FOREfront--Working for the People of Roseville

VOLUME 4 Issues 4 & 5 4^th Anniversary Editions July & September 2001

ROSEVILLE’S 2001-2002 BUDGET AWASH IN MONEY

The Roseville city council approved this fiscal year’s budget in record time -- three hearings. The budget, given to the council in mid June, was not available to the public until after that date. How can the public review and comment on the budget without having it? The proposed budget was given to each council member and each department. City staff knew full well the public is interested in the budget and should have printed a dozen more copies. The council agreed the public could get a copy for $20 following a public protest.

Only one budget hearing was held after 5 pm, making it difficult for the public to attend. The budget had two changes: $25,000 added for alleyway improvements and $50,000 to Cultural Arts for operating expenses. General Fund budget income was UNDERESTIMATED by about 15 % while the General Fund budget expenses were OVERESTIMATED by about 15 % We believe there will be about a $25 million surplus this fiscal year (July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002).

What we see are a number of cash pots the city places money into so that the public does not know the total money that the city has over its needs. People need to realize that the money is theirs which they pay in sales, property, and utility user’s taxes, in-lieu franchise fee plus all other city revenue. Naturally, at mid year there will be adjustments -- moving money around so you don’t know which shell (pot) has the pea. How do you think the city found $15 million to build the new civic center.

Roseville has many money pots: A 10% economic reserve; Each department budgets for worst case scenarios; Automobile Replacement Fund has $12 million (various city departments owe it $5.36 million); General fund is owed $9.26 million by various departments ($6.6 million by Parks & Recreation); and $286 million in an investment account at 5.86%. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY.

Money is hidden in a number of other ways. City of Roseville Statement of Indebtedness is $16.9 million. Roseville Finance Authority debt is $87 million. The Redevelopment Agency owes The City of Roseville General Fund $2.6 million. The city council CONTROLS all accounts. Matter of fact, the council receives pay for serving on each board.

When a city employee is selected for outside travel or a conference, the item is on the consent agenda. The term usually goes, “it’s in the budget”. There must be two budgets. The one the city council and public get to see and a much larger budget the city manager and department heads have. The question is: Was the expenditure budgeted for in the budget hearings?

You voted in November 2000 making Enterprise Funds self supporting; therefore, monies for funds (electric, water, sewer and solid waste) should not be comingled with other city funds. For example, money for vehicle replacement should be in a fund within each enterprise fund, not the city’s single vehicle replacement fund. The city has a “Charge Card Account” which they use to float Certificates of Participation. You owe a COP debt of $87 million.

FORE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

Seven people inquired of our program. Two met the qualifications and indicated they wanted to be considered. After many phone calls, FORE mailed an application form to both people. No response.

ROSEVILLE IN REVIEW—A TV PROGRAM

Our monthly television program, Roseville in Review has resumed. August’s hour-long program aired on Channel 8 on August 33, 11 and 18 at 5 pm. The program was on the Roseville 2001-02 budget which was passed in June. It featured Sandra Saraceni, Sharon McGraw and Al Saraceni who discussed the budget in depth, but still leaves many questions unanswered. Our September program is tentatively scheduled on traffic in Roseville. We are interested in your comments~ Please call 783-9891.

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS HIGHLIGHTED

Each FOREfront edition will highlight a Roseville non-profit organization. The Sunrise Lions are featured in this edition. The Sunrise Lions is a charitable organization serving the needs of our community through food distribution to schools, scholarships, student speaker contests, Thanksgiving and Christmas food baskets and a children’s Christmas shopping spree. The Lions collect eye glasses and hearing aids for free worldwide distribution, support the canine companion and seeing eye dog programs~ and the California Wilderness Camp for deaf children.

They raise funds during White Cane Day, rental of their building (free to boy/girl scouts), and various events such as Crab/Lobster and Steak feeds. Their funds are used for the many programs they sponsor. The Sunrise Lions annual Lobster-Steak feed is Saturday, October 13, ($25 prepaid, $30 at the door) at their club house, the Lyman Leak Community Center, 1203 Gabrelli Dr (behind Bel Air on Sunrise & Cirby). For information call 786-9414.

DEVELOPERS FIND NEW WAYS TO GET APPROVED

There was a time when a developer came to the city putting his best foot forward to get a project approved. Then out of the blue, developer Angelo Tsakapoulos offered a group 15 acres for a church on Stoneridge. Lo and behold the church group arrived at the city council saying what a wonderful project the developer had. It was approved. Another developer offered 15 acres out of a 1470 acre project for a church. Former mayor Mel Hamel spoke before the city council saying what a wonderful project the developer had. The developer spent about 10% of the time talking about the land and 90% of the time was about the church. The project was approved. Then along came developers Westmark and Signature properties offering another church 10 acres on which to build a church and school west of Fiddyment Road. The church members said what a wonderful development this would be on the remaining 3090 acres even though there was no specific project. It was approved.

Now, Angelo Tsakapoulos the owner of 5000 acres west of Fiddyment Road outside of Roseville said he would donate 500 acres for a college. The education and business community said what a wonderful thing for Roseville. But he could then develop 4500 acres. The price to develop keeps going up, but find a church, school or college that will back development of RAW LAND and the total development is a shoo in. No one can be against churches, schools or colleges, but beware of developers bearing gifts.

hi each case, the thousands of new homes, commercial projects and businesses worsen the traffic, air pollution and limited water and need to be resolved before adding more to our present mix. We already have 35,000 more residents approved, but not yet built. That is how sprawl moves.

CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION --- YOU OWE $87 MILLION

Certificates of Participation (COPs) are the same as bonds, but with some differences. The major difference is that bonds need a vote of the taxpayer, COPs don’t. COPs can be floated or issued through a lease-back arrangement with another agency. That is why the Roseville City Council formed the Roseville Finance Authority. The Roseville City Council is also the Roseville Finance Authority. Convenient? You bet It Is!

The city uses all types of city funds to construct a wanted structure, then it leases the building back to itself. It is a charge card operation. The first building constructed under this scheme was the library on Royer Street. The Corporation Yard followed. It was built by floating new COPs and adding to your indebtness, The charge card was used. Next the police station was financed by COPS.

The city has been getting so much money in the past four years that they were able to finance the new $15 million civic center through the General Fund and some developer fees.

How will the COP debt be paid? Most of the projects that have used COPs do not generate money. The library does not generate income, most of the Corporation Yard does not generate income, and the police station does not generate income. Most of the debt will be financed, by you, tbrough the general fund.

Is that fair to you, the taxpayer? The taxpayer should have had the opportunity to vote on these debts.

A BUILDING SPRAWL IN ROSEVILLE?

Not according to a Brookings Institute study. But there is building sprawl in Roseville. The difference between Roseville and the defined sprawl areas of New York and Pennsylvania is that more homes in Roseville are built per acre to wring the most profit out of the land. There are tens of thousands of acres waiting the developers graders and nailers in West Roseville. Developers need to find the church, park or school they can donate a few measly acres so the church or school can promote their projects. They need to “package their product”. Lets put sprawl into the equation. You could get to anywhere in Roseville a few short years ago. Today you must fight the traffic and it takes a long time to get around in Roseville. Talk to long-time residents and they will tell you sprawl has made it in to Roseville. They are caught in that maelstrom of Sprawl and don’t know how to get out of it.

UTILITY USER’S TAX COURT CASE

The Placer County Superior Court has assigned September 27 for the trial lawsuit. However, The Howard Jarvis Association has filed a motion for summary judgement which the court will consider September 4. The motion contends that a trial is unnecessary since the facts are undisputed, and asks the court to enter judgment for the taxpayers on the legal issue of whether a two-thirds vote was needed to approve the tax. At issue are the results of the November 2000 election. in that election, Measure Q received a 52.14% vote. The city contends that the simple majority puts the collection of the tax in place. However, Measure Q reads “Shall section 7.095 lie added to the City Charter incorporating the Utility User’s Tax as a Charter provision and requiring that all Utility User’s Tax revenue be budgeted and appropriated solely for police, fire, parks and recreation or libraries services?” The designation of the tax for specific purposes makes it a special tax. Under the California Constitution, a special tax requires a two-third vote. If the court upholds the Jarvis Group’s request for summary judgment, there will be no further bearing. However, Roseville most assuredly would appeal such a decision.

IN-LIEU FRANCHISE FEE COURT CASE

As you may know, Roseville was ordered in a final ruling by the Placer County Superior Court to discontinue collection of the fee as of July 1, 2000. The fee is a 4% levy on your water, sewer, and solid-waste bills. The fees are not itemized on those bills. Roseville has taken the court ruling to the Third District Court of Appeals to be reconsidered. Written arguments, by Roseville and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, have been submitted to the court. A hearing date will be set by the court.

ARBOR VIEW -- A NEIGHBORHOOD PROTEST IGNORED AGAIN

Once approved, always approved? In May 1999, the planning commission ignored over 50 letters of protest, a council chamber full of concerned citizens, and the city’s specific plan to approve the Arbor View Shell Station and the Arbor View Corporate Center on the Southeast corner of Foothills and Pleasant Grove Boulevards.

The land is dotted with hundreds of old oak trees, a natural creek and wildlife. The city’s specific plan gave it a specific community commercial- special zoning that did not apply to any other land in Northwest Roseville. Clearly this land needed special protection. The neighbors told the planning commission the projects recommended for the site violated the city’s plan eight times. Regardless, the planning commission approved the project, saying the specific plan was only a “guide line”. There was no explanation of how a specific plan became only a guide line.

The neighbors challenged the decision and appealed it to the city council. Again letters flooded the council and concerned neighbors filled the council chambers. The neighbors clear logic was rebuked.

Two years passed and nothing was built. Days before the two-year deadline was to expire, a one-year extension was requested. A concerned citizen tried to point out that the Army Corps of Engineers wanted more of the creek and habitat protected reluctantly gave approval only because it would be an economic hardship on the developer. Half the Shell Station would have to be abandoned and a large portion of another building could not be built. This proved the project was too large. NOW, the project could be corrected and maybe a better project could be designed. Instead the city council heard and approved the extension the day the citizen was unavailable.

The Shell Station owners requested a building permit and are ready to build. Why does Shell want another gas station with one on Foothills within 2 miles of two other stations? Do we need more monolithic prefab buildings? When will the city council stop thinking of revenue and listen to the people who make up Roseville? Once approved, always approved?

How many other neighborhoods have been ill treated besides: Cresthaven = Big Shots + Riverside/Cirby Intersection; Crowne Point = Traffic into the neighborhood off Kensington; Johnson Ranch (Hillsborough) = Mega Albertson’s store In the neighborhood; Pleasant Grove = Bridges Apartments doubling housing density; Quail Glen = Racketball court in neighborhood; Junction West = Junction Boulevard aligned thru neighborhood; Blue Oaks neighborhood = Crocker Oaks, three story apartments on Painted Desert Way amid single-story residential units; and, Vista Creek = signal light denied. One by one different neighborhoods are denied their rights and desires. How about your neighborhood?

When spider webs unit, they can tie up a lion. – Ethiopian proverb

DONATE VEHICLES TO FORE Friends of Roseville 305 Hemphill, Way, Roseville, a non-profit. non-political tax exempt organization working for the people of Roseville.

FORE MONTHLY MEETINGS ARE HELD THE 3RD MONDAY AT CARNEGIE LIBRARY 7 P.M. The public is welcome to attend. Call 783-9891 or 783-7632.

MAY MEANS POSSIBLY BUT NOT CERTAINLY

City attorney Mark Doane, paid $172,000 a year, says the word “MAY” is the same as “SHALL”!! We should all be concerned how contracts, agreements and other legal documents are written by the city attorney if this is the kind of distinction he makes between two very different words.

Recently, the city council was presented a poorly written ordinance to change how the Municipal Code is enforced. The City attorney and council attempted to quietly adopt this ordinance on the consent agenda without ever having any discussion at city council meetings. Luckily, FORE members noticed the item on the agenda, reviewed the staff report, and pulled the item for discussion and questions. Although questions were raised and unanswered, the council adopted the ordinance at the first reading. At the required second reading, again on the consent agenda (no discussion), there were more unanswered questions. The city attorney agreed to meet with the Saracenis to go over their concerns.

Some very disturbing sections of the new ordinance would allow the city to go on private property, without a court order, to abate what they determined to be a nuisance. They also removed the requirement to notify property owners/renters and changed the wording from “SHALL” notify to “MAY” notify. The city would become the citation writer, judge, jury, and collector of fines with no appeal of their decision possible to higher authority other than to review if the city followed their own rules.

Why would the city attorney change the Municipal Code to make filing a claim against the city more specific because “it is too general in the charter” and on the same agenda make the new Administrative Enforcement Code so general the city can interpret it any way they want? Whose interests are being protected here?

It is a poor policy for the council to have the city attorney prepare laws to govern the public when the laws are written, weighted and stacked in favor of the city attorney’s office regarding how they will be enforced. There has been no oversight to ensure the law and process is fair to the public. There is a conflict of interest. This Enforcement Code needs to be far more specific, such as Folsom’s Code, rather than so general that far too much us left open to interpretation by the city. Why didn’t they take time on this ordinance as they did with the sign, tree, and campaign finance reform ordinances.

RESPONSES TO FORE’s NEWSLETTERS. Responses to the newsletter are not all laudatory. Some people don’t want to be bothered or say you can’t do anything any way. The majority say right on, or keep up the good work, or you keep the city honest, or other encouraging remarks.

We want to share with you the following which shows only one of the many deep concerns most people have. It is a handwritten letter which will be paraphrased. It goes, To: FORE I Just wanted to let you know what a great job your organization is doing for Roseville residents! It used to be a wonderful little town until our city leaders ruined it. They are the most greedy bunch who are not satiated with controlled growth. They only have dollar signs in their eyes.

NEWSLETTER DISTRIBUTION LIST

If you receive a newsletter addressed to you personally, you are one of many people FORE believes is concerned about Roseville. The cost or the newsletter is borne by the members of FORE. We would like you to continue to receive the newsletter because we feel the issues FORE writes about are the issues you want to know about and what is being done about them.

It would be great if you became a FORE member (people are joining every day), but should you just want the newsletter, we ask that you make a nominal donation in whatever amount you wish. Please send your donation to: FORE, 1334 Ridgerun Drive, Rosevile, CA 95747.

COPYRIGHT 2001, FORE, Roseville, CA

WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE OF ROSEVILLE

HOME | FOREfront | CONTACTS

FORE, 305 Hemphill Way, Roseville, CA 95678

916-783-9891 or 916-783-7632 FAX 916-783-9349

info@friendsofroseville.org

Friends of Roseville is a non-profit, non-political, tax exempt 501 (c ) 3 organization.