FOREfront--Working for the People of
Volume 02, Issue
3, May 1999
YOU PAID HOW
MUCH FOR YOUR JOB?
If you spent $50
to $150 to have some one find you a job, that is not
unreasonable if you earn a living. But, would you spend $80,000 to over
$100,000 for a $150 a month job? That is what each of the three winning
Roseville city council members (November 98 election) spent trying to get a
$150 a month job.
Do you think
city council members have a conflict of interest when they pass judgment on
projects their bigger contributors put before the council? YOU DECIDE!
|
Candidate |
Contributor |
Amount |
|
GAMAR |
Diamond Creek Partner |
$5,075 |
|
|
John Mourier Construction |
5,099 |
|
|
Richland Properties |
5,099 |
|
|
Signature Properties |
1,039 |
|
|
Del Webb Corporation |
3,000 |
|
|
Coker-Ewing Co, LP |
1,998 |
|
|
Oakville Reserve, LTD |
5,000 |
|
Final total contributions |
|
$63,003.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
RUSH |
1600 Placer Investors, LP |
6,450 |
|
|
Elliott Homes, Inc |
5,000 |
|
|
John Mourier Constr |
4,900 |
|
|
Richland Properties |
5,099 |
|
|
Del Webb Corporation |
5,095 |
|
|
J. R. Conkey Assoc |
1,500 |
|
|
Oakville Reserve, LTD |
5,000 |
|
Final total contributions |
|
93,068.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
GOODHALL |
John Mourier Constr |
7,903 |
|
|
Oakville Reserve LTD |
5,000 |
|
|
Elliott Homes, Inc |
5,095 |
|
|
Diamond Creek Partner |
5,000 |
|
|
Richland Enterprises |
5,099 |
|
|
Sares-Regis of N. CA |
5,000 |
|
Final total contributions |
|
103,046.00 |
The City of
Roseville has a "VOLUNTARY CODE OF CAMPAIGN CONDUCT" form. The city publishes
the Code in the sample ballot, then it says it is up
to the electorate and press to hold candidates accountable for compliance with
the Code. Let’s look at paragraph 5 of the code:
"Attempt
to raise funds from the broadest possible base, not relying on large
contributors. I will also keep my expenditures reasonable, not relying on
expensive media campaigns."
Just how do we,
the electorate, hold candidates accountable for this item they voluntarily
signed and agreed to? The financial numbers were not final by election day and only one of the winning candidates had
reported as much as $60,000 raised and spent. It’s obvious the electorate can
not hold candidates accountable because they don’t have timely information
(most absentee ballots are long in). FORE’s answer: DISTRICT
ELECTIONS!
A quote for the 1990’s. "If you don’t like how Roseville is
going, find another community."" (Harry Crabb
Jr)
UTILITY
RATES/ISSUES (Good News and Bad News)
The city council
will soon consider, and probably approve a 7% increase in our garbage bill
effective this fall. (Mid-summer for businesses.)
Residential bills will increase $1.25 monthly. WHY, you ask? Last year, tipping
fees (fees for disposal) our municipal company pays increased $4 per ton and
was absorbed by dipping into "reserves." Tipping fees are going up
$1.50 in two years. The rate increase appears justified to cover increased
costs and replenish the reserves.
One way we can
help hold down dumping fees is to recycle newspapers. While we the residents own
the garbage service, we must pay higher "tipping fees" when
newspapers go from your home to the dump. For every 100 lbs of newspapers you
drop off at Roseville recycling bins, $4.50 is saved in operating costs which
ultimately affects garbage rates. All the bins in Roseville, including schools,
belong to our public garbage department. That means as more newspapers are
recycled in the Roseville bins, the lower the garbage rates. CALL 774-5780 to
locate a bin near you. FORE encourages you to take a few minutes to recycle—it
is in your best interests.
Roseville’s
electric rates will not go up this year. That’s good news! FORE expected a
fight over a 7 to 14 % residential rate increase this year that would have
funded lower business rates (as was the case in 1977,) We
call that "cost shifting." The concept is not dead and may surface in
another form. We’ll keep you posted.
Electric Issues and Information. Beginning in the year
2000, the city council has directed that electric customers be offered
"direct access" (having a choice of an electric supplier.) This offer
of "choice" will be phased in in less than
5 years. Details should be available in 4 to 6 months. So what does
"choice" of energy supplier do for a resident’s "bottom
line?" Probably very little for two reasons.
First, energy cost is only one-third of the electric bill and second, energy
suppliers are not likely to woo smaller customers in the near future. FORE’s advise
– should you be offered a "good deal," check with Roseville Electric
at 774-5600 before signing any contract.
"Unbundling" your electric bill. To implement
"direct access" by the year 2000 the major charges in you bill will
be separated later this year. The probable breakout charges are:
Customer charge, a fixed monthly $4.00 for residents to fund
metering and billing.
Distribution
charge, funds the cost of our local distribution of electricity, street lights
and traffic signal costs, and the 4% In Lieu Franchise Fee.
Energy charge, pays for the electricity and its transmission from the
generating source to
Competitive
Transition Charge, to pay Roseville Electric’s 100 million debt obligations.
Public Benefit Program, mandated by State law and is 2.85% of your bill
before the 5% Utility User’s Tax is added on.
May 25,
1999, Roseville Public Utility Commission meeting – FORE requested the
commission remove the 4% In Lieu Franchise Fee from the Distribution Charge,
and give this fee a separate line. This fee is a transfer to the general fund
and has nothing to do with "distribution." Also, FORE believes
taxpayers should be able to see the dollar amount they are paying the City in
fees and taxes. No success. We will try again when the issue comes before the
city council in June.
Do you have
questions/comments on Utility Issues? Call/FAX Fred at 782-9349
DOWNTOWN
TUESDAY NIGHT
FORE applauds
FORE will have a
booth across the street from the post office. Your smiling face would look good
behind the counter, so come and help. We plan a members recognition night and
drawing the last Tuesday, August 10th. The food will be free to
members from
The city council
will begin hearings on the fiscal year [July 99 – June 00] budget in June. As
in past budgets, only the city manager’s figure for departments will be
printed. You will not see department heads’ figures before the hearings, during
the hearings or after the budget is printed.
It is a sure
thing that police, fire, parks and recreation, library and general
administration budgets will be BLOATED to the tune of over $12 million. Fiscal
year 1998-99 BLOAT was $11.27 million. The electric, water, sewer and trash
departments are self supporting and are not funded by the general fund.
Council members
tout that department heads are frugal when they come in under budget. Actually,
it is the city manager’s way of "spreading around the money" so that
you do not see the huge surplus –
To get even more
money into the Roseville Slush Fund, city management evidently hit upon the
idea of having departments apply for the hospital Grants Advisory Commission
for special projects even though the departments had more than enough money in
their budgets. The Park and Recreation Department is one example. They received
over $600,000 in grant money while returning $1.2 million back to the general
fund (FY 98-99). The city can only appropriate up to $15,000 without a
recommendation of the Grants Advisory Commission. (Roseville
City Ordinance 2788 Section I (part), 1994). You can call it what you
may, but it is laundering the hospital fund money to build buildings you did
not vote on.
When the
Galleria Mall and all the added commercial/retail developments are completed,
REMEMBER –
FORE’s Transportation Committee. . . is pleased to report two wonderful
"FAST TRAIN" possibilities. One is a high-speed conventional train or
a section option – a maglev train. The California High-Speed Rail Authority is
looking at both possibilities for a
A CRASH
PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT
Look around and
what do you see wherever you go? Literally hundreds of pieces
of heavy equipment tearing up the land, knocking down hundreds of oak trees,
irreversibly changing the landscape and more trucks and cars.
There is hardly
a piece of land in
The Arbor View
project on the Southeast corner of Foothills and Pleasant Grove sadly
exemplifies the "Feeding Frenzy." The Northwest Specific Plan states
… (Parcel 18), is generally smaller than conventional commercial sites,
irregular in shape, and are more heavily wooded.
Consequently, the intent is to provide a cluster of small buildings that fit
the landscape and provide a village setting." The plan also states
…"2. Buildings shall generally be limited to not more than 6,000 square
feet."
The Planning
Commission, on May 13th, approved two buildings totaling 81,680
square feet of office space, another "full service" gas station,
along with the removal of 23 trees and the encroachment into the protected
zones of several others. At the same meeting the commission approved the
removal of 674 trees in other projects. The cumulative effect is devastating,
as meeting after meeting the oaks are being downed.
Where will the
developers be when most of the land has been paved and our once treasured oak
trees are gone? It’s a sure bet they won’t live in
LAWSUIT
AGAINST CITY’S FEES – A STATUS REPORT
A Complaint
(lawsuit) against the City or
The Jarvis Group
challenges the collection of and transfer into the general fund, "excess
water-sewer-refuse charges from
If the document
being reviewed and analyzed show there is little disagreement as to the facts
and that the City and Jarvis simply disagree over the legal requirements of
Proposition 218, then Jarvis will probably seek an early resolution of the case
by filing a motion for summary judgement.
ANNEXATIONS
TO
At a city
council meeting, city manager Al Johnson stated he would rather provide
services to properties annexed to the city rather than provide services to
properties outside the city limits. This was in response to requests from two
developers seeking annexation. He also stated
We have heard in
the past, that residential property taxes do not cover
services required by those homes. Why keep adding more residential units to
increase traffic with the necessity to provide expensive services and more and
larger governmental facilities?
Who benefits
from annexing more land to
NOTE: PHOTO NOT
AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME.
An identical
picture appeared in the "Sacramento News & Review," March 1999
edition in an article titled, "Lemon Homes?" with the caption,
"After Roseville homeowner Theresa McInnes
complained to the city of Roseville about her home built by John Mourier Construction (JMC), Mourier
placed this sign on a city government parking lot offering special deals to
city employees."
We leave it up
to the reader to decide on the merits of the advertisement on city property,
targeting
CHARTER
REVIEW COMMITTEE
The reasons are
many. Some of the reasons are: The City is too large for the candidates to
personally visit each home; it takes more than one visit to find people at
home; literature mailed to voters is expensive (printing and postage); about
1,000 campaign signs are used – another big cost; and special interest money
may influence council members decisions.
There are about
28,000 residential units in
The mayor could
be elected at large, or the council members could appoint one of their members
as mayor, or the mayorship could rotate by districts
yearly in the manner the Placer County Board of Supervisors selects the board
chairman each year.
Copyright 1999 FORE,
WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE OF
FORE,
916-783-9891 or 916-783-7632 FAX 916-783-9349
Friends of