TMC: Thirty Miles of Corruption

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