FOREfront--Working for the People of
Volume 3, Issue
3, May 2000
The recent
newspaper articles about
Does Mayor Harry
Crabb, in his Press-Tribune March 5 article, “
The Sacramento
Bee, in its “Placer Partner” editorial, is nearer to the meaning of a
government having a partner.
Mr. George
Brown, of Thompson and Brown Realty, first mentioned the nexus between
Mr. Brown goes
on further to note that there really is no partnership between the city and
developers. He states that, “In fact the
opposite is the more likely course of events.
We must all remember that when a development is completed and the city
has finished its inspections, that developer is off the hook while the city is
responsible for all infrastructure and public improvements forever.”
Mr. Brown points
out a situation with which we are all aware of, the flooding problems in the
Linda-Cirby Creeks area. The developer was long off the hook as the
city wrestled for years trying to make it right. Another example, he cited, was that it
appears that the city took a partisan stance against a homeowner’s request for
public data even though the city was not named in a suit the homeowner had
filed.
Ms. Judy Doyle
addresses that issue in a March 8 Press-Tribune article, “City should better
screen its ‘partners.’” She states,
“George Brown’s criticism of the city and its ‘partner’ concerning the home in
the Woodcreek development is accurate. You are wrong Mr. Crabb
about the homeowner losing the suit. The
builder was found negligent.” Ms. Doyle
goes on to state that the city’s partner is being investigated in Antelope by
the State of California and by the federal government in Rocklin for building
on top of hazardous waste.
Mr. Sal Espana’s April 5 letter in The Press-Tribune takes the city
to task for allegedly having a “sweetheart relationship” with a developer. He contends that he was assisting a friend of
his to correct problems encountered in the spring of 1996 with a then new home
concerning among other things, water intrusion.
According to Mr. Espana, his efforts were
thwarted at every turn. He states that,
I elected to take the matter to the city council. I spoke to Mayor Crabb
as a courtesy to inform him of my intentions.
I was met in the chamber’s lobby by the developer, his attorney and some
staff members. The attorney presented me
a letter threatening me and the party I was representing with legal action if I
brought the matter of the subject before the City Council.”
Mr. Espana can only surmise that Mayor Crabb
informed the developer of his intention to speak to the council about the
problems since the mayor was the only person with whom Mr. Espana
had spoken. According to Mr. Espana, any further requests by him to the city had to be
made in writing to the city attorney with a 10 day lead time. Mr. Espana poses
some interesting questions regarding a city-developer partnership: “What if a
homeowner were to bring a complaint to the city regarding a house built by a
certain developer or partner? Would the
city council and management view this as an affront to the city-developer
relationship? What would the response of
the citizen be? Take a position against
the partner or circle the wagons and defend the partner?”
Mr. Brown may
have answered those questions in his article.
His point is that …”viewing the city/developer
relationship as a ‘partnership’ is a very dangerous philosophy. Clearly development interests will never
share profits with the city so no ‘partnership’ exists… It can also put those people – whose job it
is to make certain that the development agreements are followed to the letter
and that city codes and state law are strictly enforced – in a very precarious
position.”
FORE echoes Mr.
Brown’s final remarks in his article that, “The citizens of
“
UTILITY USER’S
TAX INITIATIVE OVER THE TOP—THANKS
March 24th
to May 2nd was a very short time for you 100 + volunteers to get
7,285
CITY’S
The city council
and the city manager have continued to confuse, mislead and give lots of false
information to scare the public into believing the city will be forced to cut
important services if the 4% IN-LIEU FRANCHISE FEE and 5% UTILITY USER’S TAX
are eliminated. These are two separate
issues. Currently in dispute is about $9
million -- $2 million from the fee and $7 million from the tax – not the $12
million the city claims.
The city council
and manager refuse to acknowledge or accept that many
The city council
is placing an amendment on the November ballot to continue this fee. The proposed language is not clear as to what
the addition to the charter will mean to you.
It does not tell the voter that this is a 4% fee presently charged for
us for the use of our publicly owned property by our publicly owned
utilities. In fact, there is no
reference to any PERCENTAGE. The city
could charge whatever they want if voters approve that amendment. You then can only open your wallet. You have no further voice or choice – short
of calling the city council.
It is only right
for the city to charge private companies a franchise fee to use our publicly
owned rights-of-way. What is interesting
is that the city does not charge the fee to the Roseville Telephone Company (a
private company), benefiting their investors contrary to Al Johnson’s May 7
Press-Tribune letter stating the Roseville Telephone Company pays a franchise
fee. More false
information.
The initiative,
signed by over 7,000 people to place the UTILITY USER’S TAX on the ballot, is
also being attacked by the city council, city manager, and a “citizens”
political action group.
Even though the
“citizens” group, comprised of the same big special interests that got the city
council members elected, spent thousands of dollars on half-page ads, fliers in
newspapers, and mail outs in hopes of scaring the public not to sign the
petitions, it was obvious people didn’t buy into their lies. It is interested to note that council member
Earl Rush is treasurer of his group. He
collected nearly $100,000 to get elected.
NEC and Hewlett
Packard said they were “committed to paying their fair share” when it came to
the franchise fee and utility tax. They
absolutely should because respectively, they got a 17% and a 9% reduction on
their electric bills. You certainly
would not mind paying those fees and taxes if you got that hefty reduction in
your electric bill. It amounts to about
$2 million a year for them. It’s “good
politics” to stay on the city’s good side.
And why not?
They received their 17% and 9% discounts on their electric bills while
yours went up 7% in 1998.
There is a
message for the city council when over 7,000 signatures on the tax initiative
can be collected in less than 40 days.
Unfortunately, they are deaf to the voices of the public.
City manager, Al
Johnson claims that the fees and taxes are necessary to provide important
community services such as police, fire, library, parks and recreation, public
works, and planning. If this is true,
how then was the city able to pay cash to build the corporation yard, the
police station, the civic center plus all the recreational facilities in
Developers, for
the right to develop, provide parks and dedicate them to the city. Mr. Johnson has stated publicly that
districts were formed to continue maintenance of the parks so that development
pays for itself. Fees are charged for
the use of recreational facilities and other services. However, facilities constructed with taxpayer
dollars that in direct competition with private business is not a wise use of
our money. Especially,
when facilities are then subsidized with tax dollars because the fees will not
support them. Case in point, the
The city had
$17.5 million left over from the 1998-99 budget AFTER
PROVIDING ALL THE IMPORTANT COMMUNITY SERVICES MR. JOHNSON SPEAKS ABOUT. He has said that the city needs the $400
million in the fees and taxes would provide over the next 20 years. We see that all the new public facilities
have been built or are already funded.
The public does not need to provide all this excess money to the city with
no strings attached forever or even for the next 20 years. The new Galleria Mall will open this August
and the city will have even more money to provide services. It is not true, as Mayor Pro Tem Claudia Gamar stated in her letter in The Press-Tribune,
that the mall will cost more to provide services to it than the city
will receive in sales tax revenue. If
that were true, why did our surrounding cities try to get that “PLUM” for their
city? Again, more
misleading information.
It is very clear
that the city council, staff and special interest supporters will not give up
the goose that lays the golden egg. The
goose may have to say, “I will not lay any more golden eggs.”
“We thought
because we had power, we thought we had wisdom.” Stephen Vincent Benet
DON’T UNDERSTAND
YOUR ELECTRIC BILL?
You are not
alone. We have received many calls from
people who want their electric bill to say plainly and simply what they are
being charged for. Most of the concerns
were about the “cost of basic service,” and they want to compare the current
period of electric use with the prior year’s use since they could not
understand the bar graph. They also want
to know what the actual charges are by showing the in-lieu franchise fee and
street lighting charges as separate items.
At FORE’s request, Roseville Electric will include a glossary
of terms in our bills to help us understand the various charges, especially the
”cost of service” charge.
But, if you want
to know how much electricity you are being billed for and to compare it with
the same billing period for the prior year, and to break out the in-lieu
franchise fee and street lighting charges, Roseville Electric wants you to send
them a letter to have your bill show that information.
We have included
a letter you can send to the electric department. You need only to put your name, address,
signature and date on it and mail it to Roseville Electric. NOTE:
This letter is omitted herein.
“When the
people fear government, you have tyranny.
When the government fears the people, you have liberty.” Author Unknown
AUTOMATED TRAIN HORNS MAY BE IN OUR FUTURE
This February, State Senator Tim Leslie introduced legislature (SB
1491), which if passed, will allow the use of a permanent audible warning
device at our railroad crossings.
Instead of the engineer sounding a locomotive horn as a train approaches
a crossing, this new “automated horn,” located at the road crossing, will sound
a warning to motorists and pedestrians that a train is approaching. This new device is presently being used
safely and effectively in other states.
For residents concerned and bothered by the present loud and often
unlimited sounded train horns, the automated horn has proved to be blown a
limited number of times with a lower sounding signal. Senator Leslie’s bill passed its first Senate
committee this April.
City staff is also working with the Federal Railroad Administration
to identify which additional safety measures would be suitable for use in
Residents have also expressed concern about pollution caused by the
rail yard. The Placer County Air
Pollution Control District is working with other public agencies and the
railroad to determine the extent of the problem and what measures can be taken
to mitigate air quality impacts.
Currently the city is considering revising noise regulation
provisions of the
ELECTIONS BY DISTRICTS INITIATIVE
We have learned that since the elections by districts initiative
would amend the city charter, it requires that 15 percent (6406) of the
registered
At the beginning of FY 2000-01, (July 2000), as we see it,
Roseville will again present to the public a budget for police, firefighters,
libraries, parks and recreation, public works, and general city operations that
will OVERESTIMATE expenditures for those functions. Likewise, the city will UNDERESTIMATE general
fund revenue (income) to cover those functions.
In that way, Roseville can claim that they will not have enough
money in the general fund for police, fire, parks and recreation, libraries,
public works and general operations of the $7 million Utility User’s Tax income
is repealed.
What the city will not tell us is that there are other sources of
revenue (income) that could be used to pay for those services. Those sources can be found in the
budget(s). The city well knows those
sources and about how much will be available.
Also as we see it, the city always knows just about how much money
would be left over at the end of each year when a budget is presented. That is evident because at mid year they
transfer $3 to $6 million into some building fund and, at year’s end, they
normally have a carry over.
Those are excess funds. In
FY 1997-98 it was $11.8 million, of which $3 million was put into a building
fund. In FY 1998-99 it was $17.5 million
of which $6.6 million in loans were made to a building fund and the
Copyright 2000 FORE,
WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE OF
FORE,
916-783-9891 or 916-783-7632 FAX 916-783-9349
Friends of