CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA (MPG) - At the June 9 meeting, the Citrus Heights City Council considered amendments to the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan to include the updated 2021 Sacramento County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Maintaining an updated LHMP is required to remain eligible for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding in the case of emergencies or disasters.

The Sacramento County LHMP was updated last year, with input from Citrus Heights and the other cities within the County. The City Council adopted the 2021 LHMP in February 2022, and now the General Plan must be amended to include the updated language in the new LHMP.

Five major goals are outlined in the 2021 plan update: Protect people, property, public health, the economy, and the environment by minimizing risk due to natural hazards, including the impacts of climate change. Protect critical infrastructure and services from hazards and prevent or minimize loss and facilitate quick recovery when needed. Enhance public outreach and preparedness and find effective strategies to reach underserved and vulnerable communities. Increase community capabilities and coordinate inter-agency cooperation to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disaster events. Conform to federal and state mitigation initiatives.

The amendments to the General Plan were unanimously approved.

Council then considered whether to change the time of their meetings. The current schedule—the second and fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 PM—has been in effect since 2005, when the City chose that day and time so the meetings could be broadcast live on Sacramento Metro Cable 14, the local public affairs channel.

At the recent Strategic Planning Retreat, the Council discussed starting the meetings earlier in the evening to increase public participation. A review of other council meetings in the region showed that most cities start their meetings at 6:00 PM or 6:30 PM, and staff confirmed that Metro Cable 14 would be able to broadcast the live meetings at either of those times.

City Manager Ashely Feeney explained that an earlier start time would allow people to come straight to the meetings after finishing work at around 5:00 PM, since it’s believed that people are less likely to attend the meetings when they go home first and have to come back out for a later meeting.  Feeney also said that an earlier start time would allow the Council’s special meetings or study sessions, which are generally held ahead of the regular meetings, to be included as part of the regular meetings.  

Councilmember Jeannie Bruins said that the earlier start time would make it more convenient and easier for people to attend the Council meetings.

Vice Mayor Tim Schaefer said, “I think it’s great. I think it’s time.”

Councilmember Bret Daniels said, “I think it serves a very good purpose” and the change “allows staff to get home earlier too.” He preferred changing to a 6:00 PM start time, stating that a 6:30 PM start wouldn’t be enough of a change to make a difference.

Councilmember Steve Miller didn’t support an earlier start time, stating that he believes people might like the chance to get home, eat some dinner, and change clothes before coming to a meeting. “I don’t know that necessarily making a change is beneficial.” And he pointed out that holding the study sessions within the regular meetings wouldn’t get anyone home any faster: “I don’t know that there’s a benefit there; the meetings are just longer.”

The Council voted 4-1 to change their meeting time to 6:00 PM, with Councilmember Miller dissenting. The change will begin with the July 14 meeting, after outreach is conducted to inform the public of the change.

The Council also considered whether to pass a resolution opposing the California Sports Wagering Regulation and Unlawful Enforcement Act Initiative, which will appear on the November 2022 ballot in California.

City Manager Feeney explained that the initiative would amend the California constitution to allow tribal casinos to offer roulette, dice games, and sports wagering, as well as sports wagering at approved horse-racing facilities—with the claim that allowing sports wagering at these highly regulated and experienced gaming operations would protect public safety. But the initiative would also amend the Business and Professions Code to authorize any person or entity to bring civil suits for violations of gaming laws, stating that this change is needed because the current enforcement of gambling laws is inadequate.

Feeney said that Stones Gambling Hall of Citrus Heights brought the issue to City staff due to concerns about how the initiative could impact their business. After reviewing the initiative, Feeney said it could open the possibility for “frivolous lawsuits for one of our businesses.”

Councilmember Miller asked for clarification about how this initiative would differ from existing law, and how it would expose the local business to lawsuits.

City Attorney Ryan Jones explained that lawsuits relating to gaming violations are filed by the Attorney General. But he said this initiative “would give private law firms the ability to file lawsuits as if they’re the Attorney General.” Jones said the shift would allow private law firms to act as if they are a governmental agency.

Vice Mayor Schafer said, “It seems pretty outrageous to grant private firms the ability to seek damages against an existing business for what, in my opinion, seems like normal business practices.”

Councilmember Daniels agreed that the Council should oppose the initiative.

Carmen Shultz with Stones Gambling Hall spoke during Public Comment, stating, “It’s a great concern to us; it’s a great concern to the industry. It’s really a smoke and mirrors initiative.” He said that the real reason behind the initiative is for tribal casinos to gain the ability “to bring lawsuits against the industry.” He stated that the tribal casino leaders view card rooms as illegal gambling, even though the Attorney General has approved the rules and regulations governing his establishment and others like it. If the initiative passed, he’s concerned that even if the Attorney General declines to pursue a lawsuit, private firms could file on behalf of the tribal casinos, putting jobs and businesses at risk.

The Council voted unanimously to oppose the initiative.