Posts Tagged ‘riverside public utilities’

THIRTY MILES OF CORRUPTION WANTS TO THANK THE FIRST THOUSAND PEOPLE TO HIT THIS ARTICLE BY 11:00 A.M.!

frntpglawsuit

Electric Prop 26 Law Suit

Subject:  Press Release for Immediate Distribution – Lawsuit filed challenging City of Riverside Electric General Fund Transfer as a violation of Proposition 26

In a complaint filed yesterday in Riverside Superior Court, the Law Offices of Raychele B. Sterling brought allegations that the City of Riverside, through its ownership of Riverside Public Utilities (“RPU”), violated Proposition 26, approved by voters in 2010, when the City Council in December of 2013 changed the formula by which it calculates the tax generated from electric utility operating revenues (known as the General Fund Transfer), so as to increase taxes paid by its ratepayers to its general fund.  The complaint contends that the City Council changed the formula to pay off a settlement agreement involving the City’s water utility, and did so without a public vote as required by the State of California Constitution.

According to the filing, the City of Riverside violated its City Charter for a decade by transferring a portion of the monies it receives annually as part of its participation in the California Independent System Operator system, referred to as the Transmission Revenue Requirement, to its general fund instead of keeping those monies at its electric utility.  Further, the City classified the Transmission Revenue Requirement as non-operating revenues for a decade before intentionally misclassifying them as operating revenues for the sole purpose of extracting higher taxes from its electric utility customers.

The plaintiff seeks to halt the approximately $40 million/year the City collects in taxes from its electric ratepayers as part of its General Fund Transfer and to return the $115 million in transfer taxes taken the past 3 years from RPU.

“For years city officials have ignored near-constant complaints by members of the general public that Riverside Public Utilities has been overcharging its customers in order to support the City’s general fund,” Ms. Sterling said.  “Today, we begin to shine a light on the hidden taxes the City of Riverside has imposed upon its RPU’s customers – particularly the elderly, poor, and disabled – causing them considerable economic and personal hardship.  It was particularly sickening to discover that this illegal tax increase was a scheme devised by the City to avoid having its general fund pay off a settlement agreement regarding an illegal water utility tax.  These financial shell games must end.”

Established in 1895, Riverside Public Utilities is a consumer-owned water and electric utility governed by a Board of nine community volunteers that provides services to over 105,000 metered electric customers and 63,000 metered water customers throughout the City of Riverside.

The Law Offices of Raychele B. Sterling is located in Riverside, California and provides law services to victims of government fraud, abuse and corruption.

Again I believe we have a disconnect between the ratepayers and the City.  The City created a situation whereby no one had any other choice but to bring forward a lawsuit due to concerns of RPU monies, it seems this is the only way they listen.  We cannot wait another 13 years before our voices are heard.  What will Michael Colantuono have to say about this?

Colantuono-Michael-2015-240x300

MICHAEL COLANTUONO, ESQ.

Again, most of this occurred under the watchful eyes of former Public Utilities General Manager Dave Wright, who left (maybe saw the writing on the wall) to ‘sin city,’ Las Vegas, then to Los Angeles, where recently they have had there own set of embarrassing problems.

n22i3k-wwright0712binary1098362

DAVE WRIGHT, FORMER RPU GENERAL MANAGER

But, Wright came back to write a contributing editorial, titled “Riverside Water for Responsible Development,” back in 2014.  Was Wright simply worried that what was concealed would be exposed? Why was he so concerned about the Prosecutorial Issue of Measure A?

DWworriedone  DWworriedtwo  DWworriedthree

And Don’t forget to VOTE for Vivian Moreno Mayor 2016…..She will definitely  keep everyone HONEST!

UPDATE: 05.02.2016: HUMAN RESOURCES BRENDA DIEDRICHS LEAVES THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, TO BE RECYLED TRASH AT A NEW JOB IN ORANGE COUNTY.

bd

Will the City Attorney’s Office Audit show that her law firm, Law Offices of Brenda Diedrichs,  was paid indiscriminately with tax payer monies, due the fact there was no contract? While working as Human Resource Director?  This while on Councilman Davis’s and Mayor Bailey’s watch.  Which were told, but did nothing…

lawfirmsoutsidelegal

Performance Audit2

What is really telling is that Senator Roth’s Law Firm is on this Audit, whom did legal work for the City.  His wife, Cindy Roth, Riverside Chamber of Commerce, was taking taxpayer handouts to keep her organization afloat.  The question, if you need hand outs to sustain your business in the form of taxpayer subsidies, are you a good business?  The rest of us, true entrepreneurs or business people, must make it within the free market by our own perserverance or just dissolve.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.”  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..  … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  CONTACT US:  thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

 12510496_10207741708877187_9215059899072541863_n

CITY MANAGER RUSSO IS IN THE DRIVERS SEAT….HOW SAFE DO YOU FEEL?

jones_RUSSO-copy-620x465

Our Fugacious, City Manager Mr. Russo and Assistant City Manager Marianna wrote an editorial about the current state of  “Fiscal Reckoning”, in the City of Riverside. He was trying to defuse the message that the city is going down the path of bankruptcy.  I think Mr. Russo needs to leave the messaging to the professionals. His office is only making it worse and more obvious. You can read the full article on the Press Enterprise.

Who are the Perennial Critics or should I say who are the Truth Tellers. Me Vivian Moreno, Dvonne Pitruzzello, Raychelle Sterling, Jason Hunter, Kevin Dawson, Karen Wright, Marilyn Whitney, Aurora Chavez, Scott Simpson and my man Javier Moreno, we all work really hard and our motivation is to protect the underserved, disabled, elderly, and the  taxpayer/ ratepayer from bad decision making at city hall that will ultimately raise taxes and our utility bills.

Because I was referred to in this article I needed to answer or clarify the statements that were made. We took out all the fat or unnecessary verbiage and just left in the substance.

The city of Riverside has enjoyed financial success in the past decade, most notably through the on-time and on-budget delivery of the nearly $2 billion Riverside Renaissance capital improvement program. The city rode out the Great Recession with grace. By Borrowing or Stealing (depending who you ask) from Riverside Public Utilities, Water fund, Sewer fund, Electric fund, Workmans comp.fund, and the Rate Payer. Now, the city is in a “Fiscal Reckoning of this magnitude”, those are your words Mr. Russo not ours.

That success, however, was partially due to budgeting practices that are no longer sustainable. Whether it was borrowing from other funds to prop up the city’s General Fund. Why would the General fund have to be propped up? Our General fund cannot function without the propping up by Riverside Public Utilities…..REALLY BIG MISTAKE!

There is nothing ethically wrong with these practices, NO… IT”S JUST PLAIN STUPID, and they are certainly not illegal.  Depending on who you ask.  Indeed, many cities employ some variation of such budgeting practices, and Riverside could have continued doing so for many years without encountering serious financial difficulties.  Just like the city of Bell.

However, reliance on such practices is not sustainable over the long term, and goes against the principles of prudence and conservatism in municipal budgeting.  First you say we could have continued down this path for many years and now you say it’s unsustainable, WHAT? You sound like a crooked politician, maybe you should elaborate on (long term) and (many years).

The city’s new administration has spent several months working to institute the kind of fiscal discipline required to generate healthy and sustainable budgets well into the future.  This process has been difficult at times for everyone involved.  A $1 million surplus projected for fiscal year 2015-16 – built on the type of budgeting we should no longer allow – has morphed into a shortfall of about $8 million. This shortfall, if not corrected with sustainable ongoing measures, will result in a $10-12 million budget hole in fiscal year 2016-17.

While the projected deficit numbers may seem scary, they are not surprising – the city has had an expenditure problem for years. The very smart Perennial Critics recognized a expenditure problem years ago. The Council, over the last 10 years voted yes to all the expenditures. No one was listening to the very smart citizens who saw the writing on the wall. BUMMER!

All city departments will recommend cuts to the council, and, while it is management’s intent to minimize service reductions, those impacts are probably unavoidable in the face of a fiscal reckoning of this magnitude. Why? Because the only effective budgeting tool available to the council is service cuts; in California, most revenue increases require voter approval.  Are you going to cut the contracts for Government Entertainment? I can answer that NO! So let’s get this perfectly clear the Citizens have their services cut but we the citizens continue to pay for Government Entertainment. Most of the citizens of Riverside will never have the opportunity to afford to go to the Fox Theatre but they will still have to pay for it! We lose Police and Fire but we keep Rusty’s buddy.. Live Nation….REALLY! Is this because your band, Mr. Russo will be the ongoing featured act headlining at the FOX..It usually is self serving isn’t it!

Moreover, Riverside will now pass its budget within the context of a five-year financial plan.

This approach to municipal budgeting is bound to find more potential issues that demand attention.

As we hold ourselves to a higher budgetary standard, The real challenge John and Marianna is to wean the general fund off the RPU gravy train.

Unfortunately, some perennial critics of the city have confused the cure (early diagnosis of future budget challenges) with the disease (a negative imbalance between ongoing expenses and ongoing revenue). These folks have been frightening some Riversiders by proclaiming loudly that the city faces imminent bankruptcy. It’s amazing to me that we are labeled critics when all we ask for is the truth. When you make truthful statement like “Fiscal Reckoning, and while the projected deficit numbers may seem scary, they are not surprising,” these statements scare the folks. Even though you are in the driver seat Mr. Russo we will still demand the truth.

Let us state unequivocally that the city of Riverside is not going bankrupt; in fact, the city could have continued on its prior path for many years without suffering financial doom. But we believe that our standard should be higher than the very “low bar” of “just don’t go bankrupt.” We are committed to a rational budget in which ongoing revenue meets ongoing expenses, and long-term capital needs, like road repair and tree trimming, are properly covered.  Mr. Russo you cannot unequivocally state that the city is not going bankrupt. When you say the city need to be propped up. That sounds as dumb as Mike Gardner saying there were pots of gold.  We could not exist without the propping up of public utilities.

pot-of-gold

You also state very clearly in this editorial that, budgeting practices are no longer sustainable, We are experiencing a Fiscal Reckoning of this magnitude, projected deficit numbers may seem scary, and Residents and business owners may hear things that make them uncomfortable, and perhaps even a bit nervous about Riverside’s financial health. You can lay it out any way you like but what the critics are absolutely sure about 100% is that the life line to the General Fund is Public Utilities. The General Fund needs to be propped up. This is a scary situation to be in. We are one legal challenge away from a disaster….. BANKRUPT! That’s the truth.

As Riverside moves through weeks of introducing, refining and, ultimately, approving a budget for fiscal years 2016-17 and 2017-18, there will be some bumps in the road. Residents and business owners may hear things that make them uncomfortable, and perhaps even a bit nervous about Riverside’s financial health.  Mr. Russo you can make your case to the public any way you like, but there will be no new rate increases or new taxes. I can assure you of that. BRING IT ON!

We encourage everyone in Riverside to attend the council’s budget hearings or go to EngageRiverside.com to let us know what you think and be a part of that solution. Together, we will ensure that our city’s great past will be honored by an even greater future built upon sound and secure finances. What a joke! sound and secure finances were built on the backs of the RATE payers, overcharging and bilking Riverside Public Utilities has been going on for over a decade. The City Council is responsible for this entire fiasco. THEY OWN IT! The Perennial Critics encourage everyone to attend.

John A. Russo is Riverside city manager; Marianna Marysheva-Martinez is assistant city manager.

NOW FOR A LITTLE MUSIC TO SOOTHE THE SAVAGE BEAST…

VOTE VIVIAN MORENO MAYOR 2016, DON’T FORGET THE DEBATE TOMORROW NIGHT APRIL 28TH AT THE STRATTON CENTER (7:00PM TO 8:30PM), BORDWELL PARK, 2008 MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD., RIVERSIDE.

According to RivPublic, anonymous contributor to Thirty Miles of Corruption, “And about Russo, the man rocks! Can play the electric guitar and keyboard (and kinda sing??). Maybe he could pull a rabbit out of his hat and find some $$$$ too!”

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.”  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..  … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  CONTACT US:  thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

Hissom_Russ

RUSS HISSOM, PARTNER AT BAKER TILLY VIRCHOW KRAUSE LLP, THE AUDITOR THAT DID THE AUDIT WITHIN THE AUDIT, OF THE ALREADY AUDITED NORTHSIDE PROPERTIES, THAT I HAVE A FEELING, WILL BE AUDITED AGAIN…

Bringing the truth to the North Side…….Vote Vivian Moreno Mayor 2016…..

Riverside hires Russ Hissom, Partner at Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP, to perform an audit (another outside auditor paid for by the ratepayer) of the Northside properties that the City, the Redevelopment Agency, and Public Utilities made a mess of.

This blog post examines the 5th or 6th audit (we think) conducted on the Northside properties that were once owned by our Water Fund; that were sold to the Redevelopment Agency, General Fund and Electric Funds; a portion of which were subsequently given to the General Fund; all financed by the Sewer and Electric Funds; and with one property sold back to the Water Fund.  Did you get all that?  We may have missed a transaction or 2.  These deals are to transparency what Miley Cyrus is to propriety…and both smell fishy.

About 2005, the City needed money and property to get into the full swing of Redevelopment and they had their eyes set on the Northside of Ward 1.  This was easy pickings:  apathetic Northside residents, surplus utility property, outsized utility reserves, and a staff all-too-ready to violate the law and City policy in the name of advancing their careers.  The endgame was simple: special interests and the City wins and the average taxpayer and ratepayer would be left looking for the license plate of the vehicle that hit them.

Today, we look at one piece of the Northside goulash: the former Riverside Golf Course.  The dialog starts in 2010 around the water cooler that we need a soccer stadium and it should be in the Northside, and the City just happens to have the “perfect” piece of property. Council Member Andy Melendrez started selling it to the community. Then, we get a new Community Development Director (CDD), Al Zalinka, who starts planning for a beautiful new soccer stadium with all the bells and whistles. The CDD spends about a year and a half putting this project together. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, goes into planning, designing and developing this stadium.

Let’s set the stage: the City has selected 2 main development teams to bid for this project. The Council is ready to hear the proposals from both teams.  The Council Chamber is full that afternoon with developers, architects, contractors, money men, and probably a couple of other scoundrels. Every one of them is dressed in their Sunday Best. The “Big” names of Riverside elitists were sitting there: Yeager, Tavaglione, Rubin, Singletary, Hunt… all ready, willing, and able to cash in on the taxpayer, as in this PE Article on the Soccer Complex back in September 2012.

We had repeatedly advised the Council and the City that this deal could not and should not go forward. But nobody wanted to listen as our electeds were salivating over each other and their proposed plans for futbol-for-all was within arms reach. THEN……….EVERYTHING FELL APART RIGHT BEFORE THEIR EYES.  WE WERE RIGHT, THEY WERE WRONG! (neener-neener)  The charade was turning into a legal liability nightmare for the City,  the integrity of Al Zelinka was in question, and the Council looked foolish.  In the end, nothing was ever done with the property UNTIL….2013/14

So what happened?  We were at the meeting that afternoon because we knew the dirty little deal that was planned to go down and we were dialed in to the State Controller and Department of Finance if it did pass. Everyone in those Chambers that day were all blindsided when they found out that no deal could be made. NONE, NADA, NO-WAY, NO-HOW……The land, at that point, was not owned by the City and was tied up in the dissolution of Redevelopment. Everyone was upset. The selected teams of developers had huge money invested in drawings and plans for the development to present to the Council. The soccer stadium died a slow, painful, very public death that day. . . and now we have another audit.

BACK…TO THE FUTURE: the City hires Baker Tilly to do another audit of the Northside. An audit within an audit — that is what the accountants call it. Mr. Hissom from Baker Tilley starts his comments by saying this site has already been audited by many financial firms and they had been done appropriately by some very highly quality firms. BUT… They were more than happy to take this task on again and perform another audit. Their scope would be looking at 5 issues.
1. Was the property properly recorded under accounting principals and were the rules followed?
2. Were the transactions all approved by council?
3. Was the purchase price appropriately supported by documentation?
4. Did the deed stay with the city?
5 Were the transactions approved by the policy of the City?
The Three main points that I got out of this audit were that:
1. Maybe we need 10 more audits until someone is willing to just tell the citizens the truth and the real reason we got into this fine mess.
2. Riverside Public Utilities recorded this property under OPTIMAL accounting principals instead of Best Practices. So what does that mean? If you grade Optimal vs. Best, Best is an A grade and Optimal is barely passing with a C-.
3. There was no formal appraisal performed on some of the transactions – it was all done by comparing properties in close proximity, if they were done at all.

So did the highly paid, well trained accounting firm of Baker Tilly tell the truth and get to the bottom of this mess? Lets go back and answer their 5 questions as they did:
1. Was the property properly recorded under accounting principals and were the rules followed?
BARELY: These principles were followed under OPTIMAL practices as stated by Ms. Susan Cash, Chairwoman of Riverside Public Utilities Board and the auditing firm.
2. Were the transactions all approved by council?
YES
3. Was the purchase price appropriately supported by documentations?
NO, there were no appraisals in some cases as stated with great concern by Susan Cash, Chairwoman and Andrew Walker, Board Member.  In one instance an $8.5 million property sold from the Water Fund to the General Fund in 2005, was re-purchased for over $9 million by Water in 2009…as if the great real estate crash never occurred.
4. Did the deed stay with the City?
YES
5. Were the transactions approved by the policy of the City?

What’s very interesting here is that this transaction was not a City issue, it was a Public Utilities issue between Water, Sewer, and Electric. So to answer the question its Yes and No. It all depends on what Administrative Manual you are reading, the City’s or Public Utilities’? Auditor, Russ Hissom, stated he was hired by the City and the Administrative Manual appraisal information came from the City’s manual. Board Member Andrew Walcker had no idea that RPU had its own Admin. Manual, and Chair Cash was a little concerned about what she read about appraisals in the RPU manual.  We know one thing: the City did not follow the laws or policy of the Redevelopment Agency.

The question should have been stated like this: Were the transactions approved by the policy of the Riverside Public Utilities and the former Redevelopment agency? The answer to my question would be NO and NO. An audit is only as good as the information provided and in this case the information or the scope had no strength or substance and didn’t address the real issues of this property.
Based on the very weak questions posed to the auditor we end up with three Yes’s, two No’s and a one Barely, or a C-.  At the end of this very short presentation Russ Hissom couldn’t stop praising the City using the City Hall and California League of Cities talking points. He closed his comments by presenting Riverside Public Utilities with glowing praises, so as to deflect from the real problems with this property.

So, what did this audit accomplish? NOTHING!! After all the hoopla, this property is still in the hands of RDA or the Department of Finance and tied up in the City vs. Dept of Finance on appeal. Undoing this property may take years and more audits. As of today, the note on this property is NOT getting paid. So, the ratepayers are getting the shaft AGAIN. Also, the City Council has approved 1.5 million square feet of warehouse space in the North Side which, by the way, was the original plan. It was the vote of Mike Soubrious and Paul Davis that stopped the planned moratorium until a strategic plan was completed. Once Paul and Mike shut down the moratorium, the City couldn’t move fast enough to get those warehouses approved. The Vote passed unanimously. The Northside Saga Continues…….

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!  YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.”  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..  … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

 

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!

frontpgWATER LAW SUIT AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL LAW SUIT)

On June 4, 2015, the City of Riverside, under newly christened City Attorney Gary Geuss filed suit against the State of California with regards to the issue of having to comply with a 24% cut in usage.  The city asked the state in the suit to include it in a program that lets Northern California entities get away with just 4% cuts because they are taking their water from surface sources, like rivers that are going to dump their contents in the sea if not snatched. The State ignored the City’s request. Riverside gets its water from underground sources, not the surface, and that’s a critical difference to the state.  The problem stems from the Board’s definition of a “reliable water source;” namely, the designation refers only to surface water and not groundwater, or water located underneath the earth’s surface.  So the City filed the above lawsuit in Fresno County Superior Court to stop the State Water Resources Control Board from commanding our City to comply.

In its complaint, Riverside asked the state why a “groundwater-sufficient entity” couldn’t be inserted and was told, “It would simply be too difficult to include groundwater in the 4% tier, but provided no evidence why including groundwater suppliers would be any more difficult than including surface water suppliers. No other reason was giving for listening to one class of water suppliers, but ignoring the other class of water suppliers.”  KPCC said Riverside’s lawsuit was the largest objection registered to date against the state’s water policy. Water districts are just now beginning to implement government directives which aim to implement Governor Jerry Brown’s order that water usage be cut 25% among statewide nonagricultural users. The cuts range between 8% and 36%, compared to comparable time periods in 2013.  Riverside wants a temporary restraining order and injunction to avoid $10,000-a-day fines for noncompliance with an emergency order.

Scott Simpson was former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Department of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination.  Simpson tells City Attorney Geuss that he forgot the “winning” argument against the State of California!  The residents have a “contractual right” to water in the City of Riverside, therefore the State of California has no right to impose water restrictions!  The right to water in the City of Riverside is tied to every resident who owns property, for perpetuity.  What is important to note in this law suit is that the City of Riverside admits owning water rights pre-1914, which releases us from the constraints of the Governor Moonbeams imaginary drought emergency.  What people need to realize we are in the year of “El Nino” and we will receive a boat load of water this year, more than we can handle.  Unfortunately, the State of California cannot run a business, how can we allow them to run the State?

SCOTTVIDEOTWOCLICK THIS LINK TO HEAR WHAT CITY ATTORNEY GARY GEUSS FORGOT TO PLACE IN THE LAW SUIT TO PROTECT RESIDENTS WATER RIGHTS, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTS “CONTRACTUAL RIGHT” TO THAT WATER.

Simpson states that water is protected for the use and benefit of all Californians according to the California State Water Resources Control Board. California’s waters cannot be owned by individuals, groups, businesses, or governmental agencies. But permits, licenses, and registrations give individuals and others the right to beneficially use reasonable amounts of water. That’s paraphrased from the California State Constitution. The precise language states that the people of the State of California own the water resources of the State for their use and enjoyment.

scottvideooneCLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW WATER EXPERT SCOTT SIMPSON TALK ABOUT RESIDENTS RIGHT TO WATER

Water Expert Scott Simpson then states that the State of California is the care taker of the water, in charge of improving the quality and making more water available for their use. You are not selling us water you are you provide us with the service of transportation for our use and enjoyment.  So why has the State of California unfortunately betrayed the taxpayers?  Some terms come to mind, “greed,” “incompetence,” “over construction,” and “ineptness.”  Where’s the accountability?  Well folks that will never transpire.

stateofcaqa     stateofcaqatwo

CLICK TO VIEW IMAGES OR CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SITE WHICH SIMPSON WAS REFERRING TO

Riverside Public Utilities deputy general manager Kevin Milligan said the city wants the water board to include groundwater in its definition of a reliable water supply.  “The only difference is surface water you can see and groundwater you can’t,” Milligan told the paper.  “We have our own wells and our own water resources,” Riverside Public Utilities spokesperson Heather Raymond told the Los Angeles Times. “No matter how much we save it has zero effect on the state water supply.”  Riverside gets its water from groundwater basins it controls and has a four-year supply on hand. That’s the minimum necessary to be included in the 4% tier. Over the years, the city has drilled wells, captured storm water, invested in a water treatment plant and spent millions on a recycled water infrastructure, Riverside Public Utilities Deputy General Manager Kevin Milligan told the Riverside Press-Enterprise.

The question then became, the City of Riverside doesn’t really have to comply with the State Resources Control Board, since our water rights are pre-1914, and the Control Board was set up thereafter.  Further, the residents who own property in the City of Riverside have a “contractual right” to the that water, as a result of those water rights given to us by a court of law prior to 1914.  The city says it hasn’t imported water from the Colorado River or the State Water Project since 2008.  According to the Courthouse News Service, the city’s complaint says, “(A)ny water that Riverside does not extract will sit in the basin, and cannot be extracted or used by others. Riverside is truly ‘water independent.’ ”  This is something to remember folks, because the City of Riverside is mandated by law to harvest “x” amount of water.  Water cannot be conserved and sit in the ground.  If it does, it can go beyond the acceptable water table, and cause damage and weakness to surrounding infrastructure.

garyguessjokers

Riverside City Attorney Gary Geuss, with double indemnity prior clown behind him, a tough circus act to follow!

Has anybody seen the moniker around town stating “I Own It?”  What does that mean?  It means that if you are a homeowner in the City of Riverside you actually have a “contractual right” to water and you therefore own the “public utilities.”  You may ask, “Why does the City state we are “shareholders” as a result of owning property attached to a home, and then be treated as we are not?”  The straight answer is that the Riverside Water Board represents City interest, therefore not the best interest of the taxpayers is considered.  The only way to protect your rights, your right to water etc. is to form a “taxpayer advocacy” group which will lobby for our rights as homeowners and property owners.

We haven’t even addressed those residents who own rights to the Gage Canal water etc., they can pretty much run there water down the street if they want. There is no drought restriction for them! The point is that are city forefathers made sure there would not be a problem with the access of this important commodity, and this was insured years ago, and pre-1914.  Therefore, are rights to that groundwater should be fought for with a vengeance.  It is as the squirrel who prepared themselves for the winter and stored his food supply early.  Another squirrel comes about, who didn’t prepare, and wants to take it away.  That is what the State of California is attempting to do.

RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMITS WE ARE PRE-1914 BY ADVERTISING PROMO.. CUSTOMER OWNED SINCE 1895.

img040two  enlarge1895ownership

What City of Riverside residents must know about the drought misinformation, is that the residents have a “contractual right” to water prior to 1914. Which means that we as a City do not have to comply with the laws regarding drought mandated by Governor Edmund G. Brown, also known as “Moonbeam.”  According to Riverside Public Utilities own advertisement, we have been publicly and customer owned since 1895!  You therefore are not receiving correct information.  Every homeowner in the City of Riverside has a contractual right to water from the publicly owned Bunker Hill Basin in San Bernardino.  The next big question Riversidian’s should be asking is why we as a publicly owned utility should have to advertise to ourselves?  The Riverside Public Utilities spends multitudes of money to promote, which is technically, a public monopoly with reference to utilities.  WHY IS THERE A NEED TO ADVERTISE?  Is it to divert monies to those special clients in the advertising business?  Can this be interpreted as a gift of public funds?  It’s all wrong and should not be done!  Further, the ratepayers demand the utility overages refunded back!  Don’t attempt to try to craft new language and use are reserves to purchase another $40 million dollar building.

RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN….

1907-riv-randa-railway-002-600

RIVERSIDE & ARLINGTON RAILWAY CO. (CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “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” 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!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

GJ072015    GJ072015two    GJ072015three     GJ072015four copy

CLICK TO ENLARGE TO VIEW JULY 2, 2015 GRAND JURY FINDINGS AGAINST COUNTY COUNSEL GREGORY PRIAMOS.

2014 2015 Grand Jury Report Riverside County Board of Supervisors Transparency Grand Jury Interference (CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW PDF VERSION)

untitled

COUNTY COUNSEL CONSIGLIERE GREGORY PRIAMOS

According to the latest report released by the Grand Jury on July 2, 2015, they believe they were retaliated against by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, when on April 8, 2014, the 2013-2014 Riverside County Grand Jury made public a report entitled, “Political Reform and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors”. This report focused on the use of Community Improvement Designation (CID) Funds and was critical of the way some of the funds were utilized.

Fifty-eight days later, they state, a new County of Riverside County Counsel with a “controversial reputation, a known history of Grand Jury interference, and over the objections of many concerned citizens, was unanimously appointed by the Board of Supervisors.”  According to the Grand Jury the following report is what started it all … or, in other words, HOW DARE THEY QUESTION OUR USE OF PUBLIC MONEY TO BOLSTER OUR CAMPAIGNS!?

gjreportcampaignreform

2013 2014 Grand Jury Report – Political Reform and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (24 pages) CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL REPORT

Three main points were made in this newest release by the Riverside County Grand Jury with reference to County Counsel Gregory Priamos.

The first focused on the bid process.  An anonymous Supervisor’s Chief of Staff, during testimony, was asked how extensive the geographic area was when the ‘Supes recruited for the position of County Counsel.  His reply?  “Three blocks.”  Although not required, the Board of Supervisors chose not to use competitive procedures, and instead handed a $250,000/year position with lavish benefits over to a buddy of theirs.  Was this was not Supervisor Marion Ashley’s Chief of Staff, Jaime Hurtado, whom we hear is being groomed to take over Ashley’s position?

Second, the Grand Jury had issues with Priamos’ “interference,” in their investigation.  Priamos in an email, asked that all County Departments and Special Districts contact his office (specifically, Anita Willis and Jeb Brown – his main squeeze at the City of Riverside) immediately if contacted by the Grand Jury.  The Grand Jury wants transparency and the truth when they interview people.  The Grand Jury believes this message was sent to control County employees out of fear of retaliation should they not be able to speak privately with them.  Nothing new to us hear at Thirty Miles: just Gregory attempting to have control of the message as he did in the City of Riverside.

Third, Priamos’s contract with the County should immediately be “nullified!”  This means that the Grand Jury feels that the County Board of Supervisors did not execute best practices for the hiring of a qualified (cough, cough…ethical) County Counsel.  Therefore, the Grand Jury is requesting the Board of Supervisors to conduct an actual, advertised recruitment for the position of County Counsel so that the best candidate can be appointed as County Counsel to serve the people of the Inland Empire.  Opps..sorry Greg!  That means somebody who is “not you.”

Since in his letter to county employee, Priamos references the County Executive Officer, Jay Orr, as his co-conspirator, perhaps the Grand Jury ought to investigate that angle as well, and whether Orr needs to be replaced…

Orr2013

County of Riverside, Executive Fool Officer, Jay Orr

County Sups, Just a Chain of Fools?

RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES SAYS, “WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER…”

puletter

What is not covered in the above memo is that if the State of California was really serious about the drought, they would place on moratorium on new development … of course that’s about as likely as the Gov Moonbeam’s bullet train coming in under budget.

So many issues with the current policies, we hardly know where to begin.  While some are tearing out their front yards, if you have a pool, that’s exempt!  What if you have a share of the Gage Canal water, which many homeowners do? …exempt!

Untitled-1   intro-4-lg

In the City of Riverside, Brown is not only Sexy, it’s beautiful!  Our front lawns may be brown but are back yard pools are bright blue full of water!  Why is that folks?  It could be that the City of Riverside has a Contractual Obligation to Riverside Property Owners to Provide Water!  The City of Riverside has Pre-1914 Water Rights to Ground Water from the Bunker Hill Basin.  Which means that we are not in control of the California State Water Resources Control Board, Why? Because we have our own Board, Why? Because we as a City own Our Water Rights!  The Leadership of the City of Riverside misguided you, the taxpayer, to believe otherwise.  Causing by their incompetence, that they, the Council, would like you to pay more to cover their illegitimate transgressions.  Not to mention the illegitimate transgressions of your Pretty Boy Mayor, William Rusty Bailey.  Vote No on Measure-Z 2016!  Again those you have placed in leadership positions have deceived you!  You will be paying more for the Heroes you thought were Heroes..Fire and Police.  They are not are Heroes when it comes to scamming the taxpayer for perceived increases in pension and salary increases.

swimmingpoolnotatthistime

click this image to enlarge (click this link to go to the city source)

Riverside is unique in that we own our water.  Twenty percent is sold to outside locals.  So why are we conserving, while the city is mandated by law to harvest “x’ amount of water from the Bunker Hill Basin or lose those rights!  New City Attorney Gary Geuss file a lawsuit on behalf of the public asking the State to reverse their requirements since we own our own water.  What he forgot to tell the State is that the City has a “contractual” association with the homeowners that requires them to provide water.  What this means is that it trumps the State Water Drought Declaration.  More on this to come.  What’s more egregious is that the city of Riverside is asking their residents to be “snitches” on their neighbors concerning the new restriction, which will of course cause further undo tension and discourse in the community…for absolutely no good reason.

BREAKING STORIES FROM THE PRESS ENTERPRISE REFERENCING RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES.

JULY 04, 2015: CITY FIELDS QUESTION ON UTILITY RESERVES  The question arises from community activists, based upon and city of Riverside public utility documents, whether its ratepayers, that’s you and me for the uninitiated, have over-charged for services over the past decade.  The reserves have grown beyond what City official policies state, thereby violating those rules.  The the city was caught with their pants down, so they’re crafting language for new policy, and spinning the criticism.  We ask why is RPU General Manager, Girish Balanchandran, rewriting policy, if it wasn’t followed to begin with?  Seems to us like a waste of time if the City’s just going to do whatever the heck it wants anyway.

There is no question in our minds that the new policy will be written specifically to bring into conformance the existing policy violations, so that no one ever has to take any accountability….same ‘ole, same ‘ole.  The right thing to do would be to return the excess funds back to the ratepayers.  But that will be a challenge: your public utilities (“We Own It!”) currently does not work in your best interests.  What the City has done to the ratepayers over the years is just plain wrong.

JULY 02, 2015: RIVERSIDE: RESIDENTS WANT TO AX UTILITY TAX  A common theme: residents are fed up with all the taxation.  TMC is asking for your support to be part of a Ratepayer Advocacy Group that would serve as a watchdog on utility practices, and hopefully prevent some of the abuses we’ve suffered under the Loveridge/Hudson/Priamos (and their cronies) years.  The Board of Public Utilities does not advocate for the taxpayer, but for the city.

Finance Director Brent Mason stated that the utility user tax brings in $30 million a year to the general fund to pay for police, fire, parks and other services …. we thought that was what the General Fund Transfer was for!?  Seems to us like double taxation.

More Information on the Utility User Tax (click this link).

The utility users tax is not a sales tax (the State administers those); it’s an excise tax. Riverside residents pay the City for the “luxury” of gas, water, electric, and phone service. I don’t know about you, but those don’t seem like luxuries to me. They should all be repealed. The City needs to stop abusing its residents through excessive taxation in the form of fees like the Utility Users Tax and General Fund Transfer at its public (aka, monopoly) utility or risk losing them both…and maybe even its entire utility…in the process. My belief is that the City is breaking the social compact to provide these services at “cost plus” and will pay a steep price if it doesn’t come to the table soon with those that want reform at RPU. Just my two cents. – Jason Hunter, commentor to the Press Enterprise

THANK YOU CITY OF RIVERSIDE AND SUPPORTERS OF TMC FOR REACHING 200,000 HITS!  

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “DISGUSTING,” “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,” “ABOMINABLE,” “APPALLING,” “DETESTABLE,” “SLEAZY,” “SLANDEROUS,” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  YES WE ARE ALL OF THIS, WE ADMIT IT, SO PLEASE…DO NOT READ IF OFFENDED!  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!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

Untitled-2

RPU’s Taj Majal? 

Yep, if you are a Riverside ratepayer, you just bought yourself a building.  The total time from when it was placed on the agenda of the Board of Public Utilities to the day the decision was made by Council to spend $40 million of rate payer money from the Electric Fund to have a “Taj Mahal” for RPU execs? 1 week.  We got a million dollar baby which will need much more care then we know – from seismic retrofits, to new elevators, to new HVAC.  As a bonus, the City is now in the business of real estate and property management, since about 50% of the building space will be rented to private entities (Chamber businesses no doubt receiving preferential leases).

According to the Press Enterprise, Councilman Paul Davis stated, “I think that once you look at the totality of it … it is better to be an owner.”  Well, we guess Davis didn’t read the back up documents as to the 1980s structure numerous issues.  We’d be willing to be this orchestrated fiasco actually will end up costing the taxpayers more – a lot more – than if RPU had simply found a new building after its lease (already extended once) had run out in 2022.

Of course, as we’ve become accustomed to, the backup documents to the staff report did not provide the financial analysis of the deal.  “Trust us, we’re with the government!” seems to the be enough to satisfy officials like Davis.  Were upkeep and maintenance costs included?  How about the impact to city finances of taking the building off the property tax rolls?  The public was not provided the analysis, and of course the deal was rushed through the process to quickly to ask for the information via a Public Records Act request – so much for Rockstar Russo’s promise of transparency!

first40million

Council Report June 23, 2015 (click to view full doc)

 

Back in July 2011 the City of Riverside decided it was a good idea to assume the lease of the law firm BB&K for RPU at the Wells Fargo building.  This would give BB&K an opportunity to move to the developer Mark Rubins newly built Citrus Towers, which was on the site of former Redevelopment Agency property – of course!  In 2012 the cost annually for lease payment was over $1.6 million.  We believe the move was made because Rubin couldn’t make his occupancy goals for his new building, and hence, his financiers were getting a wee bit nervous.  At the time, we asked whether the formation of this love triangle – RPU, BB&K, and Rubin – was in fact just a gift of public funds?

first    two     three

07-26-2011 CC RPT 401-3 (CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOC)

 

More than likely former City Manager Brad Hudson thought this was a good deal, but not necessarily for the RPU ratepayer, as was often the case.  Back in 2012, we not that real estate market research advisers, Grubb & Ellis, showed that while the City was prepared to pay $2.49 per square foot per month to help its buddies out, the average asking rate for the best office space in Riverside-Corona corridor was $2.10 per square foot.  The firm stated that it was even cheaper for second tiered space (but we couldn’t have that! Only the best for public employees in Riverside!).

The issue of excess reserves has been raised by multiple members of the public at both Public Utility Board and City Council meetings during public comment since the Fall of 2014.  Neither the Board of Public Utilities nor the City Council have taken action to comply with the RPU’s Reserve Policy. The existence of excess reserves indicate that the City, through its Public Utilities Department, has substantially overcharged its ratepayers for both water and electric services in violation of Propositions 218 and 26. Is Public Utilities quickly moving forward to craft and change language in order to utilize restrictive reserve funds, so they won’t have to reimburse the ratepayers for the overage?  Or will they simply spend all the money on frivolous and project not in compliance with its Reserve Policy?  We’re betting on both.

At a recent La Sierra/Arlanza Neighborhood Alliance (LANA) meeting, City Manager John Russo stated that because of the City’s heavy debt burden and pension obligations, we simply cannot spend any more money on new projects.  We guess he wasn’t talking about RPU.  What about the other city owned buildings – we couldn’t use them, like RPU has done at Orange Square and Utilities Plaza?  Well residents are beginning to line up for a 40 cent tour of their new $40 million building.  If you have to pay for it, you might as well see it!

ChinaJune14018

This group of Riverside ratepayers don’t seem to be happy about this purchase…

 

OTHER TMC RELATED STORIES:

JULY 30, 2011: I’LL TAKE A DOUBLE RUBIN ON A BB&K WITH PU ON THE SIDE!

TWO OF FORMER PE ARTICLES BY DAN BERSTEIN’S, AND HIS TAKE ON SWAP ISSUE:

LEASE IS MORE: JULY 26, 2011: DAN BERSTEIN

THE WINNERS? NOT NECESSARILY RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITY RATEPAYERS: DECEMBER 11, 2011: DAN BERSTEIN

RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN..

pc-riv-1961-greetings-001-A-1000TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “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” 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!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

firstpage

GRAND JURY COMPLAINT AGAINST RPU (CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW DOCUMENT)

Audited financial statements for fiscal year 2014 indicate Riverside Public Utility’s (RPU) water reserves balance at $86,181,000.00, far exceeding the maximum of 100% of annual operating revenues set forth in RPU’s June 26, 2001, Fiscal Policy.  Statements for fiscal year 2014 also indicate an electric reserves balance of $210,929,000.00, again far exceeding the targeted reserve level set forth in the August 26, 2003, City Council Memorandum.

The issue of excess reserves has been raised by multiple members of the public at both Public Utility Board and City Council meetings during public comment since the Fall of 2014.  Neither the Board of Public Utilities nor the City Council have taken action to comply with the City’s reserve policies.  The existence of excess reserves indicate that the City, through its Public Utilities Department, has substantially overcharged its ratepayers for both water and electric services in violation of Propositions 218 and 26.

The Grand Jury is being asked to investigate alleged violations within the reserve policies and instruct the City of Riverside to issue refund checks to all rate payers, for excess utility reserves.

What residents must remember is that RPU, the Board of Public Utilities, and the City Council do not serve the bests interests of the ratepayers, but that of the City of Riverside.  The inherent conflict in the current situation demands the creation of an Office of Ratepayer Advocacy.  Further, RPU’s own reserve policy states these monies are to be used for contingencies, not planned infrastructure.

At the last Council meeting, the City attempted to utilize a slight of hand maneuver for over-collected reserves by stating that they will use reserves for $50 million in necessary infrastructure until a bond can be issue at a later date.  The fine print is that they have the option never to issue that bond.  We believe this was done to purposely decrease the amount of reserves,  therefore leaving less monies available for reimbursements and lower rates.

frontpg

05-19-2015 REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION (CLICK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT)

As a result of the information disseminated to residents on the reserves, the City’s spokesperson, Phil Pitchford, issued the following City press release in order to attempt to mitigate damage.

pressreleas

2015- CITY OF RIVERSIDE PROPAGANDA ON PUBLIC UTILITIES RESERVES (CLICK TO VIEW)

In an act of desperation, it appears that the City of Riverside was allowed to set up an account on a neighborhood website in order to disseminate their propaganda piece.  Is Big Brother present?  We had been led to believe the Nextdoor.com site was only for residents, not a marketing site.  Is the City borrowing from the NSA (National Security Agency) and utilizing this neighborhood site as a monitoring vehicle to gather information on individuals?

PHIL

CLICK TO ENLARGE

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “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” 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!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

wbOP_wideweb__470x325,0

It’s never a pretty outcome for the public…

WE AT TMC WANT TO ADVISE OUR DEAR READERS (Yes, all 7 of you…) that when you hear the words, “private/public partnership,” grab your wallet!  A publicprivate partnership (PPP) is a government service or private business venture which is funded and operated through a partnership of government and one or more private sector companies. These schemes are sometimes referred to as PPP, P3 or P3.

Earlier this year, we detailed how the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce (GRCC), in partnership with Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey,  has turned the State of the City Address into a for-profit event benefiting the Chamber at a substantial expense to the taxpayers and ratepayers of Riverside.  Meanwhile, the general public got to sit in the back of the bus audience for this event, while the Chamber and City bigwigs were given the center stage, celebrity treatment compliments of the Mutual Admiration Society of Riverside County.

A week later, not having had its fill of pork, GRCC had its primary public benefactor, Riverside Public Utilities, sponsor its Mega Mixer and Trade Show at the Tyler Mall.

Last night, the Chamber had its hand out again, this time for its Inaugural Celebration, titled, “A Night in Bollywood” (given the amount of plastic surgery observed at the gala, perhaps, “A Night in Dollywood,” would’ve been more appropriate, but we digress…)

dollywoodinaugaral20115

CLICK ABOVE IMAGE TO ENLARGE (not that Dolly needs it)

Once again, we see Riverside Public Utilities headlining as an Emerald Sponsor (not to be confused with its earlier billings as Gold Sponsor and Premier Plus Exhibitor) of this event.  In what I’m sure is just a coincidence (sarcasm alert), the Chamber installed Bob Stockton, of Rick Engineering, as its Chairman of the Board…the same Bob Stockton who was just recently the Chairman of our Board of Public Utilities.

bobstockton

Bob Stockton, new Panderer-At-Large in the revolving door scheme

We’ve previously covered how former General Manager, David Wright (another recycled executive, now LADWP’s problem), and current General Manager, Girish Balachandran, sat/sit/sut on the Board of Directors of the Chamber, cutting checks with their ratepayers’ money on a almost weekly basis: a grotesque conflict-of-interest even our own ethically-challenged City Council is a bit queasy with we hear.

n22i3k-wwright0712binary1098362Girish-Balachandran

                           Dave “the Kingpin” Wright           Girish “The Bag Man” Balanchandran

All of this is done without any transparency to the general public or oversight.  In theory, the Chamber could host an event every day, and Girish Balachandran would seemingly be all-too-willing to write a check up to $25,000 (his maximum authority) for each one…well, until he ran out of your money.

But enough of the hyphens and run-on sentences, let’s shine the light on how the game works!

You pay your utility bills/taxes —> City/RPU funds the Chamber (and other favorite non-profits as part of an influence peddling scheme, but more on that later) —> the Chamber pushes its business-first agenda and supports local candidates —> the City Council continues to keep the GRCC on the public dole through an ever-expanding assortment of schemes (e.g. the no-bid Keep Riverside Clean and Beautiful contract) —> lather, rinse, repeat!  They get an Indian dinner, you get the cheque!

howdidcouncilvote

The Chamber is Watching You! (Click Image to Enlarge).

The game ends one of two ways: the City eventually goes bankrupt, a la San Bernadino and Stockton…or you get sick of the corruption and demand change.  On that note, City elections are June 2, 2015 .  Whom will TMC endorse!?  Stay tuned….

WHAT ABOUT ME?  The County of Riverside would of course not want to be left out of this party.  As you can see here, Riverside County Economic Development and Regional Medical Center both bought $1000 tables for the Mayor Bailey’s State of the City Address.  Yes, that’s the same Regional Medical Center that ran a $36 million shortfall just last fiscal year.  They must be feeling better (sic) because they were also an Emerald Sponsor of last night’s, “A Night in Bollywood,” boondoggle.  It’s heartwarming to know an institution drowning in a sea of red can continue to show its support for its local Chamber of Commerce….run by our Queen Cindy Roth, who just so happens to be married to Senator Richard Roth (31st District – cities of Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley, Norco, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Riverside, and Perris).

GOLDSPONSORS2015

CLICK ABOVE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

croth          board-roth

Queen Cindy                          King Richard

“Let Them Eat Cake!” (or should that be Gulab Jamin?)

The Riverside County Transportation Committee, another in that miasma of Joint Powers Agreements the City is involved in (this one for, “coordinating highway and transit planning and identifying projects for state and federal funding [and] responsibility for all aspects of regionwide planning for Riverside County’s mobility”), also sponsored the Mega Mixer…because as you know, most folks go to the mall to hear about County transportation issues.

sonnyandcher

And the deadbeat goes on…la dah dada dee, la dah dada dah. (CLICK THIS LINK TO WATCH YOUTUBE)

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “DEMENTED,” “MENTALLY WHACKED,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” “HORIFFIC,” “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 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!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

ISLETHREEDID REIKO KERR TAKE THE WALK OF SHAME?

OUR MUTUAL FRIEND: Urban legend has it that several years ago a RPU (Riverside Public Utilities) Assistant General Manager was caught leaving her boss’ hotel room during a business trip in the wee hours of the morning, looking like she was ridden hard and put up wet.  This rumor follows that a subordinate RPU employee eye-witnessed the walk of shame.  Allegedly, a letter was sent to the boss’ wife advising her of the situation, and all hell broke loose from there.  After some customary Riverside retaliation and harassment, this subordinate was eventually moved out of the division they worked in.  Why is this important? Why is this compelling? Because this behavior directly impacts the taxpayer and ratepayer. We’ll let you decide what really happened…romance or “hard” work?

In the spirit of the recent Dickens Festival, we at TMC are delighted to tell you the story (complete with flashbacks, irony, foreshadowing, symbolism, and every other literary device we learned in 10th grade) that we hope educates, entertains, and motivates … using the public documents, including travel expenses, that were provided to us courtesy of the City of Riverside at a cost of about $70.00. (Ten cents a page) That’s a lot of traveling on the taxpayer dime!

A TALE OF TWO CITY EMPLOYEES: Gary Nolff had a nice career at RPU (Riverside Public Utilities), rising from a Power Contracts Administrator in 1990, making $71,436/year until his retirement in December of 2011 as the Utilities Assistant General Manager of Resources, making over $181,392/year, with an extraordinary CalPERS retirement, paid for by we the taxpayer, waiting in the wings. If he had ridden off into the sunset, never to be heard from again, we might never have even had known he existed.

But Mr. Nolff didn’t…and our guess is by the time everything is said and done, he’ll wish he had.

In 2000, Reiko Kerr was hired by the RPU as a Utilities Principal Analyst, making $71,436/year.  By 2008, under Mr. Nolff’s “hands on” tutelage, the meteoric Ms. Kerr had reached the title of Utilities Projects/Contracts Manager, making $136,548/year. Ms. Kerr obviously enjoyed her time underneath Mr. Nolff! Today her salary is closer to $200,000.00. Have all employees of the city of Riverside tripled their salaries in 15 years?  Or was Ms. Kerr just outstanding in servicing her boss?  Inquiring minds want to know.

But like all things in the dear River City, the party couldn’t possibly stop there.  And so, with Mr. Nolff’s “retirement,” it was arranged that Ms. Kerr (who to our knowledge had exactly ZERO utilities experience in marketing, trading, operations, or planning at the time; and was by all accounts, a glorified accountant) would, without any other interviews of candidates, replace Mr. Nolff as Assistant General Manager of RPU – Resources division.  And with a whisk of his wand and a scattering of fairy dust, former General Manager David “the Kingpin” Wright made it so in early 2013.

GREAT EXPECTATIONS: Now Mr. Nolff was still a relatively young man, despite being “retired”, and decided to strike out on his own…well, sorta/kinda anyway. He formed his own company, Energy Management, LLC, in February of 2012, and waited. Waited for what? Well, the 180-day waiting period CalPERS requires to expire before he could go right back to work for Ms. Kerr at RPU as a consultant making $200/hr! (That’s the equivalent of $416,000/year for those doing the math at home).

nolffcontract     signature

VIEW AND READ FULL GARY NOLFF CONTRACT (CLICK THIS LINK)

And so, on November 7, 2012, Mr. Nolff was back on the scene at 3435 14th St. (aka, the Gateway Building), “double-dipping” underneath Ms. Kerr this time. The rapture! His contract was signed by Mr. Wright (Ms. Kerr’s boss), his invoices were sent to and approved by Utilities Projects/Contracts Manager Bob Tang (Ms. Kerr’s henchman, toadie, direct report), and his bills paid under Ms. Kerr’s division’s budget via Purchase Order.  Why is that all this technical mumbo-jumbo (we need Columbo!) important?  Well, you’ll just have to read further and find out!

Mr. Nolff was even given an office courtesy of Ms. Kerr from which to perform his duties: to perform the role of caretaker during the decommissioning (shutdown) phase of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. You see, the darn steam generators there, which were only a few years old at the time, just didn’t seem to want to work correctly, and that’s a bit of a problem when you’re dealing with radioactive material we’re told. Of course, Mr. Nolff was an expert in that particular arena: he had been instrumental in getting Riverside to sign onto buying the malfunctioning units in the first place while we employed him full-time. Now that’s what we at TMC call job security! By some estimates the total cost of that failed San Onofre deal to the ratepayers was about $90 million. Thank you Gary Nolff!

THE OLD CURIOSITY SHOP: In May of 2013, a public records request was made concerning Mr. Nolff’s new tryst (we had to check our dictionary for what that means) with the City. In tried and true fashion, the City Attorney’s Office summarily denied releasing any of these records (even redacted) under consigliere-client privilege: Tom Hagen would’ve been proud.  It was as if no one wanted the public to know he was even back working for the City.  I know, imagine that!

Eight months later, the following redacted public records of expenses incurred by Gary Nolff’s consulting firm, Energy Management LLC, mysteriously appeared in our inbox from the City Clerk. We place these here as an example of what roadblocks citizens must confront at times in the name of transparency.  We just recently got the unredacted versions (smooches for you, Lee McDougal), which will follow shortly that demonstrate the real meat of this transparency issue … stay tuned.

nolfexpCLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL NOLFF EXPENSES

We took this salacious story to our appointed and elected officials and advised them that if employees are having affairs on the public’s time and dime, it needs to be made public.  You can cheat on your spouse…just don’t screw us please, even if you have protection.

THE MYSTERY OF GARY NOLFF: At the January 23, 2015, Board of Public Utilities meeting Ms. Reiko Kerr, Assistant General Manager of the Resources Division of Riverside Public Utilities stood her ground when given the chance to publicly address her accusers. “I did not hire Gary Nolff!” (or something to that effect; we didn’t take notes) Undeterred, the public asked more questions again at Utility Services Committee hearing three weeks later. “I did not hire Gary Nolff!” Ms. Kerr would (st)utter again.

Well, “Who did?” of course came the follow-up question.  And the answer to that will be forthcoming dear readers!  “Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.” – quote not attributable to Charles Dickens.

 1141fa5     reiko-kerrGary Nolf (on top) Reiko Kerr (on the bottom)

What happens when your former boss is rumored to be having an affair with you and then “retires”; then you magically get his job?  Now that you are the boss, you return the favor and hire him back on a contract for $200/hr.  Higher than the new interim City Manager at $135/hr, or the attempt to bring back the former Fire Chief Earley at $100/hr to help the new regime? We get what we call abuse of taxpayer monies and further..misappropriation of funds.  Let’s call it what it is: favoritism, under the guise of a legitimate business arrangment.

Favoritism can cause undo stress within the workplace.  We did a story back in May 2011 regarding Sexual Favoritism in the Workplace.  In this posting we cited Miller vs. California Department of Corrections, whereby in office romances can cause favoritism in such a way that it can be considered harassment to the other employees. Employees in California may now sue their employers for sexual harassment if the sexual affair between a superior and a subordinate results in sexual favoritism. It is a Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Which means that if sexual favoritism exist, it can impede or interfere with another employees ability to advance within the workplace, therefore this can be cause for a lawsuit and costly liability.  The following link is a synopsis of Miller vs. California Department of Corrections.

TO BE CONTINUED…

UPDATE: 03.02.2015: PE ARTICLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST OF THE SAN ONOFRE SHUTDOWN: INCREASE IN UTILITY RATES?  One thing we’re learned here at TMC through our keen observation, the real story is the one not told…and so we’ll provide our own investigative reporting (or whatever the heck it is we do) on these events.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “DEMENTED,” “MENTALLY WHACKED,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” “HORIFFIC,” “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 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!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM