At the June 26th, 2012 City Council Meeting City Manager Scott Barber responded to the new passing of the ‘Trailer Bill” or as it is known AB 1484, enacted as a result to clarify and define language of Redevelopments inter-agency transfers and possibly padding the ROPS (Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule). Barber inititated his comment by stating, ” I was going to say that I thought ‘The Trailer Bill’ was the good, bad and the ugly, you may have remembered that western movie, but spending more time reading through it, I just think it’s all ugly.” The California League of cities have come out with opposition for a less amended bill, that is there recommendation.. There are some concerns we should have in the budget trailer bill, one of them is a threat to local finances. Now our understanding in first reading the bill made us think perhaps there would be some good for us with regards to our outstanding inter-agency loans, the ones that had been reconfirmed by our oversight board and sent to the Department of Finance. It did appear that there would language in here for repayment of these loans. However, the conditions which appear in the current version of the trailer bill, although they say ‘repayment’, the conditions that they create make ‘repayment’ very unlikely without exhausting other debts and then growth in tax increment to other taxing entities. That does not look very favorable. The trailer bill as it is written really takes the away the power and authority from the oversight board and really make their actions really meaniless. It transfer a great deal of authority to the State Department of Finance. It changes the department of finance role to where they have a huge amount of authority over county and cities regarding our finances. They have the ability to impose fines for what they consider non compliance on ROPS, and they have the ability to transfer sales tax and property taxes where they don’t believe successor agencies or oversite board have not acted appropriately. I think in general we our better off right now, than we would be with the trailer bill as drafted, if it was adopted.
Greg fires back and states that the State Department of Finance is getting to much power, and will even get $22 million for legal council to take on the cities and the redevelopment agencies , which I would say is close to the amount he pays out to BB&K for overpriced legal advice? Wouldn’t you say? Under this trailer bill we will never receive a 100% repayment for ROPS. Well maybe the City was not doing things right to begin with, as was padding the ROPS along with other cities. Of course you’re not going to receive 100% repayment. But didn’t we start out with $259 million in the original ROPS submission, but $21 million remaining in ROPS limbo. The trailer bill was meant to stop these padded submission and bring in some surgical clarity and prevent city attorney’s from taking up the state’s time while arguing their case. Priamos than referred to a legsislative analyist from where their response to the Trailer Bill was a word of caution as opposed to an endorsement. Greg in his convoluted way continued to make no sense at council and spinned in a draconian way every response made. Primos’s take on the $10,000 per day fine for not turning your ROPS on time, was draconian… well, now the city knows how the constituents have felt with ‘draconian’ code enforcement fines that Priamos’s city attorney’s office have been enforcing toward the constituents of the the City of Riverside, as well as the ‘draconian’ ticket violation for street sweeping when the constituent already pay for it. Those Council people whe represent those wards such as Councilman Mike Gardner have addressed these issues as well in a ‘draconian way’. We must then consider Priamo’s refusal to respond to public records request regarding his departments expenses when directed toward Best, Best & Krieger…’draconian’. Why is he protecting Best, Best & Krieger? According to Priamos, the overall evaluation of the Trailer Bill, it’s ‘draconian’!
Councilman Andy Melendrez asked the question if cities can actually file for bankruptcy? Priamos stated, “yes, cities can file for bankrupticies”. That was largely done to address the concerns of the unions (possibly for unsustainable union contracts which were not negotiated in the best interest of the ‘people’ as TMC understands). Barber even said that we spoke with our lobbyist (I’m assuming the League of California Cities), to this passing of this legislation, and said, don’t expect changes. Incidently, can the city afford to continue to hire a lobbyist? Davis says “it is unfortunate, not a great way to run a business”? Did he misspoke? Barber states that we spoke to our lobbyist this afternoon, don’t expect changes of this thing (the legislation) it is going to be past. Councilman and Mayor Pro Tempt, Paul Davis responded to this passing of the this trailer bill legislation, “It’s really unfortunate, it’s a great way to run a business”? Really Paul..remember this is all about Redevelopment abuse and all need to take responsibility for it, but that never happen with our city or other cities at the local level. Unfortunately , the State saw it differently with respect that local municipalities abused their power, and in response, have intervened with an ‘iron fist’ of authority, for even at local level, local arrogance and displays of entitlements has shown the need for the State’s drastic actions and as labeled by some city execs, ‘draconian ’.
The Trailor bill validates every thing that Vivian Moreno, Dvonne Pitruzzello and Raychelle Sterling has been saying for 2 years. They were 100% right. So I guess that makes them really smart! TMC would imagine that this would conincide with the cities new award, of the ‘The Most Intelligent City”. Again, City management will try to portray them as if they had no idea what they were talking about.