FOREfront--Working for the People of
Volume 5 Issues 4 & 5 July
& September 2002
The California Supreme Court denied the City of Roseville’s petition to
review the Third District Court of Appeal ruling that Roseville’s collection of
an in-lieu
franchise fee on water, sewer, and refuse services is illegal. At the same
time, the court denied Roseville’s request for depublication,
thus letting the decision stand as precedent for other cities. The Court of
Appeal ruling was favorable to
taxpayers in concluding that certain utility fees were not only subject to
Proposition 218 as property-related fees, but were also imposed in violation of
the fee limitation provisions under Prop 218. There were no votes to hear the
case.
Roseville is already trying to find language to restructure its utility
fees so that they are not subject to Prop 218. However, a group, other than
FORE, will circulate a petition (initiative) for the purpose of repealing the
City’s non-itemized 4 percent in-lieu franchise fee on water, sewer and refuse;
preventing the city from substituting a similar fee; and, providing utility
customers a credit representing past collections of the fee since July 1, 1992.
The credit will be itemized separately on utility bills with the notation: “Credit for Refund of Illegal Fee.” Call
783-9891, 782-5924 or 786-5228 for
information.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is congratulated on its victory
for
LETTER WRITER PRAISED AND ENCOURAGED TO CONTINUE HER QUESTIONING
Mrs Oppici’s letter (July 10) was not only enlightening, but I
believe she hit the nail on the head. She wrote what most outraged citizens
believe. She chose to speak out.
In November 2001, The Press-Tribune featured an article about a local
builder, JMC Homes and how that builder had defrauded a
Mrs Mclnnes finally reached an honest person inside
Mrs Oppici, you are right. Incentives and bribes are the one
thing that causes that mean-spirited greed. Bill Santucci
obviously has been in the pocket of this builder, otherwise he would have
assisted the homeowner rather than defend the indefensible.
Bill Santucci has another secret. He is withholding
information about a (contaminated) “pit” in the community of
Mrs Oppici, keep speaking out. Keep writing letters. Talk to your neighbors and demand that the Bill Santucci’s of this world stay honest or get out of office. Mrs Oppici you are a real American!
* This
article appeared in The Press-Tribune
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of
evil to one who is striking at the root. “ Henry David Thoreau
HILLSBOROUGH NEIGHBORHOOD NOT THE FIRST TO LOSE
Valid Hillsborough neighborhood concerns were swept away by the city
council 4 to 1 (Roccucci agreeing). The concerns were
mainly traffic and air quality degradation that an Albertson open-24-hour store
would cause. The issues were an appeal of a Planning Commission approval of the
store. CROCKER OAKS a 3-story rental
apartment housing project on
. . . it does not require a
majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush
fires in peoples minds.” Samuel Adams
YMCA,
FITNESS AND
The YMCA management had the good sense to withdraw from the
The private fitness centers and
However, the city reneged
when they provided those amenities. While the fitness center in the
The Roseville Sports
Center pays no property taxes and has hired fitness center personnel that
the private sector employed by offering them high wages and benefits. It would appear
that the city is making every effort to put the private fitness centers out of
business. That is not fair to the private sector when in the beginning the city
said they would not compete with the
fitness centers and now have raided their personnel rosters.
The
chamber of commerce should be outraged at the city’s treatment of a segment of
private enterprise. Yet, the chamber has stood mute during this obvious power
play by the city parks department. Could it be that the yearly stipend they
receive from the city has tainted their basic goal of protecting the private
sector from governmental attack. Have chamber members been apprised of the city
vs fitness center squabble and the high stakes to
them should another business sector be threatened by a city take over?
The city has provided more than sufficient recreational facilities that
the private sector does not offer. They include batting cages, swimming pools,
softball diamonds, soccer fields and neighborhood and regional parks all built
and operated at taxpayers expense.
Not long ago the city council was asked to schedule an agenda item to
discuss the proposed ENRON power plant. The council declined a public hearing,
instead directed staff to provide a progress report on the plant. We’re still
waiting for a report.
Two major changes have occurred since the council first proposed the
ENRON plant. The first change is that ENRON is now in bankruptcy, criminal
indictments have been filed against ENRON, and ENRON’s top officials have allegedly taken hundreds of
millions of dollars out of the company, while thousands of their employees have
lost their life savings. it is questionable that this
is the type of company
The second change is the purchase of Emission Reduction Credits (ERC)
required for the plant to operate. In creating air pollution, a plant is
required to offset negative impacts by eliminating more pollution than it will
create. ENRON had initially proposed to do this by paying Union Pacific
Railroad to upgrde its high-polluting diesel engines
to newer, cleaner burning engines. That was reasonable: the cleanup would have
occurred in
This arrangement could not be made. Instead, ENRON now proposes to
obtain ERCs largely by replacing high-polluting water
pumps used by farmers for irrigation with “clean” electric pumps in Yolo and
All the new pollution will be created in
What does
Yes,
Numerous cities have already severed connections with ENRON. For
example,
Note: The permitting process for the
The city council approved the
General Plan and Specific Plans, collecting fees for parks, streets, public facilities
and to mitigate negative impacts caused by developers. To aid development,
council members and management went into “partnership” with developers. While
development continued at breakneck speed (fastest growing county in
Developer fees were put into one
pot and the council approved which and when public projects would occur. They used the money specifically collected as
mitigation to fix impacts of developments for other projects they determined
more important. That is why the
Riverside-Cirby intersection has never been corrected
and continues to be a serious problem.
As
Residents already have an $87
million debt in Certificates of Participation (bonds) that they did not vote on
and are paying those through fees and the general fund for 20 years. We are paying to lease the water and
waste water treatment plants and electric substations through our rates. The leased library, police station and
Corporation Yard debt will be paid by all residents through the general
fund. Don’t forget the school bonds on
your property taxes voters approved in 1992 that was supposed to meet all of
the city’s planned development. And to
think, you will be faced with three more school bonds on the November ballot.
Who will be left to be
accountable for the “partnerships” the council and management created? City manager Al Johnson will be retiring at
90% of his almost $200,000 salary as are many other high-paid city staff. Will City Attorney, Mark Doane,
soon follow and get his golden parachute?
“New development pays for
itself.” Infamous words of past Mayor
Harry Crabb
FORE SCHOLARSHIP AWARD
James D. Hodges, a political
science student at
BIG PRICE LITTLE BENEFIT*
THE Public Information Act is an
important part of holding public officials accountable to the taxpayer by
allowing access to show expenditures of travel, conferences and other types of
spending. Recently, information was made
available regarding how wisely or inappropriately, as the case may be, our
public officials are acting as stewards of the public’s monies in performing
their duties.
This brief preliminary report
will be followed by a more in-depth analysis of attendance and expenses claimed
by councilmembers and city personnel to numerous
events and conferences.
There appears to be inadequate control and oversight of
claims and expenditures for the inordinate amount of travel, conferences,
functions and events attended bycouncilmembers and
city staff. Even though there are some policies and procedures relating
to travel and expenditures, they are vague as to what is an appropriate cost to
the taxpayer. There are numerous occasions that existing policies were violated
by councilmembers and the City manager.
Names of luncheon and dinner participants were often omitted from
receipts; claims were approved numerous times for the City Manager even though
the receipts were “lost”; taxes and tips for meals of spouses of councilmembers were frequently paid for by the City; the
City Manager and a councihnember have often gone to
an expensive restaurant for lunch or ordered in to go over the meeting agenda;
the City Manager frequently pays for lunches or dinners with a city credit card
for developers or councihnembers or other Roseville
“action group” members.
City policies recommend adherence to state per diem
expenditure rates which are $6 for breakfast, $10 lunch, and $20 dinner. In one
instance, City Councilmember Earl Rush incurred a dinner expense for
himself and his wife in the amount of $114.05. While he
reimbursed the city for 50% of that cost, or $57.03, the cost
to the taxpayers for his dinner alone is excessive. Between
December 2000 and March 2002, councilnember Rush
submitted claims totaling $400.85 for
numerous breakfast and lunch meetings in
It is inappropriate for city taxpayers to pay for meals for
developers, business people, friends, campaign managers or even councilmembers themselves if they decide to meet over a
meal. Any inappropriate expenditure should be reimbursed to the city.
City policies do not allow for purchase of
equipment, yet, Councilmember Rockholm submitted a
claim of $21.35 for a leather case for his cell phone. In addition, he was
reimbursed $65 for his passport expenses. In 2002, the City paid its annual
membership of $11,500 to the Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organization.
The City also paid $500 for a bronze sponsorship for a luncheon. There are
other very expensive dues and memberships being paid to various organizations
and it is very questionable whether the expenses are really necessary
expenditures for
In January 2002, the
City paid for a “Chamber (of Commerce) Installation Dinner and Sponsorhip” for all city councilnembers
and their spouses and the City Manager. Cost to the taxpayers for this function
was $762.50. While it is important for the City to be civic-minded,
It should be remembered that it is not a private
business enterprise, and monies do not accumulate through efforts of the
representatives and employees of the City of
·
Source: City of
GENERAL FUND 2000-2001
|
|
|
|
Variance
|
|
|
|
|
Favorable |
|
|
Budget
|
Actual
|
Unfavorable |
|
REVENUES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes |
46,034,100 |
51,092,405 |
5,058,305 |
|
Licenses
& Permits |
2,116,370 |
2,431,091 |
314,721 |
|
Charges
For Services |
6,187,469 |
8,202,129 |
2,014,660 |
|
Subventions
& Grants |
5,076,022 |
5,180,262 |
104,240 |
|
Use of
Money & Property |
895,880 |
1,156,756 |
260,876 |
|
Fines,Fortfeitures & Penalties |
73,000 |
66,900 |
(6,100) |
|
Miscellaneous Revenue |
386,900 |
272,626 |
(114,274) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Revenue |
60,769,741 |
68,402,169 |
7,632,428 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENDITURES |
|
|
|
|
Current: |
|
|
|
|
General
Government |
14,241,338 |
14,210,158 |
31,180 |
|
Community
Development and Planning |
5,779,084 |
4,321,936 |
1,457,148 |
|
Public
Works |
13,317,417 |
10,873,585 |
2,443,832 |
|
Public
Safety: |
|
|
|
|
Police |
14,307,189 |
13,868,406 |
438,783 |
|
Fire |
9,527,896 |
9,197,433 |
330,463 |
|
Library |
2,485,936 |
2,169,391 |
316,545 |
|
Parks
& Recreation |
9,558,291 |
8,781,180 |
777,111 |
|
Housing
Assistance Program |
|
|
|
|
Capital
Outlay |
3,128,792 |
254,655 |