Response to article in El Dorado Hills Telegraph:
“Incorporation opponent raises questions” about Cityhood in El Dorado Hills
August 6, 2005
This letter was written by John Hidahl and Norm Rowett and is being reproduced on the SierraFoot web site at their invitation.
Mr. Hidahl and Mr. Rowett are
candidates for city council in the upcoming November election. They
have been the most active core members of the El Dorado Hills
Incorporation Committee over the span of its 7-year history.
With all due respect, Bob Dorr’s questions can be easily answered
with factual, documented information which is readily available to the
public (www.el-dorado.ca.us/lafco). He’s quoted as saying
“he’s not against City government, but what he perceives to
be a lack of definition of what benefit a city government would bring
to the area.”
After more than 6 years of Incorporation processing with the El Dorado
County LAFCo, the expenditure of approximately $500,000, and the
creation of more than 1000 pages of written documentation, it’s
hard to comprehend Mr. Dorr’s statement? The benefits of
Cityhood for El Dorado Hills are profound and are repeatedly defined in
many of the incorporation documents, including the Resolution of
Application filed by the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors in
December of 2003 (Resolution 322-2003) and the Final Comprehensive
Fiscal Analysis (CFA), dated June 9, 2005, on page 27.
Dorr also stated: “I don’t mind paying for something if I
know what I’m getting. I don’t like the idea of
paying money for less”. The Measure P Impartial Analysis
prepared by LAFCo for the November 8th election responds to this
succinctly by stating “LAFCo has studied the matter and found the
new city will be financially feasible. It is projected the new City
will receive sufficient revenues to provide the same level of services
currently provided, with prudent reserve, without increasing tax rates
or assessments within the community. The CFA further states on page 10
“The proposed City of El Dorado Hills will be able to maintain or
improve municipal services currently provided by other entities”
and “Moreover, local control and location of City services, as
opposed to County services delivered from Placerville, is likely to
result in the City providing higher levels of service even with similar
funding levels”.
Dorr is also quoted as saying” it’s a misconception that El
Dorado Hills is losing much money in the exchange with the
county”. He goes on to suggest that “El Dorado Hills
gives about $300,000 more than it receives, not enough to justify
another layer of government”. Evidently Dorr is using a new
form of math, as the State ‘Revenue Neutrality’ laws
require the new City to pay the county for the difference in revenue it
previously received in comparison to the cost of services it
provided. That difference is over $1M per year for the next 25
years as defined in the LAFCo EDH Incorporation “Terms and
Conditions” documents. When compared to the 2001 CFA
prepared by LAFCO in the earlier incorporation effort, the total
revenue neutrality cost to the city has increased from approximately 7
million to over 25 million in just 4 years. Lastly, Cityhood does
not create another layer of government as Dorr falsely claims.
Incorporation consolidates the delivery of Municipal Services to a
single source, the City of El Dorado Hills. In doing so, the El
Dorado Hills Community Services District and the Springfield Meadows
Community Services District are dissolved by LAFCo. In essence,
two lower level independent government agencies are integrated into a
higher level of government, the City of El Dorado Hills, and many of
the current services provided by the County become the responsibility
of the new City.
All of Dorr’s questions and concerns can be readily answered with
sound, documented facts. Please visit the LAFCo website
(www.el-dorado.ca.us/lafco) and the ‘Yes on Cityhood’
website (www.edhcity.org) to read the true facts about Incorporation.
John Hidahl
Norm Rowett
Candidates for El Dorado Hills City Council