FOREfront--Working for the People of Roseville

Volume 02, Issue 6, November 1999

REPORT TO FRANCHISE TAX BOARD

Since this FOREfront is the last issue of 1999, we want to let you know more about FORE.

The California Franchise Tax Board asked FORE to make a detailed report of FORE’s operations. One part of the report was a requested narrative of FORE’s activities since being chartered January 1998. That narrative, as given to the Franchise Tax Board, follows:

"Friends of Roseville (FORE), is a vibrant and growing organization, primary mission is to provide education on issues of taxation, public welfare and related areas which will benefit the public. FORE has written letters and made numerous appearances before the Roseville city council and its city commissions offering suggestions and recommendations on city governance in taxation (5% utility users tax and 4% In Lieu Franchise Fee) on all utilities, utility rates, budgets, grants, zoning, land development, roadways and road intersections, land use, creek maintenance, moving Placer Fairgrounds out of Roseville, conduct of meetings, agenda requirements, the Ralph M. Brown Act, Public Records Act and the misuse of city funds and power. FORE was instrumental in persuading the city from raising residential electric rates 21%. The city raised them only 7% and FORE will oppose, on facts, any further raises. FORE, with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and League of Placer County Taxpayers, has sued the City of Roseville seeking to repeal the 4% In Lieu Franchise Fee charged on water, sewer and trash bills which is illegal under Proposition 218. The case is pending in Superior Court. Roseville, in the sale of its hospital, has established a grants program using interest generated from that sale, as grants to qualifying non-profit organizations. City departments have applied for and received money from the grant program when the city’s general fund should have funded those programs. Through FORE’s efforts, city departments will no longer be funded by those grants. The city had over $12.4 million more in its general fund than needed to operate the city departments. FORE held two forums on Roseville’s TV channel 8 to further educate the public on issues. One was with seven candidates for the 1998 city council election. The other was held August 31, 1999 on the Placer County Maidu Indian tribe proposed casino. FORE publishes a bimonthly newsletter to keep the public informed and as part of education the public on issues."

NOTE: FORE is sorely disappointed that the city council, on November 3rd, approved the Citizens Benefit Trust Fund (old Hospital Trust Fund) grant guidelines to include allowing city agencies’ projects funded by the Trust Fund means more general fund money is available for city buildings. Fiscal year 1998-99 had $12.4 million more than needed by all city agencies. Where did that money go? Most of it went into the civic center project – a project that you did not get to vote on how to use your tax dollars.

 

"ROSEVILLE MAYOR’S MISSTEP" The Press Tribune, October 10, 1999 Editorial

"Roseville Mayor Harry Crabb, Jr. would do well to consider a refresher course in honesty." The Press-Tribune has it correct in that editorial. However, more needs to be said about the missteps the Press-Tribune cited on the questionable actions by Mayor Crabb and city council members in the conduct of city business.

As reported in our March 1999 FOREfront, Crabb prevented the public from commenting on the budget on February 14, 1999, saying only goals and objectives would be discussed at the meeting. The "published and posted agenda" did not restrict discussion to budget goals and objectives. The agenda was specific, "BUDGET WORKSHOP 1. 1999-2000 BUDGET." During that meeting Crabb also stated, "When you are elected mayor, you can run the meeting the way you want, until then I’ll run it the way I want." The troubling part is that none of the council members spoke up to the fact that the meeting was about the "BUDGET" and the arrogance of the mayor’s statement about running the meeting.

At the March 3rd city council meeting, when the public protested how the budget workshop was conducted, council member Randy Graham stated: "I’d like to correct a false impression left by Mr. Ozenick when he’s speaking for the Friends of Roseville. The perception that was falsely painted I believe, was when we were meeting at the Corporation Yard on the budget for 1999-2000. We were (weren’t)(sic) discussing facts and figures and department budgets, actual budget estimates, etc., and actually what we were discussing were goals and objectives during that time. We were not discussing the specific department budget figures. We will be discussing budget figures in subsequent workshops, and I’d invite the public to come down, whether it’s held here or at the Corporation Yard, and see what those figures are, and see if the departments actually know what they’re doing. I happen to think they do. But the point is, there was a false perception. We were not discussing budget figures, we were specifically discussing goals and objectives."

No council or staff member attempted to correct Graham. How could that be when even The Press-Tribune Editorial reported the true facts – that the Budget Workshop was about the BUDGET, not limited to goals and objectives.

The city’s credibility suffers when the public expects the conduct of its business according to the posted agenda, not at the whim of the mayor or the council. The Press-Tribune’s observation that the city’s credibility and reputation are at stake can not be taken lightly. When public officials lie, whether they are little white lies, big black lies or bending the truth, the city’s credibility goes down another notch.

No wonder the public distrusts all levels of government.

SUIT AGAINST CITY STILL IN THE WORKS

The lawsuit brought against the city by the Jarvis Taxpayers Association to repeal the 4% In Lieu Franchise Fee on your water, sewer and trash bills is still in the works even though the court date was advanced to March 14, 2000. The reason the court date was advanced was that the city failed to provide information requested as part of the discovery stage. As of now, the Jarvis Group will take the deposition of certain city officials in December. Those city officials are to answer questions posed to them on all aspects of the In Lieu Fee on water, sewer and trash service. That fee is illegal under Proposition 218, since the fee exceeds the cost of providing those services. Our concern is that the city is collecting those fees from us while the court case is being litigated.

 

SARACENIs WIN JUDGEMENT AGAINST ROSEVILLE

The Press-Tribune November 7, 1999, Editorial, "Query to city: at what price spite?" gives a detailed scathing denunciation of the city on taking of the Saraceni property. The editorial ends with, "In the final analysis, if city officials were honest with themselves when asked the question ‘Why did you do it?’ perhaps the answer would be, ‘Because we could.’"

After 5 days in Superior Court, Roseville failed to force the Saracenis to accept $195,000 for their property. City officials repeatedly told the Saracenis this was more than the property was worth.

In the lawsuit filed by the city to take the Saraceni property by condemnation, the city failed to prove their price for the Saraceni property at 335 Vernon Street was fair market value.

Representing the city in Superior Court was one of the largest Sacramento Law firms, McDonough, Holland & Allen. Former Roseville city attorney Richard G. Brown headed the team of lawyers assisted by associate attorney Stacey Sheston, city attorney Mark Doane and Mr. Harrington of the city purchasing department.

The Saracenis, owners of the property, represented and defended themselves. They were able to prove to the jury that the amount the city claimed as "market value" was actually less than "market value."

The Saracenis, in comparing their property with other commercial properties, found market value for their property to be worth $400,000. However, the court would not permit discussion on the value of comparable properties and that may be a breech of judicial procedures. One must wonder if our judicial system has gone from a law of reason to a law of rules and technicalities.

In Roseville’s attempt to force the Saracenis to take less than market value for their property, the city spent nearly $100,000 in public funds trying to prove $195,000 was a fair price.

The removal of Saraceni’s driveways on Vernon and South Grant Streets by the city, allegedly, without due process of law, is to be settled in a separate law suit that is scheduled for April 4, 2000 in Superior Court. Also included in that lawsuit are alleged violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act (open meeting law) by the city council.

"We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom." Stephen Vincent Benet

 

RAILROAD NOISE AND POLLUTION TO BE ADDRESSED

The city council is expected to review in December the results of the "automated horn" demonstration conducted in June. Roseville residents may be able to sleep better if the council decides to install automated warning horns at rail crossings. If adopted, the horns will be placed at the Yosemite and Tahoe Street crossings. Instead of sounding the train horn, the engineer will activate the automated horn to warn of an approaching train. The December meeting will also take up resident concerns, the noise at rail crossings and in the yard will be positive step towards eliminating some of the noise from high decibel air horns.

Public scrutiny of changes to the city’s noise ordinance is awaiting review by a professional noise consultant. Public participation is needed to ensure that the new noise ordinance adequately addresses resident concerns and enforcement issues when offending noise disrupts the peace and quiet of homes and neighborhoods.

 

BIG SHOT BILLIARDS called a NIGHTCLUB by CITY COUNCIL

At the October 20th city council meeting, the council finally recognized that Big Shot Billiards is actually a NIGHTCLUB. Something neighbors have known and objected to for a year and a half.

In April 1998, this family-oriented billiards parlor began having rock bands. The noise from the bands, especially the bass vibrations, prompted over 200 complaints to the police department.

However, the city attorney insisted that the noise did not meet public nuisance abatement criteria. Nor did the fact that the residents closest to Big Shot’s could not get adequate sleep thus adversely affecting their health, that their peace and quiet was constantly disturbed by patrons coming and going until 2:00 am, and that their property was devalued. Nearby businesses complained that Big Shot'’ patrons used their parking lots and left broken beer bottles, human excrement and other trash.

The city will conduct three unannounced noise tests during rock concerts. Unfortunately, noise decibel testing does not take into account the worst of the music noise – loud and heavy bass.

The planning department maintained that Big Shot’s owner was within his rights because the city zoning ordinance did not include a category for nightclubs or set standards for one, such as parking requirements. In addition, staff insisted that billiards was still a primary use, and that he was entitled to have live entertainment as a secondary use by right. Residents pointed out that bands were there an average of four nights a week and the establishment was closed most of the rest of the time.

City council members appeared supportive of the residents, but the city attorney was adamant that he could not pursue legal action due to the lack of proof that the noise ordinance was violated. The city council set an occupancy limit for Big Shot at 140 people, based on parking spaces available to Big Shot. Previously, the occupancy limit was 475, and patrons used spaces belonging to other businesses. However, staff pointed out that Big Shot could request a parking variance. If a parking variance is requested, the occupancy limit cannot go into effect unless the Planning Commission hears and denies the parking variance request.

Meanwhile, rock concerts continue unabated. The residents still cannot get a good night’s sleep and nearby businesses still have to clean up the mess in their parking lots the morning after concerts.

The city council has a responsibility and an obligation to their constituents – the residents of Roseville – to protect them from the type of nuisance and harassment created by Big Shot’s. Council members should instruct the city attorney and entire city staff that they will not tolerate treating Roseville residents in this manner, and if the city attorney cannot abate the problem, the council will find and attorney who can.

Some residents have retained a private attorney who has filed a lawsuit against Big Shot’s owner, the landlord and other principals. The neighborhood association is organizing a fund-raiser to help pay the costs for a private attorney. The city is causing the residents unnecessary grief and costs.

Every Roseville resident should be concerned about Big Shot’s, because if it can happen in the Cresthaven neighborhood, it can happen in theirs.

 

 UTILITY ISSUES (A look at one part of your electric bill)

A Competitive Transition Charge (CTC), a part of your electric bill, pays Roseville Electric Department’s Stranded Investment. The stranded investment is part of a $145 million debt of the electric department. It was incurred when Roseville entered into a partnership with the Northern California Power Agency and 12 other small electric departments to buy hydroelectric and geothermal power plants. Today, because of debt, those plants are not cost effective. That means the plants cannot produce electricity cheaper than buying electricity on the open market.

The Stranded Investment is a debt that cannot be recovered by the sale of the power plants or profit by generating electricity. No one will buy a power plant that cannot produce electricity cheaper than can be bought on the open market. For example, Roseville Electric may be able to buy electricity for three cents per kilowatt hour (KwH). But, if it costs Roseville Electric one cent per KwH to operate a power plant, and the money needed to pay the debt drives the cost to six cents/KwH, then there is a three cent/KwH of Stranded Investment. Therefore, Roseville cannot offer you an electric rate as cheap as a competing electric company.

The CTC that pays the stranded investment costs goes into the Rate Stabilization Fund. When that fund equals the stranded investment debt, (about $90 million), the competitive transition charge will be eliminated from your electric bill.

The Roseville Public Utility Commission (RPUC), at their September meeting, discussed three methods to determine when the CTC should be dropped for residents and businesses. The worst method for residents would have dropped the CTC for large businesses in April 2001 and for residents in April 2002. The city staff recommended the three methods be set aside and the CTC be dropped for all customers at the same time.

A member of FORE spoke in favor of the staff’s recommendation. After a short discussion, the Commission voted to accept staff’s recommendation. GOOD NEWS! On October 21st, the city council was briefed and accepted the RPUC’s recommendation.

HOW MUCH and WHEN, you ask? Currently, the CTC charge is about 2 cents/KwH, or nearly 25% of your bill. WHEN? Staff projects, REPEAT, projects October 2001. FORE will continue to follow electric and other utility issues and to lobby on behalf of residents and small businesses.

 

MARCH 2000 ELECTION PROPOSITION 26 – LET’S FIX OUR SCHOOLS NOW

This proposition affects local school bonds. It would make it easier to pass these bonds by lowering the current two-thirds voter approval requirement to a simple majority – 50% plus one.

 

FORE SUPPORTS BUILDING AND MAINTAINING SCHOOLS

However, we do wonder why millions, probably tens of millions, will be spent to repeal a provision of our State Constitution that has been in place since the constitution was written in 1879. The two-thirds vote was established to protect property owners and as a safeguard against excessive debt.

Remember, local school bonds do raise your property taxes. Once passed, property owners have a 20 to 30-year obligation that can’t be changed. FORE thinks the super majority vote protects you against poorly planned school bond proposals.

Look around Roseville. Do you see any reason to "lower the bar?"

 

FORE TO CIRCULATE TWO INITIATIVES

The 5% Utility Users Tax needs to be repealed and the city needs Election by Districts. Two initiatives are being prepared to qualify for the November 2000 election to address those important issues. Call Sandy at 786-5228 for information and to help.

 

Copyright 1999 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.com

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