FOREfront Working for
the People of
Volume 04 Issue
ANNEXATION equals GROWTH
How big should Roseville be? Six land
speculators gobbled up 10,700 acres west of Fiddyment
Road -a small area of West Placer County, but enough for 29,000 new homes,
65,000 new people. That is nearly Roseville's present population. When that
area is developed, the rest will follow. There will be nothing but roof tops
from Fiddyment Road north of Baseline Road to the
Sutter County line.
A few years ago Placer County
supervisors proposed two small towns in west Placer County with a five mile
green-belt buffer zone between them and Roseville. The city staff convinced the
city council that the towns would give Roseville many problems but no benefits.
Roseville residents believed the hype -now many people feel they were misled.
Now no green belt, but more people, more traffic, less water, water meters,
high natural gas costs and probable higher phone bills. All
with possible new electricity charges and/or shortages. Does Barnum & Bailey's words of "a sucker is born
every minute" apply in Roseville?
VERNON STREET LIGHTING & LANDSCAPE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Who pays the assessment costs? You do!
How so? Assessment is based on linear feet of property owned. Roseville owns 1060 linear feet of property, including theaters,
the civic center, and other property. Its assessment
-- $4,409 a year. You, the taxpayer, pay the city's cost. Downtown
business property owners also pay assessment fees. If they live in Roseville
they also pay a share of the city's cost. Is it FAIR?
Now another assessment district is
being proposed to "market central Roseville". It is called The
Property Business Improvement District (PBLD). Vernon Street property owners
already pay a landscape and lighting tax. This new scheme covers the
redevelopment areas of Vernon, Riverside, Old Town and Atlantic Street,
including residential units. The hype is that residential units will be
EXCLUDED from paying. A catch! According to State law, if residential parcels
are zoned residential/commercial they pay. The entire Oak Street area is zoned
residential/commercial. People living on Oak, Judah, Royer, Pratt, Taylor, and Bulen will pay. Who benefits from this new district --
merchants or the city?
WATER METER RETROFIT PROGRAM
On January 17, we asked the city
council to fund the retrofit program with the INTEREST from the Citizen's
Benefit Trust Fund (Hospital Fund). The annual cost of the program is a little
over $900,000 a year for ten years. We did not prevail and the council voted to
charge the full program cost to those residents (nearly one half of Roseville)
requiring retrofit.
FORE wants the council to reconsider.
We have re-examined our proposal and suggest that residents pay the "new
construction costs", or about half of the total cost. This would be near
the cost newer residents (new since 1992) have already
paid, and near the cost that future residents will pay. Doesn't this seem a
fair and reasonable solution to the water-meter issue, an issue no one asked
for? The remaining cost, about $500,000 a year, would be funded by the
Citizen's Benefit Trust Fund, or from other sources.
The trust fund nets over $850,000 in
interest a year with 10% (about $85,000) applied to the principal. After using
$500,000, there would be $265,000 for a grant program. It's a win-win situation
for the residents and the city. If the city receives a federal grant, the trust
fund would not be needed.
CITY PRIVATE HEALTH CLUB COMPETITOR
Roseville advertised the virtues of the
Sports Center in its utility bills. Advertisements also appeared in local news
media, on Channel 11, and city publications. In their ads they offer discounted
fees for a whole range of health club activities. What happened to the city's
memorandum of understanding with the five private health clubs not to compete
with them. Is this yet
another reason people distrust the city?
SALES TAX WINDFALL
Your PG&E gas bill most probably is
triple what you paid last year. Your Utility User's Tax then is then is three
times larger than last gear. Everyone is taking a hit, but people on fixed
incomes, especially seniors suffer the most. They turn thermostats down, but
have huge gas bills with higher taxes. Who wins? The city coffers win - more
taxes - a windfall. Should the city put the Utility User's Tax in an escrow
account pending the outcome of The Howard Jarvis Group law suit in the Placer County
Superior Court?
CITY PROPERTY TAXES SKYROCKETING
Big box buildings, office complexes,
restaurants, industrial and retail buildings, and residential units have been
going up at a phenomenal rate. Roseville's FY 2000-01 assessed property value
was $7.43 billion giving the city $10 million in property taxes. The Galleria
and other construction completed since June 2001 is not included. FY 1995-96
property value was $4.69 billion giving Roseville $6.3 million. A jump!
SALES TAXES SOARING
Roseville retail sales hit $1.6 billion
last calendar year, not including sales at the Galleria and many other
retailers opened since August. Their estimated sales were $300 million.
Roseville's sales tax share at 1.25% of sales is $23 million. Five years ago
the sales tax income was under $8 million. Some difference!
ROSEVILLE ROLLS IN MONEY
Two years ago city staff recommended a
$7 million general fund diversion (gift) to the civic center project. Instead the
council LOANED the project $7 million because FORE objected to building the
center without voter approval. FORE told the council it was a ploy since they
would forgive the loan. The city manager said the loan would be paid back from
developer fees. IT WAS FORGIVEN in February. So much for the
city manager's word. Where did $7 million come from if the city says
they need the 5% Utility User's Tax and 4% In-Lieu Franchise Fee for police,
fire, parks and recreation, libraries and general operations. The general fund
carried $25.8 million into FY 2000-01 (July 2000) with an outright surplus of
$8.3 million. Yet millions were shuffled around or siphoned off, like the loan,
so that the city would not show surpluses of $10 million in FY 1999-20 and $15
million in FY 2000-01 FORE predicted. From data available, it looks like the
surpluses would have been even larger. NOW, who is kidding whom?
"The history of liberty is a history of
limitations of govenmental powers, not the increase
of it. " Woodrow Wilson
ARE YOUR CITY OFFFICALS WORTH MORE THAN
YOU?
Are you happy with your paycheck or do
you think you are worth more? Well, our city council thought the top Roseville
City Management group were worth more, giving them
whopping pay increases last year. The council said pay increases were needed to
retain top managers and to make those positions competitive to attract
qualified replacement managers. How do their salaries compare with neighboring
cities and your paycheck?
Highest Paid City Positions (in
thousands of dollars)
City City Comm Develop Admin
Services Police Fire
Manager Attorney Director Director Chief
Chief
Auburn 84.1
na 68.9 na 76.1
68.9
Citrus
117.4 na
97.2 102.1 na na
Heights
Davis
109.4 na
79.2 na 94.0 86.4
Folsom 162.0 135.5 na na 109.2
103.7
Placer
Ville 95.0*
* 68.8 76.3 80.3 na
Rose
153.8
143.6 135.6 135.6 28.3
123.2
Ville
Sacra 151.7 139.1 na
112.5 129.3 na
mento
West
125.6
na 87.2 na 86.8 84.2
Sacramento
* Placerville City Manager and City
Attorney positions are combined.
Source: Sacramento Business Journal.
January 19, 2001.
The table shows Roseville's top
managers get the highest salaries in the area. Most positions pay 20 to 40%
more than the second highest salaries! Those salaries exceed many of then the
top state officials' salaries. For example, Lt Governor, $131,250; State
Attorney General, $148,750; and, Secretary of State $131,250. Roseville's
salaries are not competitive, but exploit Roseville taxpayers. We keep hearing
that the employees can make much more in the "private sector." Do you
believe this to be true? Does Roseville an independent body to set top
managers' salaries?
UTILITY USER'S TAX COURT DATE PENDING
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
filed suit against the City of Roseville, December 4, 2000, in the Placer
County Superior Court to set aside the city's Measure Q that received a
majority vote at the November 7, 2000 election. The city was given until April
4th to provide information to the court in response to the Jarvis Group's suit.
Measure Q would amend the city charter
incorporating the Utility User's Tax as a charter provision and providing that
all Utility User's Tax revenue be budgeted for police,
fire, parks and recreation or library services. That would establish a special
tax as defined in the California Constitution, Article XIIIC, section l(d), which states: "Special tax means any tax imposed
for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes which is
placed in the general fund." The California Constitution, article XIIIC,
section 2(d) prohibits the imposition of a special tax "unless and until
that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds
vote." Measure Q received less than a two-thirds vote.
FORE ANNUAL MEETING -- GREAT
The 150 people at the March 10 annual
meeting were treated to outstanding food by Al Saraceni
and crew, marvelous entertainment by Sam Stamas and
his son lifting tables by their teeth and Greek dances by his family, and
songstress Lucia Whitney's wonderful singing. Nearly everyone won a door prize.
The meeting was also productive. FORE
members elected Al Saraceni, Stephanie Sten, and Jack Wallace to the Board of Directors, and Phil Ozenick, Chairman; Aiyssa Mulcahy, Vice Chairman; Frank Weinstein, Secretary; and,
Charlene Davis, Treasurer.
COPYRIGHT 2001, FORE,
WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE OF ROSEVILLE
FORE,
916-783-9891 or 916-783-7632 FAX 916-783-9349
Friends of