EDH cityhood opposition's push
poll
This web page summarizes facts versus the false assertions being made
in a telephone push poll opposing cityhood. Polling of a large number
of El Dorado Hills voters began in the latter part August.
It's possible that the poll was commissioned to contact all
registered voters. The company conducting the poll is David Binder
Research (DBR), a political research company in San Francisco.
A "push poll" is designed to push respondents toward a desired survey
result. The approach used here is for each question to assert a premise
and to ask whether that premise would lead the respondent to support or
oppose incorporation. The key problem in this case is that
nearly all
premises asserted in this poll are false.
Such a push poll produces results which are analytically invalid, it is
more effective as a method of campaigning. State law and FPPC
regulations require that the poll and its costs be reported for public
information on Form 460 by the organization or individual who
commissioned the poll. This has not been done yet at the time this web
page is being created, and DBR has declined to identify the source of
the poll.
Wording of questions as quoted here probably is not be precisely
verbatim but it should be very close. Followup questions for each main
question asked "much or somewhat?" with regard to whether the
premise stated in the question would lead the answerer to support or
oppose incorporation..
Question 1:
The
fiscal
analysis
said
that El Dorado Hills will be running an annual deficit of $936,000.
Would that fact make you more likely to support incorporation or more
likely to oppose it?
This
is false except for the
single year of transition from county to city government,
the city operates at a substantial surplus each year following the
first. The first year is transitional, with the county continuing to
provide services while the corresponding city government puts in place
ordinances, staffing, and contracts for outsourcing that are needed to
transfer those services to the city
The claim is further made in question 7 that the city government will
operate at a deficit of $1 million per year for the first five years. That is absolutely false.
Quoting from Page 16 of LAFCO's CFA:
"...the proposed city would experience an annual fiscal deficit of
$936,000 in FY 2007-08, but would
experience annual fiscal surpluses
ranging from $537,000 to $2.9 million during the remainder of the
9-year study period."
Question 2:
Further, the fiscal analysis states that the new
city will grow about 800 additional housing units per year over the
next 5 years, and a total of 8,400 new housing units in the next 10 in
order to balance its budget. Does this make you more likely to support
or oppose?
The
assertion that this much
growth is necessary to balance the city's budget is false. The
CFA derived a conservative estimate for actual growth rate in current
conditions and projected that future growth would occur at the same
rate. Also, the actual growth rate quoted in the CFA is
765: 695 single-family units plus
70 multifamily units, with this level being its determination of actual
current growth rate. Also see question 3, regarding analysis of lower
growth scenarios.
Quoting from CFA page 21, "The CFA's estimates, which show
an average of 695 dwelling units and 70 multifamily dwelling units per
year for the LAFCO-approved boundary, are more conservative than the
Fire Department's estimates. An average of 765 total dwelling units per
year yields 8,400 total dwelling units from 2004 to 2014."
Page 32 notes that the Fire Department estimates
the current housing development rate to be about 1,300 units per year.
Question 3:
The fiscal analysis report also states that if the new city
falls under 900 additional housing units per year the city deficit will
increase. For example, if the number of housing units falls 25% short
of the estimate, that is 675 housing units per year, the city will
operate at a deficit of 1.4 million dollars. Support or oppose?
Both
assertions are false.
The CFA included 25% reduced growth rate in 4 of the 8 scenarios that
it analyzed, with reductions relative to base growth rates defined in
Table A-6, on Page A-7. The base growth rate used for single family
units is 900 per year from 2000 through 2009, then 450 from 2010
through 2014. The
corresponding 25% reduced growth rates are 675 and
337.5 units per year. The scenario-specific findings in Appendix
E show
a worst case of deficits in two years, best cases of more than $4
million surplus per year with no years in deficit, even in the 25%
reduced growth case.
Question 4:
The fiscal analysis report says that in order to reach a balanced
budget the population would have to grow up between 8 and 10 percent a
year. That is, if the City of El Dorado Hills would start at a
population of about 30,000 it would grow to a population of about
50,000 in 10 years. Support or oppose?
This
is false.
The CFA says on page 16: "...the proposed city
would
experience an annual fiscal deficit of
$936,000 in FY 2007-08, [the
year of
transition from county to city government] but would
experience
annual fiscal surpluses
ranging from $537,000 to $2.9 million during the remainder of the
9-year study period."
Appreciation in assessed values also is a factor in revenue growth from
property taxes. The CFA conservatively assumes an appreciation rate of
4%, only 1% above inflation in real dollars. Actual recent appreciation
in El Dorado Hills has been about 20%. (See Table A-4, Page A-5)
Question 5:
Among many factors at the city, the plan for the per capita
level of police staffing that is one half what City of Folsom has. In
other words the City of El Dorado Hills would have half as many police
officers for its population as Folsom has for its population. Support
or oppose?
This
is false. The
current level of service will be maintained and expanded in the area of
traffic enforcement, and the number of officers per thousand population
is substantially identical to that of the City of Folsom (1.1)
Page
43 of the CFA says "The law enforcement cost estimate assumes the
current level of service provided to the area and additional staffing
required to provide traffic enforcement services. ... Because law
enforcement officers are assigned within the City Boundary, residents
may perceive an increased law enforcement presence in the area."
The following table summarizes comparative staffing.
| Comparison
of law enforcement staffing, sworn officers per thousand population |
El Dorado Hills
as unincorporated area |
anticipated for
City of El Dorado
Hills |
City of Folsom |
City of
Placerville |
City of South
Lake
Tahoe |
effectively less than 1:
about 1 for Sheriff
near 0 for CHP |
initially at least 1
(current level of Sheriff staffing plus additional staff for traffic
enforcement) |
1.1 |
1.8 |
2.3 |
For unincorporated areas California law reserves traffic patrol to the
CHP and delegates all other enforcement to the county sheriff.
Sheriff's deputies are permitted to enforce the Vehicle Code only when
particular incidents place public safety at risk. The CHP has
insufficient resources to provide any substantial coverage; at times as
little as one officer is available to cover the entire west slope in El
Dorado County, about 1,000 miles of roads. This is why EDH has
substandard traffic enforcement as an unincorporated area, even though
it is developing urban traffic problems.
Question 6:
Another factor is that the level of city services that is planned for
El Dorado Hills includes maintenance for parks, recreation, and street
repairs is one half that for most [neighboring?] cities, including the
City of Folsom on a per capita basis. Support or oppose?
The
ratio
is approximately true, but that ignores the fact that per
capita investment in these services increases
substantially
from the level of service provided by the county. Comparisons
between EDH and Folsom must account for the fact that Folsom is a
mature city, founded a century and a half ago in the Gold Rush, and El
Dorado Hills is a young city that has only recently begun to receive
significant growth in the business sector. In the area of road
maintenance, expenditures per lane mile would be more meaningful than
expenditures per capita.
Per capita expenditure summary:
|
EDH
as a city |
EDH unincorporated |
City
of Folsom |
| Parks and Recreation |
$59.56 |
$59.56 |
$152.61 |
| Road Maintenance |
$41.29 |
$18.63 |
$79.14 |
Road maintenance is the most fiscally significant advantage of
incorporation. El Dorado Hills has a long history of generating much
more Road Fund revenue for county government than the county spends on
corresponding services in EDH. Table 12 on Page 67, indicates that the
cost of services actually rendered (services transferred to the city)
is $670,731 per year. Its estimate for Road Fund expenses budgeted for
FY 2006/2007 is $1,486,400 (Tables A-1, A-2, C-1, C-2, and E-1).
Road fund expenditures will
increase by a factor of 2.2 as a result of incorporation.
Expenditures for parks and recreation do not change as a
result of incorporation except for revenue increases due to inclusion
of more area within the city limits than exists within the boundaries
of the El Dorado Hills Community Services District. The CSD supplies
parks and recreation services to EDH, the county does not.
Incorporation will move the CSD into city government.
To compare EDH before or
after incorporation to the City of Folsom, Folsom statistics are
available on the City of Folsom's web site. The raw summary is that its
population is 61,466 excluding prison inmates (68,033 including
inmates); its Public Works Department budget for FY 2004/2005 is
$10,111,472, the line item for Streets and Traffic Maintenance is
$4,864,428 ($79.14 per capita, excluding inmates). Its Parks and
Recreation Department budget is $9,380,385, $152.61 per
capita.
If we assume an EDH population of about 36,000 in its first year as an
incorporated city he corresponding per capita numbers for EDH
are $41.29 for Road Fund and $59.56 for parks and recreation. As an
unincorporated part of the county the corresponding per capita numbers
are $18.63 and $59.56.
Question 7:
To summarize all that I've read, police staffing will be
about half on a per capita basis, other city services such as parks and
streets will be about half the level of other cities on a per capita
basis, and the city will grow from approximately 30,000 to 50,000 in 10
years, and approximately 900 houses will be built per year for a total
of approximately 8,400 in 10 years. And the city will operate at a
deficit of $1 million dollars per year for the first 5 years I'll ask
you again, ...
Repetition... this and some additional redundant
questions, repeat assertions from questions 1 - 7 in collective
questions, presumably to crosscheck answers for consistency.
Question 8:
Proponents have stated that the two voter-approved amendments to the
constitution, Prop 13 and 218 will protect local taxpayers against tax
increases when El Dorado Hills incorporates. Opponents say that cities
impose a tax rate that's higher than unincorporated areas of counties.
For example, the UUT (Utility User Tax) rate in the City of
Sacramento is 7.5%, compared to 2.5% in unincorporated areas of
Sacramento County. Just in general, do you think your taxes will be
lower when El Dorado Hills incorporates?
The
specific example cited is
correct but it is not representative of local taxes in general. The
most significant local taxes are property taxes and sales taxes. UUT
taxes are significant in some localities but not in others, and in the
example of the City of Sacramento a vote of city citizens in 2002
rejected reduction of the city UUT to the same level as the county UUT.
Property tax rates are constrained by Proposition 13 and have
substantially no dependence on whether or not a locality is
incorporated. In El Dorado Hills particular sublocalities receive
assessments to pay for maintenance in particular Landscaping and
Lighting Assessment Districts. Those assessments are collected with
property taxes by the County and are disbursed to the EDH Community
Services District, which performs this maintenance. Their amount does
not depend on whether the locality is incorporated as a city.
Sales taxes in cities and counties normally are assessed at the
standard state-wide rate. Either cities or counties can increase local
sales taxes if approved by a vote of the people. This has occurred in a
number of cities and counties, but most localities use the state's base
rate of 7.25%. Locally increased rates that took effect in 2004 were
inconsistent with the question's assertion of generally higher rates in
cities than counties. The 2004 changes in local sales tax rates were::
| Rate |
Locality |
| 8.75% |
Alameda County |
| 8.25% |
City of Santa Cruz |
| 7.75% |
City of Davis |
| 7.50% |
City of Visalia |
The
only county tax change was 1.5% over the 7.25% baseline.
The average tax change by cities was 0.58% over the 7.25% baseline. |
UUTs (Utility User Taxes) were initiated in California cities about 35
years ago primarily to help fund services such as police, fire,
libraries, and road maintenance. Since then several counties have also
adopted UUT assessments. The City of Sacramento's UUT rate is generally
typical of city UUT rates, the County of Sacramento's UUT rate is low
relative to rates established by the other California counties that
have adopted UUT taxes..
Voters in the City of Sacramento were asked in 2002 whether the city's
UUT rate should be reduced from 7.5% to 2.5%. This initiative failed to
pass: The vote was 38,878 (46.2%) yes, 45,308 (53.8%) no.
Apparently the majority of voters felt that services funded by the
city's UUT were more important than a 5% tax saving. With respect to
cityhood, the important point is that the people of the City of
Sacramento made this judgment -- their UUT rate was not determined by
residents of other localities.
A related claim often made as an argument against incorporation is that
fees such as building permit fees are higher in cities than in
counties. This is not generally true. For example, building permit fees
for a single family home in Folsom are currently about 2/3 of the
equivalent fees charged by El Dorado County.
The most important reference
for factual information and the best available impartial analysis is
LAFCO's Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA). Text of the
CFA
document is available as a pdf file at either of these two links:
The most appropriate
generally
applicable excerpts from the CFA with respect to the claims made in the
opposition push poll are these two from Page 10:
"This
CFA concludes that the proposed City of El Dorado Hills will have
adequate revenues to fund municipal expenditures and other obligations
under a range of cost and revenue "scenarios" reflecting current
uncertainties..."
"The CFA includes a municipal budget that
provides a level of service that is at least equal to the level of
service currently provided by existing service providers.
Conservative
assumptions have been made regarding both municipal expenditures and
revenues. If the proposed City garners more revenue than shown in the
conservative forecast ... the new City may have an opportunity to
increase service levels, particularly after repayment to the County for
services provided during the first fiscal year of incorporation. As
long as funding is available, the City has, at its discretion, the
ability to increase service levels. 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."