You will need Adobe Acrobat reader to view these files. Download it here for FREE if your computer can't open the files on this page.
A Citizen complaint was filed by a KORC member with Madera County Grand Jury with respect to the proposed incorporation to Oakhurst. This complaint is in regards to the public process being violated / corrupted. Read full complaint by clicking here.
Grand Jury reply to citizen complaint: Read Grand Jury reply by clicking here.
The complete comprehensive fiscal analysis for incorporation of Oakhurst dated August 16, 2007 which was used to get the revenue neutrality agreement approved. The analysis includes this sentence "Incorporation may require the Town to consider additional taxes to meet basic municipal service levels, any revenue neutrality payments, and/or any costs of additional services" on document page 7. Read analysis by clicking here.
The revised comprehensive fiscal analysis for incorporation of Oakhurst dated October 22, 2007. This version is being distributed to the public by ACTION. After approval of the revenue neutrality agreement this sentence "Incorporation may require the Town to consider additional taxes to meet basic municipal service levels, any revenue neutrality payments, and/or any costs of additional services" was removed from the document. Read revised analysis by clicking here.
Read the revenue neutrality agreement by clicking here. The Board of Supervisors approved a "revised" Revenue Neutrality Agreement (RNA) on October 23 to reflect the change of boundaries approved by LAFCo on September 25. The "revised" RNA included paragraph 1.07: "On September 25, 2007, LAFCo conducted a hearing in Oakhurst regarding the proposed incorporation. Based on testimony received at that hearing, LAFCo modified the boundaries of the area proposed for incorporation to be submitted to the voters. The modified boundaries deleted the Road 222 and Road 422 areas from the proposed boundaries." This entire paragraph has been deleted from the version presented in the February ballot. Why? Isn't the Board of Supervisors' approved version the "final"? Are the areas that were removed on September 25 now back in?
Important questions to consider. Where did the money come from to fund the whole Incorporation process? ACTION announced that up until September 13, 2007, more than $135,000 had been donated in support of Incorporation. When asked to disclose their major donors, ACTION leaders refused. On September 14, ACTION became a "Political Action Committee" which has funded the almost weekly mail-outs, twice-a-week newspaper ads, telephone surveys, expensive signage, and more. It appears there is a LOT of money pushing for Incorporation. With politics, it's always "follow the money". We can only surmise that those who have a major personal financial interest are driving this effort - realtors, developers, those in the financial industry, owners of the major utilities, those wanting to make parcel splits or benefit from rezones. Read more by clicking here.
Incorporation will change Oakhurst forever, affecting our lives, livelihoods, properties, and our rural quality of life. Read more by clicking here.
According to the LAFCo website, only 8 cities have incorporated since 1997 (the post-Revenue Neutrality era).
Citrus Heights (Sacramento County); 1/1/97; 86,795: population at the time of incorporation
Laguna Woods (Orange County); 3/24/99; 16,725: population at the time of incorporation
Oakley (Contra Costa County); 7/1/99; 26,217: population at the time of incorporation
Rancho Santa Margarita (Orange County); 1/1/2000; 48,336: population at the time of incorporation
Elk Grove (Sacramento County); 7/1/2000 72,687: population at the time of incorporation
Aliso Viejo (Orange County); 7/1/01; 40,166: population at the time of incorporation
Goleta (Santa Barbara County); 2/1/02; 47,106: population at the time of incorporation
Rancho Cordova (Sacramento County); 7/1/03; 54,627: population at the time of incorporation
These communities started with large populations that contributed to the tax base. In contrast, Oakhurst population is less than 4,200 people. It's interesting to see how fast these cities grew after they incorporated. For example, Elk Grove had 72,687 people in 2000; in January 2007, the state estimated their population at 136,318
INCORPORATION: ACTION’S “SPIN” vs. REALITY
SPIN: Oakhurst will be a “Town” after incorporation.
REALITY: Misleading. LAFCo Resolution No. 2007-006 states “The name of the new CITY shall be the Town of Oakhurst. The Town of Oakhurst shall be incorporated as a General Law City.” That is why there is a City Council, a City Manager, and a City Clerk. Candidate Ron Bucheger, who has invested 9 of his 12 years in Oakhurst promoting Cityhood, mentions “Cityhood” three times in his candidate statement. ACTION’s use of the word “town” is merely a marketing ploy to make the concept of a City appear less offensive to mountain folks.
SPIN: …we have a 3-year period to renegotiate with County in case costs are higher than projected.
REALITY: False. The Revenue Neutrality Agreement states “The discovery, within 3 years of effective date by the Town or the County of any error or omission in the data utilized…” [emphasis added]. Translation—if the proposed City has cost overruns, that is not an error or omission in data allowing renegotiation; the County still receives its $19.86 million.
SPIN: …No Debt & $1 Million Reserve
REALITY: False. Three unelected signatories obligated taxpayers through a Revenue Neutrality Agreement to a $19.86 million debt to be paid to the County at the rate of $1 million per year for 10 years; the County will take the remaining $9.86 million from any excess revenue. “The preferred level of a reserve fund is 25 to 50 percent based on the past experience of comparable new cities. However, due to the limited budget…a reserve fund was not included” (CFA, p. 21). “Establishment of a reserve fund would require additional revenues” (CFA, p. 29). According to the CFA after 10 years: Revenues = $48,997,974; Expenditures = $33,518,280; balance = $15,479,695 (CFA, page 28). Revenue Neutrality debt = $19,860,410. City is “in the hole” -$4,380,715. There is no reserve…
SPIN: NO TAX INCREASE needed to Incorporate
REALITY: Misleading. The word “to” is key. State law forbids approval of any Incorporation application if taxes need to be increased TO incorporate. However, AFTER incorporation occurs and income and expenses are no longer projections, it’s a different story. Any tax increase must be approved by voters, though certain ballot measures have a track record of passage—namely, fire protection and police protection. Chief Martin is already on record recommending an increase in staffing; actual contract costs for law enforcement services are also subject to negotiation. Additionally, “fee” is another word for “tax;” the City Council has absolute authority to raise fees.
SPIN: Keeps or Improves ALL Current Service Levels
REALITY: Misleading. Incorporation consultants assume existing service levels will continue, though contract costs have not been negotiated. Incorporation consultants further state: “…higher service levels would not be feasible” (CFA, p. 29) “Expansion of service levels may require additional revenues” (CFA, p. 28) The proposed City would have 7 full-time staff, 5 of which would be management level; as a “contract city,” managers would contract back to the County for services. Getting the same but paying an additional cost does not constitute an improvement…
SPIN: Improved Roads with Guaranteed Road tax Funds
REALITY: Misleading. “Guaranteed” road tax funds are still in question. The CFA acknowledges that new cities may not be eligible for Measure T funds and whatever the decision, the Madera Transportation Commission will have responsibility for apportioning (CFA, p. 26). It is also unknown whether a new city will be eligible for Proposition 1B funds (CFA, p. 26). Maintenance Districts will be transferred to the proposed City, and the City Council would be responsible for levying assessments for each District (p. 27). Improved Roads?? Get ready for increased fees…
SPIN: Better Control of Growth & Planning
REALITY: Misleading. The Oakhurst community developed its own Area Plan in 2005 and prospective planning projects are reviewed by the Oakhurst Community Advisory Council. The opportunity for extensive public involvement has been integral to both processes. Many of those behind the Incorporation movement have participated in these reviews; thus, if all of this planning has been faulty, then it would appear to be an ominous predictor of what will continue as a City. In fact, leading Incorporation proponents vigorously opposed the final Area Plan as approved, instead advocating for increased commercialization. Is that what is meant by “better control?” As in whose control?? Meanwhile LAFCo controls our Sphere of Influence, having final approval of all urban boundary expansions/annexations (i.e., “LAFCo control”).
SPIN:‘Vote No on C’ leaders were removed from the boundaries of the proposed City.
REALITY: False. The Keep Oakhurst Rural Coalition (KORC) is a leaderless grassroots movement of local residents and businesses dedicated to making the public aware that turning Oakhurst into a City is NOT a solution. Numerous individuals perform a variety of roles, donating their own time, energy, talent, and signage in a rapidly growing effort committed to maintaining our mountain quality of life. Some of the most visible and vocal individuals are voters living in the John West area, the center of Oakhurst, and/or own businesses in Oakhurst with signs stating ‘Vote NO on C.’
SPIN: Stops…County from Taking $50-60 Million Over the Next 20 Years
REALITY: False until proven otherwise. This number has never been documented.