City submitted 2 Bond Requisitions directing the Payment to Pardee Homes, then Paid $602,469.23 from Check Warrants w/o Council Approval
On January 12, 2018, Pardee Homes sent a letter to the City of Beaumont requesting a $633,392.75 reimbursement for ‘Oak Valley Sewer Lift Station’. Pardee Homes requested the money be paid from the following CFD Areas:
2009B: $873,207.00
2011A: $2,092,111.73
2011A: $24,736.21
2011A: $583,152.06
2003A: $144,828.00
Pardee Homes claims reimbursement rights “Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated February 7th, 2017..”
On February 5, 2018 the City of Beaumont submitted two Bond Requisitions to the new Bond Trustee, Wilmington Trust, requesting that $2,872.46 transferred from the 2017-2 Bond and $599,596.77 from the 2017-3 Bond.
The Requisitions give direction to the Trustee to transfer the money directly to Pardee Homes, but no Invoices are included in the backup, only a letter from the City claiming that the Infrastructure was completed.
However; Beaumont Check Warrants on the February 20, 2018 Agenda reports that the City transferred $602,469.23 to Pardee Homes themselves: https://beaumont.civicweb.net/…
Was Pardee Homes twice; once through the Bond Fund Accounts AND again directly by the City?
Nobody knows because the City lies about everything. The $602,469.23 payout from the Bond Fund Accounts was never approved by the City Council and past Public Records’ Request for Bond Requisitions were returned stating “No Documents Exist”.
March 20, 2018 Beaumont City Council Meeting contains Agenda Item 14: Trading Pardee Homes TUMF Mitigation Fees for ‘Potrero Phase II’: https://beaumont.civicweb.net/document/12644/Item%2014.pdf?handle=2B61CC04F6694A3288219A5A19AE6FB0
March 20, 2018 Beaumont City Council Meeting also contains Agenda Item 14: Trading Pardee Homes TUMF Mitigation Fees for Pennsylvania Ave widening: https://beaumont.civicweb.net/…
Beaumont Council and Staff are continuing the same illegal ‘robbing peter to pay paul’ bond and construction scam as the previous administration. Below are excerpts from Judge Chaffee’s summary in the WRCOG vs City of Beaumont:
“THE COURT IS SATISFIED AND FINDS THAT THE POSITION OF CITY STAFF WAS MOTIVATED BY CERTAIN COMMITMENTS TO BEAUMONT AREA DEVELOPERS, AS WELL AS AN IMPERATIVE TO HELP FUEL FURTHER AND GREATER DEVELOPMENT WITHIN BEAUMONT CITY LIMITS.”
“THE DEVELOPERS THEREBY HAD NO CARRYING CHARGES FOR THE COST OF BORROWED MONEY TO PAY UP FRONT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THESE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. MOREOVER, THE COSTS ARE EFFECTIVELY HIDDEN FROM THE PROPERTY BUYERS, WHO DO NOT SEE PRICE INCREASES TO COVER DEVELOPER OUT-OF-POCKET DEVELOPMENT COSTS. INSTEAD, THE BUYER PAYS FOR THE PROJECT INCREMENTALLY OVER THE LIFE OF THE BOND THROUGH THOSE TAX ASSESSMENTS OR ADDITIONS TO THE TAX BILLS.”
“TUMF REQUIRES UP-FRONT PAYMENTS OUT OF POCKET FROM DEVELOPERS.”
“THE NET EFFECT OF THIS DICHOTOMY IS, FOLLOWING THE BEAUMONT PREFERENCE, TO GIVE BEAUMONT THE EDGE IN ATTRACTING DEVELOPERS AND GREATER DEVELOPMENT AS AGAINST ALL OTHER WESTERN RIVERSIDE JURISDICTIONS THAT IMPOSE THE MANDATED TUMF FEE UP FRONT.”
“IN THE COURT’S ESTIMATION, C.F.D. 93-1 COULD HAVE BEEN, AND, INDEED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN, MODIFIED TO EXCLUDE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, WHILE CONTINUING TO COVER OTHER LOCAL PROJECTS, INCLUDING WATER, SEWAGE, AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION.”
“INSTEAD, THE CITY OPTED FOR WHAT ONE COULD CALL THE, QUOTE, WILLFUL CHILD, END QUOTE, SYNDROME.”
“THE EVIDENCE SHOWS POOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND EXECUTION, RESULTING IN BOTTLENECKS AND DELAYS THAT IMPAIR THE NECESSARY ADDED CAPACITY.”
“THE EVIDENCE SADLY REVEALED SOMETHING MORE THAT THE COURT FEELS OBLIGED TO SPEAK TO. THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY REVEALS THAT CITY MANAGEMENT AND STAFF ENGAGED IN A PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF DECEPTION THAT TRANSCENDS THE TYPICAL GIVE AND TAKE OF DISPUTE NEGOTIATION. HAD THIS BEEN A TYPICAL CIVIL TRIAL CONTAINING ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD, I WOULD HAVE FOUND FRAUD BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AS AGAINST THE CITY.”