The Kings
County grand jury took the county’s Board of Supervisors to task last week for
blocking an agreement with the California High-Speed Rail Authority to fund a
program for displaced businesses and for spending public money on lawsuits over
the controversial rail route’s effect on private land.
In its
annual report, the 2014-15 grand jury said it received a complaint about how
much money the county has spent to fight the high-speed train project in court
as well as a lack of public discussion before supervisors gave a green light to
the expenditures. While grand juries often review government practices, they
lack the force of law.
They said
the county doesn’t own any land that’s affected by the rail, but our job is to
be a voice for the people who are going to be affected by this.
Kings County
Supervisor Doug Verboon, reacting to the grand jury’s criticism of the Board of
Supervisors
The county’s
multi-pronged legal battle against the California High-Speed Rail Authority
dates to at least late 2011, when Kings County joined with farmer John Tos and
Hanford resident Aaron Fukuda to challenge the rail authority’s financing,
business and development plans. That lawsuit alleges that the plans don’t
comply with requirements of Proposition 1A, the $9.9 billion high-speed rail
bond approved by voters in 2008. Only one portion of that case remains to be
decided later this year in Sacramento County Superior Court.
Last year,
the county — along with the Kings County Farm Bureau and Citizens for
California High-Speed Rail Accountability — sued the rail authority over its
environmental certification and route approval of the Fresno-Bakersfield
portion of the statewide rail line, alleging an inadequate analysis of
environmental effects under the California Environmental Quality Act. That case
is also pending in Sacramento County Superior Court.
Additionally,
the county has filed five documents over the past two years with the Federal
Surface Transportation Board, one of which opposed the rail authority’s
petition for approval of the Fresno-Bakersfield section and three against the
state’s desire for the federal board to declare that its jurisdiction takes
precedence over California’s environmental law. That issue is due to come
before the California Supreme Court this year.
But because
the county doesn’t own any property affected by the rail route, except for
public road rights of way, grand jury members questioned the use of county
resources — as much as $150,000 or more, plus the value of staff time — on the
legal fight.
The legal
confrontation also prompted the Board of Supervisors in February to deny a
request by the Kings County Economic Development Corporation to enter into an
agreement for the rail authority to underwrite a relocation-assistance program
to help businesses that would be affected or displaced by the rail route
through Kings County. According to the grand jury report, supervisors denied
the agreement “in order not to give any indication of support” for the
high-speed rail project.
The grand
jury questioned that reasoning. “The denial of grants is preventing possible
funding sources for those that could be displaced, regardless of the results of
current litigation,” the jurors concluded. “The Board of Supervisors should not
be blocking or denying beneficial funding sources for county residents and
businesses.”
County
Supervisor Doug Verboon, who served as the board’s chairman last year, said he
was disappointed by the grand jury’s report. He added that he doesn’t believe
the grand jury members properly grasped the county’s position in the legal
fight or in rejecting the agreement for relocation assistance.
“They
interviewed me for about an hour or two,” Verboon said. “But I think they never
understood what we’re trying to do, which is to hold the authority accountable.
… They said the county doesn’t own any land that’s affected by the rail, but
our job is to be a voice for the people who are going to be affected by this.”
Verboon
bristled at the notion that the board blocked relocation assistance for
businesses that will be displaced by construction of the rail route. “That’s
not something that the rail authority should be putting on the county,” he
said. “It’s their job to help the people who are being hurt by the impacts. Our
job is to make sure that high-speed rail stays accountable to make those people
whole.”
The county’s
official response to the grand jury report, a letter signed by new board
chairman Richard Fagundes, also strongly disagreed with the panel’s findings.
The decision to pursue litigation against the rail authority “was deliberated
extensively by the board in closed session … but this was done against a
backdrop of many discussions in open session,” he said.
Regarding the
relocation assistance, the board’s response echoed Verboon’s comments. “The
county already works tirelessly with its landowners and constituents and will
continue to do so,” the letter stated. “The ‘grant’ was imply an offer of
reimbursement that came with no certainty and many responsibilities. The Board
of Supervisors is not willing to use precious time and resources administering
an onerous contract when it can use the resources to help directly and is not
willing to be burdened with the Authority’s responsibilities. …”
But while it
is willing to spend time and resources on the various legal fronts, exactly how
much is uncertain. Last year, the Board of Supervisors added $150,000 to the
County Counsel’s budget for 2014-15, including almost $75,000 to retroactively
cover costs from the 2013-14 budget year.
In August,
County Counsel Colleen Carlson estimated that the county had spent about
$82,000 in legal expenses to that point, in addition to the value of time spent
by her and staff in her office. Carlson did not provide an estimate of how many
hours her office had put into the case, or the approximate value of that time,
but she added that the financial burden was greatly reduced because other
attorneys are working on the cases at no charge to the county.
A budget
memo prepared for Kings County’s 2013-14 budget noted the strain the cases have
put on Carlson’s office, including “demanding and implementing coordination and
enforcing and protecting the process required by law; extensively reviewing and
commenting (500 comments) on the massive revised and supplemented environmental
document (17,000 pages plus); writing to the Federal Surface Transportation
Board (‘STB’) to oppose High Speed Rail’s request for an exemption to the
construction permit requirement and insisting the STB do a full investigation
of the underlying environmental documents before deciding; preparing documents,
researching and working with the Proposition 1A litigation team to oppose Prop.
1A bond validation in separate proceedings; extensive ongoing research and
coordination to ensure accountability and compliance by the Authority; (and)
preparation of testimony for congressional hearings.”
In 2014-15,
the county counsel took on the added responsibility of “commenting on the
latest business plan; participating in litigation commenced by the County; …
defending a petition for the (rail) Authority to encroach on County possessed
land to drill and test for the project; (and) extensive ongoing research and
coordination to ensure accountability and compliance by the Authority.”
July 6, 2015
The
Fresno Bee
By
Tim Sheehan
No comments:
Post a Comment