Cityhood Is A Risk We Can't Afford!
A New City Means Higher Taxes and Fees!
Here’s what you get with a new city
- A costly new layer of bureaucracy
- More politicians
- New employees
- Increased pension and health care benefits (which are already out of control)
It’s NOT “likely to be viable." The Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis COULD NOT conclude that the new city is financially viable because revenues go down over the course of the model. By year 10, net revenues are only 4% bigger than costs. It’s considered good practice to exceed costs by 20% each year. For LAFCo to have found the city “likely to be viable”, net revenues would have to be at least 10% bigger than costs by year 10. What happens AFTER year 10? We’d soon be in deficit.
Sales revenue assumptions are WAY OFF. They’re off by at least $2 million each and every year of the financial model. Why? Because County sales tax plummeted the year after the baseline used for the analysis. Sales tax revenue is supposed to provide one-third of the funding for the city.
Property taxes will NOT STAY HERE. County gives the new city a break for the first three years and just takes 90%. After that, the County takes 100%. We have a $219 I.O.U. that will be paid back to the city over 35 years. Talk about incurring debt for the next generation!
Vehicle License Fees are NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE as a revenue source. The Legislature can change the rules about distribution at any time. In fact, they have done so 4 times in the past 10 years. And DMV gets to take its costs off the top before anything is distributed. VLFs are supposed to provide almost 20% of the new city’s revenues.
We will NOT GET IMPROVED SERVICE by spending the same as Rancho Cordova spends on police protection. The police budget is $15 million per year. Rancho has a third fewer residents and is spending that amount this year (and has had to cut its budget). It’s a budget, not a contract. Who knows what will get for $15 million. Almost certainly not increased service, especially since the Sheriff’s department is restoring 50+ officers, many of whom will be deployed in Arden Arcade according to the Sheriff on KFBK. And police costs are almost bound to go up more than 1% a year as budgeted.
The budget UNDERSTATES THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES we will need. According to the fiscal analysis, every city they looked at has many more employees than the 48.5 they say can run the proposed city. The budget also figures the city manager will cost us less than any other local city in the region.
NO BUDGET for capital expenses? Of course there will be capital expenses! Computers and web-based services could cost millions. And eventually there is bound to be talk of building a city hall
For details on each of the faulty assumptions, see our e-newsletter archive
Boundaries for The Proposed City of Arden Arcade
ALL properties south of Fair Oaks to the American river are now in the Arden Arcade Cityhood Boundaries. That's right, the Cityhood proponents want your tax dollars and that's why all homes between Fair Oaks and the river are included in the Arden Arcade Cityhood boundaries. click here to see the new Arden Arcade Cityhood boundary map. Your only choice Not To Be Included is to vote NO on Cityhood In the November 2010 election. When looking at the below, the alternative proposed boundary area is what will appear on the ballot.
More Politicians and More Government is Not The Answer.
Better government making better decisions is the answer.
