Next meeting November 24, ***Victoria Country Club ***
Riverside, California, United States
Current NBT City Issues
RPU General Fund Transfer
Elected Riverside Inspector General
Elected Riverside Inspector General
For many years, Riverside has transferred 11.5% of their public utilities customers' bills to the City's general fund in a practice commonly referred to as the "general fund transfer". With the passage by California voters of State Constitutional amendments Prop 218 (1996) and Prop 26 (2010) affecting how municipalities can raise tax rev
For many years, Riverside has transferred 11.5% of their public utilities customers' bills to the City's general fund in a practice commonly referred to as the "general fund transfer". With the passage by California voters of State Constitutional amendments Prop 218 (1996) and Prop 26 (2010) affecting how municipalities can raise tax revenues, many residents question the legitimacy of the ongoing transfers. Moreover, the City has lost three consecutive lawsuits (water bills twice, electric bills once) contesting the legality of these transfer payments, forcing the City to return large amounts of customers' money.
Despite these Superior Court losses, the City continues to engage in this transfer practice as they have historically been settled before establishing case law in the Court of Appeal. NBT believes making long-term budgeting decisions based upon the short-term whims of plaintiffs and their lawyers, or voting on these taxes every time the City raises utility rates, is unsound fiscal management. NBT calls on the City to explore and find alternatives to continue illegally hiding regressive taxes within our utility bills. Having the privilege of operating both local water and electricity monopolies, the City needs to be forthright in ending the longstanding abuse of its ratepayers.
Elected Riverside Inspector General
Elected Riverside Inspector General
Elected Riverside Inspector General
The City has unfortunately experienced more than its fair share of scandals in the last decade, from conflicted audits to overtime debacles to overcollection of utility reserves, etc. Moreover, the City has been on the losing end of a string of costly lawsuits resulting from illegal activity and abuses of legal discretion. It is past ti
The City has unfortunately experienced more than its fair share of scandals in the last decade, from conflicted audits to overtime debacles to overcollection of utility reserves, etc. Moreover, the City has been on the losing end of a string of costly lawsuits resulting from illegal activity and abuses of legal discretion. It is past time for accountability amongst our elected and appointed officials, and staff.
NBT believes an elected, not appointed, Inspector General position best serves the needs of residents in providing a direct conduit into which internal, external, and self-directed complaints can be made, investigated, and reported upon in a transparent manner to the benefit the public, while remaining independent from City special interests, including the City Council itself.
RTRP
Elected Riverside Inspector General
rusd measure o
RTRP is the Riverside Transmission Reliability Project. The City of Riverside is working with SCE, to establish a second power connection to the statewide power grid. RTRP will include the construction of a new, above-ground, transmission line, and a new electrical substation.
NBT believes the proposed above-ground Riverside Transmission
RTRP is the Riverside Transmission Reliability Project. The City of Riverside is working with SCE, to establish a second power connection to the statewide power grid. RTRP will include the construction of a new, above-ground, transmission line, and a new electrical substation.
NBT believes the proposed above-ground Riverside Transmission Reliability Project, giving Riverside a second connection to the statewide transmission grid is not just an "elephant in the room", but a woolly mammoth: using outdated technology to fix a 21st century problem. NBT believes not only do the transmission lines need to be put underground for safety (wind, fire, EMF) and long-term environmental reasons, it also is questionable from a long-term financial perspective (see link) nor does it create as much short-term stimulus from creating local jobs. We urge you to join us in calling your local Riverside officials in changing direction on RTRP before it's too late.
rusd measure o
Community Engagement
rusd measure o
Passed in 2016, Measure O ($392 million school facility bond) was marketed by the Riverside Unified School District as a way to “upgrade and repair aging Riverside schools”. However, within years after its passage, three new elementary schools and a new high school parking lot were introduced by the District to the public to be construc
Passed in 2016, Measure O ($392 million school facility bond) was marketed by the Riverside Unified School District as a way to “upgrade and repair aging Riverside schools”. However, within years after its passage, three new elementary schools and a new high school parking lot were introduced by the District to the public to be constructed using Measure O funds. Additionally, these new projects, along with a STEM high school on the UCR campus (specific project list had this project at the existing STEM academy site), were put to the top of the District’s priority list above many aging Riverside schools. NBT believes the ballot measure, with accompanying specific project list, is a contractual agreement between the District and the property-taxpaying public that must be strictly adhered to. NBT believes that, if not for the five new projects, almost every school within the District could receive enough money to address at least some of their existing problems, and hence, positively affect many more students' learning experience.
Further, NBT believes the “independent” citizens bond oversight committee for Measure O provides only the illusion of functional legitimacy as it is marred with individual conflicts-of-interest and manipulated, coerced, and controlled by the District itself. NBT asks that the District conform with best practices suggested by the California Association of Bond Oversight Committees to achieve the type of accountability voters wanted when they passed Proposition 39 and lowered the threshold for passing school facility bonds from 2/3s to 55% in the year 2000.
Community Engagement
Community Engagement
Community Engagement
NBT members and other Riverside stakeholders are participating in an external, community working group, developing a Citywide Community Engagement Policy. A second group, consisting of City planning staff, is working in tandem to develop a toolkit of engagement processes that are in alignment with the community group’s policy recommendat
NBT members and other Riverside stakeholders are participating in an external, community working group, developing a Citywide Community Engagement Policy. A second group, consisting of City planning staff, is working in tandem to develop a toolkit of engagement processes that are in alignment with the community group’s policy recommendations.
This combined effort aims to create a clear, streamlined, and predictable public participation process to build trust and promote equity for all Riverside residents, working in partnership with our elected Ward representatives, Mayor, and City staff. NBT believes that adding residents' perspectives early on in the local governmental decision-making process, and engaging residents earnestly throughout, leads to better long-term outcomes for all of Riverside.
The Community Engagement Policy draft and aligned toolkit development is being facilitated and written by the City Neighborhood Engagement Department. The final draft is currently scheduled be presented to the City Council Inclusiveness Community Engagement, and Governmental Processes Committee in spring, 2022 for review, prior to being sent to the full Council for adoption as a City Policy.
Community Engagement Policy Page
Land use over-reach
Community Engagement
Community Engagement
Since becoming the 31st State in the Union in 1850, California has had a history of allowing local municipalities nearly exclusive control over their land use decisions. This is particularly true of charter cities like Riverside.
Because of a string of what were perceived as abuses at the local level, including many involving "redevelopme
Since becoming the 31st State in the Union in 1850, California has had a history of allowing local municipalities nearly exclusive control over their land use decisions. This is particularly true of charter cities like Riverside.
Because of a string of what were perceived as abuses at the local level, including many involving "redevelopment", the California state government over the past decade began to pass legislation to curb some of the worst practices that had become commonplace throughout the State.
Unfortunately, NBT believes the State may have overshot the target in going from reformation regarding local land use decisions to outright central planning that does more harm than good for the majority of Californians. NBT is currently studying the impact of current and proposed legislation with the hopes of advocating for the return of common sense local control in this arena.
Measure C
Measure C
Measure C
NBT stands firmly against Measure C. Visit the elections page to see ballot information by clicking the button below.
See Jason Hunter's overview of why NBT does not support this Measure.
The Union "bug" on city stationary
Download PDFNorthside moratorium
Download PDFCity Attorney accountability in Russo contract
Download PDF
Welcome!
We invite you to "take a seat at the table" Please contact us for information on joining your NBT neighbors. Because NEIGHBORS are BETTER TOGETHER!