Montebello City Council approves $19.3 million in loans from redeve...
There are 20 comments on the San Gabriel Valley Tribune story from Sep 23, 2010, titled Montebello City Council approves $19.3 million in loans from redeve.... In it, San Gabriel Valley Tribune reports that:In a move one city councilwoman said was probably illegal, the city transferred $19.3 million from its redevelopment account to the general fund.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at San Gabriel Valley Tribune.
#1 Sep 23, 2010
I thought all the "crooked" people were kicked out of the council. Don't these guys see what is happening in Bell?!!! Of course the City Attorney will counsel that it is legal, he wants to recieve his multi-million dollar yearly retainer. It's amazing how these dumbass Latino councilpeople - in Montebello and Bell - are so easily manipulated by white con artists pretending to be City Managers. Bell didn't check on Rizzo's tenure at Hesperia, Montebello didn't check on Consentini's record in Huntington Park - the same result follows.
#2 Sep 23, 2010
How can you possibly equate Montebello with what is happening in Bell?
Bell Officials gave themselves exorbitant salaries, personal loans, and more. All of which they hid from everyone who wasn't on the take.
The Montebello City Council members make something like $8000 a year and is late February they additionally voted themselves a 10% pay cut in solidarity with other city workers who were taking pay cuts.
Bell paid their City Administrator $800,000.
A few years ago Richard Torres was getting around $120,000/year and was the lowest paid City Administrator in the San Gabriel Valley. Richard had turned down an earlier raise, saying that he didn't need the money. Nevertheless, Richard was sacked by the council, and when he was later rehired he decided he would take the additional money and was then getting parity with other local City Administrators, getting about $180K to $200,000/year.
The officials holding that office since Richard Torres retired have been receiving the same amount - Even Narramore who was also performing the duties of Interim Police Chief for no additional pay.
If you can tell me how the situation in Montebello is anything at all like the situation in the city of Bell, I'd love to hear it.
#3 Sep 23, 2010
Hey Slums -- the council appointed the city manager. The city manager doesn't have a vote. The council members do. In addition to Cortez (who voted no), the council members are Barajas, Perez and Cortez. This ISN'T a race issue. Check it out.
#4 Sep 24, 2010
Somebody...- The issue is simple - misappropiation of public funds. It doesn't matter if it went to salaries or not, it is misappropiation of public money - same as Bell. Kudos to Cortez for sticking to her principles.
Gods...you are right, it is not about race. Stupidity and corruption afflicts all races. But it is about color, and that color is green. The city attorney and city manager are hanging this council out to dry - but I bet they still get paid!
#5 Sep 24, 2010
The $19,000,000 does NOT include the Deficits run up byu the Gang of three
See the Sept 8 agenda item #30 for the details
The time to put the brakes on was 2007 but Rosie and her administration kept right on spending and borrowing from the CRA without telling the CRA Board, The Council, or the people about it.
Glasman said that those undocumented transfers were illegal.
Now the City has bought a verry narrow window of opportunity- only enough to get throught the end of the Calendar year- to get expenses below income.
This is not about teh National economy although that did not help
It's about spending more than you bring in, raiding every source of funds including the City reserves and the City's portion of the employees Pension contributions (note all the catch-up payments to PERS)
So the Pay and Benefits axe is going to fall much harder than if The previous administration had taken the bull by the horns in 2007 rather than swept the problem under the rug till they lost their majority in Nov 2009.
How many of those new hires at the Fire Dept will be around Thanksgiving time?
#6 Sep 24, 2010
Montebello is such a lame city. It can never get its act together with the likes of Molinari & his cronies around. Nothing ever really changes & the fools still follow...
#7 Sep 24, 2010
obviously, in this case, THE SHADOW KNOWS- NOTHING
Does Molinari have any "cronies around"
The current council often votes against him 4-1.
So please identify any cronies
#8 Sep 24, 2010
I know you're a crony & lame...
#9 Sep 24, 2010
It doesn't matter if Molinari has cronies or not - I don't even think he can tell the difference anymore given all his back stabbing. What matters is that since Molinari took office, Montebello hasn't been able to pull out of it's nose dive! Councils may come and go, city executives make com eand go, but the two constants are Molinari and Montebello going to the crapper.
#10 Sep 24, 2010
Trash talk hardly knows Molinari- hardly a crony
"What matters is that since Molinari took office, Montebello hasn't been able to pull out of it's nose dive! "
Changing City administrators did not help any on the time line.
Rosie spending all the reserves hurt worse.
However the new guy has what it takes to fix the problem.
On the ball Staff already have their resumes out.
#11 Oct 5, 2010
#12 Aug 12, 2013
From September 2010 - Whittier Daily News
"MONTEBELLO - In a move one city councilwoman said was probably illegal, the city transferred $19.3 million from its redevelopment account to the general fund.
The City Council approved the loan 4 to 1 on Wednesday night with Councilwoman Christina Cortez dissenting. It leaves $2.7 million in the redevelopment agency's budget, officials said.
"I'm not convinced what we're doing is correct and legal," Cortez said. "We are using funds from the redevelopment agency, which have a specific set of criteria from the state and federal governments for their use, which don't include items out of the general fund."
Interim City Administrator Peter Cosentini said without the loan the city would be out of money by October. The city's budget is roughly $47 million.
The transfer meets the state mandate that the money be used to combat blight because it will keep the city's infrastructure from falling apart, City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman said.
"Let's assume for the moment Montebello doesn't fix its streets, remove graffiti, repair street lights or take care of the infrastructure," he said."
Mr. Glasman, sir, can you please point to the blight-combating, infrastructure repairs that have been made with the $19.3 million the city took from the RDA nearly 3 years ago.
What's that you say?
#13 Aug 12, 2013
Since then CRA's have been dissolved with the state getting the funds and only very recently refunding any to the cities.
CRA's have been heavily audited
look them up
Did the state say the loan was illegal and make the city pay it back early (where the state would have grabbed the funds)?
Without the bridge loan Montebello would have had to admit that it was (and is) bankrupt.
Outgo is greater than income
debts are greater than assets
still skating on very thin ice
Thanks to the HIlton and others for their deferral and forbearance (if the city does go bk do they get paid?).
come on recovery
#14 Aug 12, 2013
When did the state tell the city the $19.3 million loan was legal? Ask the city for the letter from the state that says it was legal. Better yet, ask the state for it.
#15 Aug 13, 2013
Do your own sleuthing if you are interested.
I'll go with Franscea and Kosmont and Frank
Getting their wrist slapped for a "questionable" transfer is better than BK
Or is it?
Could BK write off $100,000,000 in fat pension obligations?
Why do retirees have to live longer anyway?
#16 Aug 13, 2013
It was a rhetorical question, ace. Ever notice how city seems to rely on the judges decision to side with city in the Sevecharian vs. Montebello RDA lawsuit as the 'authority' on which it bases the validity/legality of the loan? Except the judge never ruled on the legality of the loan. He merely said that because the city had paid it back that its legality was a moot point. Small problem,...16 million of that pay back was a paper transfer. State's never said that loan was legal...
#17 Aug 13, 2013
Do you have a link to the Savercherian vs Montebello RDA decision?
IMHO legality is never a "moot point"
wrong is wrong
City claims "no other choice"
State will never say anything
get the RDA audits and proceedings of the oversight committee and read between the lines
#19 Aug 13, 2013
#20 Aug 13, 2013
Ok I found
And read it and the other topix thread
A year later
Is there an update as of end of FY June 31?
#21 Aug 13, 2013
do you comprehend Glassmaneese?
Last paragraph and footnote 4
see also the State Controllers Audit of Sept 2011
So where did the repayment money come from? and to whom is it owed now?
Is this a shell game?
Money was spent by the Vasquez administration prior to November 2009 election- it's GONE
Debt has been rolled over
where's the pea?
Add your comments below
|Who knows?||Oct 21||KES||1|
|Stanislaus County Superior Court||Oct 16||Joyce K||7|
|Wanted on 242 PC Charges||Aug '16||KES||8|
|Whats going on at Savemart?? (Aug '09)||Jun '16||Bill gTes||38|
|Starvision Direct Cable is taking applications,||Jun '16||KBS||2|
|Girl, 18, dark hair named Andrea on Periscope||Jun '16||PersonaMystic||1|
|Oakdale homeowner clearing clutter, but neighbo... (Oct '11)||May '16||Your Service Prov...||2|
Find what you want!
Search Oakdale Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC