Posts Tagged ‘public works director tom boyd’

 aerialB-housing-developmenta

WE WERE TOLD THEY ONLY GLOW AT NIGHT..

Toxic Trails Estates…A great place to raise your family?  What would you do if you paid $500,000.00 for a new home, and later found that it sits on a major toxic spill?  Would you drink the water, well evidently Council drank the Koolaid, and bobbled right behind their infamous leader City Attorney Gregory Priamos to a potential unlawful emergency close session meeting.  It is TMC’s opinion that Priamos called the unlawful meeting so he could reprimand the council for postponing the vote on the AG Park housing development.  Whether TMC is right or wrong, it sure does sound good!  The housing project couldn’t even get bonded.  Why is developer Chuck Cox allowed to do a project as this without any bond insurance?  Cox is asking the City to take a deed of trust in lieu of a bond.  Really?  Why is he so special?  Is it because he couldn’t get bond insurance because it was a toxic spill site?  The meeting even became dramatic when Attorney Letitia Pepper POUNDED on the closed session door, demanding they all come out, and she wasn’t kidding either!  Of course she was met by two of Riverside’s finest and that handsome devil himself Assistant Chief of Police Chris Vicino, who attempted to diffuse the whole situation.  Isn’t Vicino married, he should know that you shouldn’t argue with a woman, especially if she is smarter.  You have to believe that Chief of Police Sergio Diaz knew better this time around, to stay far away from these legal vixens..

It all started in 2003, whereby developer Chuck Cox gave the city a parcel of land next to the golf course by Riverside Municipal Airport in exchange for a piece of land called simply the Old Agricultural Park.  The Old Agricultural Park had evidently been contaminated from and old city sewer plant on or adjacent to the parcel.

The following is a 2003 Interoffice Memo from Public Works Director Tom Boyd, then deputy public works director, to former City Manager George Caravalho, reporting the breakage of a digester tank which spilled its contents, and the intended clean up plans.  Later, lab analysis determined the spilled contents to contain high amounts of PCB’s (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) as well as other dangerous contaminants, as indicated below:

memoone     memotwo     memothree

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL MEMO WITH ANALYTICAL CONTAMINANT RESULTS

Compare the Result with the DLR (Detection Limit for purpose of Reporting)-below the DLR is acceptable, over is unacceptable.  The below December 2005 Fact Sheet Cleanup Proposal states that as a result of the contaminant findings, that there are no health risk to current residents, however, they can pose a risk to future residents living in homes built on the site…  You be the judge, we’ve had City workers who have died working on the cleanup, we’ve had resident reports surrounding the untouched properties who claimed illness.

factsheet

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL FACT SHEET

In the below youtube video, Attorney Letitia Pepper had just pounded on a closed session door to attempt to notifying Council that they are violating the brown act.  The council was inadvertently called into session by City Attorney Gregory Priamos to discuss a non agendized matter.  By Council following the City Attorney’s lead, they unknowingly violated the Brown Act.

Untitled-4     Untitled-2
CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW YOUTUBE VIDEO

Two Police Officers, Assistant Chief of Police Chris Vicino, Attorney Letitia Pepper and Attorney Raychele Sterling continued to discuss and ferret out legal aspects if pounding on a door is illegal, or just discourteous, as what they said about Chief Diaz.  The finer points of the discourteous pounding discussion continued even after council found a different mode of exit, known as sneaking out the back door.  Councilman Soubirous was the only council member that used the front door.

poundingx

Arrow points to the X Marks the spot where Pepper pounded closed session door…

UPDATE: 1:00PM: JUST IN: ANONYMOUS SOURCES ARE TELLING TMC THAT THE CLOSED SESSION MEETING WAS LEGAL BECAUSE IT DEALT WITH A PERSONNEL ISSUE, NOT A NON AGENDIZED ISSUE!  IS SOMEONE LEAVING?

UPDATE:2:00PM: IT TRUE, ALL THE HOOPLAH LAST NIGHT IF YOU PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER, WAS ALL ABOUT CITY ATTORNEY GREGORY PRIAMOS LEAVING THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE FOR NEW JOB WITH THE BIG TOP, THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, AS INDICATED IN THE PRESS ENTERPRISE.  Priamos evidently had an interview with the County Supervisors yesterday morning, which was not on the agenda as well.  He will be named the County’s Chief Council.  As of 2012 salary statistics Priamo’s total salary package with the City of Riverside came out to $309,671.10, and will more than likely go up with as he double dips with the County.  Should he have to explain how he was clowning around with taxpayer monies when it came to utilizing outside legal help with no contract?  When it come to inside office parties, is Priamos the king of the clowns?

clownpriamos

WHAT ARE PEOPLE IN RIVERSIDE ARE SAYING, BESIDES GOOD RIDDANCE?

UPDATE: 06.24.2014: RIVERSIDE COUNTY GET’S OUR CROOK, NOW THEIR CROOK!  PRIAMOS OFFICIALLY NAMED COUNTY COUNSEL..

post-28556-Heath-Ledger-Joker-Clapping-gi-fKX9     clapping-animated-240x180     Barack-Obama-Clapping-in-Front-of-American-Flags    LaughingMonkey1

UPDATE: 06.23.2014: FROM THE DESK OF LETITIA PEPPER: COMPLAINT REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF THE BROWN ACT.

To: Rusty Bailey, Mike Gardner, Andy Melendrez, Steve Adams, Chris MacArthur, Jim City Council Ward6 Perry, Paul Davis, soubirous@riversideca.gov
Cc: Colleen, Greg Priamos, Scott Barber

To Riverside’s City Council and Mayor:
In addition to ongoing violations of people’s free speech rights, the City officials have also engaged in violations of the Brown Act.  Most recently, the City Attorney called an illegal, unscheduled, un-noticed, and un-described closed session on June 17, 2014, as evidenced by the video of the City Council meeting at 05:07:03- 24.
This illegal closed session was further compounded by the Mayor’s adjourning the public meeting before the illegal closed session took place, as evidenced by the same video at 05:09:12. After closed sessions, there must be a report on such session. By adjourning the meeting, this step was side-stepped.
I demand that the Mayor and City Attorney publicly acknowledge that what occurred was a violation of the Brown Act, and that they publicly pledge not to engage in future violations.

Letitia Pepper

cc City Attorney, City Clerk, City Manager   bcc concerned citizens

UPDATE: 06.23.2014:9:00PM: ACCORDING TO THE BROWN ACT PRIMER, CITY COUNCIL VIOLATED THE BROWN ACT LAST WEEK!

Brown Act Primer: Closed Sessions

Part 5 of FAC’s Brown Act Primer discusses closed sessions rules for when the public may be excluded from public meetings
Preview by Yahoo

If you look at the limited situations in which a closed session is legal, you’ll see that closed sessions can be used for personnel matters, but not for an announcement by an employee saying he’s leaving!  Closed sessions for personnel matters can only be used to discuss the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee by another person or employee.  (Gov. Code section 54957, subd. (b).)  Furthermore, such sessions still need to be listed on the written agenda before hand, unless they involve an emergency,  the Council holds a vote and decides that it is an emergency, and then publicly states before going into closed session the code section that authorizes an emergency closed session.
Items not listed on a posted agenda may not be discussed in closed sessions except in three circumstances: an emergency, a need for immediate action and an item that was posted on a previous agenda.  (Govt. Code section 54954.2, subd. (b).)  None of those situations applied at the June 17 City Council meeting.
A City Council cannot decide that there’s an emergency or need for immediate action without discussing this during an open meeting, and then having 2/3ds of them vote to hold a closed session for this reason.  (Govt. Code section 54954.2, subd. (b)(2).)  Then there must be an oral, public announcement of the basis for the session before they go into a closed session.  Obviously, none of these things happened at the council meeting in question.
Any other (non-emergency) items for a closed session MUST be on the agenda.  Period.  It’s a basic part of the Brown Act.

WHAT WAS RIVERSIDE’S POLICE OFFICER ASSOCIATION/UNION (RPOA) PRESIDENT BRIAN SMITH AND VICE PRESIDENT AURELIO MELENDREZ TRYING TO SAY?  WERE THEY THE PERPETRATORS BEHIND THE EXPENSIVE TAXPAYER PAID COMPLAINT AGAINST ONE COUNCILMAN?  WAS THIS AN ATTEMPT TO MUSCLE A MOVE WITH THE HELP OF TAXPAYER MONEY AGAINST ONE COUNCILMAN?  THEREFORE WHAT WAS THE MO?

IS DOING THE WORK OF THE CITIZENS OF RIVERSIDE AGAINST CITY POLICY?

brian smith         aureliomelendrez

             BIAN SMITH, PRESIDENT OF RPOA                       AURELIO MELENDREZ, VICE PRESIDENT OF RPOA

June 17, 2014 City Council: Public

Brian Smith, RPOA President

What was the RPOA talking about? Mike Soubirous? They appear to admit they were involved with this complaint, it couldn’t be more obvious.

Brian Smith, President of the Riverside Officers Association at City Council June 17, 2014:

Several months ago I had a conversation with a council member, ahh, which brought me some concern. Ahh, I brought that information back to some members within the City. The Department head and City Manager, ahh, it was then brought to the then Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, and a decision was made to conduct an investigation. You authorized an investigation to be done, and I’m here to address a couple things that I believe are rumors, so, I’m not a huge fan of rumors, innuendo and supposition, so I’m going to ask you to do a couple things.

An investigation was conducted. To my understanding, the party of that investigation aside from myself as a witness, has not yet participated in the investigation, whether it be in writing or otherwise. And I think that should be done.

Secondly, my understanding is that some members want to see a summary of the investigation. And I don’t think that’s fair.  Not only to me, but it’s also not fair to you as a council and it’s not fair to the citizens as a whole. I would ask that you look into that, completely and thoroughly, don’t just take a summary. A lot of time and effort was put into that investigation. There’s an actual transcription of everyone’s interview, and I think that it is important that you get that interview, and that you read through each and every one of those, and make that decision.

I also think that if you as a council decide, after reviewing that, that it’s a matter of public record and public comment, I think it should be done. I think that publicly they should be able to.. the public should know what you’ve decided to do and what things, allegations have been made.

I also think that councilmember deserves the right to answer, to what I said, happened. I think he is entitled to that, and he should… And I think that he wants the opportunity to do that, and I think that it is the best thing, for all of us concerned, both myself, the city as a whole, the public, and those of you that are seated here.

You are the centuries at the gate, it is your responsibility to police yourselves, and conduct yourself in a manner that is appropriate. If somebody has brought forth an allegation of inappropriate behavior, it needs to be investigated, it needs to be looked into, and ultimately a decision made. And that’s.. I’m here to answer any questions that you may have, I doubt there will be any, but you all know how to get a hold of me, if need be.

Aurelio Melendrez

Aurelio Melendrez, Vice President of the Riverside Officers Association at City Council June 17, 2014:

Good evening, I’m Brian’s vice president with the Riverside Police Officers Association. My Biggest concern, that’s come out of this, is that, for any of you that have been for any longer than four years. You remember what it was like when we had city government that over reached their bounds, stuck there hands in department heads business that didn’t belong there. I want to make sure for the sake of transparency, just like this councilman has asked for, that we put it out there for everybody to see.  Brian, me, all of us at the association want to make sure our organization is protected.. we don’t want to go backwards, we’re trying to go forward.

Sergio Diaz recently had an incident, first thing he did was sign away his right to privacy, and he shared his complaint openly, he took ownership of what he did, and I want to make sure this person does the same.. Thank-you.

Does Melendrez appears to conceive that RPD is an independent “organization” as stated at City Council?  An organization (or organisation) is an entity, such as an institution or an association, that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment.  Has Riverside’s finest lost there way?  Concerned citizens and local community groups in Riverside say Yes!  RPD needs to be more community orientated and needs to stop thinking they are an independent external entity.

What is it between Council and RPD?  According to Melendrez, there was a time that city government “overreached there bounds”, and stuck there hands in department heads business that didn’t belong there.   What was meant by that?  Were they talking about Councilman Adams interfering with the promotion process?  Or was it our City Attorney Greg Priamos, with his embroidered bullet proof vest, which states “City Attorney,”  involved with the raid on the Vibe club in Riverside?   Or is it simply by Chiefs Diaz’s standard, that people should simply stay out of police business and stay at home eating cheetos in their underwear?  Is he saying they should be independent?  Is Riverside a dicktatorship? Sorry, a dictatorship as many in our residential communities are expressing?  Who would then in the City be authorized to ask questions regarding police business?  Incidentally, Aurelio Melendrez is the son of current Ward 2 Councilman Andy Melendrez..

melendrez1A

Is the focus of Smith’s and Melendrez’s complaint directed possibly toward Councilman Mike Soubirous, the only independent voice on the Council?  A complaint against Soubirous is a complaint against Ward 3 constituents who we are told respect their hard working Councilman.  Since Aurelio is the son of Councilman Andy Melendrez, can we believe there may be some conflict of interest at hand due to his familial connection?

MS

What those two officers need to know is that Councilman Soubirous is their boss.

hillmailer

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

We asked the question if this whole investigation is politically motivated because the City supported Valerie Hill rather than Soubirous.  Another interesting point regarding this mailer is that it was paid for by the Riverside Police Officer’s Association  as indicated by the red arrow.  According to a new article in the Press Enterprise, Soubirous continues to say he believes the investigation is politically motivated because the police union backed his opponent in the election, and because he has questioned police department actions and policies since taking office.  Is this becoming a issue of Piss Poor Politics?

Why did City Manager Scott Barber walk out right before Riverside Police Officers Association/ Union President Brian Smith came to the podium?  Was he disturbed that Smith made public, something that shouldn’t have been public?

BARBER

Second Councilman Paul Davis, is also up against a Human Resource Complaint for a similar presmise… Doing the work of the people has it drawbacks..it certainly seems you will get political blowback for asking question.

Pu1T0UfvSGJyBBMf-r3kE2dJ-d6fbR2ktzstZ2nkWjkh1QUhkDIc0xkOsbm-1VNCfVrccqA5V7pcE74BVoRrQo

When did that become so bad, is it only in Riverside?  The ultimate question they should be asking and concerned about is what is really going to happen to Police Officer Pensions in 2016?  That should be of concern.  Maybe Brian and Aurelio should realize that the way the City of Riverside has done business, will impact their jobs.  For one thing they should understand where pension monies have gone, there will be n money t sue the city if need be.  They need to do a little bit of investigative work themselves, in order to uncover how their pension monies have been used. The following is a response by Riverside Police Officers Association President Brian Smith to Thirty Miles of Corruption.

6/20/14: To: THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM 

Interesting to read your take on what the rpoa was “saying” at the council meeting.  Perhaps a little investigating on your part you’d find a councilman likely violated the Brown Act…intimated that the city manager and chief of police jobs were in jeopardy. ..and a myriad of other things..

You may also uncover during your investigation that the complaint was actually filed by city employees and not the union.  In fact, the union was interviewed as a witness only.

The fact of the matter is this particular councilman needs to stop campaigning and start governing!  

Feel free to contact me, after you have done a little investigation on your own. 

Brian C Smith

TMC’s response to Brian Smith’s email response..

6/20/14: To: BRIAN SMITH, PRESIDENT OF RPOA

Hi Brian,

I do appreciate your email response regarding the one councilman who allegedly violated the Brown Act.  With all due respect, myself and the citizens of Riverside have a great appreciation for our Police force and the excellent work they do for our community.  For some reason, many find it difficult to forward constructive criticism regarding The Riverside Police Force, because it seems when we are responded to, we are disregarded and not taken seriously.

I’d like more than anything to clean this possible misconception up.  I will definitely make it right with regards to your conception of spin.  Spin is not good, it only makes us dizzy about the reality of true events. I’d like to ask you some questions to clear this up.  Regarding this one councilman,  “What part of the Brown Act did he specifically violate?”

As taxpayers we spent approximately 100K to ask a question (50K for the investigation and 50K for the law firm), we are still waiting for the 100K question to be answered.  Wouldn’t it have been frugal for city employees to file an ethics complaint?  Which would be free.

In your email to me you stated that, “You may also uncover during your investigation that the complaint was actually filed by city employees and not the union.”  I realize that only employees of the City of Riverside can initiate this complaint.  Were you one of the employees at the time that initiated this complaint?  Were the employees City Manager Scott Barber and Police Chief Diaz?

Could you clear up the statements made at City Council June 17, 2014, whereby you stated that “Several months ago I had a conversation with a council member, which brought me some concern.  I brought that information back to some members within the City.  Department head and City Manager, it was then brought to Mayor Pro Temp and Mayor.”  Could you clarify this statement.

Also, you stated, “I also think that councilmember should have a right to answer to what I said, happen.  I think he is entitled to that.”  Could you clarify this statement.

At one time you were under Chris Lanzillo, who was president of RPOA, could you express any premonition yet to come regarding his behavior with reference to his alleged alliances with Lackie, Dammeier & McGill?

At some point in time did you feel that some in RPD were entitled to personal use of city vehicles?  Could you give us some insight regarding allegation of Councilman Steve Adams and interfering with the promotional process?  When you were Vice President and Chris Lanzillo was President of the RPOA, could you give us some insight in reference to the Cop Playbook?  Lastly, is this a concerted effort on part of the City to remove certain council people due to politics?

Again, thank-you for contacting us.

All the best,  Javier Moreno

UPDATE: JUNE,22,2014: FROM THE DESK OF ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER: NEW RULES WHEREBY SPEAKER CARDS MUST BE TURNED IN ADVANCE.

To: K Wright, Colleen, Sherry Morton-Ellis, asmelendrez@riversideca.gov, msoubirous@riversideca.gov, Chris MacArthur, Mike Gardner, Paul Davis, Rusty Bailey, Steve Adams, sbarber@riversideca.gov, Greg Priamos
Cc: Kevin Dawson, Gurumantra Khalsa
Re: The Recent Rule that All Speaker Cards Must Be Turned in Advance of the Public Comment Period Appears to Be Unconstitutional.

Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, City Attorney Priamos and City Manager Scott Barber:
I was present, as was Kevin Dawson and a few other people, when, as Karen Wright walked to turn in a speaker card during the on-going public comment period, she was specifically singled out by Mayor Bailey by name, and told that her card would not be accepted because it was turned in too late.
I had already intended to send you a letter about this event, but since Karen Wright copied me with her e-mail, I’ll provide my comments instead by e-mail.
Free speech is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to us by both the stet and federal constitutions. Any time the government takes action that impairs a fundamental right, it must have a compelling reason to do so, and it must use the least intrusive means possible to accomplish its alleged goal.
Here, the right at stake is the First Amendment (and concomitant but more protective state constitutional article) right of political speech. This right includes the right to comment on the government’s actions in a specifically forum designed for such purpose, the public comment section, as well as the period for public comment after each agenda item. This relatively new rule requires that all speaker cards for each such period all be turned in before the agenda item has been called.
As explained below, this rule appears to be unconstitutional, and I ask that the City Council promptly rescind such rule and return to the original method of letting people turn in speaker cards up until the final comment for each period has concluded.
The background for my conclusion that the new rule is unconstitutional follows. If the City Attorney advises you to the contrary, please remember that this is the same attorney who told you that “moratoriums are illegal” (as you know, we currently have a moratorium on the issuance of building permits) and the same attorney who advised Mayor Bailey that arresting me for applauding was a perfectly good solution to — what? What problem was the applause causing? But I digress.
In the past, the citizens of Riverside were able to comment on various items simply by lining up along the walls and waiting their turn as each agenda item was called. They did not need to fill out speaker cards. The citizens, not the government, decided on the order in which they would speak. The citizens could listen to their fellow citizens speak, and then decide that they, too, wanted to comment — and then get up and join the line to add their comments, too. Legally, no one was required, as a condition of being allowed to speak, to give an name or an address, or any other information, including whether they favored or disfavored an item.
But under Ronald Loveridge, that clever political scientist, this was changed. Speaker cards were required, as well as the speakers supposed stand on an item. This changed the balance of power. The government could control the order of speakers. It could group those in favor or opposed together, and let one group or the other speaker first or last. The government could make sure that a strong speaker that supported the position of the government would be the final speaker. I personally saw these things happen over the years.
Although legally the government cannot require people to give a name, address or other information as a condition of speaking, the average person does not know this. So some people choose not to speak up because they do not want to share such information. I have seen this happen, too, when people, like me, who have used medial marijuana with great success, could share how much it has helped them, but are afraid to do so because of the potential ramifications such use could have on them because of the irrationnal laws that still exist making such use illegal or grounds for losing employment.
I have personally witnessed all these uses of the speaker card system to give the government an “edge” over public speech. This new rule is simply another attempt to let the government have unnecessary control over free speech.
Now, the rationale is that letting people turn in speaker cards during the meeting is somehow “disruptive.” It is not disruptive. It was never disruptive in the past for people to turn in cards during the meeting. I, and others, saw this happen for many years, with no problems.
Even court rooms function in this way, with people able to approach to bailiff or court room clerk, while court is in session and the judge is listening to other people, in order to quietly conduct other business unrelated to the event then taking place before the judge.

     So walking up to the front corner of the room to slip a speaker card into the receptacle, while someone else is at the podium speaking, is simply not so disruptive as to justify depriving anyone (even Karen Wright, who it’s clear is one of the City’s “disfavored” speakers) of the fundamental right of free political speech.
Requiring anyone who wishes to speak to turn in a speaker card at any time before the very end of the period for such speech is not the least intrusive way of solving the alleged problem of “disruption.” There was no disruption caused by handling things in the prior way.
Again, I ask that the City Council take a stand and represent its constituents by protecting their right to engage in the fundametnal constitutional right of political speech without unwarranted intrusion and interference by their government.

Letitia E. Pepper

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT, WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

The Greenpoint Avenue and Lake Street Sidewalk Construction was a Federal HUD (Housing and Urban Development) Funded Project or known as a CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Project.  If these funds are not spent before a certain amount of time, they must be given back to the Federal Government.  Checks were allegedly cut before the expiration date of funds, held in someones desk, then issued to the contractor or vendor at a later time.  To do otherwise would be considered illegal.  Any business person who receives a check, especially for the amount of close to a half a million dollars, does not wait 30 days to cash it.  In this case, the check issued to Grand Pacific Contractor’s did.  The contractor usually has employees to pay and vendors to pay.  At the time Tom Boyd was Assistant Public Works Director.  Was it possible he did not want to do the work?  Did Siobhan Foster know of these discrepancies in the Public Works Department and the details of the CDBG funds?  And did she leave the City of Riverside to the City of Pasadena for this reason?  How about Former Assistant City Manager Michael Beck, Public Works Director Tom Boyd, Former City Manager Brad Hudson or even City Attorney Gregory Priamos?  The question, is this an act of falsification of records?

01/05/2007 – IN AN INTEROFFICE MEMO DIRECTED TOWARD PURCHASING MANAGER ART TORRES REQUESTING TO PLEASE ADVERTISE ONLINE FOR BIDS ON THIS PROJECT JANUARY 8, 2007 FOR THE BID SUMISSION DATE OF FEBRUARY 7, 2007.  BUT A PURCHASE ORDER & REQUISITION WERE ORDERED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE FOR VENDOR: GRAND PACIFIC CONTRACTORS INC. JANUARY 5, 2007 ACCORDING TO DOCUMENT.

                           

CLICK DOCUMENT IMAGE TO VIEW

01/08/2007 – THE BIDING INFORMATION ON THIS PROJECT IS RELEASED TO BE ADVERTISED ON LINE THIS DAY.  BIDS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR CONSIDERATION FEBRUARY 7, 2007.

01/19/2007 – THIS IS GRAND PACIFIC CONTRACTORS BID, THOUGH DATED JANUARY 19, 2007.  IN ADDITION THERE IS NO RECEIVED DATE STAMP BY THE CITY ON THIS DOCUMENT TO SHOW ACTUAL DATE, IF ANY.

CLICK TO VIEW COMPLETE DOCUMENT

02/07/2007 – ACTUAL DATE BID OPENS AND CAN BE SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION.  THIS DOCUMENT SHOW A COVER SHEET WITH CITY COUNCIL AWARD DATE OF FEBRUARY 20, 2007 AND A CONTRACT SIGN DATE OF MARCH 13, 2007 BUT THE DATE ON THE COVER SHEET IS FEBRUARY 7, 2007.  WAS THIS BACKDATED?

CLICK DOCUMENT IMAGE TO VIEW

02/20/2007 – CITY COUNCIL AWARDS BID TO GRAND PACIFIC CONTRACTORS

03/12/2007 – A LETTER EMAILED BY FORMER PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTOR SEAN GILL, DESCRIBES THAT THE PROJECT HAS THIRTY (30) WORKING DAYS AND COMMENCE MARCH 12, 2007, THEREFORE PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED IN AND AROUND APRIL 12, 2007.

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DOCUMENT

03/13/2007 – GRAND PACIFIC CONTRACTORS AGREEMENT SIGNED

03/30/2007 – PURCHASE ORDER  BY ART TORRES, IN THE PROCESSING OF ACTIVITY SECTION, IT SHOWS A REQUESTED DATE AND ENTRY DATE OF 01/05/2007, PRIOR TO THE JANUARY 8, 2007 BID RELEASING DATE.

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DOCUMENT

04/13/2007 – CHECK ISSUED TO GRAND PACIFIC CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $485,545.50 BUT CASHED 5/17/2012, ALMOST 30 DAYS LATER.  THE AGREEMENT STATES THAT “MONTHLY PROGRESS PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 9-3.2 OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS”.

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DOCUMENT

05/17/2007 – AFTER OVER THIRTY DAYS CHECK IS CASHED

06/05/2007 – ACTUAL WORK COMPLETION DATE, APPROXIMATELY 60 DAYS POST AGREEMENT. CITY MUST NOW RECEIVE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FROM CONTRACTOR WITHIN 35 DAYS.

07/13/2007 – NOTICE OF COMPLETION (NO INITIATION DATE INDICATED ON DOCUMENT-ASSUME 30DAYS BEFORE COMPLETION DATE)

08/17/2007 – REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT

08/21/2007 – FINAL PAYMENT ISSUED FOR $53,945.50  FROM FUND 230 SPECIAL GAS TAX FUND.

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DOCUMENT

Inconsistencies arrise when viewing document four.  Document states that the City Council Awarded the bid to Grand Pacific Contractors 02/20/2007 and that the contract was signed 03/13/2007.  Yet the document date is 02/07/2007 at 2:00pm.  Was the document manipulated or imputed at that date with predetermined information?

              

DOCUMENT ONE        DOCUMENT TWO       DOCUMENT THREE     DOCUMENT FOUR          DOCUMENT FIVE

DOCUMENT SIX

The initial processing activity was that it was requested by Philip Hannawi 01/05/2007 and entered 01/05/2007.  What is also noticeable is that Grand Pacific Contractors has a vendor number assigned as of this same date.  The cost was approved 03/20/2007 and the last printing was 03/20/2007.  The terms of the vendor is Net 30 days.  What’s compelling is that the acceptance of this bid by the city 01/05/2007, is in contradiction to the initial and formal bid advertisement date of 01/08/2007 and bid opening date of 02/07/2007.

“Thirty-five (35) days after City accepts the Work and files a Notice of Completion, City shall pay Contractor the amounts City deducted and retained from its progress payments, except such sums thereof which are required by law or authorized by the Contract to be further retained”.   Progress payments are incremental payments made to the contractor at each level of completion.  For example, the contractor can say after a week this portion of the project will be completed.  Then an incremental payment will be made to the contractor to pay employees and their vendors etc.  What occurred was that the vendor was paid 90% ($485,545.50) in one lump sum prior to the job initiation, with the remaining 10% ($53,945.50) at job completion as indicated by vendor.  The records attained were the result of a public records act request.  Agreement also states that “Monthly progress payments shall be made in accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications”.

The following are current pictures of the job evidently done for sidewalks and curbs.  The constituents of the City of Riverside hope that our new Public Works Director Thomas Boyd can shed some light on the above discrepencies.  Since Former Public Works Director Siobhan Foster skipped town to become Public Works Director of the City of Pasadena, under City Manager Michael Beck (Former Assistant City Manager of the City of Riverside).

                                            

UPDATE: 09/11/2012: CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY:  SHE’S BACK!  Public Speaker Karen Wright and Coordinator of the Janet Goeske Center Friday Morning Club is back!  And City Council wasted no time embracing this welcome with two of Riverside’s finest, also known as ‘Ronny’s Bouncers.’  After Council Meeting was adjourned, Ms. Wright gave the Council and Mayor a lesson in government transparency.  Not to be undone, Ronny’s Bouncer’s were sent to the Mayor and Council’s rescue to cease this act of afterhours public speaking..

         

To this day, Chief Sergio Diaz has not apologize to Ms. Wright after accosting her on the city council floor on her public speaking position on Tequesquite Park.  What gives with the Chief?  Does he continue to think that Riversidian’s remain in their homes in their underwear eating cheetos?  Yes, of course, I admit this is what we all do in Riverside, but what about the apology?  I mean that Councilman Paul Davis made a public apology a couple of weeks ago to a fire inspector, and that didn’t appear to be at all that painful..

      

The hot item of the night was Item #9 a resolution to adopt Temporary Economic Development Rates (TED), or in other words, let’s give discounted electric rates to new start up businesses over the next three years that we choose.  This would work as a sliding scale decrease beginning with a 30% discount ending in 12/13, decreasing to 20% ending in 12/14, decreasing to 10% ending in 12/15, and decreasing to 0% discount thereafter.  The whole idea is to attract new businesses to Riverside, since many now our moving to states such as Arizona and Nevada.  The contradiction of this plan is that the residents of the City of Riverside own their own electric utilities, unlike other municipalities. If you own a home in Riverside, you own a part of the electric utility company, why should we pay more?  Therefore, shouldn’t the discount be spread across the board to residents and small business owners in order to stimulate more economic growth?    If the discount was spread across the board to all, there would be more money available for businesses to reinvest in their companies and hire more people, for residents there would be more money left in their budget to spend in town at small businesses etc., it would therefore be a win, win situation.  Many are asking, “How does this resolution pan out to the electric contract engaged with the Press Enterprise?”  Yes, what you read can possibly and certainly make a difference.  Even Riverside’s Chamber President, Cindy Roth got into the act submitting a letter in favor of this resolution.  And we all know by now, the Council and Mayor listen to Cindy over their constituents..  In actuallity, is this resolution a Proposition 26 violation and can be considered a gift of public funds when it is only reserved for a few?

It also appears there are miscellaneous fees and charges that these businesses will still be responsible for such as Energy Users Tax, Utility Users Tax and good ol’ Cap and Trade Premiums (Which is a Charge on Industrial CO2 emissions).  Which many legitimate scientist state it is a scam to pad local municipalities.  We haven’t even mentioned property taxes.  So is it still a good idea? or is Arizona or Nevada still a better choice?

         

From the Mayor’s Ball on the 6th floor of the new Citrus Towers, also know as BB&K Central, A possible new Multi-Modal Transportation Hub, are Electric Bonds actually ‘Hedge Funds’?  What happened to the monies written off and not paid for by the Department of Finance, is the taxpayer still responsible?  Is the Priamos Tape and example of Pension Spiking?  Local Blogger Mary Shelton, of Five Before Midnight,  has conflicting words with the Mayor….. And public speaking, leading to public sleeping…stay tuned….more to come….   and more to come…THE FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE RUSSELL LEACH DEPOSITIONS COMING SOON!  WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED WITH COUNCILMAN WILLIAM “RUSTY” BAILEY AND THEN SGT. VALMONT GRAHAM?  YOU BE THE JUDGE! THE WHOLE DEPOSITION IN PRINT!

UPDATE: 09/12/2012: THREE CITY COUNCILMAN BEFUDDLED BY THE DECISION OF CITY MANAGEMENT TO KEEP THE RED LIGHT CAMERA’S ALTHOUGH IN EXCESS OF 80% OF RESIDENTS FEEL THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED.  According to the Press Enterprise Councilmen Paul Davis, Chris Mac Arthur and Mike Gardner were surprise when news reached them that the decision to keep the red light cameras would remain until the contract ends in 2016.  Regardless of the fact the majority of cities all over the nation has removes them as a result of not only a safety issue, but because of cost deficits they were causing municipalities.  In Riverside the cost deficit is $611,000.00 so far.  The other issue with red light cameras is that receiving a citation by mail is considered not properly served, therefore not enforceable.

Others are asking the question of why city management made this decision, over council? And if they actually can do this, or if they were only excercising section 407 of the City Charter, which states that “Neither the Mayor nor the City Council nor any of it’s members shall interfere with execution by the City Manager (now Scott Barber) of his/her powers and duties, or order.”  TMC posted an article on this subject, “The Red Light Scam, Council Mayhem on the Streets of Riverside?”  Even now, others are questioning the activities of Councilman Steve Adams, if there was any alleged intervention with City Management.  He may call it political.  But his name continues to come up time after time whereby his alleged actions have costed city taxpayers a mint.  Some are now coining him “Mr. Liability”, after statement allegedly made in staff meetings by City Attorney Greg Priamos.

Many of the decisions Adams makes are in lieu of his brother Ron Adams working in the red light screening for the City.  Is this a conflict of interest?  Possibly, but again he may call it “a political tactic”, as reported in the PE.  Even to the extent of inferring there is a conspiracy involved, because there are certain people associated with a certain councilman.  We all know Adams is referring to Councilman Paul Davis, but we can assure Adams that these community residents he may be referring don’t make friends easily, of which is the case.  Adams went on to state that the issue of his brother, the attempt to create an issue of a non issue is “absolute harrassment”.

In addition, Councilman and Mayoral Candidate William “Rusty” Bailey was also a supporter of the the red light cameras and voted on their continuance.  Why continue with this endeavor when red light camera’s are currently runnning at lossess in excess of $600,000.00 to the taxpayer?  Why continue when many cities all over the country are dropping them, even Redlands, CA.  So why continue?  A good question to ask Mayoral Candidate Rusty Bailey.

UPDATE: 09/05/2012: EL TEQUESQUITE PARK NEEDS MORE DIRT?  ACCORDING TO THE PRESS ENTERPRISE EL TEQUESQUITE PARK NEEDS APPROXIMATELY 1,800 TRUCKLOADS OF DIRT (20,000 CUBIC YARDS) IN ORDER TO REPLACE WHAT WAS REMOVED. 

    

THIS IS NOT SMALL POTATOES, WAS THE DIRT REMOVED CONTAMINATED?  THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ENGINEER’S CALCULATIONS WERE OFF BY 1,800 TRUCKLOADS (20,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL).  QUITE SIGNIFICANT FOR JUST AN ERROR.  ACCORDINGLY, THE CITY OR THE TAXPAYER WILL HAVE TO DISH OUT NOT MORE THAN $200,000 TO SPREAD IT AROUND, THE NEW DIRT THAT IS.

THIS IS A TIME FOR THE COMMUNITY TO COME TOGETHER…PLEASE SEND YOU’RE “PACKAGED DIRT” TO CITY HALL TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY FINISH THE PARK!

JUST FOR LAUGHS..

A PAST INSCRIPTION OF THE FUTURE OF WHAT THE CITY NEEDS MOST ON A CRATE OF ORANGES?

RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN…

RIVERSIDE CITRUS GROVES, CIRCA 1930, MT. RUBIDOUX CAN BE SEEN IN THE DISTANCE AT THE UPPER LEFT CORNER AND PACHAPPA HILL TOWARD THE UPPER CENTER.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… 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 OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM 

What the Press Enterprise has not reported, is that these rate hikes were brought to the attention of the City Council and the Mayor many many times over by Self Proclaimed City Auditor Vivian Moreno.  With denials and dismissive responses from Councilmembers such as Mike Gardner and Andy Melendrez, both incidently candidates for mayor.  We are not critics as the PE would like to state, but responsible and educated citizens reading the city’s own public records, and asking the questions which the constituents really want to know.   Many times the answers are dismissive and contradictory to the public records at hand.  How should we as citizens respond if not to continue to ask the questions, until they can finally admit the truth.  If public records state their will be an increase from 2012 to 2013 their will be an increase, if not, correct the records.  But now, it appears that the city has been compelled to admit the truth.  We warned of the purple pipe reclamation program, with an increase of $2.00.  A program that does not benefit the citizens in Riverside, especially when the City of Riverside is one of the few cities which owns their own water rights.  We are only at forty percent capacity the rest we sell to other municipalities at a profit.  If the water table was to exceed the fifty foot mark from the surface, this would endager building and infrastructure foundations.  Therefore the water table must be monitored closely and harvested accordingly.  Accordingly, sewer rates from July 1, 2009 to July 1, 2013 for a Basic Multi-Family Dwelling have increase from $14.94 to $25.77, this is an increase of 42%.  Currently $21.26 as of  July 1, 2011 to $23.97 July 1, 2012, and increase of 13%.  Sewer rates going up, $2.00 in July 2012, up to $3.00 in 2013. 

The tiered water and electrical rate hikes, by manipulation of the number scales.  A new charge for mosquito abatement for some household at $8.00 per household.  I just found out that back alley I must clear of weeds every summer is the city’s property.  In addition this is under duress of a $1,000 fine for not clearing the city’s property.  Mad yet?  In addition,  no one resident receives credit for cost and time of cleaning the city’s property.  Even the fire department is beginning to charge fees for services.  You would think that our tax money would suffice.  But it appears that these may have been implemented to sustain the unsustainable, especially the pensions.  These were labor negotiations by city leadership that were not in the best interest of the citizens.  Storm drain maintenance hikes from $2.83 to $5.82, to sustain storm drain maintenance, street sweeping and of course which leads to a reason to cite constituents with parking tickets to sustain new parking projects etc.  Trash rates will go up $0.46 per month beginning in July 2012.  All constituents were denied a real say in the matter or were misinformed.  We can say ‘fiduciary negligence.’  But it won’t stop there, there are the bonds which are coming due as a result of the Renaissance debacle.  The city will be blaming Governor Brown and the state for banning redevelopment, for the money they say will sustain the payment on those bonds.  But that’s not how it works.  The State of California stopped Redevelopment because of the abuse.  They will blame the state, while the city will not take responsibility, because that will mean they are now apt at making good decisions.  But what you find that does not change in the long run.  Because in the long run it is you who will have to pay for it in increase property taxes.

When I see a spade I call it a spade…”   – Oscar Wilde

It is no wonder that city residents feel they are habitually terrorized by the city and code enforcement agents who slowly drive by residents home to see what kind of violations they can find. Yes many have quietly said it could be Cuba or even the Third Reich, but I have to continue to remind them we live in a city called Riverside, also know as “The All American City”.

Is Redevelopment really over?  The State of California says it is, but will municipalities create something different?  Originally, Redevelopment was created to combat blight.  Areas of cities that didn’t contribute to the overall tax structure.  As Redevelopmentevolved it tended to benefit friends and others close to the Mayor, City Council and Management, rather than the overall community.  Established businesses which were contributing to the economy were then hit with another tool, ‘eminent domain.’  But the irony is, that the visionaries of government who saw an illusionary and unattainable conception created in essence blight.   Currently what we have downtown that is blighted and created by the Renaissance program under the supervision of the Mayor and City Council at a cost of close to 2 billion dollars to the taxpayer.  In addition, does not make a penny for the community as it was intended. They can blame it on the loss of redevelopment, but it couldn’t logically work with it.  Another improvisational plan appears to be in the works.  Infrastructure Finance Districts, originally created and intended to work one way, just as redevelopment, will they be strategically morphed again as redevelopment was, to the benefit of a few?  While on one hand, the taxpayer are just feeling protected by the end of redevelopment, others are recreating an alternative gravy train.  Let’s make no bones about it, Pavlovian would be jealous of how much salivation exudes in the mouths of politicians on this thought. Yes you may say it is a dogs world, but here’s how infrastructure finance districts work: a group of property owners (or residents if there are more than a dozen) in the specified area vote to allow a portion of property taxes that would ordinarily go to the general fund to be diverted to pay for construction and improvements to public property — things like libraries, parks and recreational facilities.  But ordinarily, property owners such as resident are not likely to go to the city and ask for them to place it on a ballot initiative.  So what may happen, would be the city goes to the people with a ballot initiative that the city would benefit the property owners.  This is quite slick… this is what would happen, financially speaking, property taxes would not go up, but the general fund doesn’t get as much money. The City would go along with the decreased amount in the general fund because, in theory, these public enhancements cause nearby property values to rise, ultimately putting more property taxes into the general fund in the future. But currently the City’s has been spending more than they are taking in.  So again, will this new concept debacle cause additional increases in property taxes at some point?  Probably so.. therefore people need to think before they vote, those who don’t vote, need to vote.  If you don’t vote, you are allowing your representatives to be truly unattended.  It is your duty to be part of the checks and balance system which protects our community.  Without it, we will continue to be afraid of government, whereby government should be afraid of the people.  We therefore hae to ask ourselves, does government fear us?  Or do we fear the government?  Thomas Jefferson said it best, “When governments fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny”.   Government is our servant, not our master!”  When the people fear the government, as with code enforcement abuse, tax abuse, service fees abuse, hidden tax abuse, a tiered utility rate abuse and the feeling that nothing can be done…you have allowed government to have victory.

More to come, new article in the Press Enterprise, again posted for a short amount of time then buried but worth reading, because it is what citizens as us, who the city has called ‘misinformed’, ‘idiots’ or if a woman, ‘bitches’, the allegations of falsification of records.  If it at all matters, Interum Public Works Director, Tom Boyd is now named Public Works Director.

It is now time time to ask the Public Works Director the question the constituents have been waiting to ask, with regards to bids, contracts, change orders and accountability of which he has taken part of .

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… 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 OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM