Beaumont funneled another $25,000 to Mike Busch of Urban Futures
How did this Issue go from Lloyd White grandstanding to Gifting Mike Busch another $25,000? What Happened to a Bid Contract?
Beaumont City Council has funneled another $25,000 to Mike Busch of Urban Futures.
There was no Public Bid Contract. The excuse to funnel more money to Urban Futures highlights the level of corruption that still permeates Beaumont.
Since the 1960s’s Riverside County has forced Cities to sign illegal Agreements that allowed the County to keep 75% of the Property Taxes paid on any land Annexed out of Riverside County and into a city limits.
After the Raids in 2015 Urban Futures was hired by the City to develop a ‘Workout Plan to Sustainability’ that consisted of generating more revenue for the City by increasing fees and taxes: http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/d…
At that time I tried to talk to Mayor Lloyd White about filing a Complaint with the State to stop the County from stealing the City’s Property Taxes and White smugly said to me: “Are you going to pay for the Attorneys?”
On January 18, 2017, I filed a Complaint with the California Board of Equalization against the County of Riverside for illegally withholding Property Taxes from their Cities. It is the Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate Division of the State Board of Equalization that oversees the County’s distribution of Taxes.
On October 17, 2017, the Beaumont City Council ‘Approved’ Agenda Item 23 directing Staff to Perform a Financial Analysis of the Property Tax Sharing Agreement with Riverside County and Authorize the Mayor to Officially Represent the City of Beaumont in Meeting with the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and other Riverside Communities about Amending the Annexation Agreement with Riverside County as it Pertains to Sharing Property Tax Revenues: https://beaumont.civicweb.net/document/9354/Item%2023.pdf?handle=D3E1E0BD0AF64AA28DC82DA0B3304DB2
Lloyd White gave the impression that he was already in contact with other cities and did not mention Mike Busch or Urban Futures.
On December 5, 2017, Beaumont City Council ‘Approved’ Agenda Item 13: $25,000 to Mike Busch of Urban Futures to Conduct a Fiscal Review and Analysis of the City of Beaumont’s Tax Sharing Resolution with the County of Riverside: https://beaumont.civicweb.net/document/10253/Item%2013.pdf?handle=4BF9185A95614586B05FCB02524AF439
There was never a fiscal analysis to make, there’s no need for discussions with the County, and Mike Busch has no idea what he’s doing or he would have done it 2 1/2 years ago when he was paid to create the ‘Workout Plan to Sustainability’.
From May, 2015 to Present; the City of Beaumont has paid Urban Futures $513,376.73.
Beaumont City Council Meeting October 17, 2017: https://beaumont.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=124
4:02:00 White: Item 23: Direct Staff to Conduct a Financial Analysis of the Property Tax Sharing Agreement with Riverside County and Authorize the Mayor to Officially Represent the City of Beaumont in Meetings with the Riverside Board of Supervisors and Other Riverside Communities about Amending the Annexation Agreement with Riverside County as it Pertains to Sharing Property Tax Revenues.
White: So you guys know that with Annexed property it’s about a 3 to 1 split, or 25% to 75% split. What I’d like to do is to determine, hopefully through a Fiscal Analysis, when an annexed property moves into the City of Beaumont; is that portion correct? In other words; is the County still handing 75% of the services for those new homes?
4:03:00 White: And then once we have that; I’ve had conversations with Council members from Banning, Calimesa, Hemet, and I believe that San Jacinto is interested in discussing this as well. This Item would authorize me to engage with the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and the other communities. But I’d like to suggest a change to this. Instead of it saying “Authorize the Mayor to officially represent the City of Beaumont”, I would suggest that we change it to “Authorize the Mayor or the Mayor’s Designated Council Member” so that in the future if a Mayor is not as passionate about this or has other things to do they could assign that designation to another council member if they choose.
4:04:00 Martinez: My only concern is on Part 2. If we can have an assurance that you would come to the Council before you take any action.
White: Absolutely. I would think if we ever entered into anything official, but at this point it’s just gathering the financial information and bringing together the interested parties. I think we have a much better change of accomplishing something four of the fastest growing areas in Riverside County are leading this. I think with Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, and Hemet’s proposed growth that we carry a lot of reasons for doing it.
January 18, 2017
Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate
State Board of Equalization
450 N Street, MIC 70
PO Box 942879
Sacramento, CA 94279-0070
Re: Riverside County Tax Fraud Scam
I previously contacted this Agency when a Forensic Audit revealed that the City of Beaumont was using a State Resale License to steal sales tax from other California Cities.
In the last year the S.E.C. has issued Subpoenas on the City of Beaumont and Seven (7) former City Officials have been Indicted for Fraud and Embezzlement. The S.E.C. Subpoenas, Indictments, and State Water Board Investigative Order can be read on beaumontgate.org.
I am contacting you again regarding the City of Beaumont and the County of Riverside. Enclosed are two (2) Audits regarding Tax Fraud perpetrated by The City of Beaumont and/or Riverside County.
Withholding a Portion of the 1% Property Tax from Cities
Overcharging Mello Roos Special Taxes
Sewer Fee Increase Without Voter Approval
RDA Property Tax Allocation
Both of the above practices must be stopped immediately. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
And finally, Union Bank.
On July 1, 2016, the bank that processes EFT payments for the Board of Equalization (BOE) changed from Citibank to MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (Union Bank).
Is the Board of Equalization aware that I caught Union Bank Embezzling $20 Million from the City of Beaumont’s Mello Roos Bonds?
Riverside County Master Property Tax Agreements
In the State of California Homeowners pay 1% Property Taxes, which is collected to provide Services such as Fire and Safety Protection.
When the property is located in the county; the county receives the property taxes because they are providing the Services. When the property is located in the city; the city receives the property taxes because the city is providing the Services.
And when property is Annexed from the County to the City the Property Taxes should also be transferred from the County to the City for all of the Services that the City must provide.
Riverside County illegally withholds 75% of the 1% Tax from the cities on every Annexation of Land and they have for a long long time.
Riverside County and the City of Beaumont entered into Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The Agreements state that of the 1% Property Tax Allocation; the City will receive 100% of the Funds allocated for Fire Services, but will:
“..assume the responsibility for all other general municipal services to the area to be annexed as are required by law or presently provided throughout the City, and for such service assumption shall receive 25% of that portion of the property tax revenue generated within the territory to be annexed under the Ad-Valorem Tax..”
California Revenue and Taxation Code does provide for a Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement, but the County can’t keep Taxpayer Money without providing Services and the City has no right to sign away the Taxpayers’ money.
Honest Riverside County Elected and Appointed Officials are few, but George Spiliotis and his Staff are honest and doing the task put before them. However, it is illegal for Riverside County to withhold the Cities’ property taxes and the practice must stop. The Cities need their property tax revenue to use for the Taxes’ intended purpose.
California Revenue and Taxation Code 99 (8) In the case of a jurisdictional change that consists of a city’s qualified annexation of unincorporated territory, an exchange of property tax revenues between the city and the county shall be determined in accordance with subdivision (e) if that exchange of revenues is not otherwise determined pursuant to either of the following:
(A) Negotiations completed within the applicable period or periods as prescribed by this subdivision.
(B) A master property tax exchange agreement among those local agencies, as described in subdivision (d).
(d) With respect to adjustments in the allocation of property taxes pursuant to this section, a county and any local agency or agencies within the county may develop and adopt a master property tax transfer agreement. The agreement may be revised from time to time by the parties subject to the agreement.