Posts Tagged ‘ron loveridge’

Councilmen Chris Mac Carthur and William R. Bailey III, recommending Riverside City Hall be named “The Ronald O. Loveridge Riverside City Hall”?  Many are asking, “What’s in it for those two”?  “The Ronald O. Loveridge Riverside City Hall”, a lot of words to go on one wall, or should it be named our “Riverside City Hall of Debt”?  Less words, better description.  Debt, the true unfortunate legacy which will remain for many unprecedented years on the backs of local Riversidian’s.  (Item #8).

In closed session at 3:00pm, (Item #5).  This is all about fringe benefits, salaries and the unions. 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.  It’s no secret that 70% to 80% of a cities budget goes to payroll, and these closed door sessions leave an open door to abuse, at taxpayer expense.

(Item #30).  An agreement was made with Riverside City College District and the City of Riverside for the purchase of #100 parking stalls within The Fox Entertainment Plaza.  The one problem with this, The Fox Entertainment Plaza is a redevelopment project.  According to the state order on the suspension of redevelopment, cities are forbidden to enter into any new redevelopment contracts, otherwise, we have a violation.

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…

Is it true that the Redevelopment debt is increasing incrementally $100,000,000.00 per month?  According to the Enforceble Obligation Payment (EOP) in June 2011 the RDA debt was $1.5 Billion, The premliminary draft of the Enforceable Obligation Payment (IROPS-Initial Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule) as of September 27, 2011 states total RDA debt to now be $1.7 Billion.  Much of the the debt is being paid with bond proceeds as a revenue source.  How long can it sustain itself?  This would be as if one pays a debt with a credit card, then later uses another credit card to pay the first credit card.  Instead we are using bonds. Bonds are loans.  A bond is a formal contract to repay borrowed money with interest at fixed intervals.  Will this unsustained failure to deal with lead to banckruptcy?  Illegal or just Bad Business?  Where does the actions of the council breach their fiduciary duty to the taxpayer?  Is there a point whereby bad fiscal decisions just becomes illegal?

“Lying rides upon debt’s back.” -Benjamin Franklin

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” 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… 

Who’s driving this thing? Steve, put a little elbow grease in that crane.  Greg what do you mean we dropped the case, we’re making a killing out here in container fees!

According to the City of Riverside, this was all about the increase in train traffic running through the City and causing an increased level of pollution.  But, after three court rulings against the City of Riverside, they decided not to continue to hold the Port of Long Beach hostage for hopes of receiving a container fee ransom.  Why did the City sue?   Were they running out of money?  The container fees were to be used for newly constructed underpasses allowing local traffic not to be disrupted.  But awhile back, the city could have also considered the idea of re-routing the cargo trains closer to
the Santa Ana River as many had suggested, considering the port was expanding and local traffic in and around the city would increase.  But it appeared it was never seriously considered.

Mayor Ron Loveridge did take notice of the repercussions of the law suit,  when he stated, “I think it is time for us to join the region (in) working on enhancing the two ports.   Our lawsuits were slowing that down.”  Slowing things down, why did the city initiate it in the first place?  Did the city  think it was all quite frivolous to began with?   Well in reality, maybe these cases were just frivolous, and in the terminology City Attorney Greg Priamos would use, the lawsuits  “have no merit.”  But Riverside Councilman Steve Adams, a major proponent of the lawsuits, said he doesn’t see dropping them as
a sign of failure. He said the city’s approach showed other agencies the seriousness of the problem and got them to listen. He now is working on a national strategy that would include a container fee charged at all U.S ports.  Suing the ports, Adams said, “was the right thing to do at the right time, and this is the right thing to do now.”  So now it’s not a local issue,  looks as Steve is now  working on a national strategy for adding a container fee, which will probably be added to the final cost of goods to the consumer.

The cost to the taxpayer has also come into question.  City Attorney Greg Priamos estimated the city spent between $350,000 and $450,000 on outside legal counsel.  Could it be Best Best & Krieger?  He also stated that a considerable amount of staff time was dedicated to the case, though he declined to put a dollar figure on the in-house work.   Possibly “attorney client privilege” scenario?   Thanks Greg!  Was it about $350,000.00, or was it $450,000.00?  I just don’t remember because I can’t read a ledger book, or because I and my outside legal counsel, BB&K,  appear not to need no stinkin contracts?  Contracts you say, well my friends contracts just do not exist in Emerald City with BB&K, but it allegedly appears as if verbal bilateral one does.  Well, what the heck, plus or minus a $100,000, what’s the big deal?  It’s not my money.   That’s transparency for you.  But we did manage to find a signed agreement between City Attorney Greg Priamos and Grover Trask, ex Riverside County District Attorney now working for BB&K,  when they needed representation for Chief Russell Leach.  There is no doubt this is simply and purely negligence of these public servants fiduciary duty to the tax payer, not to mention the unknown additional cost to the taxpayer on in-house staff time.

“I think it was three strikes and we’re out,” Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge said Thursday.  Well your right Mayor,  it’s just a ball game,  0 for the Taxpayer, 1 for BB&K somewhere around $350K  to $450K.  Didn’t the City  know what kind of pitcher they were dealing with when they couldn’t even get to first base?

LETTER WRITTEN BY JOHN HUSING & BOB WOLF TO THE EDITORS OF NEWS AGENCIES:

Editor:

In filing a misguided lawsuit aimed at stopping expansion at the Port of Long Beach, Riverside’s City Council has taken direct aim at the health of one of the Inland Empire’s primary blue collar job generators:  international trade and logistics.  After adding 76,200 jobs from 1990-2007, the sector has lost 7,900 in 2008-2009, largely due to falling imports through our ports, much of which is processed by inland warehousing workers.  Some of this decline will be permanent because national retailers are now diverting shipments elsewhere due to the constant lawsuits that make our ports a
decision-making disaster zone.  In just two years, the ports have lost 4% of their U.S. market.  Riverside is contributing to the chaos.

This is strange behavior from a city where 2008 Census data show one of 12 resident-workers is employed in logistics, and where 10,200 of the city’s fourth quarter 2008 jobs were in it, with a payroll of $449 million and workers averaging $43,800 a year.  These jobs could grow because the port slowdown has left 18.7% of the city’s industrial space empty.  They are badly needed jobs given that 46.3% of the city’s adults and 47.8% of those in Riverside County have not had a single college class.  Where else will this population get decent jobs with construction and manufacturing in deep trouble and service sector jobs like retailing, restaurant and hotel work paying at or near the minimum wage.

Why would the City Council do this?  Clearly, they are frustrated by the railroads bringing international cargo through the city and clogging its 26 at-grade track crossings.  They want money to build overpasses and apparently thought that throwing a punch at the ports would gain attention.  But, even if the lawsuit wins, there is no port funding to pay for off-port projects. At this writing, Riverside’s suit is the only obstacle to the Port of Long Beach starting construction on a long delayed Middle Harbor Project that will employ 10,000 man-years of construction workers and  permanently create 14,000 workers while also significantly improving Southern California’s environment.  Riverside has, in effect, become the principal barrier to a major environmental and green job effort.

Instead, the City Council is turning a city known for fostering regional cooperation, into a Southern California pariah.  To cite just one likely result:  In 2008, Senator Lowenthal of Long Beach tried to get funding for the off-port infrastructure construction that Riverside wants with a bill levying a fee on ocean containers.  Recognizing Riverside’s key needs, Lowenthal’s bill (SB 974) created a commission that would have overseen the funding with a seat specifically designated for the city of Riverside.  The bill passed but was unfortunately vetoed by the Governor.  He plans to reintroduce
it once a new Governor is elected.  But, why would he continue to help Riverside given the current attitude of its City Council towards his hometown?

Recently, Geraldine Knatz, director of the Port of Los Angeles, met with Riverside Council Members to try and gain Riverside’s cooperation by proposing that the city drop the lawsuit and the ports join hands in getting the Obama Administration to use its stimulus funds for city rail crossing projects.  Her bid was rejected out of hand.

For those of us who have worked hard and have successfully gained the cooperation of leaders throughout Southern California to support our efforts to gain funding for off-port projects in the Inland Empire, Riverside’s litigious behavior has become worse than an embarrassment.  It has undercut our ability to engage in fruitful discussions of the kind mentioned here.  This concern extends to the inland area’s regional agencies, the leaders of which are flabbergasted by this behavior.

If Riverside does not drop its ill-advised lawsuit, we fear that the consequence for blue collar workers in the economies of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, where we respectively live, will suffer.  Certainly, Riverside itself will not benefit.

Bob Wolf
Past Chairman, CA Transportation Commission, Former CA Undersecretary For Transportation

John Husing
Commissioner, CA Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission

UNKNOWINGLY PUSHING THE ENVELOPE, 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 PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST…  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  BY THE WAY, COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED!

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC…

A long habit of not thinking a thing is wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right  –Thomas Paine

NEWS RELEASE: CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT DEAD ON ARRIVAL?  THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES HAVE SUED CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ANA MATOSANTOS.  THE SUPREME COURT HAS MANDATED A STAY OR FREEZE ON ALL CITY REDEVELOPMENT, UNTIL THE ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS FROM NOW IN THE BEGINNING MONTHS OF 2012.  THIS MEANS THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS MANDATED EXISTING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES FROM INCURRING NEW INDEBTNESS, TRANSFERRING ASSETS, ACQUIRING REAL PROPERTY, ENTERING INTO NEW PARTNERSHIPS, ADOPTING OR AMENDING REDEVELOPMENT PLANS ETC.,  AND ESPECIALLY THE FOLLOWING:  ENTERING INTO NEW CONTRACTS OR EVEN MODIFYING EXISTING CONTRACTS.  EVEN THE NEW ORDINANCE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL THIS WEEK IS NOW DOA.

ON JUNE 29, 2011 GOVERNOR BROWN SUSPENDED ALL REDEVELOPMENT ACITIVITIES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHILE CRITICIZING THE AGENCIES FOR DRAINING TAX DOLLARS AWAY FROM SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC SAFETY AT A TIME WHEN REVENUES ARE RUNNING THIN.   THE STATE GAVE CITIES TWO OPTIONS TO THIS SUSPENSION,  AS A RESULT OF THE ABUSES OF REDEVELOPMENT, DISSOLVE IT OR CONTINUE IT.  IF YOU CHOOSE TO CONTINUE, THE PAPERWORK THE STATE EXPECTS CITIES TO FILL OUT, IS TEDIOUS, AND THIS HAS UPSET MOST CITY GOVERNMENTS AS OURS. THEREFORE, OUR CITY ISSUED AN ORDINANCE TO CONTINUE THE VOLUNTARY REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.  THIS CHOICE TO CONTINUE BECOMES AS THE STATE CALLS IT “ VOLUNTARY CHOICE”. THEREFORE ENTERING INTO THIS CONVENANT CITIES ENTER A MORE STRUCTURED PROGRAM TO FORCE THE CITY TO BECOME MORE RESPONSIBLE, THIS IS WHAT THE STATE’S VIEW THAT IT WILL MITIGATE ABUSE OF FUNDS. 

THIS IS WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE MERE FACT THAT THE CITY WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR BONDS JULY, 1, 2012, AND WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PAY FOR IS A FACT, AND EX-RIVERSIDE CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.  THE COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE WILL INADVERTANLY HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS THRU HIGHER UTILITIES SUCH AS ELECTRIC, WATER AND SEWER FEES.  IF YOU LOOK A OTHER CITIES, YOU WILL REALIZE WHAT 2 BILLION OF CONSTRUCTION REALLY LOOKS LIKE. REDEVELOPEMENT CRITICS SAY THAT, TOO OFTEN, THE MONEY BENEFITS PRIVATE BUSINESSES AND STEAMROLLS PROPERTY OWNERS.  ASSEMBLYMAN CHRIS NORBY, R-FULLERTON, SAID THE AGENCIES LONG AGO OUTLIVED THEIR USEFULNESS AND SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN, PARTICULARLY AS THE STATE CONFRONTS A $25.4 BILLION BUDGET GAP. BUT IN THEIR ARROGANCE, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE DID NOT TAKE THIS SUSPENSION WELL, THEIR ENTITLEMENT WAS CLEAR, GOING AS FAR AS CALLING THE OBLIGATION PAYMENT  “RANSOM” AND A FORM OF “THEFT“.  AS INDICATED ON THEIR WEBSITE.  YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE WOULD BE ON THE TEAM EFFORT AGAINST SUPPORTING SUCH WASTE, BUT ARROGANCE IS DEEP SEATED AND IRREVERSIBLE AS A MALIGNANT CANCER THAT IT HAS LED THEM TO SUE THE STATE.  THE STATE IS YOU THE TAXPAYER.  THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CITIES, OF WHICH MAYOR LOVERIDGE IS PART OF, ARE TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING INTEREST GROUPS WHICH ARE SUING YOU (TAXPAYER) TO GET THEIR SPENDING MONEY.  IT’S AS IF YOU GIVE A CHILD AN ALLOWANCE, WHICH THEY KEEP SPENDING AN IN TURN, THEY KEEP COMING BACK TO YOU FOR MORE.  THE REAL SAD CONTRADICTION IS THAT YOU (TAXPAYER) ARE ALSO PAYING THE LITIGATION FEES TO SUE YOURSELF FOR MORE OF YOUR MONEY.   THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CITIES FUNDED A CAMPAIGN THAT ULTIMATELY STOPPED SERIOUS EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM IN CALIFORNIA, LEAVING PROPERTY OWNERS VUNERABLE TO SEIZURE IF CITIES FIND A BETTER USE FOR THEIR LAND OR BUSINESS. 

BUT HOW MUCH DEBT SERVICE ANNUALLY IS THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE PAYING ON RENAISSANCE PROJECTS?  IF $1.58 BILLION IS THE TOTAL FOR DOING ALL RENAISSANCE PROJECTS, WHAT’S THE TOTAL COST WITH INTEREST OVER THE LIFE OF ALL THE BORROWED MONEY?  IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN IT’S ALL PAID OFF, WHAT WILL THE TOTAL COST BE?   THIS WOULD THEREFORE BE A PROJECTION, BECAUSE BONDS COULD BE REFINANCED OR PAID OFF EARLY DEPENDING ON THE ECONOMY ETC.  WE MUST ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE LONGEST TERM OF BORROWING FOR THE RENAISSANCE PROJECTS, SUCH AS 30 YEARS ETC.

SO, TOTAL NEW MONEY BONDS ISSUED DURING THE PERIOD AMOUNT TO $1,084,051,402, INCLUDING NON-CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDS, AS INDICATED IN TABLE 1.   THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF OTHER FUNDING SOURCES IN THE RENAISSANCE: 

1. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.

2.USER FEES.

3. STATE, FEDERAL AND REGIONAL GRANTS.

4. LAND SALE PROCEEDS.

5. PRIVATE FUNDING- SUCH AS RAILROADS, DONATIONS ETC.

6. GENERAL FUND CASH.

7. RDA TAX INCREMENT.

8. CERTAIN OLDER RDA BOND PROCEEDS ALLOCATED TO RENAISSANCE.

9. CERTAIN MEASURE-G PROCEEDS ALLOCATED TO RENNAISSANCE.

10. FUTURE PLANNED RIVERSIDE CONVENTION CENTER BOND ISSUE.

THE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE AMOUNT VARIES BUT TYPICALLY IS IN THE MID $60 MILLLION RANGE FOR 2012 AND EVEN 2013, AS INDICATED IN THIS TABLE 2.  IN YEAR 2014 THERE IS A BALLOON PAYMENT THAT WILL LIKELY BE REFINANCED.  IT IS WORTH MENTIONING THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DEBT IS UTILITY DEBT, WHICH THEY ROUTINELY CARRY AND WOULD HAVE REGARDLESS OF THE RENAISSANCE.  THE ACTUAL APPROXIMATE COST OVER THE LIFE OF DEBT WOULD HIT THE $2.0 BILLION MARK.  THEREFORE, BASED ON THE APPROXIMATE POPULATION COUNT IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN THE CITY WILL BE LEFT TO PAY FOR THE RIVERSIDE RENAISSANCE IN INCREASED SEWER, WATER, ELECTRIC, PARKING AND GENERAL FUND REPLACEMENT.  THE $2.0 BILLION BREAKDOWN IS AS FOLLOWS:  THE PRINICIPAL IS $1,084,051,402 AND THE INTEREST IS $979,022,581.  TODAY, THE COST TO EACH INDIVIDUAL WILL BE APPROXIMATELY $6,660.00, OR A FAMILY OF FOUR WILL HAVE TO PAY OUT $26,400.00. 

JOHN CHIANG, WHERE ART THOU? YOU CERTAINLY ARE NOT IN RIVERSIDE….

UPDATE:08/28/2011: OF COURSE, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, A TAXPAYER LOBBYING GROUP, WON’T TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER ON THE SUPREME COURTS RULING OF PLACING A STAY ON ALL REDEVELOPMENT.  MOST HAVE SAID SINCE IT WAS LEGISLATED IN, IT CAN BE LEGISLATED OUT.  BUT THE CRA, WHO SUED THE STATE ON THE CITY’S BEHALF DID NOT LIKE THE RULING.  THE CRYSTAL CLEAR RULING PLACES A STAY ON ALL REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY UNTIL THE ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED IN JANUARY 2012, THIS IS TO PREVENT FURTHER QUESTIONS OF FINANCIAL MOVEMENT.  BUT THE CRA HAS NOW ASKED THE SUPREME COURT FOR A CLARIFYING ORDER WHICH WOULD ALLOW LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES WHICH HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES TO THE NEW VOLUTARY STATE RULES, PAY THE ENFORCEMENT OBLIGATION PAYMENTS AND CONTINUE TO  DO LOCAL RDA BUSINESS AS USUAL.  BUT WHAT IS QUITE IRONIC IS THAT THE CRA AND THE CITY DID NOT LIKE THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM TO BEGIN WITH, THAT’S WHY THEY ARE SUING.  SINCE SUING THE STATE PLACED A STAY ON ALL ACTIVITY, THE CRA AND THE CITY NOW WANT THE STATE TO NOW HONOR THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM IN THE INTERIUM, THAT THEY ORIGINALLY SUED AGAINST.  GO FIGURE? 

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS”  BLOG SITE! NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE… 

CLICK THE PIC TO WATCH BRAD HIDE IN SACRAMENTO!

NOW IT’S ONLY A HOP, SKIP AND A JUMP TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY OFFICES IN CASE STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG HAS A FEW AUDITING QUESTIONS REGARDING DISCRETIONARY FUND SPENDING IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE FOR NEW CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BRADLEY HUDSON. 

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! 

Questions abound regarding Brad Hudson’s decision to leave Riverside.  Is it because he understands the books better than the city council or mayor?  Is it because of the enormous bond debt which will come due July 1, 2012?  His discretionary slush fund spending?  To the tune of over 25 million, then suddenly went down this year when a citizen brought it to the councils attention last year.   Or is he leaving because of the many restrictive inter-agency fund transfers.  Once transferred to non-restrictive account, become part of web of inter-fund transfers reaching their proposed goal?  Or did the questions regarding Connie Leach to the City of Riverside instigate Brad to make a quick getaway?  How long will the council and mayor continue to fall by the sting of the break-up even after the June 14th  love fest, especially Steve Adams, who appears would marry him if he could.   The question is, why would you leave his base salary of $295,000.00 to make $258,000.00 in Sacramento?   

Brad’s yearly basesalary                                                      $258,200.00

Carry on Employee Duty Expense ($700/month)                  $8,400.00

401a Plan Match Up                                                                 $9,000.00

Auto Allowance ($550/month)                                               $6,600.00

Total First Year Salary                                                          $282,200.00 

Additional Benefits:  Retirement Benefit,  Health Insurance Benefit, Dental Insurance Benefit, Vision Insurance Benefit, Professional Associations Expenses Benefit, Moving Expense Benefit of $25,000.00, First year entitled to 42 day leave (1 ½ mo off), Second year, entitled to 84 day leave max. (3mo off).  Cost unknown.   Though Brad Hudson’s has yet to formally submit a letter of resignation, does his vague current employee contract with the City of Riverside obligate to pay out the remaining two years in a lump sum?
Conditions in Hudson’s current five year contract with Sacramento County state a lump sum payout if he vacates the position early.
 

Therefore, did the City of Riverside actually pay Brad Hudson to much?   Will an independent forensic audit of the the city accounts be implemented when Brad Hudson leaves, in order to get a baseline for the next City Manager?  Accountability and Transparency may be non-existent in City Hall, but TMC will ask the questions.  The questions the community of Riverside are now asking.  Now the agenda:

Item 11, is Michael Morales’s appeal of the ethics violations against Ward 7 Council Candidate John Brandriff.   What struck me as quite interesting is that there are two other subjects which have yet to be reported regarding their record of attendance.  TMC did our own rundown of the Community Review Police Commission Attendance.   According to the attendance records Brandriff attended 12 committee meetings and had 6  absences;  1 excused, 3 for sickness and 2 for business.  What’s quite interesting is that Robert Slawsby attended 11 committee meetings and had 6 absences, all six for business.  He is quite equal to Brandriff.  Last there is Rogelio V. Morales who attended 9 committee meetings and had 9 abscences,  5 for business and 4 which were UNEXCUSED.  There is a contradiction regarding Michael Morales with regards to his claims.  Errors can be made, but these are obvious in the sense of fairness.  You would also believe Michael Morales would have also filed complaints against the other two, otherwise you would have to believe there is an ulterior motive.  I am unaware if Rogelio V. Morales is related to Michael Morales though they have the same name and many are asking just that question.  The question arises if Michael Morales was hired to follow the daily activities of John Brandriff , or decided to do this as a sole individual?  This due to his extensive knowledge of Mr. Brandriff’s day to day activities and whereabouts.  It is also alleged that Michael Morales is a supporting associate of current Ward 7 Councilman Steve Adams, of which Council Candidate John Brandriff will be in a run off election with.  It is also known that Steve Adams and Brad Hudson are close associates or friends.  The question which allegedly appears to materialize,  is this a political play to damage the reputation of Councilman’s Adam’s opponent, John Brandiff.  Would it be to attain leverage for winning a re-election campaign?  Or would it be a form of political retaliation for other reasons? Brandriff did asked the hard question with regards to City Manager Brad Hudson’s responsiveness to the Chief Russ Leach DUI in 2010, where records for Hudson’s city cell phone showed no incoming or outgoing calls the day of the incident until 14 hours after the traffic stop.  Hudson’s explanation is that his phone was off.  John Bradriff stated, “You’re telling me he wasn’t on the phone with anybody, about anybody, all day, with this going on?  That’s hard to believe.”   So, this is where the question in the community came up regarding Hudson’s personal phone records, which were convieniently unsoepenable.  Or is there a way to utilize the city phone and circumvent the record with City software?  Well, we never received a rational answer from the City.  Or there is the case of Councilman Steve Adams and City Attorney Greg Priamos strong arming a community meeting, La Sierra/ Arlanza Neigborhood Group, as many have indicated who attended.  Adams then made a call to Brad Hudson to end the meeting,  then left.  When an ethics violation was filed, Steve Adams claimed politically motivated because he confronted Taffi Brandriff, LANZA Co-Chair,  the wife of Ward 7 Council Candidate John Brandriff who is running against him.  But this is not the first time, Steve Adams has claimed conspiratorially motivated, stating allegations of others on the dais. What is quite remarkable is the many alleged instances of impropriety against opponent John Brandriff, which make mentioning.   But if you love this so far, you are going to love the Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse Investigative Report coming soon on TMC.  (Item 11, 3:00 pm session).

 Item 36, the thing of importance is that the Roberts Consulting Group was originally hired as headhunters to find a suitable and qualified person for the City Manager position, whom back in 2005, you guessed it! was Brad Hudson.  Well they have been hired again to do the same.  It has also been allegedly stated that Roberts Consulting have ties to the Mayor’s office.  Conflict of Interest?  Business as usual?  It appears that the City Council or the Mayor’s office are incapable of hiring someone qualified and knowledgeable for the position.  If in fact they may actually lack the skills to know what they expect of a City Manager, or our they even incapable of asking the proper interviewing questions?  Isn’t that a reflection on the City?   See, many in the private sector do their own hiring, hopefully honesty will be one of the afformention requirements for the position.  Whoever Roberts Consulting chooses as capable, the council and the mayor will accept it as acceptable. Even though the Mayor received 6 outside bids, he still decided to choose preferentially his friend of Roberts Consulting Group.  What  a surprise they were also on top of the Mayor’s list last time they were searching and found our now exiting City Manager Brad Hudson.  In 2005, Norm Roberts, Roberts Consulting, had mixed success.  So much so that the council members rejected the city manager candidates Roberts found and recruited Hudson on their own.  Well they could have saved the taxpayer money.   Roberts also headed the process that led to hiring police Chief Sergio Diaz in 2010.  (Item 36).

 Item 28 Adopt an ordinance to continue and comply with the the new State’s Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program. On June 29, 2011 Governor Brown suspended all redevelopment activities in the State of California.  The State gave cities two options to this suspension, dissolve it or continue it.  Because of the abuses of redevelopment an if you choose to continue, the paperwork the State expects to fill out is tedious, and this has upset most city governments as ours.  Therefore, our city is requesting the adoption of an ordinance to continue the Voluntary Redevelopment Program.  This choice to continue becomes as the State calls it, “A Voluntary Choice”.   Therefore entering into this convenant, cities enter a more structured program to force the city to become more responsible, this is with the State’s view that it will mitigate abuse of funds.  Stay tuned for more on this one. (Item 28).

Item 31 Nancy Hart wishes to serve in place of Councilman MacArthur on the Development Committee for the discussion of the leasing program for city owned property located at 10530-60 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside.  Does any of these council people have a real estate license or property management background.  Where is Dennis Morgan of IPA (Inland Pacific Associates) who is the property management company contracted with the city in all of this? (Item 31).

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST SLANDEROUS BLOG SITE…

UPDATE: MICHAEL MORALES APPEAL DENIED 6-O. MICHAEL MORALES SLAMS PAUL DAVIS BY SUGGESTING HE RECUSE HIMSELF BECAUSE HE IS A SUPPORTER OF COUNCIL CANDIDATE JOHN BRANDRIFF.  CONTINUES TO CLAIM DOCUMENTATION, WITH NO DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED OF VALUE.  HIS ALLEGED ASSOCIATE AND ALLEGED PARTNER IN THIS DEBACLE, COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS IS ON VACATION IN TEXAS.  EVERYONE WAS THERE ON THE DAIS EXCEPT STEVE.  HE HAS YET TO FILE COMPLAINTS OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS ON SLAWSBY AND ROGELIO MORALES, WHO HAVE EQUAL OR WORSE RECORDS OF ATTENDANCE AS DOCUMENTED.  THIS IN ESSENCE, ONLY QUESTIONS THE MOTIVE OPERANDI OF MICHAEL MORALES.  COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS IN INSISTANT WITH REGARDS TO CONSPIRATORIAL REFERENCES TOWARDS HIM.  NO ONE IS REALLY SURE WHAT MR. MORALES OR COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS’S INTENTIONS ARE, BUT OTHERWISE INEFFECTIVE IN CONVINCING THE DAIS OF JOHN BRANDRIFF’S INEPTNESS, WITH REGARDS TO HIS ATTENDANCE RECORD.  THIS INTRIGUING INVESTIGATION HAS BROUGHT MORE FOCUS ON COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS WITH HIS CLAIMS OF POLITICAL VICTIMIZATION! IS HE REALLY THE VICTIM, OR HAS HE USED THIS AS  A SUPTERFUGE FOR FURTHER POLTICAL GAIN?

BRAD’S FAREWELL PARTY: A REFLECTION OF REALITY?  THE HUMOROUS EXUBBERANCE OF OUR CITIES UPPER ESCHELON  WAS NOT TO BE MISSED.  IN THERE MOMENT OF REPOSE THEY WERE ENTERTAINED WITH SUCH GOVERNMENT TOPICS AS POLICE ASSET FORFEITURE, SCANDALS AND CITY CHARTER VIOLATIONS IN A WHIMSICAL SORT OF VIEW.

THE CITY NOW NEEDS YOUR HELP, THE RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY, IN SELECTING THE NEXT CITY MANAGER.

UPDATE:08/25/2011: PE CONTENDS CITY MANAGER SEARCH HAS LOW ATTENDANCE.

UPDATE:08/27/2011: CITY PROVIDES NEW COMMUNITY IMPUT QUESTIONAIRE REGARDING WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE NEXT CITY MANAGER.

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC…RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” BLOG SITE!

On March 22, 2011 Riverside City Council unanimously transferred $100,000.00 from the public general fund to the Sendai Relief Fund.  The queston now became, can a public entity contribute a gift of public funds to another, even if it is for a good cause?  As a general rule,  you can only give away to others what you own, which includes cities.  But by definition funds owned by the city are public, and elected and appointed officials are stewards of those funds.  Therefore, according to Article XVI, section 6 of the California Constitution  undeniably prohibits gifts of public funds, therefore the City of Riverside gifting $100,000.00 of public funds to Sendai is not only illegal but a violation.  Individual contributions by elected and appointed officials and personal would have been the legal way of raising appropriate relief funds to gift to Sendai.   Rules and regulations have been developed for a reason, to prevent taxpayer fund abuse.  The State constitution is very clear, there must be direct or primary public purpose and benefit to the public at large when general funds are used to avoid being a gift.

UPDATE: 05/24/2011: NOTED AT CITY COUNCIL, $100,000.00 WITHDRAWN FROM GENERAL FUND AS A GIFT TO SENDAI.  HOW MANY MORE GIFTS OF CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GENERAL FUND HAVE OCCURRED FOR OTHER NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS? 

UPDATE: 05/29/2011: RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES DONATES $2000.00 TOWARDS A DINNER HONORING MAYOR RON LOVERIDGE AND WIFE.  A SILVER SPONSORSHIP INCLUDES A TABLE WITH A SEATING FOR FOUR AND AN AD ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.   IF THE DONATION WAS WITH PUBLIC FUNDS AS INDICATED BY THE SPONSORSHIP LISTING, THIS WOULD BE ILLEGAL AND A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTUION.   THIS WOULD ALSO BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST SINCE RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES IS A PUBLIC ENTITY.  TMC INVESTIGATES, STAY CONNECTED.