Original post made
on Sep 19, 2008
This story contains 382 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
Dear Alamo Residents,
Everyone who attended the LAFCO hearing should be proud of themselves. This was a fine example of democracy in action. Both sides of the incorporation question will continue to discuss and analyze this important issue over the next several months.
I urge everyone to participate in the process over the next several months and become familiar with the many issues of the Alamo Incorporation effort.
And keep in mind that the best government is the one that governs the least and is the closest to the people.
Alamo residents deserved to have this opportunity and we appreciated everyone's input and participation. Alamo is a great place and we can make it even better.
Many neighbors have been circulating these thank you messages from AIM committee members with an agenda for Steve and David to address as part of their continuing participation. The agenda is taken from last evening's meeting and concerns expressed by neighbors and commissioners:
#1 - Further pro forma fiscal analysis of local government options based on structure, operations, staffing and services for each.
#2 - Specific definition of commissions, committees and taskforces for establishment and conduct of citizens’ participation in a local government.
#3 - VERY IMPORTANT: Who will be candidates for the proposed Town Council and what are their campaign commitments to government definition?
#4 - Specific understanding of needs for future annexation of additional neighborhoods.
#5 - Specific understanding of desire for increased services and infrastructure at increased fees in neighborhoods or throughout the region.
Among the many sides of incorporation consideration, there is very keen awareness of the issues faced by a new government. After 17 months of incorporation discussion and study, our neighborhoods have developed substantial knowledge of the tasks ahead that will define our government for voter consideration.
Lisa Wright, esq.
Diablo Vista regional counsel committee
As a CDSI courtesy
Additional information regarding the 30 day reconsideration period ending October 17, 2008 and ballot material.
Government Code Section 56895 provides that when the Commission has adopted a resolution making determinations, any person or affected agency may file a written request with the LAFCO Executive Officer requesting amendments to or reconsideration of the resolution. The request shall state the specific modification to the resolution being requested, and importantly, shall state what new or different facts that could not have been presented previously are claimed to warrant the reconsideration.
The person or agency must file the written request within 30 days of the Commission's approval. Per the LAFCO Schedule of Fees, the fee for processing a request for reconsideration is $2,500.
With regard to the ballot material, LAFCO prepares the ballot question on incorporation and the impartial analysis. LAFCO submits this information, along with the LAFCO resolution and map to County Election for inclusion in the voter pamphlet.
For further information, please contact Ms. Lou Ann Texeira, LAFCO Executive Officer, firstname.lastname@example.org
*As a CDSI courtesy*
Not so fast!
Yes, we do have a 30 day reconsideration period for formal challenge and individual commentary before LAFCO confirms the incorporation approval and an election. Any individual resident, group or association can provide further information for consideration of the issues raised by neighbors and commissioners at the September 18 meeting.
Yes, if you demand a hearing it will cost you, but you can add to the consideration that is LAFCO's reconsideration during this 30 day period. This is everyone's community and LAFCO should consider, and reconsider, everyone's position and analysis.
Not so fast,
North Iron Horse neighborhoods
Diablo Vista region
*As a CDSI courtesy*
Why not ask the people of Danville if they would like to vote on having all of their rights removed as a city, giving those rights back to the county and other surrounding towns to dictate what is the best course of action for Danville. I would be surprised if 10% of the great people of Danville would endorse this action. Chuck Steel
I support Mr. Charles Steel's concept of a City (town) of Danville vote of confidence by their residents. Based on the numerous comments over the past seventeen months by Danville residents, I would expect a significant minority to vote against Danville.
I am very concerned about the financial viability of the proposed Town of Alamo. In these difficult financial times, I cannot believe any of the financial projections from two years ago are valid.
I support the idea of self-governance and would support some type of local control over planning, but a Town does not make sense right now. I recognize this well intentioned effort is being conducted in good faith by sincere individuals, but this issue is becoming emotionally driven, instead of making a good business case. I would ask the supporters, how many of them would be interested in starting a business in this climate? Probably not many! Therefore, how does Incorporation make any sense, at least for now?
The proposed budget surplus, is so small that it is analagous to an individiual having $1.00. One relaitively minor event, such as a bad storm, earthquake or major traffic accident (street owners: City, County or State are usually named in lawsuits involving accidents), could eliminate the surplus and cause the Town to use its General Fund revenues, which are already small, then what?
Diablo Vista region neighbors thank Chris Suter for the well-considered commentary. Two factors are primary to Chris' concerns:
First, the State can withhold distribution of certain moneys to a city if the funds are critical to State operations.
Second, the county documented costs to other cities for contract-services that are higher than the costs included in the LAFCO study.
As was noted at the LAFCO commissioners' meeting, the LAFCO CFA financials for the proposed Town of Alamo made assumptions based on contract-cost projections provided by the county and without definition of government structure, operations, staffing and services. Using more defined structure and the 8-11% cost increases noted to other cities in the county document, costs would outpace revenue in the end of the second year.
It should be noted that such cost increases noted to other cities could be partially included in the LAFCO CFA financials and such costs could be fixed within the contract with the county. It is possible that some surplus could exist but there are no assurances of full distributions of moneys to a Town of Alamo by the State or County in the present, very dire financial situation.
Chris Suter brings up an important point. The 176 (or so) cities in California that are smaller than Alamo are obviously in such dire financial condition that they better start petitioning to drop their incorporation and beg to be let back into benevolent arms of BIG county government. I think not, Mr. Suter!
And I am glad that you in your words, "would support some type of local control over planning." Unfortunately, the only way to achieve this is with INCORPORATION!!
A MAC (Municipal Advisory Council) won't do it. Take a look - their middle name is "advisory." This is a synonym for "no teeth." Also, a MAC is appointed by the County Board of Supervisors - hardly local control.
A Community Services District (CSD) has a few teeth (not enough to frighten an enfeebled fawn) and it has NO planning authority.
If you really want local control over planning, then consider all the options - there's only one.
The idea that Danville or Orinda or Lafayette or Walnut Creek residents would ever vote to return to the warm, competent embrace of the Lifers, err Highly Motivated County Employees is beyond laughable.
Alamo Ron is 110% correct when he said:
"And I am glad that you in your words, "would support some type of local control over planning." Unfortunately, the only way to achieve this is with INCORPORATION!!"
"If you really want local control over planning, then consider all the options - there's only one."
We need taxation with representation!