<![CDATA[libionline.net - City of Beaumont ]]>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:25:46 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[sec subpoenas on beaumontgate.org]]>Sun, 28 May 2017 15:21:31 GMThttp://libionline.net/city-of-beaumont/sec-subpoenas-on-beaumontgateorg<![CDATA[Fund 35 - Mitigation Fees 2007 - 2014How Many Ways Did Beaumont Steal Mitigation Fees? Let Us Count The Ways.]]>Sun, 01 Feb 2015 05:05:51 GMThttp://libionline.net/city-of-beaumont/fund-35-mitigation-fees-2007-2014how-many-ways-did-beaumont-steal-mitigation-fees-let-us-count-the-waysMitigation Fees are charged to the Developers to pay for their development’s impact on the city. 
Below is a review of the City of Beaumont’s General Ledger Mitigation Fees Fund 35 from July 1, 2007 thru the Present. As usual, the fees paid to Urban Logic Consultants dominates the account.

A total of $13,406,516.76 was paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru the following accounts: 
$2,161,279.76 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru Contract Services 
$6,820,893.96 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru Potrero Bridge Project 
$598,839.22 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru Oak Valley Project 
$637,115.18 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru TUMF 
$63,850.00 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru Traffic Signs 
$1,116,622.47 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru Mitigation Fees 
$717,625.50 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru Basic Services & Facilities 
$18,725.00 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru Fire Station 
$7,071.00 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru Emergency Preparedness 
$14,785.00 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru Bridge Overpass 
$791,969.42 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru Noble Creek Bridge & Road 
$426,995.25 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru Regional Park 
$30,745.00 paid to Urban Logic Consultants thru TUMF CFD

Along with Mitigation Fees paid by the developers, Fund 35 of the General Ledger also shows a total of $23,846,352.01 transferred in From Union Bank and coded to various accounts. Apparently Union Bank did transfer funds from the Bonds to pay the Developers’ mitigation fees as stated in the Bonds.

The City of Beaumont was thrown out of the WRCOG’s TUMF program in 2009, however; the General Ledger shows that from April 2009 to June 2011 the City created account # 35-9350-4060-0000 ‘TUMF PROJECTS” where they have various construction and paving company payments.

The City was no longer in the TUMF program. 
The only journal entries for the City would have been accounts receivable when the TUMF was paid by the Developers or Bond Funds, and accounts payable to remit the fees to the WRCOG.

The City also recorded TUMF in account # 35-9350-4110-0000 from August 2007 to May 2010. This Account shows $8,147,475 received from Bond Transfers by Union Bank, so Union Bank did transfer the TUMF fees to the City, but there are no transactions showing payments were remitted to WRCOG. $637,115.18 was paid to Urban Logic.

The General Ledger also lists the following Accounts in Mitigation Fees:

Fire Station: $139,370 transferred from Union Bank in January, 2008. There are no record of Developer Mitigation Fees paid. A Fire Station was never built.

Emergency Preparedness: This Account list $3,588,430.90 paid to Pardee Homes. This is a Mitigation Fee charged to Developers, but there are no Developers fee payments listed. $426,995.25 was paid to Urban Logic Consultants.

Recycled Water Facility Fee: A total of $154,134.73 in Developer Fees are recorded from October, 2011 to December 2012. A recycled water facility was never built.

Regional Park Fee: A total of $2,062,501.17 in Developer Fees are recorded from July 2007 to November, 2012. The regional park was never built and the community parks were never completed.

Because money received is not always recorded by the City; the amount of mitigation fees paid by the developers for projects such as a fire station or wastewater treatment plant is unknown. 
What we do know is that all the money is gone and the facilities were never built.

<![CDATA[Beaumont FRAUDULENTLY claims to have recycled water ]]>Sun, 01 Feb 2015 05:04:29 GMThttp://libionline.net/city-of-beaumont/beaumont-fraudulently-claims-to-have-recycled-waterThe legal definition of Fraud is: A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

In the WRCOG vs City of Beaumont Ruling Judge Chaffee stated: “..fraud by clear and convincing evidence..”

Judge Chaffee was referring to mitigation fees collected for roads, but the fraud committed by the City of Beaumont regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant is even more obvious and detrimental to the citizens of the Pass Area.

A ‘sewer plant’ is a facility that processes sewer waste.

A ‘wastewater treatment plant’ is a facility that produces recycled water from sewer waste.

In 1993 the City of Beaumont received their first bond to upgrade the sewer plant and build a wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant was supposed to be completed in 1995. ‘Completed’ as in able to produce Title 22 Compliant recycled water.

The hard fact is that Beaumont Council and Staff never built a wastewater treatment plant - they just started calling the sewer plant a wastewater treatment plant.

For 20 years Beaumont City Council and Staff have repeatedly lied about having a ‘state-of-the-art’ wastewater treatment plant that produced Title 22 Compliant recycled water. The City repeatedly issued press releases and publicly lied to their citizens and to other agencies.

Page 19 of their 2007 General Plan states: “The City of Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant was recently expanded to accommodate up to 4.0 million gallons per day of effluent. The City estimates that up to 2,240 acre-feet of recycled wastewater are made available to the community through this plant’s operation on an annual basis.”

In the State of California wastewater can not be not classified as ‘recycled wastewater’ until/unless it is Title 22 Compliant. The City has never produced Title 22 Compliant recycled water. NEVER.

The City hasn’t even attempted to become Title 22 Compliant since 2007. The Bond Fund Accounts verified that the money from the 2001 Wastewater Bond was embezzled between 2009 - March 2012.

The Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District did their part and installed the purple pipes for recycled water, but the City didn’t/couldn’t produce the recycled water. Instead they lied to the public and posted signs on the purple pipes stating: ‘Recycled Water In Use’.

The City has refused to allow Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District Board and Staff Members access to their alleged wastewater treatment plant. The City refuses to allow the men in the door because these men will know that it’s all a big lie.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” 
Joseph Goebels

The City’s lies about building a state-of-the-art recycled water plant is fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The only question is: what did the developers know?

Below are City of Beaumont links containing fraudulent documents regarding the recycled water and wastewater treatment plant:

General Plan pg 19: http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/63

‘“The City’s treatment plant and recycled water meet or exceed all stat and federal standards” 

“In 1994 the city replaced the old plant with a new state-of-the-art facility ..”

“Water Use Per Home 280 Gal/Day Available for Recycling, Landscape Irrigation, Recharge, and Reuse.” 

“Wastewater treatment plant expansion and upgrading, water recycling, and storm drains: $21.2 Million.” “Beaumont’s Water History 1994: The City’s wastewater treatment plant is expanded and upgraded” 

“The City owns and operates its own Wastewater Treatment Plant” 

Transcripts from the September 10, 2014 Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District Workshop

Dr Avi Greene, Four Seasons: “I have no knowledge at all, so I am a complete novice at this. The only thing that spurred my interest was that we have these purple pipes that we paid for that was part of, you know, and I was asking about those. Those are suppose to be for the reclaimed water. So I said, “O great”. When we moved in, which was about five years ago, we were told that this would be for reclaimed water. I said “great, great idea.” It turns out of course as everyone knows, there is no reclaimed water flowing through those, it’s all clean water.”

Water Board Director Ken Ross: “I met with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to find out if the City in fact had a state-of-the-art sewer operation like they said. The members of the Board laughed. They can not get the water clean enough to recycle.”

Water Board Director Dr. Blair Ball: “We got our people together to go look at the wastewater treatment plant, but we were denied access because one staff member from the City of Beaumont didn’t wear her right shoes. So everything stopped and they never let us in. They never let us in.”

District General Manager Eric Fraser: “there was discussion from the City of Beaumont Officials at the ad hock committee and also reported out at the alliance meeting that “Beaumont’s on track, 45 days we will be on track and have our Title 22 approval and legalize that water right away.” And that’s what was assured to me by Kyle and some other Officials from Beaumont. So I took a moment and called Mr. Williams at the Department of Public Health and asked him where are they at and do you think that’s going to happen? Have they approved the protocols? What’s going on? Mr. Williams indicated that he hasn’t heard from the City of Beaumont in quite some time.”

<![CDATA[calfires tells beaumont to pay for their own fire stations]]>Sun, 01 Feb 2015 04:58:38 GMThttp://libionline.net/city-of-beaumont/calfires-tells-beaumont-to-pay-for-their-own-fire-stationsFrom: 
Alan Kapanicas <akapanicas@ci.beaumont.ca.us> 
Gaines, Kevin@CALFIRE <Kevin.Gaines@fire.ca.gov> 
Hawkins, John@CALFIRE <John.Hawkins@fire.ca.gov>; Alex Gregg <alex.gregg@fire.ca.gov>; Bill Aylward <baylward@ci.beaumont.ca.us>; Frank Coe <fcoe1964@gmail.com>; Kyle Warsinski <kylew@beaumont-ca.gov> 
RE: A new Comcate eFM case has been created and you are the owner 
Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:37:01 -0800 
Thinking out of the box, please also include the cost, timing and location that County Fire would chose if it built the fire station and charged it back to the City as a facilities and vehicle charge. We could put up a “coming Soon” sign sooner. 
As you mentioned, Beaumont has in the past owned the station and equipment, due in part to having a prior City Department. 
Currently, new home fire mitigation balances are nearly $3M for which could be used for annual facilities and equipment charges; this would allow a quicker route to that new station. 
Thanks, Alan Kapanicas

Attached Message 
Alan Kapanicas <akapanicas@ci.beaumont.ca.us> 
Gaines, Kevin@CALFIRE <Kevin.Gaines@fire.ca.gov> 
Hawkins, John@CALFIRE <John.Hawkins@fire.ca.gov>; Alex Gregg <alex.gregg@fire.ca.gov>; Bill Aylward <baylward@ci.beaumont.ca.us>; Frank Coe <fcoe1964@gmail.com>; Kyle Warsinski <kylew@beaumont-ca.gov>; Chavez, Tim@CALFIRE <Tim.Chavez@fire.ca.gov>; Michael, Bob@CALFIRE <Bob.Michael@fire.ca.gov> 
RE: A new Comcate eFM case has been created and you are the owner 
Wed, 1 Oct 2014 12:14:25 -0800 
Thank you for the update. 
Please send data on Beaumont #66 calls to other Agencies and Banning and Calimesa calls to Beaumont in the same format as below, to show the benefits of Regional Fire Service. A breakout of all Station 20 calls would also be appreciated. 
From the power point: 
County Fire Sta. #22 responded into Beaumont City 545 times in 2013 (64.2% in under 5 min.) 132 calls are over 5 min. response time. 
Beaumont City # 66 responded into Beaumont City 1468 times in 2013 (76.4% in under 5 min.) 241 calls are over 5 min. response times. 
Calimesa City Sta.#21 responded into Beaumont City 148 times in 2013 (36.2% in under 5 min.) 76 calls are over 5 min. response time. 
Banning Engine #20 responded into Beaumont City 897 times in 2013 ( Contracted at 1/3 cost) 93 calls are over 5 min. response time. 
542 calls into the city were greater than 5 min. response time. 
1590 calls (52%) in Beaumont City are run by other city or county stations. 
It more accurate to say that 693 calls (23%) were from others as Beaumont assists in the funding of Station 20 as passed by Council. 
Calimesa had discussed Beaumont participating in their Summer Wind Fire station until their project stalled. At that time, the three cities developed approaches to placing and paying for fire stations regionally based on per-capita. It is assumed that we are still leaning in that direction, but I will contact the other City Managers once I have your updated data. 
Alan Kapanicas 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Gaines, Kevin@CALFIRE [mailto:Kevin.Gaines@fire.ca.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 12:00 PM 
To: Alan Kapanicas 
Cc: Hawkins, John@CALFIRE; Alex Gregg; Bill Aylward; Frank Coe; Kyle Warsinski; Chavez, Tim@CALFIRE; Michael, Bob@CALFIRE; Gaines, Kevin@CALFIRE 
Subject: RE: A new Comcate eFM case has been created and you are the owner 
It’s the cities responsibility to build their own fire station not the county of riverside. With the city employees such as planning department, inspectors, fire marshal, I think the city would be able to do it cheaper. The County Fire Chief and I do not support the idea of a Paramedic only operation. The cost of 6 personnel (2 per day) on a very limited paramedic squad vs. 8 personnel (3 per day) on an all-risk, fully supplied paramedic engine is minimal when you compare their capabilities. The cost for an 8 person fully staffed paramedic engine would be the same as what the cost is for Sta. 66. Attached is the Power Point we provided in the meeting we had with your staff. The presentation gives you the calls for each station and shows that 52% of the calls in Beaumont City are being handled by other fire stations. Riverside County Fire station 22 in Cherry Valley responded 542 times into the city and the cost of the paramedic supplies were paid for by the county. There is also a map with colored dots to visually show the responses to the tournament hills and fairway canyon communities. By adding a 2nd fire station you will also provide better services to not only the tournament hills and fairway canyon communities but you will have faster response times and service to the Solera, Oak Valley, and Stetson communities. We are still working on actual incident time for these areas but the maps I provided to you show the general response times well outside of the NFPA standard 1710 of 4 minutes. The timing for a 2nd Beaumont City fire station is way overdue and should be a high priority for the city. 
Kevin Gaines 
Division Chief 
Oak Glen Camp 

<![CDATA[CalRiverWatch Report ]]>Sun, 01 Feb 2015 04:56:15 GMThttp://libionline.net/city-of-beaumont/calriverwatch-reportCalifornia River Watch sent a Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit Under the Clean Water Act to the City of Beaumont on December 12, 2014. The Report is 28 pages long. Below are excerpts from the Report. Read the Full Report Here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3AGY65ivI_uNi1BRVloTkFPelNfajRrSlNUUWNUUGRENFJN/view?usp=sharing

Bottom Line: The City had a December 31st deadline to (1) initiate a discussion regarding the allegations and (2) set a date for a site visit. CalRiverWatch will have to stand in line behind the Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District.

Excerpts From River Watch Report:

Beaumont’s aging collection system has historically experienced high Iil during wet weather. Sixty percent (60%) of the sewer lines were constructed prior to 1935. Forfy” percent (40%) were constructed prior to 2AV .

Structural defects which allow I/I into the sewer lines result in a buildup ofpressure which causes SSOs. Overflows caused by blockages and I/I result in the discharge of raw sewage into gutters, canals, and storm drains which are connected to adjacent surface waters - all waters of the United States.

As recorded in CIWQS Public SSO Reports, Beaumont’s collection system has experienced at least thirteen (13) SSOs between March 12,2009 and September 22,2011, with a combined volume of at least 353.727 gallons -221,1 60 gallons of which were reported as having reached surface waters.

Exfiltration caused by pipeline cracks and other structural defects in the collection system result in discharges to adjacent surface waters via underground hydrological connections. Beaumont’s internal reports indicate discharges to surface waters not reported to the California Integrated Water Quality System (“CIWQS”).

Because the entire system has not been adequately inspected by means of closed circuit television (“CCTV”), Beaumont has insufficient informationfor a significant portion of the collection system concerning its condition or the extent of exfiltration.

These sections of the system are old and in need of repair. Untreated sewage is discharged from cracks, displaced joints, eroded segments, etc., into ground water hydrologically connected to surface waters. Evidence indicates extensive exfiltration from lines within 200 feet of a surface water.

River Watch alleges that such discharges are continuous wherever aging, damaged, and/or structurally defective sewer lines in Beaumont’s collection system are located adjacent to surface waters, including tributaries of both the Salton Sea and the Santa Ana River Basin.

Surface waters and ground water become contaminated with fecal coliform, exposing people to pathogens. Chronic failures in the collection system pose a substantial threat to public health.

Studies tracing human markers specific to the human digestive system in surface waters adjacent to defective sewer lines have verified the contamination of the adjacent waters with untreated sewage.

Evidence of exfiltration can be found in mass balance data or “inflow and infiltration” (“I/I”) data, video inspection, and tests of waterways adjacent to sewer lines for nutrients, human pathogens and other human markers such as caffeine. Exfiltration from Beaumont’s collection system is a daily occurrence and a violation of Beaumont’s NPDES Permit and the CWA.

Discharges to Surface Waters.

River Watch’s expert believes that many of the SSOs reported by Beaumont as having been contained without reaching a surface water did in fact discharge to surface waters, and those reported as partially reaching surface waters did so in greater volume than stated.

The claim of full containment is further called into question by the fact that some of Beaumont’s SSO Reports state the estimated start time of the SSO as the time when the reporting party first noticed the SSO.

Studies have shown that most SSOs are noticed significantly after they have begun. Beaumont reports that some of the discharges reach a storm drain, but fails to determine the accurate amounts which reach a surface water.

Estimating Volume.

River Watch’s expert has also determined that Beaumont’s method for estimating flow rate also underestimates the volume of a SSO. Furthermore, a review of the service records calls into question Beaumont’s methodologies for determining the volume of SSOs captured. Beaumont is a permittee under the Statewide General Requirements for Sanitary Server Systems, Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ (“Statewide WDR”) governing the operation of sanitary sewer systems.

The Statewide WDR requires that sewer system operators report SSOs to the CIWQS and include in that reporting an estimate of the volume of any spill, the volume recovered and the volume which reached a surface water.

Beaumont’s field reports generally do not indicate what method was used to estimate the total volume of the spill, which further calls into question the estimates of volume recovered and volume reaching surface waters. River Watch contends that Beaumont is grossly underestimatingthe incidence and volume of SSOs that reach surface waters.

Mitigating impacts.

Beaumont also fails to adequately mitigate the impacts of SSOs. The Statewide WDR mandates that the permittee shall take all feasible steps to contain and mitigate the impacts of a SSO. The EPA’s ‘Report to Congress on the Impacts of SSOs’ identifies SSOs as a major source of microbial pathogens and oxygen depleting substances. Numerous critical habitat areas exist within the areas of Beaumont’s SSOs.

There is no record of Beaumont performing any analysis of the impacts of SSOs on critical habitat of protected species under the ESA, nor any evaluation of the measures needed to restore water bodies designated as critical habitat from the impacts of SSOs.

One of the most important remedial measures is the performance of adequate sampling to determine the nature and the impact of the release. As Beaumont is severely underestimating SSOs which reach surface waters, Beaumont is also not conducting sampling on most SSOs. 

Order No. R8-2006-0003, IV. Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications,A. Effluent Limitations, 1. Final Effluent Limitations - Discharge Point No. M-001:

20 Effluent Discharges Exceeding the Permit Limit for Total Coliform: 
15 Effluent Discharges Exceeding the Permit Limit for Turbidity Daily Maximum: 
9 Effluent Discharges “not reaching” the permit limits for pH: 
1 Effluent Discharge Exceeding the Permit Limits for Chloroform 
Failure to Properly Monitor for Copper 
Failure to Properly Monitor for Mercury 
I Effluent Discharge on September 3, 2013 exceeding the Permit for Daily Average

River Watch has found nothing in the public record to demonstrate that Beaumont has monitored for and complied with these narrative standards. River Watch is understandably concerned regarding the effects of both surface and underground SSOs on critical habitat in and around tributary waters of both the Salton Sea and the Santa Ana River Basin.

3. The person or persons responsible for the alleged violation.

The entity responsible for the alleged violations identified in this Notice is the City of Beaumont, as the owner of the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No.1 and as the owner and operator of its associated collection system, and Urban Logic Consultants. Inc, the operator of the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No.l, collectively referred to as “Beaumont” in this Notice, as well as Beaumont’s employees responsible for compliance with Beaumont’s NPDES Permit.

The CWA specifically provides a 60-day “notice period” to promote resolution of disputes. River Watch strongly encourages Beaumont to contact River Watch within 20 days after receipt of this Notice Letter to: (1) initiate a discussion regarding the allegations detailed in this Notice, and(2) set a date for a site visit. In the absence of productive discussions to resolve this dispute, or receipt of additional information demonstrating that Beaumont is in compliance with the strict terms and conditions of its NPDES Permit, River Watch intends to file a citizen’s suit under CWA $ 505(a) when the 60-day notice period ends. 

<![CDATA[Beaumont Citizen Speaks of Years of Abuse By Corrupt Government]]>Sun, 01 Feb 2015 04:54:03 GMThttp://libionline.net/city-of-beaumont/beaumont-citizen-speaks-of-years-of-abuse-by-corrupt-governmentBeaumont City Council Meeting January 6, 2015


97:40 Walsh: From the time we purchased the property we’ve been forced to deal with drainage problems. The whole city block is coming into our yard. Right now there are sinkholes from the city coming in. They had drainage pipe they put it in our property after 20-some years of us dealing with the property. Maintaining the city on our own. Being taken in year after year. The City finally comes up and admits they have a drainage problem. They had a collapsed pipe running through our property. And they want to put a new pipe, which got them new business for the Dollar Tree and O’Riley’s. From the time the fence was down on one side of our property there was no problem.

All the cars that were in my yard were collector cars. They are not abandoned vehicles. They don’t have to be licensed if I’m restoring them. Until they’re ready to be used. I’ve lost so many cars you wouldn’t believe because of Code Enforcement. I had a business at one time. They blocked off the alley on me, which you can check and verify. And that’s right after I transferred the business license, so I couldn’t have access to my property.

So they pretty much made my property useless, so I can’t make a living off of it. I can’t sell it and I can’t use it to make a living. And now they’re going to saw that after tearing up three sides of my property that the mess that’s there that they created. For a year there was no problem as long as they were getting what they wanted. The minute they got what they wanted the fence came down on the other side on O Riley’s. I’ve got nine foot walls on both sides of my property. You can’t see my yard. Now it’s down to pointed of what?

Now they want to try and steal it? Is that what we’re doing now?

You’ve forced me out of business. You turn around and write me up for problems that aren’t mine in the first place. I’ve been forced to take care of this alley for years. I can prove it by the tickets. Now they’re going to come up and say that we’re a public nuisance after they get what they want. Three sides of my property have been torn up. I’ve moved everything from one side to the other side. Back and forth.

I’ve already been in the hospital once over these people with the stress. I had 10% use of my heart. They upped the ante on me. So that’s how much they care about Beaumont Residences. We tried to help out. We tried to get revenue for the City. And this is what we got out of it. Now we’re the nuisance. We’ve done everything we can to help these guys. We planted grass, we’ve done everything else.

A carport that’s covering a car that I’m restoring right now, that’s a tent. All of a sudden the material that I have made in there for a carport now that’s abandoned materials or something. They’re calling it anything they want to. But I had a business that I had. I had $40,000 of equipment, tore down three sheds to accommodate them. Where am I going to put my stuff? Now my tools and equipment are a public nuisance?

They had to get on top of a two-story building to look into my yard. Then we planted grass, we’ve done everything we can to help them out. There’s a washing machine sitting out there that I’m getting ready to take it to change because I haven’t got time to do it because I’m running in circles.

If you want to check into fraud or corruption in this town check into their abuses. I can go way back. Anyone that wants to contact me about that stuff that I’ve had to deal with over code enforcement. I can tell you a long big story. Me and my family have been abused for years. My kids have been cheated out of college, I’ve been cheated out of an income and my retirement. My wife has had to support our family for the last 20 years over these people and their abuses.

How much more can people take?

102:00 Walsh: We’ve done all we can. And we live right in that neighborhood that everyone else is talking about. And I shouldn’t have to be doing the City’s deal for them. There’s no restitution, there’s no 5th Amendment. One shouldn’t have to take care for everybody else. There should be just compensation. We haven’t seen anything, except for now we’re the problem. And that’s totally unfair to us. We tried to help the City in every way we could.

I had a business, and it was a good business. I shouldn’t be put out of business and forced to take this kind of stuff. We don’t deserve this.

So you can say yea, we’re the big nuisance. Everything’s there because we took it from one side and moved it to the other side. There were trees on both sides of our property. What they calling hazardous materials are the trees they cut down. Sheds that were moved when the drainage came in there has wrecked my property. I’ve lost over 6” of my property. They put 2 drains in there that are higher than the surrounding area.

Mr. Orozco; I notified you to get ahold of the Attorney because I plan on suing the City for what they’ve put me through. It’s no joke. I’m looking at 30 years worth of abuse that these guys have put me through. And my family doesn’t deserve this.

At one time my house is totally remodeled. We fixed it ups. I’ve had all code enforcement. Everything’s been checked off. They way they wrote up the consent to come search. It was like a search warrant. I had to open up the house. They had to check the electrical, they had to check the plumbing, they had to check what had nothing to do with the writing in the yard. I shouldn’t have to give up all my rights to let the City come in and run amuck in my yard.

Who else in this town had to do that over a code infraction? Especially when it can be written up for what can be seen from the street. Nothing can be seen from the street. They had to climb on top of the building to look. Totally out of hand. And nobody complained. It’s their own guys that complained.

I thank you for the time to listen to me, but we’re not the problem here.

<![CDATA[Urban Logic Payroll:                                                                 What Employees Earn and What They are Paid are Two Very Different Stories]]>Sun, 01 Feb 2015 04:51:04 GMThttp://libionline.net/city-of-beaumont/urban-logic-payroll-what-employees-earn-and-what-they-are-paid-are-two-very-different-storiesState Law requires Contractors associated with government Sewers or Wastewater facilities to maintain and Certified Payroll Records. A Public Records Request of the Payroll Records of Contractors revealed the following information:

1. The City is not Maintaining Proper Records. Payroll was requested of Wildermuth, Utility Partners, and Urban Logic, but only Urban Logic Payroll was released. The City stated in writing that they have no Payroll Records for Wildermuth or Utility Partners.

2. Urban Logic Payroll Records Don’t Match Invoices. Urban Logic Invoices charge the City for Hisam Baqai, Kishen Prathivdi, Kieran McKieran, and Zuzanna Rand. Urban Logic Payroll Records contain only Joseph Janda, Sheldon Vess, and Alfred Ignacio. No matchy-matchy.

3. Kieran McKieran signs the payroll as ‘General Manager’ , not CEO has he proclaimed to Council.

4. Urban Logic Consultants is very generous with their pay, but they are even more generous with their payouts.

The three Employees listed on Urban Logic Payroll all make between $45 - $50/hr. The payroll sheet have two (2) amounts in the Gross Pay. The top number is the actual Gross Pay Earned. The bottom number is he Actual Pay Received.

For example: Pay Period 01/04/2014 to 01/10/2014 for Joseph Janda 
Hours Worked: 2 
Pay Rate: $45.57 
Gross Pay Earned: $91.14 
Gross Actually Paid: $2197.14 
FICA: $161.32 
Federal W/H: 134.46 
State Taxes: $43.81 
Total Withholdings: $339.59 
Net Wages Paid: $1,857.55

The week of January 4th through 10th Joseph Janda worked 2 hours and took home $1,857.55. Janda’s FICA withholdings was more than he actually made.

In the Year 2014 three Urban Logic Employees worked a total of 239 hours and 10 hours over time. They earned a total of $11,703.93, but were paid $59,214.94

In the Year 2014 Joseph Janda worked 126 hours and 8 hours over time. He earned $6,288.66, but was paid $30,779.73.

In the Year 2014 Sheldon Vess worked 75 hours and 2 hours over time. He earned $3,846.69, but was paid $16,706.59.

In the Year 2014 Alfred Ignacio worked 35 hours. He earned $1,568.58,but was paid $12,247.00

Kieran McKieran authorized every Payroll Sheet. Kyle Warsinski authorized every Payroll Sheet. Kapanicas and Aylward Approve every Payroll Sheet.

The State Controller regulates basic payroll, but forging FICA and Federal Withholding Taxes are Federal crimes with Federal prison time.

And why does Libi love Federal Felonies?

Because there is no liberal socialist time off for good behavior in the federal system and federal convicts from California are sent to that toilet of a federal prison in Texas.

<![CDATA[Audit XXXXIV - Internal Controls Reports]]>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 01:45:14 GMThttp://libionline.net/city-of-beaumont/audit-xxxxiv-internal-controls-reports On October 15, 2013 a Public Records Request was submitted to the City of Beaumont for copies of the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Internal Controls Reports prepared by GAAP Auditing Firm Moss, Levy, Harzheim. The City required $50 advance payment which would pay for 200 pages of documentation.

The records were released on November 25, 2013. The City took 40 days to fill the request at a cost of $8.75. The City had to issue a refund $41.25.

The 2010 Internal Controls Report consists of copies of pages 82 & 83 from the 2010 GAAP Audit. Apparently the Auditing Firm of Moss, Levy, Hartzheim did not produce a separate Internal Controls Report as claimed in the Audit Report.

The 2011 Internal Controls Report consists of 12 pages. The Report list as a Material Weakness a $10,871.054 General Fund Deficit.

There are Five Significant Deficiencies listed on the 2011 Internal Controls Report:
  • Deficit Fund Balances In Major Governmental Funds

  • Deficit Cash Balance in General Fund

  • Deficiencies in Internal Controls over Cash Receipts

  • Deficiencies in Internal Control over Cash Disbursements

  • Deficiencies in the Employee Advances & Employee Computer Loan Program

All of the above deficiencies have been problematic for years, but the 2011 Internal Controls Report Status of Prior Year's Recommendations is 'None Reported'.

The 2012 Internal Controls Report is 16 pages long. The Report list as a Material Weakness a $4,162,062 General Fund Deficit. This total over $15 Million General Fund Deficit in two years.

There are Six Significant Deficiencies listed on the 2012 Internal Controls Report:

  • Deficit Cash Balance in General Fund

  • Deficiencies in Internal Control over Cash Receipts

  • Deficiencies in Internal Control over Cash Disbursements

  • Deficiencies in Cash Disbursements Test of Control

  • Deficiencies in the Internal Control over Payroll.

  • Bank Reconciliation Not Prepared & Reviewed Timely


Page 3 of both the 2011 and 2012 Internal Controls Reports states the most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were:

Management's estimate of the funding progress of CALPERS is based on CALPERS's estimate, the funding progress of OPEB is based on an actuarial report prepared by a third party, the collectibility of receivables (including accounts, notes, & loans receivables, and advances to RDA), the estimated historical costs of capital assets and the estimated useful life of the capital assets were based on historical data and industry guidelines.

The financial security of CalPERS is based in part on the ability of the City to collect debt. Notes & Loans Receivable refer to the Personal Loans and loans such as the $70,000 funding of the Beaumont Shooting Range; RDA Advances from 'somewhere'. There are no options to recoup these funds and they will have to be charged-off.

 Page 12 of the 2012 Report lists 2012-9 PERS Not Paid Timely and states:

During the review of PERS payments in fiscal year 2011-2012, we noted that ALL payments were completed in fiscal year 2012-2013.

The City was already behind in CalPERS payments when they overdrew the General Fund Bank Account in November 2011. CalPERS payments did not resume until December 2012. The City made $2 Million in CalPERS payments in April 2013.

The City of Beaumont offers wonderful benefits, but those benefits are based on the City's solvency and ability to pay.

<![CDATA[Audit XXXXIII - Taxes Comparison of Financial Transaction Reports]]>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 01:42:17 GMThttp://libionline.net/city-of-beaumont/audit-xxxxiii-taxes-comparison-of-financial-transaction-reportsThe Financial Transactions & Compensation Report is a yearly requirement of the State Controller's Office. It is a basic recording of all the City's Revenue and Expenses for the fiscal year. Below is a comparison of the City of Beaumont's Financial Transaction Reports for the years ending 2011, 2012, & 2013. This audit collected data from the Schedule of General & Functional Revenues 'Taxes' page.

The Reports are three consecutive years, but all three Reports were prepared in within an 8-month period in 2013. The 2012 Report was the 1st one submitted on 02/14/13, then 2011 Report was submitted on 10/22/13, followed by the 2013 Report submitted on 11/04/13.

The City of Beaumont records total taxes collected in the last three fiscal years at:
2011 = $12,806,374
2012 = $10,151,029
2013 = $14,161,268

The main reason why fiscal year 2012 is so much lower than the other two years is because the City neglected to account for the In-Lieu Vehicle License Tax and the In-Lieu Sales & Use Tax. This would account for approximately $2.5 million.

The City records the In-Lieu Vehicle License Tax at $2.8 million in 2011, nothing listed in 2012, and $2.6 million in 2013. Based on the theory that the larger the population the more taxes collected; it is highly unlikely that there was $200,000 less Vehicles License Taxes collected in 2013 than in 2011.

The Transportation Taxes for Transit also fluctuate unnaturally. The City of Beaumont records $1.7 million in 2011, $1.2 million in 2012, and $1.8 million in 2013.

Business License Taxes was also lower in 2012. The City recorded $178,000 in 2011; $153,000 in 2012; and $206,000 in 2013.

Utility Users Taxes were recorded at $1,320,000 in 2011; $1,272,000 in 2012; and $1,284,000 in 2013. I don't know why there be a $1/2 million drop in utility taxes after 2011.

In Fiscal Year 2013 the City of Beaumont collected a total of $14,161,268 in taxes but the City's Bond Premium and Interest payment to Union Bank totaled $15,870,344.55.

City Manager Kapanicas encourages homeowners to pay off their CFD taxes to: “save the interest”. And many homeowners are paying off their CFD debt so they can sell their homes. But when the homeowner pays the total amount the City spends the money instead of applying the payment to the bond debt.

<![CDATA[Audit XXXXII - Sewer Department Financial Transactions Reports Compared]]>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 01:39:47 GMThttp://libionline.net/city-of-beaumont/audit-xxxxii-sewer-department-financial-transactions-reports-compared The Financial Transactions & Compensation Report is a yearly requirement of the State Controller's Office. It is a basic recording of all the City's Revenue and Expenses for the fiscal year. Below is a comparison of the City of Beaumont's Financial Transaction Reports for the years ending 2011, 2012, & 2013 for the Sewer Fund.

In the last three years the population of the City of Beaumont has grown and sewer fees have increased, yet the Reports show that revenue has declined in the past three years: 2011 = $4,181,310; 2012 = $4,151,811; and 2013 = $4,036,740.

Sewer Connection fees increased from $74,124 in 2011 to $433,096 in 2012 and $384,050 in 2013. $400,000 in connection fees in 2012 should have produced an increase in sewer service charges in 2013.

Treatment and Disposal Plant Expenses fluctuated: $2,322,268 in 2011; $3,289,382 in 2012; and $2,4022,944 in 2013.

Administrative Expenses steadily increased $100,000/year for the past three years: 2011 = $400,000; 2012 = $500,000; and 2013 = $600,000.

The sewer would operate at a surplus if the City wasn't grossly overstating Depreciation Expenses. 2011 = $2,337,527; 2012 = $2,341,482; and 2013 = $2,457,649.

The City has a Sewer Fund #10 which records expenses, but sewer revenues are recorded under '01-0000', which is the General Fund with no department listing.