Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson recently published an opinion piece in the Raincross Gazette titled “Riverside’s Global Ties Make Us Stronger at Home.”
Let’s start with an important distinction.
This is an opinion column written by the Mayor, not an independent analysis of Riverside’s international programs or their return to taxpayers. It is part of the Mayor’s ongoing “From the Mayor’s Desk” advocacy. (The Raincross Gazette)
There is nothing inherently wrong with Riverside having international relationships. There is nothing wrong with Sister Cities. There is nothing wrong with traveling internationally when a legitimate public purpose can be demonstrated.
But elected officials should not confuse relationships, ceremonies, photographs, memorandums of understanding and press releases with measurable economic results.
And Riverside taxpayers should not be expected to do so either.
The appropriate question is remarkably simple:
What did Riverside taxpayers spend, and what measurable benefit did Riverside taxpayers receive?
The Mayor’s opinion piece does not answer that question.
Instead, it gives us stories of visiting firefighters, foreign dignitaries, Sister City anniversaries, international relationships, charitable giving and economic-development announcements.
Some of those activities may absolutely have value.
But anecdotes are not performance measures.
Photographs are not return on investment.
And press releases are not audited economic results.
Riverside Was Warned About This Exact Problem Years Ago
This issue isn’t new.
In 2017, Riverside commissioned an independent Performance Assessment and Financial Review of the Mayor’s Office by Matrix Consulting Group.
The consultant examined the Sister Cities program specifically.
What did it find?
The benefits of the program were broadly described but not comprehensively quantified. There was no formal annual report adequately describing and quantifying its accomplishments. The consultant recommended measurable objectives, annual reporting, public performance information and the ability to conduct an actual cost-benefit analysis.
The report’s conclusion deserves particular attention:
“It is critical that the Sister Cities Program demonstrate its value to the public.”
That was Riverside’s independent consultant speaking — not a political critic.
The study calculated the Sister Cities operation at approximately $144,500 annually in 2016-17, including personnel costs, and projected approximately $146,500 the following year. More importantly, it recommended developing measurements that could ultimately determine whether continued taxpayer subsidy was justified.
That was nearly a decade ago.
So where are the results?
Where is the public dashboard showing:
- Total City spending on international relations;
- Mayor’s Office personnel dedicated to international relations;
- staff hours devoted to the program;
- elected-official travel;
- staff travel;
- delegation expenses;
- private investment actually received;
- companies actually operating in Riverside;
- Riverside residents actually employed;
- payroll generated;
- sales tax actually received;
- property tax actually generated;
- taxpayer incentives provided;
- City purchases from recruited companies; and
- net economic return to Riverside taxpayers?
Those are the numbers necessary to evaluate the program.
A collection of stories is not.
A Claimed $586 Return for Every $1 Deserves Serious Scrutiny
The Mayor makes a particularly dramatic economic claim in her article.
She says that following Riverside’s Korean business-development activities, every $1 spent on City travel resulted in $586 of investment in Riverside.
That sounds extraordinary.
If Riverside has genuinely produced a 58,500-percent return on international travel, the City should be shouting the supporting financial analysis from City Hall.
Instead, residents should ask:
Where is the calculation?
What investment is being counted?
Is it money actually invested or merely announced?
Does it include proposed investments contained in non-binding MOUs?
Were promised future expenditures counted as current investment?
And what was included in the denominator?
Only airfare?
What about:
- hotels;
- meals;
- ground transportation;
- employee salaries;
- employee benefits;
- economic-development staff;
- administrative preparation;
- consultants;
- follow-up activity;
- subsequent trips;
- City subsidies;
- infrastructure commitments; and
- taxpayer-funded purchases from the companies recruited?
You cannot calculate municipal return on investment by dividing a company’s announced future investment by the Mayor’s airline ticket.
If the $586-to-$1 claim is legitimate, publish the spreadsheet.
Ohmio Is a Perfect Example of Why Residents Need the Whole Story
Remember Ohmio?
Riverside announced that the New Zealand autonomous-shuttle company would move its international headquarters to Riverside and manufacture vehicles here.
It made for excellent headlines.
But the City’s own announcement disclosed that Riverside initially agreed to spend up to $2.5 million as part of bringing Ohmio to Riverside, including approximately $1.5 million to lease or purchase three Ohmio autonomous shuttles.
The initial employment commitment?
Seven jobs, eventually projected to reach at least 25.
Subsequent participation from the Riverside Transit Agency and South Coast Air Quality Management District reduced Riverside’s projected direct cost to approximately $1 million, but taxpayers remained deeply involved in creating the market for the company Riverside was simultaneously celebrating as an economic-development success.
That does not automatically make Ohmio a bad project.
But it should change the way the project is described.
Residents deserve an update today:
How many Riverside-produced Ohmio vehicles have actually been manufactured?
How many employees work at the Riverside operation today?
How much private capital has actually been invested?
How much payroll has been generated?
How much tax revenue has Riverside actually collected?
And how much public money has actually been spent?
Those are economic-development metrics.
Riverside Became Voltu’s First Customer
Then there is Voltu.
In June, Riverside issued another enthusiastic press release announcing commercial production of Voltu electric trucks in Riverside.
But the City’s own announcement contains a remarkably important fact:
The City of Riverside became Voltu’s first customer.
Again, there may be sound public-policy reasons for purchasing electric trucks.
But we should stop pretending these relationships are the same as traditional private-sector business attraction.
There is a meaningful economic distinction between:
“A company located in Riverside because private customers created sufficient market demand.”
and
“Riverside recruited a company and Riverside government became its first customer.”
Both might ultimately produce economic benefits.
But taxpayers deserve to know which one occurred.
Chaevi Illustrates the Difference Between an Announcement and an Investment
The Mayor also highlights South Korean EV technology company Chaevi.
Riverside’s November 2025 announcement discusses a potential $100 million U.S. entry and expansion strategy involving Riverside.
Impressive headline.
Read further.
The agreement is a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding.
It creates no current financial obligation.
The parties are still developing funding and investment strategies.
And the agreement anticipates developing a plan involving Riverside’s purchase and installation of at least 45 Chaevi EV chargers, subject to subsequent Council approval.
Those distinctions matter.
A potential $100 million investment is not $100 million deposited into Riverside’s economy.
A memorandum of understanding is not a manufacturing plant.
An anticipated headquarters is not a payroll.
And an agreement under which Riverside may become a customer deserves to be disclosed alongside the economic-development announcement.
So let’s ask Chaevi the same questions:
How much private capital has actually been invested in Riverside?
How many people are presently employed in Riverside?
How much payroll exists?
How much tax revenue has been generated?
And how much does Riverside anticipate purchasing from Chaevi?
When those numbers become meaningful, celebrate them.
Until then, distinguish promises from performance.
Charity Is Admirable — But Charity Is Not Taxpayer ROI
The Mayor also highlights approximately $600,000 raised by Riverside residents to help Sendai following the devastating 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami.
That says something wonderful about the generosity of Riverside residents.
But think carefully about the argument.
Money voluntarily donated by Riverside citizens to residents of Japan cannot simultaneously demonstrate that Riverside taxpayers receive an economic return from funding municipal international-relations activities.
Those are completely different measurements.
The same applies to cultural exchanges, firefighter exchanges and educational programs.
They may be worthwhile.
Then measure them appropriately.
How many students participated?
How many firefighters?
What did the exchange cost?
Who paid?
What training resulted?
What new operational capability resulted?
How many Riverside residents directly benefited?
How much outside funding supported the activity?
Good government programs should survive measurement.
And Then There Is the Cost of Travel
International engagement costs money.
Riverside’s FY 2024-25 travel and meeting report shows substantial expenditures associated with the Mayor’s official activities. Importantly, not all of those expenses involve international travel, so it would be inaccurate to characterize the entire amount as Sister City spending. But it demonstrates exactly why the complete cost of international activity needs to be separated and publicly reported.
The appropriate accounting shouldn’t stop with an elected official’s airfare.
International trips can involve:
- Mayor;
- Councilmembers;
- Mayor’s Office staff;
- Community & Economic Development staff;
- administrative personnel;
- consultants;
- registration;
- lodging;
- meals;
- ground transportation;
- gifts and ceremonial expenses;
- employee compensation while traveling;
- planning and preparation;
- follow-up activity; and
- potentially accompanying guests or spouses.
That last category deserves careful wording.
I am not alleging that taxpayers paid spouses’ expenses without the records proving it.
That is exactly why records matter.
Rather than speculate, let’s obtain the documentation.
The Riverside Accountability Project Will Ask for Those Records
This is exactly the kind of investigation I have proposed for the Riverside Accountability Project.
Government accountability should not depend upon whether you agree politically with a Mayor or City Council.
It should depend upon evidence.
When City Hall makes an extraordinary claim — such as a $586 return for every $1 spent traveling internationally — residents should be able to examine the underlying records and independently determine whether the claim is accurate.
So I will be submitting a California Public Records Act request seeking the documentation necessary to reconstruct Riverside’s actual international-relations expenditures and measurable results.
Among the records I intend to request are:
International Travel
Records of international travel by the Mayor, Councilmembers and City employees since 2021, including airfare, hotels, meals, registration, ground transportation, reimbursements, City credit-card charges, itineraries and expense reports.
Delegations and Accompanying Travelers
Records identifying City officials, employees, consultants, guests, spouses or other individuals participating in official delegations, together with documentation establishing who paid each individual’s expenses and whether any expenses were reimbursed by outside organizations.
International Relations Staffing
Compensation, benefits, job descriptions and departmental allocation for employees assigned substantially to international relations, Sister Cities or foreign-direct-investment activities.
Sister Cities
Mayor’s Office and City expenditures associated with each Sister City relationship, including staff time, travel, receptions, gifts, visiting delegations, memberships, contracts and direct or indirect support provided to the International Relations Council.
Foreign Direct Investment
Records supporting every publicly announced foreign-direct-investment figure since 2021, including the amount originally announced and the amount actually invested.
Jobs
Records documenting employment commitments associated with recruited companies and the City’s verification of the number of jobs actually created, retained and presently existing.
Ohmio
All City expenditures, contracts, purchases, subsidies, reimbursements and financial projections relating to Ohmio, together with documentation of vehicles manufactured, jobs created, sales generated and tax revenue received.
Voltu
All City expenditures, purchases, contracts, incentives or assistance involving Voltu, including Riverside’s purchases as the company’s first customer, along with current employment and private-investment information provided to the City.
Chaevi
Documentation supporting the announced $100 million strategy, current capital actually invested in Riverside, employment created, and all contemplated or completed purchases of Chaevi equipment by the City or affiliated public agencies.
The $586-to-$1 Claim
Perhaps most importantly, I will request every document, spreadsheet, email, analysis, calculation and supporting record used to substantiate the Mayor’s statement that every $1 of City travel produced $586 in Riverside investment.
That number should either be extraordinarily easy to substantiate —
or extraordinarily difficult.
Let’s find out.
This Is What the Riverside Accountability Project Is About
I have proposed the Riverside Accountability Project because Riverside desperately needs something largely absent from today’s civic conversation:
Institutional memory combined with documented accountability.
City Hall announcements come quickly.
Groundbreakings produce photographs.
MOUs produce headlines.
Politicians move on to the next event.
Years later, almost nobody goes back and asks:
Did it actually happen?
That is precisely where the Riverside Accountability Project should operate.
Take the original promise.
Find the original staff report.
Identify the taxpayer expenditure.
Document the projected jobs.
Document the projected revenue.
Then return one year, three years and five years later and compare the promise with reality.
Imagine applying that approach to:
- economic-development agreements;
- Sister City programs;
- foreign-direct-investment announcements;
- Measure Z;
- homelessness spending;
- charter officer hiring and severance agreements;
- outside consultants;
- infrastructure commitments;
- housing-development traffic projections;
- utility investments;
- incentive agreements; and
- major City contracts.
Not conspiracy.
Not personalities.
Not partisan politics.
Documents. Numbers. Outcomes.
That is accountability.
Interestingly, City Hall Apparently Agrees
There is some encouraging news.
In 2026, Riverside began considering a formal Foreign Direct Investment Strategy containing requirements for quarterly reporting to the Economic Development Committee and annual reporting to the City Council specifically to provide transparency and accountability.
Good.
Let’s build upon it.
For every significant economic-development initiative, Riverside should publish a simple public scorecard:
PROMISED
Private Investment
Jobs
Payroll
Tax Revenue
Project Completion Date
PUBLIC INVESTMENT
City Incentives
Purchases
Infrastructure
Staff Costs
Travel
Consultants
Other Subsidies
ACTUAL RESULTS
Capital Invested
Jobs Existing Today
Actual Payroll
Tax Revenue Received
Public Money Spent
NET TAXPAYER RETURN
That single dashboard would do more to establish confidence in Riverside economic development than a hundred press releases.
Global Relationships May Be Valuable. Prove It.
I am not arguing that Riverside should retreat from the world.
Quite the opposite.
Riverside has extraordinary assets.
We have universities.
We have sophisticated businesses.
We have a strategically important location.
We have access to international trade through Southern California’s ports and logistics infrastructure.
We should aggressively recruit legitimate private investment.
We should build relationships around the world.
And cultural relationships between ordinary citizens can be tremendously worthwhile.
But public officials should never ask taxpayers to confuse access with accomplishment.
An overseas photograph isn’t economic development.
A signed MOU isn’t investment.
A promised job isn’t employment.
A City purchasing products from the company it recruited isn’t necessarily evidence of private-market success.
And a Sister City relationship isn’t automatically valuable merely because it has existed for decades.
The Mayor’s opinion column presents the case for these relationships.
Fair enough.
Now taxpayers deserve the other half of the story:
the balance sheet.
Riverside’s own independent consultant recommended that kind of accountability nearly a decade ago.
I’m going to ask for it.
When the CPRA records arrive, the Riverside Accountability Project can do what
City Hall public relations rarely does:
Return to the original promises.
Follow the money.
Count the jobs.
Measure the results.
And let Riverside residents decide whether their investment produced a meaningful public return.
That’s not anti-Sister City.
That’s not anti-economic development.
That’s not anti-Riverside.
