as other countries and allow are system of government to go to hell in a hand basket!  The more people that take an interest in government, studies it, learns and understands the process, the better government will be, which means, the better leadership we will have.  This campaign is not going to be an easy one, people are down trodden, and it will take a lot more than the usual political rhetoric to win their vote.  TMC wishes all the candidates the best of luck.

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED!