CITY OF RIVERSIDE: PAYING FOR TALENT GETS CREATIVE FINANCING, BUT NOT THE TRUTH!

Posted: August 31, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

What the City of Riverside is not telling you, even with all the talent, is that the City debt, or your debt rather, is approximately $4.4 Billion ($4,462,592,303 ).  Which comes to approximately $58, 708 per Family of Four, or $14, 677 per individual living in the City of Riverside.   Get use to the higher utility rates!

1. CITY INDEBTEDNESS: From Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

Electric Utility Fund                                                             $828,474,000
Water Utility Fund                                                               $414,204,000
Sewer Utility Fund                                                              $537,281,000
General Obligation Bonds                                                      $25,003,000
Pension Obligation Bonds                                                    $182,448,000
Certificates of Participation                                                  $348,180,000
Contracts: Enterprise Funds                                                       $949,000
Notes Payable: Sewer Fund                                                     $8,030,000
Commercial Loan-City National Bank                                        $1,100,000
Capital Leases                                                                       $9,570,000
Workers Compensation Advances to Other Funds                      $8,854,000
Electric Fund Advances to Central Stores                                     $650,000
CalPERS New Pension Asset                                                $140,898,000
Other Post-Employment Benefits:
     OPEB-Stipend Plans                                                          $1,230,000
     OPEB-Implied Subsidy                                                      $9,853,000
Long Term-Electric Utility Commitments-SCPPA                     $437,041,000
Landfill Capping                                                                    $7,030,000 

TOTAL CITY INDEBTNESS                                           $2,960,799,000

  

2. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INDEBTNESS: From Annual Report to the State Controller: Summary Statement of Indebtness, for all Project Areas.

Tax Allocation Bonds                                                           $395,985,967

Other Long Term Debt                                                          $38,817,615

Advances From The City of Riverside                                     $221,028,819

Low-To-Moderate Income Housing Fund                                $306,358,666

Other                                                                                 $500,625,035

TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INDEBTNESS       $1,501,793,303

THEREFORE:

1. TOTAL CITY INDEBTNESS                                          $2,960,799,000

2. TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INDEBTNESS     $1,501,793,303

=TOTAL AGGREGATE CITY OF RIVERSIDE DEBT         $4,462,592,303     

CITY OF RIVERSIDE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 2010                

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.  ANONYMOUS SOURCES WELCOMED, DOCUMENTATION AND PHOTOS WELCOMED, MAKING THEM HONEST, AND HELL, IT AIN’T EASY….

UPDATE: 09/03/2011: THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE DOESN’T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUILD ALL THE AMENITIES PLANNED FOR TEQUESQUITE PARK.  CITY BLAMES LACK OF FUNDING ON STATE REDEVELOPMENT.  CITY COUNCILMAN MIKE GARDNER STATES THAT TO COME UP WITH THE $19 MILLION STATE PAYMENT TO CONTINUE REDEVELOPMENT, THE CITY HAD TO RAID EVERY  AVAILABLE FUND, WHICH DRAINED POTENTIAL PARK FUNDING. THIS ONLY SOLIDIFIES THE IMPLICATION THAT THE LEASE CONTRACT THE CITY SIGNED WITH BB&K WAS IMPLEMENTED TO ALLOW A REVENUE SOURCE FOR REPAYMENT OF THE REDEVELOPEMENT BONDS WHICH WILL COME DUE. CURRENTLY THE STATE HAS PLACED A STAY ON ALL CITY REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE PRESS ENTERPRISE IS EMPLOYING A NOTABLE PRACTICE OF SELECTIVE PLACEMENT OF THE COMMENT SECTION IN FAVORED ARTICLES.  WHAT ENDEARING RELATIONSHIP DOES THE PRESS HAVE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE?  SINCE THE STORY RAN WITH FALLEN OFFICER BONAMINIO, COMMENTS BECAME HEATED.  THIS TOOK NOTICE OF RIVERSIDE CHIEF OF POLICE SERGIO DIAZ.  WHO RESPONDED BY CALLING RIVERSIDIAN’S CHEETO EATERS IN THEIR UNDERWEAR!  COMMENTERS DID NOT TAKE THIS LIGHTLY AND RESPONDED.  SINCE THEN THEIR HAS BEEN AN UNQUESTIONABLE TIGHTENING-UP OF THE COMMENT SECTION BY HAVING TO SIGN UP WITH ONE OF THE MAJOR SOCIAL NETWORKING PAGES.  SOME HAVE SAID THAT THIS HAS STOPPED REAL RESPONDENTS FROM POSTING.  THE QUESTION IS, DID THE CITY HAVE A HAND IN THIS, DID CHIEF SERGIO DIAZ HAVE A HAND IN IT? ACCORDING TO SOME INSIDERS’S, HE MONITORS THE COMMENT SECTION OF THE PRESS ENTERPRISE FREQUENTLY, AND OTHER BLOG SITES,  ESPECIALLY TMC…..

Comments
  1. Holy Moly. Now that takes a talented (Mike Gardner quote regarding Brad Hudson), creative (Cindy Roth quote regarding brad Hudson) city manager that could put us 30 years debt in five years. We asked for it, we got it. Can you say recall???

    • anna says:

      The key point here is “We asked for it, we got it.” Riverside citizens voted for it. Now they need to take responsibility for their part, not rage about how unfair it is.

      • thirtymiles says:

        Thanks for your comment, Anna. People vote on issues because they believe they are voting for the issue as they believe they interpret or are told by a politician. Do the vagueness in language of these issues or propositions, citizens are steered to believe the issue is one thing when it is not. People are fed up that this practice occurs knowingly, by our representatives. We may have asked for it, but it wasn’t what we asked for…

    • Now comprehend the shell game and how it is played. Did you once think of “who” that local government is in debt to? Probably not.

      Did you ever once think that the local government may have been sitting on massive investment funds and needed a place to park them so, what better place to park them by using that investment capital to fund their own debt locking the public to repay that debt guaranteeing the local government a return on their own investment? Probably not.

      Local governments started doing this over 40-years ago. If ever a true audit was conducted of debt cross matched to investment you would find probably 65% self funded.

      On another note you will see how they project out their liabilities 5, 10, 15, 25, 30 years out showing it today. Well, on the other side of the coin they project their income only “1-year” out on their budget reports.So, if you projected income out 5, 10, 15, 25, 30 years, gee the debt is offset by what percentage?

      NOTE: Up until 1999 the CAFR showed the “gross” standing balances of income and investment fund balances. Then with onset of disclosure by CAFR1 and the public now looking for the first time http://GASB.org (a 100% private association) who oversees the accounting guidelines of the CAFR, changes were made starting with transmittal letter-31 (up to 90 now) changing the showing in the CAFR from that of gross balances to a showing of “net” balances. Many games are played there so it is very important now to look through the “notes to the financial section” to spot or be directed to many of the specialty advance liability actual fund balances.

      Government was NOT supposed to operate at a profit. How did they get around this restriction? ANSWER: If for example a city had a 100-million dollar profit for the year from any of its operations, at a stroke of a pen they create a “liability fund” and poof, there goes the profit re-designated now as a liability.

      A personal example would be:

      If you and I ran a business for the last twenty years and we now had 1-billion dollars clear. We decide we are going to retire in five-years and want to buy an island in the Bahamas for 700-million dollars. So we create an advance liability fund, move 700-million dollars into it and now our “net” balance on our books is 300-million dollars. Now if with drafted a “Budget” for our business operations (projection of expenses for the upcoming year) of say 325-million dollars, that budget would show us to be 25-million dollars in the red. If we now actually spent 200-million for the upcoming year, gee, we now have 125-million we can move into our “buy an island liability fund in the Bahamas” zero out our profit, have the ability to buy a bigger island now with 825-million in our fund, and start the process all over again for next year.

      Now catch this point: On our accounting of the “buy an island fund’, our liability if we left the price at 700-million and the fund balance was 825-million, the “net” balance of the fund is now 125-million dollars. (700-million of the funds balance is a liability to pay). If we modified the liability to 825-million then our “net” fund balance is zero. 825 – 825 = 0

      One other tactic we could use as a mask of our true funds held would be to take the 825-million, deposit it with some financial institution domestic or international and arrange a loan or investment from that same financial institution of 825-million using our own capital through that financial institution to give the impression the 825-million was 100% a debt for repayment to whatever X financial institution we were using in that shell game of appearance. AGAIN why it is important to carefully look at the notes to the financial section of the CAFR.

      Walter Burien – http://CAFR1.com

  2. kaptalizm says:

    How much more can go wrong on Tequesquite?

    • Dvonne Pitruzzello says:

      Tequesquite should never happen. Check the first EIR. Not the one they made happen. Right Ralph?

    • Arlene says:

      The other day, while I was at work, my cousin stole my ipnohe and tested to see if it can survive a twenty five foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My iPad is now destroyed and she has 83 views. I know this is completely off topic but I had to share it with someone!

  3. anna says:

    What Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) are you looking at? From the 2010 CAFR on the City’s website, page 18: “At the end of the current fiscal year, the City had total debt outstanding of $1,700,900 which includes bonded debt of $1,612,055.” (Numbers are presented in thousands, so that would be $1,700,900,000 in “total aggregate City of Riverside debt”.)

    I can’t substantiate some of your numbers in the 2010 CAFR at all. E.g., the Pension Obligation Bonds: at 6/30/10, $136,050,000 were outstanding. Even the total face value of the bonds issued are less that your number of $182,448,000. (2010 CAFR, pages 18, 43, 47)

    The CAFR includes the Redevelopment Agency (2010 CAFR, page 4), so stating the RDA debt as an addition to City debt per the CAFR is incorrect. The State Controller’s report categorizes and presents information in a different manner than the financials and should be considered statistical information for the purposes of comparing various cities. Not everything reportable on the Statement of Indebtedness is truly debt.

    When looking at total debt for the City, interfund advances should not be reported because although one fund has an advance payable, another fund has an advance receivable, netting -0- debt. (Of the many interfund advances, why did you only report two advances?) (2010 CAFR page 56)

    So, using your city-wide numbers (although some are unsubstantiated in the 2010 CAFR): $2,960,799,000 less the RDA of $1,501,793,303, less the interfund advances in the city list of $8,854,000 and $650,000 = $1,449,501,697 “total aggregate City of Riverside debt”.

    • Dvonne Pitruzzello says:

      All of our numbers came from Mr. Catlett in the finance department, ask him.

      • Dvonne Pitruzzello says:

        Maybe the city finance department should be more transparent in their reports to the community!!!! Like in the notes sections.

    • Dvonne Pitruzzello says:

      check the EOPS, redevelopment alone is 1.7 billion in debt, yes I said 1.7 billion, and only 48 million a year in tax incremental funding, doesn’t take a genius to figure out where we stand.

    • thirtymiles says:

      Thanks for your comment, this is from the CAFR for fiscal year 2009-2010. For Pension Obligation Bonds (p.47), I did not state that Redevelopment debt is added to the City debt. On the contrary, to clarify, the amount shown in the CAFR, $183,684, includes Redevelopment’s share of $727,000, which is reflected in the Agency’s Total Indebtedness listed. Therefore in and about $182,448 is what we posted as the Pension Obligation Bonds, based on the city info submitted to us. When you do the math the total city indebtness come out to $2,960,799,000 when adding it to RDA which comes out TOTAL AGGREGATE CITY OF RIVERSIDE DEBT $4,462,592,303, which is more now since the RDA debt is $1.7 Billion.

  4. […] UPDATE: 08/01/2012: SAN BERNARDINO, CA FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY WITH OVER $1 BILLION IN DEBT.  THIS IS A CITY OF 210,000 OWING A $1 BILLION, THAT’S APPROXIMATELY $4,761.91 PER PERSON.  WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE TOTAL AGGREGATE DEBT $4.4 BILLION AND A CITY OF 300,000 THAT’S AP… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s