Posts Tagged ‘riverside public utilities’

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

Cat-Fight

CAT FIGHT OR JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING?

According to the letter written by local Attorney Danuta W. Tusynska, Darlene Trujillo Elliot, Assistant to the Mayor, claims Ms. Kane made some disparaging remarks about race.  Both Elliot and Kane work for Mayor William Rusty Bailey.  The letter states that Ms. Elliott has potential causes of action against the City of Riverside for race and national origin discrimination and failure for the City to provide a discrimination-free environment.  Chief of Staff to the Mayor, Maureen Kane was specifically targeted.

1148873_10200154997868443_1963417654_n           Maureen-Kane

Darlene Trujillo Elliot                  Maureen Kane

Tuzynska stated that the examples indicated of the discrimination was a sampling, as if to indicated that there are more claims to come.  She also threw in that harassment was involved.  Some of the complaints were as follows:  Ms Kane routinely used the phrase “your people” to Ms. Elliot.  Ms. Kane stated to Darlene that her daughter was having a “Mexican” party and everyone was dressing up like Mexicans.  What is quite remarkable is the “Mexican” party that Ms. Kane was referring to was actually a Quinceañera, held for her own daughter, which is a Hispanic/Mexican traditional ceremony with reference to coming of age.  What people don’t know or is not indicated, does Ms. Kane come from a Hispanic background?  Or was this a mere cat fight between two Latina co-workers?

cat-fight-definition

Mr. Elliot also indicated that Ms. Kane told her that she would be transferred to Parks and Recreation department, against her wishes.  When she fell to the pressure, she asked for her prior position as Principle Management Analyst in Public Utilites, but was denied that.  Elliot also claimed that Ms. Kane falsely described the involuntary transfer as a “promotion.”

elliotcase                      cityrespons

Complaint Letter from Law Offices of Danuta Tuszynska       Findings Letter from Robert Hansen

Of course, the City responded with Ms. Kane’s story and you can see the full disclosures by the City and by Elliot’s Attorney by clicking the links above.  Incidentally, the letter was written by Robert Hansen, Deputy City Attorney for the City of Riverside and former City Attorney for Moreno Valley.

index

Deputy City Attorney Robert L. Hansen

The rumor through the grapevine is that the City of Moreno Valley wants him back, but on the same token Hansen has also applied for the job of Riverside City Attorney.  Well, the Attorney denies that Ms. Kane made those references to “your people” and “Mexican” party, which if it did happen, I believe you are given that free card especially if you are both from Hispanic backgrounds, therefore no discrimination, especially when it indicates that Ms. Kane’s daughters first language was Spanish.  You can read the details of the response by Hansen, but he denies that Ms. Kane ever told Ms. Elliot that she was being transferred.  The bottom line is that Ms. Elliot continues to be employed and working in the Office of the Mayor in her official capacity or position.

IN PASADENA, FIRING “WITHOUT CAUSE” GET’S YOU THE LOTTERY, THANKS TO CITY MANAGER MICHAEL BECK!  According to the Pasadena Star News the two fired employees City of Pasadena’s Public Works Director Siobhan Foster and Finance Directory Andrew Green will cost the taxpayers $275,000.00 to make them go away.  In what world does a “fired” employee get a lottery win with reference to a payout?  Only in the “public sector,” this my friends, would never happen in the “private sector.”  Then what usually seems to happen, is that these two people will be picked up or recycled by other cities to implement the same schemes until they are outed once again.  Remember City of Pasadena, you lost $6.4 million in taxpayer monies that may never be recovered due to the oversight of Siobhan Foster, Andrew Green and City Manager Michael Beck.

NONE

These Two Taxpayer Incompetent Turds will get the following:  Foster will receive six months salary and healthcare benefits totalling $109,425.39. Green’s severance pay totaled $105,840.93.  In addition, Foster will receive a $33,198.21 check for hours worked, car and phone allowances, cash-outs for vacation, management time off and floating holiday hours afforded in her contract. Green will receive a $27,876.65 check. Remember folks, Pasadena’s City Manager Michael Beck was former Assistant City Manager of the City of Riverside, while Pasadena’s Director of Public Works (with no engineering degree) Siobhan Foster, was former City of Riverside’s Public Works Director who made some really bad decisions that not only impacted employees health with the AG Park allegations but created astronomical liabilities for Riverside taxpayers.  Should have our former city attorney take some blame who at the time was former City Attorney Gregory Priamos.

STATE OF THE CITY UPDATE: SPONSORED BY THE GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE:  We brought this issue up again because we thought it was important for the public taxpayer to note how a private non-profit the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce has hijacked a public event such as the City of Riverside’s State of the City.  The following shows how public taxpayer monies are spent by purchasing tables that the public can’s sit in, only the department employees of the City, while the public sat in the back.  Gold sponsors paid $1,000 per table.  The monies which are contributed to the Chamber, are not known if they come back to the City as campaign donations or paid plane tickets etc.  The sad part about this activity was that this has been going on for 38 years.

img048   img049   img050   img051   img052

CLICK IMAGES ABOVE TO ENLARGE

At the Mega Mixer and Trade Show held January 29th we found that Public Utilities was handing out sponsorship monies for this event!  The ring leaders again are the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce!

img055

CLICK ABOVE IMAGE TON ENLARGE

PUBLIC UTILITIES UPDATE: THE “I OWN IT” PROGRAM, IS IT A BIT TO MUCH?  WE FIND THAT OUR PUBLIC UTILITIES MUST HAVE SO MUCH MONEY TO PASS AROUND TOWN TO FOR BUSINESSES TO ADVERTISE.  If this is the case and “We Own It,” referring to me the public, I want a $1,000.00 to be returned to all 100,000 rate payers of the City of Riverside.

IMG_0837   IMG_1538   IMG_3416   IMG_6008   IMG_9366

CLICK IMAGES ABOVE TO ENLARGE

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 2015 AT THE MISSION INN SETS RUMORS ABLAZE!  A noted Special City Council Meeting set to be Friday February 6th at the Mission Inn has set off a blaze of resident concerns.  Why the Mission Inn when we have City Hall?  Why are we paying taxpayer dollars for the San Diego room when we already have a Council Chamber?  Will there be food served?  What’s so important that Council decided to utilize the Mission Inn for a one hour special city council meeting between the hour of 9:00am and 10:00am?  According to a Memorandum from Mayor Pro Tem (second figure below) council will be considering candidates for the City Manager position.   This closed session meeting is also not open to the public, except for public comment at the beginning.  There was a Michael Beck sighting some weeks ago at Riverside City Hall, with all the turmoil in Pasadena, is Beck looking for a way out before possibly being fired?  Is he one of the candidates to be considered for Riverside City Manager?

speccc    memo

CLICK ABOVE IMAGES TO ENLARGE

spec

Special February 6th Closed Session Agenda

TMC MAKES THE COLORADO BOULEVARD. NET ON OUR STORY REFERENCING “RECYCLED CITY EXECUTIVES.”

CBN

CLICK TO ENLARGE

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “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

Stop Elder Abuse Sign

UPDATE:06.03.2013: IT WASN’T ENOUGH THAT BB&K ATTORNEY JACK CLARK ATTEMPTED TO PUSH THROUGH THE NAMING OF CITY HALL IN RECOGNITION OF RON LOVERIDGE..  NOW WE FIND JAMES ERICKSON, VICE CHANCELLOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE, ATTEMPTING TO PUSH THROUGH THE NAMING OF MAIN STREET UNDER THE NAME OF RON LOVERIDGE.  IN WHAT CAPACITY WE DO NOT KNOW.. LOVERIDGE LANE, RONNY’S STREET OR EVEN RONALD BOULEVARD.. 

Untitled-2 copy                       Untitled-3

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

STRONG-ARMING SENIORS FOR A YES VOTE:  ISN’T THAT ELDER ABUSE?

There is nothing more despicable than taking advantage and misinforming seniors.  Where is Ofelia Yeager on this issue, the Chairperson on the Yes on Measure A Campaign?  Why was she chosen to spearhead this issue?  Why was Mathew Webb of Webb Engineering, the Co-Chairperson christen to participate in this elusive endeavor?  Why would Webb Engineering have a master engineering contract with Municipal Water?  How does this affect Mathew Webb’s relationship with Councilman Chris Mac Arthur, are they cousins or just doing the Hanky Panky?    Or Mathew Webb’s association with now Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey, stating he has known him for decades.  Is this all about keeping it in the family?  Does it dispute the fact that Webb Engineering recieved 13 Checks on the same day under former City Manager Brad Hudson’s discretionary account?  Where is the Council on this one, the Mayor and especially Steve Adams who has asspirations aspirations of being a Congressman?  This is only a reflection of how our City operates.  Every month the amount transferred goes up, it was $6.1 million now it is $6.7 million, probably because they are not allowed to transfer just yet.   But, what now appears to be covered by this transfer is everything that property taxes are suppose to cover.  In City Manager Scott Barber’s analysis of possible cuts if Measure A doesn’t pass could very well be considered a scheme, artiface or fabrication since it was simply based on projections.  Was this orchestrated and designed to attempt to mislead the voters?  The projections have no basis because they never had any accounting track record of expenditures to refer to, they don’t exist.  If no prior allocation records exist how does one extrapolate a true analytical projection?  According to the City’s October General Fund Forecast, the Mayor Bailey’s Office is overbudgeted by $116,100.00.  Instead of cutting his budget, he would rather cut Police and Fire?  Further, as indicate City Manager Scott Barber used the number of the adopted budget for the Mayor’s office to apply his 3.0% cut, which comes out to $22,000.00, therefore this amount would be cost applied to the 11.5% transfer.  The funny thing is that the number cannot be legitimatel verified because no accounting records of that number exist!  Every account that Barber utilizes applies the 3.0% in the same manner.  This is an example of how they are misinforming the public.

mayorsbudget             mayors budget

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The question to be asking the City, and many are asking the question by the way, “why do they appear to be strong arming the community into a Yes vote on Measure A?”  From candidates, community groups, community services, city employees etc.  Is it that the City is threatening funding to these programs if a Yes vote is not supported?  Money always seems to talk, especially when it is not your own money to spend.

This is a flyer that was dispersed at the Janet Goeske Center which states what will happen to senior funding if they do not vote Yes on Measure A.  Is the City of Riverside strong arming residents with an iron fist of reason?  Or is it extorsion?  Afterall isn’t the Hyatt suing the City of Riverside on this issue?  Yes they are.  Demand answers!  Demand Transperancy! Demand Leadership!  Well…at least the first two, and the only way to do this is to show up at City Council and voice your opinions.

JGFLYER

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FLYER DISPERSED AT THE JANET GOESKE CENTER

In the last two utility bills you received;  you as a taxpayer have paid for the few rogue City Officials who felt it was necessary to spend your tax money to misinform you, further, to deny your constitutional right of reaching a balanced voting decision.  City Tax money was used to favor a “Yes” vote on Measure A.  This flyer states to go to the City of Riverside’s web site for more information. If you go the City of Riverside’s web site, what we have can be construed as a Yes on Measure A bonanza!    Another FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) violation?

PUMEASUREAOFUTILITYBILL

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW WHAT YOU PAID FOR, EVEN IF YOU DON’T AGREE!

According to Letitia Pepper, Riverside Attorney, the City is using city funds to promote Measure A, and to promote it with lies and propaganda — propaganda is “half-truths.”  She says to look at your May Riverside Public Utility bill, on the back ( the above image).  There’s a full page promoting the passage of Measure A.  This page includes the biggest of all lies:  “By re-affirming these previous voter actions, Measure A continues this funding [allegedly and impliedly only for for clean water programs], WITHOUT RAISING TAXES.” The real reason this issue MUST be submitted to the voters is not the self-serving settlement into which the City entered with the Moreno’s that required the City to submit the issue of the excess charges to the voters. The REAL reason the City is doing this is that since 1996, it has been illegal, under Prop. 218, for cities, incuding charter cities like Riverside, to charge more for water than the actual cost of providing it. To make such chares, cities had two years after Prop. 218 passed to submit them for a vote as taxes — and the City never did that until it got caught last year.

Another aspect of this measure is that it appears to be paying for alot of services!  The amount the City has indicated has gone from $6.1 million to $6.7 million.  If you are a taxpayer as I am, this transfer appears to be doing a better job of covering all expenses of city services than our property taxes.  Potholes, Storm Drains (we doubled the tax in 2012), Police, Fire, 911 dispatch, Childrens Lunch Programs, Clean Water (Covered by your water rates), Gang Control (Covered by Federal Police Asset Forfeiture Funds), Library, Crossing Guards, Tree Triming, Disabled Services, Senior Services, SRO’s (School Resource Officers), Maintaining Fairmont Park Lake, Low Income Lunch Programs, Powerwashing Downtown Streets, Installing Curbs and Gutters, Summer Camp Programs, Dealing with Abandoned Vehicles, Using Code Enforcement if your Landscaping doesn’t conform to the Politically Correct criteria of the City, Code Enforcement citations if you Overwater your landscaping, Code Enforcement citations if you have Trash exposed, Code Enforcement citations if it appears that you have Outdoor Storage, Code Enforcement citations if it appears that your property is contributing to storm drain contaminants and it goes on and on.  The storm drain fees don’t really help Riverside residents, but it contributes to Orange County Clean Water.  Property Taxes pay for City Services, the User Utility Tax on your utility bill pays for services and Proposition 172 allocates 1/2 cent from the sales tax to city services.  Government should live within their means, afterall you and I have to.  The new advertisement on Measure A on your utility bill states cleaning storm drain catch basins and storm drains.  But what! We had an increase from $2.83 to $5.22?  Yes folks, last year we had an increase in our Storm Drain Tax ( also know as Storm Sewer System), documents as follows:

STORMDRAIN           PAGE4

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE DOCUMENT

Is the City contemplating a triple tax by this above action?  Is the truth of the matter that the City is in need of paying upcoming bond obligations?  Would this be the real issue?

As indicated by Dan Berstein’s of the Press Enterprise new article, is this another Sleazy Campaign Mailer?  Rather than making cuts in their own back yard, the City of Riverside would like to punish residents that already have made cuts in their household with the fear of higher taxes, as indicated a couple of weeks ago by Councilman Steve Adams where he stated, “if Measure-A doesn’t pass, we have a change in the status quo, and we will have to raise your rates (referring to water) and increase your taxes.”

flash_1886

WELL LET’S DO A DRUM ROLL TO INCREASE TAXES; SHALL WE COUNCILMAN ADAMS?

The mailers that the Yes on Measure A campaign have been distributing have been reflective of their talking points, but this new mailer just received is from the City of Riverside, and it has the City of Riverside star of approval with endorsing names such as our Chief of Police Sergio Diaz, Fire Chief Steve Earley and City Manager Scott Barber.  It cannot get any more blatant than this.  Legally the City of Riverside has had to take a position of neutrality, while over the past few months the City has stated it was on a Measure A informational tour.  This four page City mailer shows that the language can be ultimately construed as a campaign publication endorsing a Yes vote on Measure A.  This can be seen by the language and pictorial used, the tone, tenor and timing is there. Further this mailer was paid for by you and me the “Taxpayer.”  Therefore is the City of Riverside on the verge of violating FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) rules and regulations and misappropriation of taxpayer funds?  Elections Code § 8314(d) and Gov’t Code § 8314(d).

Gov’t Code § 8314 (a) It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.

Gov’t Code § 8314(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of public resources for providing information to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure on state activities, operations, or policies, provided that (1) the informational activities are otherwise authorized by the constitution or laws of this state, and (2) the information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.

mailer

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL MAILER

According to a new article by Dan Berstein of the Press Enterprise, the Council knew of this piece, according to Councilman Mike Gardner, but didn’t discuss the content.  So who were the individuals or individual that approved and designed this mailer?  Well it appears it was within the City Attorney’s Office.  So, who approved the $23,777.00 for the cost of printing and mailing at taxpayer expense?  You would think if there was any inkling or sugestion of misappropriation of taxpayer funds that the council would have the descency to ask those obvious tough questions. This I say in lieu of City Attorney Gregory Priamos not returning Berstein’s calls. If it was approved by Priamos, it must be legal, right Greg?

Another editorial in the Press Enterprise, “Don’t use taxpayers’ monies for election fliers.”   Is the City of Riverside really a “Muni Mafia?”  How do they compare to San Bernardino? Or Moreno Valley?

The City continues to claim that these transfer monies are used for everything under the sun, and every week we have something new that it covers.  The reality is the City has no bonafide track record of accounting of any of these fund at anytime, this we see as Bernstein undercovered in reference to “library books.”  Remember folks, only tax money can be deposited into the General Fund.

I guess in the real realm of things why won’t District Attorney Paul Zellerbach act on this? Possibly, because of this rhetorical question: “Is it illegal or just bad business?”  Possibly all the above, but we won’t expect this office to react in reference to the oath of office you sworn to uphold….regardless, your track record indicates clearly, your answers and responses to local community inquiries.  What kind of message does this send to the community when the City itself doesn’t follow the letter of the law?  Our we a Banana Republic or an American City based on constitutional rights?

zellerbach

SO WHAT IS A D.A. TO DO?

As of May 28, 2013 as indicated in the Press Enterprise, the “Yes on Measure A” campaign has contribution commitments which are in the neigborhood of $46,000.00, and the “No on Measure A” campaign has continues to maintain steady monetary commitments of $0.00

Vote No on Measure A,  www.noonmeasureariverside.com

For more information on this June 4th, 2013 Measure A, contact us noonmeasureariverside@hotmail.com

WETTWOPSD233

GOVERNMENT SHOULD LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, AFTERALL, WE THE TAXPAYER HAVE TO..

JUST FOR LAUGHS…

539110_506054042765037_303798518_n

COUNCILMAN ADAMS BRINGS HIS CITY VEHICLE IN FOR THE USUAL REPAIRS…

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.  NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA?  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