Posts Tagged ‘bunker hill basin’

basinmap

SHOULD A PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITY BE ABLE TO MAKE A PROFIT ON A COMMODITY SUCH AS WATER, AND KEEP IT?  OR SHOULD IT GO BACK TO THE OWNERS THE RATEPAYERS?

Ownership of a fixed quantity of acre feet of Bunker Hill water per year is vested to the City of Riverside. Ownership of a fixed quantity of Bunker Hill water per year is vested to the Gage Canal. Gage Canal has transferred their Bunker Hill water rights to the City of Riverside.

The City of Riverside owns Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) and assigns them the task of delivering water to water meters throughout the City. RPU is assigned the service of delivery, billing, and maintaining the delivery system throughout the City. The revenue generated by that billing is retained, with the exception of Prop 218 and Measure A monies, by RPU to provide those services. In essence, RPU is a delivery system with no true ownership rights. All of their assets are owned by the City. That applies to everything in their possession from aardvarks to zebras. RPU possesses no water rights of water, they are merely the conduit for water that, by law, belongs to the City of Riverside.

The City of Riverside, through the RPU conduit has used 5,000 less acre feet of water in 2015 than they have protected rights to. The 5,000 acre feet belongs to the City of Riverside to do with as they please.  On November 3, 2015, the Riverside City Council directed RPU to deliver the excess 5,000 acre feet to Western Municipal Water District (WMWD), a member agency of Metropolitan Water District (MWD), for the sum of $1.6 million. RPU state during the Public Hearing of the agenda item providing that direction, that the cost to RPU of moving that water to WMWD would be $0.3 million, thereby leaving an excess of $1.3 million that is the City’s revenue on the sale of that water.  RPU’s mandate is to pay for their cost of operation through revenue generating billing.  The cost of moving that water is, by their own statements is $0.3 million. Being that the water is owned by the City of Riverside, not RPU, any monies above the cost of delivery should go to the City’s General Fund to be allocated by direction of the Riverside City Council. In fact, the City is essentially acting as a customer in assigning the delivery of the 5,000 acre feet to WMWD to RPU. As the revenue from the transferred water is for an item possessed by the City itself, the City is allotting $0.3 million to RPU to cover their cost and maintenance.

The monies going into the General Fund from this sale are found and unanticipated funds that are not allocated to any particular use. The City Council is free to disburse this money however they see fit, from returning it to ratepayers as a reward for their water frugality, or burning it, with proper permits of course, in front of the fountain at City Hall. I would strongly recommend they choose the former, rather than the latter.

Art Cassel

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” 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… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

30 YEARS OF
HIDDEN TAXES IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE

Holding true by their mission statement?

“The City of Riverside Public Utilities Department is committed to the highest quality water and electric services at the lowest possible rates to benefit the community.”

In 1978, Californians approved Proposition 13, which further defined the word “tax.”  It led to the adoption of Gov. Code Section 50076, which states: “A special tax shall not include any fee which does not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service or regulatory activity for which the fee is charged and which is not levied for general revenue purposes.”

Before Proposition 13, voter approval was not required for taxes, charges or fees; with Proposition 13, a two-thirds voter approval is required for “special taxes” and property tax otherwise limited to 1% of assessed valuation. Subsequent Propositions 62, 218 and 26 further clarified the people’s right to vote on the issues of taxation and limit government’s authority to charge fees in lieu of taxes.

In 1984, Proposition 62 was approved, which requires a majority vote for “general taxes” in general law cities and counties.

In 1996, Proposition 218 was approved by California voters, and requires majority vote approval for “general taxes” in general law and charter cities and counties. It also requires property-owner approval for all assessments and property-related fees and charges.

In 2010, Proposition 26 became law, and affirmatively re-stated language from Proposition 218 to further limit local government from evading a local vote on taxes and fees in lieu of taxes.

For 30 years, the City of Riverside has avoided complying with Proposition 13.  The City continues to be in non-compliance with the provisions of Propositions 13, 62, 218 and, more recently, 26. This non-compliance has been most egregious in terms of utilitypricing within the City.

The City of Riverside employs hidden taxes in the utility prices it charges citizens in order to transfer large sums of cash to the City General Fund.  Since 2007 the sum of these unconstitutional transfers has exceeded $300,000,000 and continues at an annual rate in excess of $70,000,000. The City’s method of creating hidden taxes and collecting these monies denies the citizens their constitutional rights to vote on special taxes and property assessments.

The extent of the various schemes perpetrated by the City of Riverside and the seriousness of these acts, which in effect constitute multiple violations of State Constitutional law, gives rise to the question: has the City of Riverside designed and implemented secret plans to commit fraud, in fact committing federal crimes by using the US Mail to further the misappropriation of funds?

 “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.”  — Mark Twain

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW COMMITTED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, COMING NEXT IN A SERIES ON TMC.