The City of Beaumont uses a number of different classifications to hide expenses: Cost of Issuance, Authority Administrative Expense, and Expense Fund. The City also has a 'Program Fund'. Since the December 4th, 2003 Bond the City has listed most of the Cost of Issuance and added additional Expense and Administrative Expense Accounts. This allows the City to repeatedly charge administrative expenses to the same bond.
The City of Beaumont currently holds $321,890,000 worth of bond debt. There is $9.5 Million in expenses listed on the bond 'Uses' and another $5.4 Million in expenses listed under 'Program Fund'. This makes total expenses $15 Million or average of 5% of bond amounts.
The bond expenses started out at 2-3% of the bond amounts, but are up to 9% on the April, 2004 bond and are as high as 21% on the February, 2009 bond.
The $3,655,000 bond issued on June 7th, 2012 lists on page 25 (33/306) the Uses of Funds as:
$145,000 Expense Fund – which the City describes as: “Expenses include fees of Bond Counsel, the Financing Consultant, Disclosure Counsel, the Trustee, costs of printing Official Statement and other costs of issuance of the Bonds.”
$25,000 Authority Expense Fund – which the City describes as: “Expenses of the City.”
$51,309.38 Cash Flow Management Fund – which has no explanation as to where the money. A Cash Flow Management Fund appears on all five bonds issued from June 18th, 2009 through June 7th, 2012 and totals over $475,000.
The City also lists four 'Program Funds' on the June 7th, 2012 bond. Within the four program funds are four separate Cost of Issuance Expenses totaling $201,453.44. The Bond describes the Cost of Issuance as: “Fees of the Bond Counsel, Financing Consultant, Disclosure Counsel, Appraiser Project Engineer, District Trustee, and other costs related to the issuance of the District Bonds.”
The four Programs also charge another $170,000 in 'Administrative Expenses'. This totals $592,762 or 16% in expenses charged to the June 7th, 2012 Bond.
The 'District Trustee' is the Union Bank NA branch in Los Angeles. It appears that Union Bank is 'double dipping' on bond expenses, but it's highly unlikely it's the institution itself that is making the additional profit.
Of the 32 individual Bond Debts two (2) plan to be paid with Increased Rates & Fees, one (1) bond is the Original Agreement with 12 Developers, and the remaining 29 bonds are listed to be repaid with 'Special Taxes', but not one bond was approved by the Taxpayer.
The reason the State of California laws require Voter Approval to raise Taxes, Fees, or Acquire Debt is because the money comes out of the Taxpayer's pocket.