Rancho Murieta committee contemplates cityhood

[Matthew]

I see the newly formed Ad Hoc Governance Committee is looking at cityhood as an option.

A major area of investigation for the committee will be studying the economics of supporting the community in the present and in the future. Forming a city would require identifying a revenue stream and tax base to support all the services and infrastructure currently provided by both CSD and Sacramento County.

Sullivan suggested looking forward to what the community will look like at full build-out. “None of the city issues are going to be realistic unless you have the population base and economic base to pay for what you want,” he said. “We need to be self contained.” Pasek said the committee should look for comparisons with other communities of similar size.

The group will be broken down into three smaller working subcommittees that will report back with their findings. One committee will explore what services are provided throughout the entire district and at what cost. A second committee will assess how much tax revenue the county collects. A third committee will research municipality alternatives and the pros and cons of becoming a city.

The Ad Hoc Governance Committee will meet the second Wednesday of every month at 6:30 p.m. at the CSD building, with the next meeting to be held on July 9. The committee plans to prepare a final report by the end of the year making recommendations for potential governance options.

http://www.rivervalleytimes.com/front1.shtml

[golfnut]

Never gonna happen. Where's the sales tax to support cityhood?

[LisaT]

http://www.rivervalleytimes.com/front1.shtml

Good job by the RVT.

I hope that any residents that are interested in contributing jump right in, including jumping in on any of the working subcommittees.

Posted via Mobile Device

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by golfnut

Never gonna happen. Where's the sales tax to support cityhood?

We talked about that at the first meeting. I think it safe to say nobody is under any illusions that it is feasible with the existing tax base. But the committee's charge is to investigate the options, actually gather information, and report, rather than just go with what everybody's gut tells them and call it a day.

My own pitch was that we at least ought to identify what the "tipping point" in revenues would be before it became conceivably viable, then one could extrapolate out to a "full buildout" scenario and make at least an informed guess as to whether it was even feasible under that scenario, even if one assumed that "developer dreams" such as a Greens shopping center and a Murieta West hotel actually came into being to generate a stream of sales/use/occupancy tax revenue.

My guess is probably not, but my suggestion was to test that easy assumption with a little bit of hard information before chucking the possibility out the window. We've gotten into a lot of messes out here by running with popular assumption and local legend rather than actually investigating those assumptions and legends' accuracy.

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by LisaT

I hope that any residents that are interested in contributing jump right in, including jumping in on any of the working subcommittees.

So subcommittees will have additional members and not just members of the ad hoc committee? What time commitment is anticipated?

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by golfnut

Where's the sales tax to support cityhood?

We could tax text messaging like the city of Sacramento is trying to do.

News - Sacramento voters to decide whether to tax text messages - sacbee.com

[Maximus]

Gotta go with you on this one SM. Wilbur aren't you making an assumption in the second sentence that you reject in the last? Nice work.

Originally Posted by Wilbur

We talked about that at the first meeting. I think it safe to say nobody is under any illusions that it is feasible with the existing tax base. But the committee's charge is to investigate the options, actually gather information, and report, rather than just go with what everybody's gut tells them and call it a day.

My own pitch was that we at least ought to identify what the "tipping point" in revenues would be before it became conceivably viable, then one could extrapolate out to a "full buildout" scenario and make at least an informed guess as to whether it was even feasible under that scenario, even if one assumed that "developer dreams" such as a Greens shopping center and a Murieta West hotel actually came into being to generate a stream of sales/use/occupancy tax revenue.

My guess is probably not, but my suggestion was to test that easy assumption with a little bit of hard information before chucking the possibility out the window. We've gotten into a lot of messes out here by running with popular assumption and local legend rather than actually investigating those assumptions and legends' accuracy.

How do the smallest cities incorporate with a population 196 or even less?

[LisaT]

Originally Posted by Matthew

So subcommittees will have additional members and not just members of the ad hoc committee? What time commitment is anticipated?

I think the feeling is that there is a place for anyone that wants to participate. For those that want to get involved I could see the commitment to just showing up and talking about the current issue, to actually helping with whatever research we will need to do.

The second to last paragraph in the RVT article summarizes the three subcommittees.

I think that we need to think past the urban myths and see what we come up with, both pro and con.there are some bigger issues to at least think about.

Personally, I think it's important to try to look ahead and plan for when the building does start up again.

[Wilbur]

I have a hunch, tho it's yet to be explored and verified, that the tiny cities were incorporated before LAFCO and "revenue neutrality" and all the other modern hoops and hurdles were erected.

To be clear, citihood is very nearly a non-starter and isn't the emphasis of the thing. Much closer to the core is what could be done with CSD's latent powers and what realignments, consolidations or better cooperations of the present RMA/CSD division of responsibilities might produce savings or improved effectiveness, e.g., how can we use CSD citations under RMA rule powers more effectively to deal with truancy and other behavioral problems which we just learned cannot be enforced by CSD ordinance, are there functions we pay for with NONdeductible dues which could be covered more cost-effectively with DEDUCTIBLE taxes producing a net post-tax savings to residents, what really are all the options re: having on-site officers who have arrest powers and what would each realistically cost, that sort of thing. To perceive this as primarily an inquiry into cityhood would be a mistake. There was a moment when I thought it might actually get scratched off the list of things to look at, due to (nearly?) everyone's hunch it was just flat infeasible. I just said hey, this is a unique opportunity, we're being asked to look at all the options, let's not toss anything overboard before at least looking at it. So no, it's not the star of the show.

Steve, of course John Sullivan will attempt through this process to persuade the community once again that growth is good. I don't think we need fear that debate.

[LisaT]

Originally Posted by steven mobley

... I don't want to see this community changed. What's next? A space program for RM?

Preserve Rancho Murieta!

Steve

Unfortunately, there is no stopping change. It's certainly changed since I first moved here, and, unfortunately it will continue to change. I do wish it could be slowed to a standstill.


Even if we didn't change inside the gates, the outside will change, we will get more traffic on 16 commuting in all sorts of directions, and Folsom and Rancho Cordova in many years will creep closer and closer.

I think we can try to help diminish any negatve impact, and try to control things for the betterment of our quality of life.