Incorporate Oakhurst? [Archive] - Yosemite Area Forums

MtnEagle

Dec 08, 2002, 05:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Coldwolf:
So, which people of Oakhurst are they going to represent? The people that have lived here for all their lives, and want things like they were, or the people that lived in LA or Santa Barbara until they retired and then sell off the expensive home,pack their stuff up and move to Oakhurst and try to make it like the town they came from with CCRs and sign ordinances, and complain about workers on FREAKIN mountain time (which only exists in the mind of Flatlanders)?

Sorry about the run-on sentence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I lived in Fresno before my wife and I moved here 10 years ago. Hated every minute of it. We worked hard to afford our place here.

I love the small town atmosphere of Oakhurst, but I sure do get tired of the above example of thinking. You aren't paying my mortgage or my utilities, and I think we've both been here long enough to be members of this community.

I think Oakhurst should be careful in its growth yes, but I also think people should be realistic about the fact that things do change.

Simply put, I already have to chance my death on 41 everyday to go to work, because there isn't a decent FREAKIN job to be had within 50 miles of this town. Add to that the choke hold on any real new technology that could be available to us all by the FREAKIN monopoly called SierraTel. And, lastly the fact that a lot of us have to commute to Fresno or Madera to shop for the things that most "Flatlanders" as you call them take for granted at Target, WallMart, etc.

We don't have to give in to the big Strip Malls and all, but we should have and invite a few big name stores into town to relieve the traffic to Fresno that everyone complains about so often. I'd love to give the local stores all my money that I spend in shoping, but I find it annoying the attitude that I have to take their crap as well.

Sure you want the traffic for tourist to polulate your cash register, but you want to be able to shoo them out of town as soon as they do.

Face it, a lot of people in this town have a chip on their shoulders the size of Texas, and then complain when they hear that Oakhurst has a reputation.

I can't help but want to knock it off every time I see or hear it... It makes me sick... /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[This message was edited by Alien on December 08, 2002 at 08:47 PM.]

maccabee

Dec 10, 2002, 03:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by rpm:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by huh?:
Wouldn't incorporating mean more cops?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would be so wrong with having more cops? If you live within the law, you shouldn't be afraid of more cops, but rather relieved at the added security and safety they can provide. Whenever I am being followed by tailgaters, poor and agressive drivers, speeders, etc. and whenever I encounter cracked out meth head losers, I wish there were more cops around.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfortunately cops are not cracking down on meth heads. they can be found in the same spots-arco, the pines bar at 2 am waiting to arrest people, and following high school kids. How would more police solve anything?

greg dempsey

Dec 11, 2002, 01:38 PM

Oakhurst is being bled dry by county taxes. As we suffer water shortages and sidewalk issues, the City Of Madera proceeds to decorate their municipal buildings with remodels and murals, and has now announced a new $4 million dollar Cultural Arts Center, paid for by...you guessed it...US.

No taxation without remuneration!

Greg

greg dempsey

Dec 12, 2002, 08:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by greg dempsey:
Oakhurst is being bled dry by county taxes. As we suffer water shortages and sidewalk issues, the City Of Madera proceeds to decorate their municipal buildings with remodels and murals, and has now announced a new $4 million dollar Cultural Arts Center, paid for by...you guessed it...US.

No taxation without remuneration!

Greg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

===============

Aren't the needs of Madera County et al and the needs of its five individual districts distinctly different sets of needs?

Are we at the place yet where we need to have our own local government? Do you know where your county tax money is going?

To be sure, Oakhurst incorporation is an expensive proposition in the short run, but papers have been filed, and the process is underway. Is this a good or bad development?

Greg

Curious

Dec 24, 2002, 05:13 AM

whitebird

Dec 24, 2002, 07:22 AM

Oakhursat doesn't have the tax base to support its own local government. It would still have to contract out to the county/state for public safety support , so would still be on the apron strings of the existing government structure.

Stan

Dec 24, 2002, 11:20 AM

This is so dumb. If you do nothing wrong, you will not get hassled. The fact is, alot of people that look dangerous, ARE dangerous. You can't judge a book by the cover, but you can "sorta" tell what is inside by the cover. Black people, white people, brown people, green people, if you look nice, act nice, do nice things, you are a nice person and are treated as a nice person. If you do bad things, you need to be treated accordingly.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Afraid citizen:
What if you live by the law but still get hassled a lot by the cops just because they think you are doing something wrong because of the way you look.

If I was a short-haired white guy in a suit I wouldn't be afraid of them.

Explaining myself to cops all the time gets old.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MtnEagle

Dec 24, 2002, 04:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Curious:
The new Town Government will represent the people of Oakhust who vote. It will be governent by local people rather than other people who live somewhere else, whose primary focus and attention are somewhere else and who suck over one million dollars of wealth out of Oakhurst every year to spend somewhere else. The American Colonists had such an arrangement two and a quarter centuries ago. They had a "Tea Party," we had a very successfull petition drive.

Local people will have input - which we have very little of now - about such things as sign ordinances and CCRs. Let the new Town Council know what you think.

Government that is controlled by local people is in fact, LESS GOVERNMENT, not more government.

Have you tried lately to maneuver through the Madera County Bureaucratic maze in in effort to get a simple building permit issued? Our county
administrative process is the lauging stock of central California.

We can, and must do better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man do I so agree with this... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MtnEagle

Dec 24, 2002, 04:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by whitebird:
Oakhurst doesn't have the tax base to support its own local government. It would still have to contract out to the county/state for public safety support , so would still be on the apron strings of the existing government structure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, but in any case it brings us one step closer to autonomy.

Madera only thinks about one thing... Madera

/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Coldwolf

Dec 26, 2002, 10:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alien:
Well, I lived in Fresno before my wife and I moved here 10 years ago. Hated every minute of it. We worked hard to afford our place here.

I love the small town atmosphere of Oakhurst, but I sure do get tired of the above example of thinking.

You aren't paying my mortgage or my utilities, and I think we've both been here long enough to be members of this community.

I think Oakhurst should be careful in its growth yes, but I also think people should be realistic about the fact that things do change.

Add to that the choke hold on any real new technology that could be available to us all by the FREAKIN monopoly called SierraTel.
And, lastly the fact that a lot of us have to commute to Fresno or Madera to shop for the things that most "Flatlanders" as you call them take for granted at Target, WallMart, etc.

We don't have to give in to the big Strip Malls and all, but we should have and invite a few big name stores into town to relieve the traffic to Fresno that everyone complains about so often. I'd love to give the local stores all my money that I spend in shoping, but I find it annoying the attitude that I have to take their crap as well.

Sure you want the traffic for tourist to polulate your cash register, but you want to be able to shoo them out of town as soon as they do.

Face it, a lot of people in this town have a chip on their shoulders the size of Texas, and then complain when they hear that Oakhurst has a reputation.

I can't help but want to knock it off every time I see or hear it... It makes me sick... /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[This message was edited by Alien on December 08, 2002 at 08:47 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
'm not a "close the gates behind me person. I just think there is a reason that people like the small town atmosphere, and that can only be destroyed by changing the small town to the big city. Growth is enevitable, but growth doesn't nessesarily mean something bad.
People that move here complain about workers being on "mountain time". Yup. Example. I went to deliver a piece of equipment to someones house. Deliver. Not Setup, not Install, not Reconfigure.
Now I'm even willing to place and hookup, but the guy insists I have to hook it to his system, then test the system to make sure each piece in the system will work with the new equipment. I find a problem, which now becomes MY problem, and he insists I need to fix it before I leave. Everything else on my schedule get shoved into the ****ter, and Now I've done 2 hours work, plus my delivery time, and I get my damn delivery charge because "thats all he asked for".
And the next man I went to complained about workers on "Mountain Time".
A friend,roofer, went to do a simple reroof, scheduled a week to do it, gets to the house, finds it was built subcode, many ower built additions over the years that are sagging, trusses not properly placed, no roof anchors, so now the week job he bid on is going to push off everything else he scheduled, but he can't do that so he's working on weekends and holidays to get the job done properly. And because it takes more than a week to do the job, (if he had no ethics he could have patched the roof well enough to make it through the warranty period,but he tries to do a GOOD job) the people complain about workers on "Mountain Time", but never consider that my friend is giving up his freetime and family time, and holiday time so they can have a sound roof.
No, I don't pay your morgage, I pay mine. So yes, we've both been here long enough to be members of the community, but lets be members of THIS community, where a worker has to travel for an hour to go 20 miles to a job, and thats coming out of his pocket. And if he can't get there today, he'll be there tommorrow or the next day. Hopefully, he'll call you, but he might be stuck behind someones wall, or on someones roof, or under the floor trying desperatly to fix someones broken pipes and stop an emergency from becoming a tragedy. Or just trying not to alienate customer/client/community member at the expense of another. I'll tell you, you don't often find local businessmen at the lake on a workday.More often you'll find them working somewhere on a weekend.
Stores like Walmart or Kmart? Do you have any concept what that would do to the small shop owners? Sure, maybe the stores here don't have quite the selection you can get at a huge chain store. Granted. I'm sure you have to go to Fresno for the "right color" or something. But there are stores in this town selling almost anything you could want.

So a man, Mr Baker has taken his dads little business, 40 phones lines or so, and built it into a conglomerate of related businesses. Monopoly? There are 3 OTHER internet service providers, 1 OTHER cellular phone provider, one OTHER pager provider.Sierra Tel might not be the phone company of the big city, and Mr Baker might have make lots of money doing what he does, but thats what being in business is about.
New technologies? Remember Sierra OnLine, WorldPlay International,Tsunami Media...? The new Technology was here, and left. I wish they would come back.
Tourists? this town doesn't cater to the tourist trade. How many "tourist" shops can you name? In any other tourist town (and I've lived in some, visited many)the main street is one after another of t-shirt shops, trinket/souveiner vendors, gift shops and the like. This town has...41 Trading post and a souviener shop inside of The Kettle.
I'd love for the tourists to drop more money here...but pretty much, they use this town for the motels and resturants only.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I know this is going to come off that way..
Its just the way I see it.
CW

[This message was edited by Coldwolf on December 26, 2002 at 01:57 PM.]

Coldwolf

Dec 26, 2002, 11:00 AM

So when was the last time you saw "to protect and serve" on the side of a sherriffs car? When did all police go from "peace officers" (remember peace officers associations?) to "Law enforcement"

maccabee

Dec 27, 2002, 07:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Stan:
This is so dumb. If you do nothing wrong, you will not get hassled. The fact is, alot of people that look dangerous, ARE dangerous. You can't judge a book by the cover, but you can "sorta" tell what is inside by the cover. Black people, white people, brown people, green people, if you look nice, act nice, do nice things, you are a nice person and are treated as a nice person. If you do bad things, you need to be treated accordingly.
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QUOTE]
Stan that is nice that you believe that, and its the way it should be, but it is not a reality.

maccabee

Dec 27, 2002, 07:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alien:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by whitebird:
Oakhurst doesn't have the tax base to support its own local government. It would still have to contract out to the county/state for public safety support , so would still be on the apron strings of the existing government structure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I see your point, but at the rate we are growing, and number is skyrocketing. Its better to get outside help at first as future Oakhurst govt learns and makes inevitable mistakes. any apron strings will not last for long.

maccabee

Dec 27, 2002, 07:43 AM

This is in response to coldwolfs post:
"my delivery time, and I get my damn delivery charge because "thats all he asked for".

Then You need to be clearer on the phone and explain your services and prices better. If the customer has a problem with this (and a little friendly phone manners goes a long way) then let that customer try to get something delivered from Fresno! They will have to come back to you.

"And the next man I went to complained about workers on "Mountain Time"."
Next time someone complains of mountain time I am going to remind them that people are late in all areas of California! Or in Fresno you don't let people deliver because some of the characters are not the type you want to allow inside your home.
"Stores like Walmart or Kmart? Do you have any concept what that would do to the small shop owners? "
Those stores will bleed Oakhurst of our uniqueness and we can not support them anyway! That is why those corporations have not even considered our area, the math is just not there.

"So a man, Mr Baker has taken his dads little business, 40 phones lines or so, and built it into a conglomerate of related businesses. Monopoly? "
Yes, its still a monopoly. If this situation existed in Fresno it wouldn't matter as much, but in this smaller area it still qualifies as a monopoly. I am not saying its good or bad, it just meets the criteria of a corporation in size and community power.

"this town doesn't cater to the tourist trade. How many "tourist" shops can you name?"
Shilo in, the elderberry house and chateau, horse inn whatever you call it B & B, pines resort, tenaya lodge, days in , pine rose inn, hundreds of privately owned vacation cabins and home and smaller restaurants on 41. The peddlars fair. Our gas stations do a large percentage of their business in the summer due to no gas in Yosemite. We have tons of souvenier shops in Bass lake, and our local art galleries benefit from tourists, as do spas.Luckily we don't have a lot of tacky gift shops, but our industry depends on tourist. Our tv shops and grocery stores are patronized by hotel, restaurant,etc workers , hundreds of them, so dependence on tourism does affect us all.

MtnEagle

Dec 27, 2002, 08:52 PM

"So a man, Mr Baker has taken his dads little business, 40 phones lines or so, and built it into a conglomerate of related businesses. Monopoly? "

My only comment to add here is that until this town and the surrounding areas are not dependant on STI's cabling system, it will remain a monopoly.

Then there is the fact that just about every time someone starts up a competitive business, he ends up buying them out or at least a controlling percentage.

I've never said he wasn't a GOOD business man... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I just despise how it stifles technical growth for this area.

And while we are on the subject, yes I remember Sierra, cause I got left out in the cold along with several hundred other workers when that French **** of a company bought it and closed the Oakhurst division.

Anyway... I've said everything I need to say...

Happy New Year fellas!

/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Curious

Jan 05, 2003, 10:25 AM

Sandman

Jan 19, 2003, 08:03 AM

<H3>Oakhurst incorporation on agenda
Madera County commission looks into proposal, possible city limits.
By Charles McCarthy
The Fresno Bee Article - Click Here (http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/5901262p-6864295c.html)
(Published Thursday, January 16, 2003, 4:24 AM)
</H3>

MADERA -- The proposed incorporation of Oakhurst and its possible city limits is a key topic as the Local Agency Formation Commission begins its 2003 schedule.
The commission discussed expanding those proposed city limits at its first meeting of the year Wednesday, said Dave Herb, the commission's executive officer and Madera County planning director.

"It's the first and most significant step in determining if the proposal is financially viable," Herb said.

Local residents have pushed to incorporate, presenting Madera County with a petition in October calling for incorporating 5,500 acres -- 8.6 square miles of central Oakhurst, centered on the Highway 49 junction.

The bulk of the targeted area is the Highway 41 commercial corridor from the top of Deadwood Grade to the Bass Lake turnoff. From 6,000 to 8,000 people live there.

The Action Committee To Incorporate Oakhurst Now submitted the petition. The committee estimates that the incorporation area produces $3.4 million in tax revenue yearly for Madera County. The incorporated town could run itself on about $3.4 million, the committee said, leaving $100,000 for local improvements.

Herb said LAFCO has identified several areas that could be included in an expansion of the proposed eastern Madera County city. One of these is near John West Road, east of the limits suggested by a committee of Oak-hurst residents.

Also identified for possible inclusion in the proposed city is an area served by Road 222, north of central Oakhurst toward Bass Lake.

Three county roads serve smaller patches of land considered for inclusion into what eventually could be Madera County's third city.

Herb said these areas are served by roads 426, 422 and 425b, south and east of central Oakhurst.

Yosemite High School and most of central Oakhurst, including shopping centers near the junction of state highways 41 and 49, are already inside the proposed city limits.

Madera County Supervisor John V. Silva, last year's vice chairman, steps up to be LAFCO chairman for 2003. Other members of the commission are Frank Bigelow, outgoing chairman and Madera County supervisor; Madera City Council Member Gordon Skeels; and two other LAFCO incumbents, Ron Harris and Richard Dal Cerro.

The next LAFCO meeting is scheduled for Feb. 11. Although it deals with issues of local jurisdiction over boundaries, cities and special districts, Madera County's LAFCO has been an autonomous arm of the county since January 2001, Herb said.

The reporter can be reached at cmccarthy@fresnobee.com or 675-6804


If you have any questions or comments, please email me admin@oakhurstonline.com.

MtnEagle

Jan 22, 2003, 09:35 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by guest:
i'm not sure the oakhurst city administrators are competent enough to handle incorporation. they are a bunch of unorganized hicks who care more about their own personal agendas than the future of this great town.
(image)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey at least he likes John Deere tractors! http://oakhurstonline.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ROFL!

Curious

Apr 02, 2003, 04:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by whitebird:
Oakhursat doesn't have the tax base to support its own local government. It would still have to contract out to the county/state for public safety support , so would still be on the apron strings of the existing government structure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The initial financial analysis indicates that we pay more than one million dollars into Madera County than we get back in services. the CFA (Comprehensive Financial Analysis) will give us a more accurate picture. Yes, we will contract for some services, and probably with Madera County. But we are not restricted to Madera County - we could contract with the City of Madera, for exammple, or with Mariposa County, or some other governmental agency. The new Town Couoncil will negotiate for such services.

Oakhurst is now a "Contributing Community." Tht means that some of our tax dollars go to subsidize the rest of Madera County.

Check out tha A. C. T. I. O. N. web site: www.townofoakhurst.com (http://www.townofoakhurst.com)

Ironhorse

Apr 02, 2003, 06:16 AM

Believe me, the City of Madera would not be a good trade-off from the County of Madera to provide services if Oakhurst incorporates. They can't handle their own issues and spending. I was most impressed by Councilmember Gordon Skeels recent comment over funding for their new 5.5 million dollar police department (mind you the price tag started out at 3.5 million dollars originally). When it was indicated that due to circumstances associated with the city's own budget problems and the state's probable impact on the city, Mr. Skeels commented to the effect "I don't care where they get the money, just get it built", (not exact quote, couldn't remember exactly how it was put). This is a good indicator of his attitude, and this type of attitude generally translates to higher taxes, "full speed ahead and **** the torpedoes." The question should be, if they are faced with not filling open positions (of which there are several) and possible layoffs, is it wise to spend money on a new facility, or would it be wiser to wait a few years to start spending money they apparently don't have, according to their statements. The potential money that Oakhurst would have would disappear in a hurry with the City of Madera's spending philosophy.

Apr 02, 2003, 05:51 PM

Can't Please everyone...Everyone wants to complain about something...Cops, Govt, money...Everyone is angry about something. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wacko.gif

MtnEagle

Apr 03, 2003, 09:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JW:
Can't Please everyone...Everyone wants to complain about something...Cops, Govt, money...Everyone is angry about something. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wacko.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah... Especially in Oakhurst... I think it's a mandatory pass time...

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink2.gif

Ironhorse

Apr 03, 2003, 09:54 AM

Wasn't aware I was complaining. Just stating fact. Watched the City of Madera waste money for over 20 years. Don't see the point of building a building that you can't afford, especially one that it is predicted will be outgrown in 10 years or less. Doesn't seem financially responsible to me. When a councilmember states "I don't care where the money comes from, get it built that's scary to me. It would indicate that he doesn't care if the money comes from layoffs of personnel or from increased taxes to people that are already getting hit by the State as a result of their mismanagement of money paid by taxpayers. This from an entity that already closes its Police Department between noon and 1pm and its Finance department is only open from 9am to 4pm, its Community Development Department (engineering, planning and building) is closed during the noon hour. How can people who work 8am to 5pm get their business done? Many try to use their lunch hour so that they don't lose pay. There's something wrong with a whole department taking off for lunch at the same time, when it would be more logical to stagger their lunch hours. Sorry if you guys view this as a complaint. I lived with it and didn't like seeing my tax dollars spent this way.

MtnEagle

Apr 07, 2003, 06:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by myhome:
Wasn't aware I was complaining... ...Sorry if you guys view this as a complaint...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... I think you took my response personal, can't speak for the other guy.

My comment is/was on the reputation that the Oakhurst area has in general. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink2.gif

I mean really... people should plant some trees or something to settle their nerves...

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/grin2.gif

Chem101

Apr 24, 2003, 11:42 AM

I realize, that to some here, I fit the definition of a lowly Ã¢Â€ÂœflatlanderÃ¢Â€Â however, feel compelled to share my experiences regarding incorporation.
Having spent 40 years of my life with the goal of owning a home and eventually retiring up at the lake, I have a vested interest in quality of the closest big city (Oakhurst)

It doesnÃ¢Â€Â™t take a rocket scientist to see growth coming like a freight train. Look at the shopping center off Friant. Look at the ChildrenÃ¢Â€Â™s Hospital. Look and the new casino. Look at all the home development, all heading directly north. Oakhust has already grown at an alarming rate. I miss the Bigfoot Burgers, the small community feel, but those days are gone forever.

As a young boy I remember my father working with other folks in the small community I grew up in to try and incorporate the town into a city. At the time it was a small community surrounded by orange groves, walnut groves, cattle ranches and beautiful rolling hills. The effort to incorporate failed. People were worried about taxes.
The townÃ¢Â€Â™s growth was guided by the benevolent care of Los Angeles County. This town can now be conservatively classified as a rat hole. There are strip malls everywhere. The hills are covered with high density housing. Every corner has a gas station. During rush hour it takes 30 minutes to drive the two mile length of the main drag. It breaks my heart to visit that town knowing what was and what is.

After graduating from college I bought a home in a new community in Chino Hills. Like the town I grew up inÃ¢Â€Â¦. like Oakhurst, it is a beautiful rural setting in the hills. Unlike the town I grew up in, the people of Chino Hills did vote to incorporate early on. Just like before, the growth came. However, this time the growth was controlled by community members. Chino Hills maintains itÃ¢Â€Â™s rural atmosphere today. Lots of open spaces were left in the master plan. Housing densities were maintained low. Retail and industrial areas were laid out to minimize impact on the quality of life. Chino Hills has the lowest crime in the county and is rated as one of the best communities to live in Southern California. And guess whatÃ¢Â€Â¦. IÃ¢Â€Â™m not paying any higher taxes then if I had stayed in the town I grew up in!!! Nor did the city fathers create any nonsense city ordinances.

Look at Oakhurst today. What grade would you give Madera County planning so far?

I hope to retire at Bass Lake in 8 to 10 years, I own a home up there now so that sorta makes me a local. I certainly hope the citizens of Oakhurst will protect what they have so I can look forward to visiting Ã¢Â€Âœthe big cityÃ¢Â€Â in my golden years.

Curious

May 23, 2003, 05:32 PM

Oakhurst is a "contributing" tax area. That is, we pay more into Madera County than we get back in services - about 1.2 million per year, as shown on the preleminary financial analysis. An incorporated Oakhurst could provide better services at a lower cost.

Sandman

Aug 12, 2004, 10:01 PM

Let's bring up an old issue... and an old topic on these forums:

<h1 align="center">Incorporation issue resurfaces</h1><H3 ALIGN=CENTER>
Feasibility analysis regarding
the possibility of incorporating
Oakhurst as a town might
be completed this month</H3>

Submitted
<hr width="100%" noshade>

On Saturday, Aug. 7, Ron Bucheger, president of the Action Committee to Incorporate Oakhurst Now (ACTION) provided an update to the Oakhurst Democratic Club on the Oakhurst incorporation effort.

Ã¢Â€ÂœDemocracy is about taking control of our own situation and what the constitution is founded on,Ã¢Â€Â Bucheger said. Rather than only having one vote on the Madera County Board of Supervisors, providing Oakhurst with limited clout, ACTION envisions an incorporated Oakhurst with a five-member town council and a rotating mayor, giving the community much greater control over its quality of life and future. ACTION believes that by incorporating, the citizens of Oakhurst would have a direct say over issues such as police, fire coverage, and the very important planning aspects of town development.

An initial feasibility study performed by Economic and Planning Systems concluded that the incorporation of Oakhurst was financially reasonable, Bucheger said. Currently, approximately $3.3 million in tax revenues are generated by Oakhurst and $1.5 million of that stays in Madera CountyÃ¢Â€Â™s general fund.

If Oakhurst were incorporated, that money could be put to use directly for local needs.

The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Madera County, which oversees and will ultimately vote on whether or not to approve OakhurstÃ¢Â€Â™s incorporation, has contracted with consultants to perform a comprehensive fiscal and feasibility analysis of the issue.
It is hoped that will be completed this month.

Initially, a newly incorporated town of Oakhurst would adopt all the current Madera County regulations, but then it would be within the townÃ¢Â€Â™s power to change them.

The new town would contract with Madera County for select services.
Ã¢Â€ÂœPeople are always afraid that taxes will go up if the Oakhurst incorporates,Ã¢Â€Â Bucheger said. Ã¢Â€Âœbut taxes canÃ¢Â€Â™t be raised without the majority of Oakhurst residents agreeing to it.Ã¢Â€Â

If LAFCO approves Oakhurst to move forward with incorporation, an election will be ordered, and the citizens of Oakhurst would vote to approve or disapprove the action.

Curious

Aug 19, 2004, 07:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Curious:
It's good Greg. Every year more than $1.2 million of Oakhurst taxpayers money is spent by Madera County outside of Oakhurst, with some $2 million spend on local services. We are a contributor community, that means we are subsidizing the rest of the county. Let' be governed by people who live in Oakhurst, know Oakhurst, and care about Oakhurst. That is not the situation we have today. It's time for Oakhurst to assume self rule.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Coldwolf:
So, which people of Oakhurst are they going to represent? The people that have lived here for all their lives, and want things like they were, or the people that lived in LA or Santa Barbara until they retired and then sell off the expensive home,pack their stuff up and move to Oakhurst and try to make it like the town
they came from with CCRs and sign ordinances, and complain about workers on FREAKIN mountain time (which only exists in the mind of Flatlanders)?

Sorry about the run-on sentence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The new Town Government will represent the people of Oakhust who vote. It will be governent by local people rather than other people who live somewhere else, whose primary focus and attention are somewhere else and who suck over one million dollars of wealth out of Oakhurst every year to spend somewhere else. The American Colonists had such an arrangement two and a quarter centuries ago. They had a "Tea Party," we had a very successfull petition drive.

Local people will have input - which we have very little of now - about such things as sign ordinances and CCRs. Let the new Town Council know what you think.

Government that is controlled by local people is in fact, LESS GOVERNMENT, not more government.

Have you tried lately to maneuver through the Madera County Bureaucratic maze in in effort to get a simple building permit issued? Our county
administrative process is the lauging stock of central California.

We can, and must do better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dodgergirl

Aug 19, 2004, 08:25 AM

I'm really late responding to this, but what's wrong with showing up when you say you will? Or even close?
So I was smart enough to get my kids outta the city my mom chose, you gonna blame me for that?
I usually agree with you, Wolf & know you aren't here as much as you were when this was originally posted, but I believe many 'mountain people' use 'mountain time' as an excuse not to get things done. There's good and bad business everywhere, and yes, even in your beloved Oakhurst. I moved here not to change things, but to adapt to a different lifestyle. I still wonder where that electrician is I had an appointment with LAST November! http://oakhurstforums.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif I think his name was Mike & is real important in Oakhurst. He actually came out after numerous phone calls spanning a couple weeks, and said he'd be back to do said job the following week. (Ah, mountain speak..the week following what??)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Coldwolf:
So, which people of Oakhurst are they going to represent? The people that have lived here for all their lives, and want things like they were, or the people that lived in LA or Santa Barbara until they retired and then sell off the expensive home,pack their stuff up and move to Oakhurst and try to make it like the town they came from with CCRs and sign ordinances, and complain about workers on FREAKIN mountain time (which only exists in the mind of Flatlanders)?

Sorry about the run-on sentence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jimi

Aug 19, 2004, 08:30 AM

Nothing will change much if there is an incorperation .... people think it is the answer to all problems....

I saw a bumper sticker yeaterday that about sums thing up ... it said. Get involved, things are run by those who show up

The answer is to get involved ... be on your local boards... go to meetings .... Show up

Make your voice heard ... too often we complain and do not do a thing about it ...

Jimi

Aug 19, 2004, 08:37 AM

on another board there is a guy who says a few things that bug ne .....

One is ... LEAD FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY

When you read that it seems very arrogant.....but I understand it ...

It is directed to those who do nothing but complain .... they are not leading ... they are not supporting ... they are just whining ...

I hope Oakhurst does not Incorperate ... I sat on a few LAFCO meetings ... I think it will be a long uphill battle ... the water the largest undertaking ....

But at least Curious is in the hunt... he is supporting by actions what he wants .... I am not a resident of the area ...but if I were I would hope to be involved ....

Another post this guy says that I find arrogant .... "the turtle can do nothing without first sticking his neck out" ..... that means get involved.... do not be afraid......

Now him and I agree on moest things ... so I just hate onliners.

But you cannot hope for things with out action ... Faith without works is dead .......

Mibrew

Aug 19, 2004, 09:59 AM

Jimi,
I need some of that stuff yer a smokin http://oakhurstforums.com/icon/goofy.gif

Instead of our taxes staying here for the good of our town, they go to Madera and they make the decisions of were our money is spent, so our town might not even see any part of it...now thats crazy http://oakhurstforums.com/icon/wacko.gif

Newcomer

Aug 19, 2004, 12:10 PM

Jimi, It sounds like this guy is Posting things from fortune cookies. LOL

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jimi:
on another board there is a guy who says a few things that bug ne .....

One is ... LEAD FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY

When you read that it seems very arrogant.....but I understand it ...

It is directed to those who do nothing but complain .... they are not leading ... they are not supporting ... they are just whining ...

I hope Oakhurst does not Incorperate ... I sat on a few LAFCO meetings ... I think it will be a long uphill battle ... the water the largest undertaking ....

But at least Curious is in the hunt... he is supporting by actions what he wants .... I am not a resident of the area ...but if I were I would hope to be involved ....

Another post this guy says that I find arrogant .... "the turtle can do nothing without first sticking his neck out" ..... that means get involved.... do not be afraid......

Now him and I agree on moest things ... so I just hate onliners.

But you cannot hope for things with out action ... Faith without works is dead ....... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jimi

Aug 19, 2004, 02:10 PM

Mibrew ... I was at the BOS meeting ... and the LAFCO meeting ... the biggest obstical and hang up is Oakhust biggest problem... one no one has attempted to answer ... the owner of Hillview water is not co-operating on this ...

The cost to incorperate will include the water co. now the bad problem is all the extra monies that they think they are going to have is going to the water co .... and then some ....unless things change .....

It will not affect my home a bit .... so it really doesnt matter to me ....I happen to be at the meeting for other reasons .... but heck ....

I just hope they put it off until they get the water situation settled so that they do not accept the great debt and problems of that ...

MtnEagle

Aug 19, 2004, 07:16 PM

...but Jimi...

Complaining is a national passtime in Oakhurst... Didn't you know that?

And the older folks amoungst us have such long and rich experience at it...

http://oakhurstforums.com/icon/wink2.gif

j/k! http://oakhurstforums.com/icon/tongue2.gif

CatdaBrat

Aug 26, 2004, 12:25 PM

Most people voted "yes" but not in the "yes, if it is financially feasible" section. How can it work if it is NOT financially feasible? (Not disagreeing, but just curious.)

Sandman

Aug 26, 2004, 12:56 PM

I'd just add those two results together since they both vote "Yes" http://oakhurstforums.com/icon/wink2.gif

cak

May 16, 2005, 09:19 AM

I haven't heard anything about this issue for a while so I thought I'd give an old thread a new bump.

Any progress? I certainly would like to see the tax money stay in Oakhurst (even though I don't live *in* Oakhurst - Cedar Valley is too far north to be considered that).

chris

BGW

May 17, 2005, 07:16 AM

I think the issue is just sitting on a back burner for now. I also think Oakhurst is slowly gearing towards up for incorporation i.e. by getting both an area plan and a public water district locked into place. What I found rather odd is that many of the higher-ups at the Madera County Planning Department are members of the ACTION Council (incorporate Oakhurst group)and they don't even live up here. If you don't live here what would your motive be to incorporate Oakhurst? The public interest sort of faded away when the ACTION Council released their water report for the area. You can read their report at the link below.
http://www.townofoakhurst.com/docs.htm
The report (poorly summarized) says Oakhurst has more water than it knows what to do with and is missing a huge opportunity by not using the Fresno River to it's full advantage. Many of the locals and the Planning Commission found fault with this way of thinking, and the push to incorporate sort of fizzled out.

I am on the fence on this one. I don't like the idea that some much of out hard earned tax money leaves the area and basically supports the City of Madera. It is this area that generates tourist tax dollars and yet not much of that stays on the mountain either. We are currently governed by people that don't live in the area. Only one or two members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors combined actually do live in the mountain area. I question their ability to judge what is best for us; without actually living here and knowing how our day to day lives commence. It would be nice to put the experts, the locals, in this capacity.

Dodie

May 18, 2005, 06:10 PM

While you are thinking about this subject what towns besides Oakhurst do you want to become a part of Oakhurst: Bass Lake, Fish Camp, Coarsegold? Where would your boundaries be? Also would you also be responsible for your part of YNP and the Madera County portions of it? All of this has to be decided before you ever begin to think of leaving the umbrella of Madera County. Dodie

Mibrew

May 19, 2005, 03:57 AM

The proposed boundaries for the Town of Oakhurst include an area of about 5,500 acres (8.6 square miles). This area extends from

Bass Lake Road on the North to the top of Deadwood on the South, and from Mountain Christian Center on Highway 49 to past

John West Road on Road 426 (Crane Valley Road). Maps are available in the Initial Feasibility Analysis report in the Oakhurst Library

EdBailey

Sep 02, 2007, 11:37 PM

Should Oakhurst Incorporate? It appears that will be the question on the February 5, 2008, Primary Ballot, allowing Oakhurst residents to vote on Incorporation, and at the same time, elect a five member town council. ACTION (Action Committee to Incorporate Oakhurst Now) has been working over the past five years to bring about self government for Oakhurst. A new Comprehensive Financial Analysis (CFA) shows financial feasibility for the proposed Town of Oakhurst. In fact, the latest figures show that Oakhurst taxpayers are sending about $2 million more to Madera than we are getting back in services Even with state mandated revenue sharing with Madera County, and the added cost of running the town government, we still come out with an additional $500,000, or so, for improved services. The complete CFA is available on ACTION”S web site: http://www.townofoakhurst.com/

Today, California has 478 incorporated cities and is adding about one per year. Of all the cities that have incorporated in California’s 157 year history, all but two are incorporated today.

No city in California has disincorporated since Hornitos, in neighboring Mariposa County, 1972 and we were unable to find any disincorporation effort now underway in the state. Incorporation is one of the most common political changes in a functioning representative government. Disincorporation is extremely uncommon, despite the fact that it is much easier to accomplish. The self governing idea we inherited from our founding fathers is alive and well in California, and is indeed spreading throughout the world, Town of Oakhurst, an idea whose time has come.

For more information on the proposed self governing Town of Oakhurst go to: http://www.townofoakhurst.com. Send questions or comments to: incorporate@sti.net, or call Ron Bucheger (the ‘c’ is silent), at (559) 642-2970.

Mysteefied

Oct 16, 2007, 07:55 PM

Ironhorse

Oct 17, 2007, 07:39 AM

I'm one who doesn't support it. I think that our taxes will raise, that our level of services with either go down, or will cost more to keep at current levels. I've dealt with city and county budgets, helped to form budgets for departments, been part of a transition from city provided services to letting CDF take them over (fire). CDF came in the first year, quoted a cost to take over dispatch services that my boss and I knew was ridiculously low. Our bosses bit anyway and signed the contract. The next year, they came back wanting a substantially higher amount for the dispatch contract (more than triple the first amount) and that's the way it went every budget session after that. Same with when they took over firefighting services. The city would have been money ahead to just have hired the additional people needed to do the job. If Oakhurst has to contract with CDF for fire and the County for law enforcement services, and other services, those contracts will not be in Oakhurst's favor, they will pay for those services big time. There is also the issue of antiquated water and sewer systems that the county let go too long before doing anything about them, the overbuilding of the area to the point that those systems can no longer support the population without significant upgrades. I also worry that people who have not lived here for a long time will lose sight of the fact that most people moved here for a lifestyle far different than what they came from. Those people will push for more big ticket stores. Sure, it would be nice to have some of those places here, but they will force many smaller businesses out, costs most likely won't be any cheaper (we pay more for gas because we live up here, so does anyone really think we won't pay more for things in those big name stores?), and the whole feeling of the town will change. There will be more push for building and development, more traffic (and everyone thinks traffic is bad now), more crime, etc. Yes, the county BOS does not give fair representation to our area, doesn't return the tax dollars to this area that they should, but that could be dealt with in other ways, like elections and more demands for access to public meetings (like more frequent chances to attend board meetings UP HERE, instead of always having to travel to the valley.) No I don't have all the solutions, can't know all the ins and outs of the incorporation, I just feel that the whole process is wrong for this area, that we will grow to be something that most of us were trying to escape. JMO

Mysteefied

Oct 17, 2007, 08:36 AM

Thank you, I appreciate your response.

Anyone else?

mary oleary

Oct 18, 2007, 07:56 PM

Seems like it would allow more local control.

I don't see why CDF would charge an incorportated Oakhurst more than it charges an unincorporated Oakhurst?
I've dealt with city and county budgets, helped to form budgets for departments, been part of a transition from city provided services to letting CDF take them over (fire). CDF came in the first year, quoted a cost to take over dispatch services that my boss and I knew was ridiculously low.

The example isn't really equal since Oakhurst wouldn't be cancelling city services, or county services, but rather sharing costs for state services that already exist...or am I missing something?

another point I'm not getting is:
There is also the issue of antiquated water and sewer systems that the county let go too long before doing anything about them, the overbuilding of the area to the point that those systems can no longer support the population without significant upgrades.

Wouldn't local control be more attentive to growth issues?

Celticsoul

Oct 18, 2007, 08:46 PM

Ironhorse

Oct 19, 2007, 07:12 AM

Ironhorse, I'm a distant flatlander and my opinion counts for nothing, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. I fear that a terrible mistake is about to befall your charming community. I have only followed the text of the developments for the past year or so, and I don't have prior experience from which to draw, so my opinion means even less.
Do be careful of what you wish.

Glad it's not just me. Some people can't see that we won't just "share costs" for things like CDF with the county, we will have to enter in to our own contract with CDF for fire protection. And local control would be better for some issues, but we will have to take over water and sewer systems that will cost an arm and a leg to "fix right". Hillview's system is a disaster, I live with it every day, just love paying for water I can't even drink. Who do people think will have to pay to fix that?????????? Incorporation won't make all those problems magically go away like the proponents for incorporation would like you to think they will. There are a lot of costs to setting up our own city offices, or costs to contracting with the county for those services, and I think that either way will cost us more in the long run. Suddenly people with roads that they currently have to maintain will want the new City of Oakhurst to maintain those roads, they'll demand drinkable water, they'll demand offices open here, 8 hours a day to conduct their business with the city, those offices will have to be staffed and those people aren't going to want to work for peanuts. Cops salaries/benefits are high, (not saying that they don't deserve it for the most part), equipment costs are out of sight. Did you know a gun can cost $500+, a vest $700+, uniform allowance usually runs $800/yr or more, cost of cars, mandated yearly P.O.S.T. training, handheld radios run $600 or more depending on the specifications required for range, etc., then there are support services, dispatch and clerical, office supplies, court standby (and in this county the court standby is outrageous). There are a myriad associated costs with each individual "department" associated with a city government, and if the city elects to contract for all or even just some of those services with the county, either way we're going to pay more for them. The county is NOT going to charge us just their costs for those services, we will also pay for the time of the person(s) who do the oversight of those contracts, and the contracts will be written to benefit the county, not the new incorporated city, it's business.

Beyond all that though, the simple fact is that this town will change, bigtime, it won't be a small mountain community, the push will be on to bring in bigger businesses to generate the tax base/revenue to pay for the services associated with a growing town, but somehow they won't pay for it, and every year the city will push for more tax revenues. Big or little, it happens everywhere, just at a slower rate here, unincorporated. To me a better solution would be for the people in this community to do a better job being "watchdogs" for the revenues that should be coming this way from the county (such as the $3 million give the the City of Madera for an overpass, that was originally marked for the mountain area). JMO and I don't expect everyone to agree.

rimar

Oct 19, 2007, 07:04 PM

I am not sure what all of the differences are but Oakhurst would be incorporated into a "town", not a "city." Perhaps that will address some of the negative issues commented on here.

Ironhorse

Oct 19, 2007, 07:21 PM

I am not sure what all of the differences are but Oakhurst would be incorporated into a "town", not a "city." Perhaps that will address some of the negative issues commented on here.

sorry it (I) sound negative Rimalicious, but it's honestly what I feel will happen. I'm not sure either of the differences, but I don't really think a verbage difference will matter in how the issues are addressed. Either way, the Town/City of Oakhurst will have to become more "self-sufficient" and starting up is not going to be cheap. Insurance costs (both for the town/city (liability, property loss, accident, health, workman's comp, etc.), and it's employees insurance costs are something else that can be added into the pot. I haven't even remembered all the costs of things associated with the budgets I used to work with, but it can be overwhelming. But all that aside, my gut feeling is that the town will change, and while change can be good, I don't think the kind of change we'll see is what some want. Oakhurst may become another small town with more problems than it wants to deal with from an influx of a new tax base, etc. I saw on another thread someone complaining of more traffic etc. from the casino expansion, well that's what we'll see with growth in the town, so what's the difference???? I'm sure the plan that was presented had a lot of information for the public, but it's the little things (that can become very big things because the results can't be predicted until you get into the negotiations for them) that I don't think enough information has been provided on. Maybe it's just that I overthink a problem. Like I said, this is all JMO. I like this town and don't want to see it become like so many other towns in the Central San Joaquin, I would like to see it keep it's uniqueness and build on that, not strive to become like it's bigger neighbors.

mary oleary

Nov 09, 2007, 02:53 PM

How will remaining under county jurisdiction inhibit Oakhurst growth?

How will remaining under county jurisdiction fix the hillview water problem?

How would incorporation allow people with private roads demand pulic funds?

Mibrew

Nov 12, 2007, 12:27 PM

Oakhurst should have Incorporated years ago..... this has been going around and around...I'm glad were getting closer... the grants will come ; }

EdBailey

Nov 19, 2007, 01:18 PM

I've been thinking a lot about this, I'd like to get others opinions on this. This is one area where I don't feel I know enough to make an educated decision. I am reading more and learning more about it, but I also wonder what you think.

I spoke with someone the other day who doesn't support it, because it will hurt the small businesses with increased taxes.

I'm all ears!!!

There is no reason to think small businesses will be hit with new taxes. The proposed Incorporation has an excellent tax base that produces a surplus of about $2,000,000.00 per year which the county government spends somewhere else.

Acutally, the new town will be purchasing supplies and awarding contracts that should help local businesses. Incorporation is win-win!

EdBailey

Nov 19, 2007, 01:38 PM

A lot of scary stuff is being posted and spread around town. It is not reality based - it is imagination based. Please go to www.townofoakhurst.com and read the ojective "Comphrensive Financial Analysis" and real the objective letter from the Madera County Fire Chief.

Whatever one's concern, we will have a much better chance of responsive government with 5 people who live in Oakhurst, know Oakhurst, and care about Oakhurst. Don't you think we can do a better job of keeping our rural lifestyle with people that we can vote for or against - all five of them?

Don't let them scare you into voting against your own best interests.

Summer

Nov 19, 2007, 09:07 PM

Ed, have you ever been involved in or seen incorporation in action?

EdBailey

Nov 19, 2007, 10:29 PM

Ed, have you ever been involved in or seen incorporation in action?

Yes, I was living in Lancaster in the early 1970s when they were just about where we are now in their incorporation process. Oponents made the same dire predictions that we are hearing now in Oakhurst. Lancanster was incorporated and the dire predictions did not materailze. After Oakhurst is incorporated they won't materalize here either. They never do. If those predictions ever did come true after a city had incorporated, three things would happen: 1) That city would move to disincorporate asap. that hasen't happened anywhere in the state. 2) No other city in California would ever incorporate. Instead new incorporations are happening at about one per year. 3) Existing incorporated cities would be reversing the process. Instead, of the 480 cities that have incorporated in our state, 478 are incorporated today. Once people experience self governance through an incorporated city (or town), they just don't want to go back. Nor will we.

oakhurstleaf

Nov 20, 2007, 08:18 AM

It's sort of like finally growing up and moving away from Mom and Pop....time to take charge of one's own destiny. Scary, yes. But when one matures, there comes a time when one needs to cut the apron strings and become self-sufficient.

I liken this little town to a lot of other little towns, but far better off...and not because we are located in the poorest county in CA....but because we are different than the overall county from which we reside. I, personally, think our difference and our uniqueness separates us from the rest of Madera County and we shouldn't be so reliant on the will and whim of the whole county. We are a separate entity...we deserve better, and we deserve to be able to choose how our tax revenue is spent...to better our community. We deserve to choose our pace of growth and how we wish to grow.

Ojai is a perfect example of a little mountain-like town, alot like us in many ways...though they've been incorporated since 1921.

If they can do it...we can do it. It'll be alright. In fact, it'll be good. Just my opinion.

Chem101

Nov 21, 2007, 11:57 AM

Having spent 40 years of my life with the goal of owning a home and eventually retiring up at the lake, I have a vested interest in quality of the closest big city (Oakhurst)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see growth coming like a freight train. Look at the shopping center off Friant. Look at the Children's Hospital. Look and the casino. Look at all the home development, all heading directly north. Oakhust has already grown at an alarming rate. I miss the Bigfoot Burgers, the small community feel, but those days are gone forever.

As a young boy I remember my father working with other folks in the small community I grew up in to try and incorporate the town into a city. At the time it was a small community surrounded by orange groves, walnut groves, cattle ranches and beautiful rolling hills. The effort to incorporate failed. People were worried about taxes.
The town's growth was guided by the benevolent care of Los Angeles County. This town can now be conservatively classified as a rat hole. There are strip malls everywhere. The hills are covered with high density housing. Every corner has a gas station. During rush hour it takes 30 minutes to drive the two mile length of the main drag. It breaks my heart to visit that town knowing what was and what is.

After graduating from college I bought a home in a new community in Chino Hills. Like the town I grew up in, like Oakhurst, it is a beautiful rural setting in the hills. Unlike the town I grew up in, the people of Chino Hills did vote to incorporate early on. Just like before, the growth came. However, this time the growth was controlled by community members. Chino Hills maintains it's rural atmosphere today. Lots of open spaces were left in the master plan. Housing densities were maintained low. Retail and industrial areas were laid out to minimize impact on the quality of life. Chino Hills has the lowest crime in the county and is rated as one of the best communities to live in Southern California. And guess what. I'm not paying any higher taxes then if I had stayed in the town I grew up in!!! Nor did the city fathers create any nonsense city ordinances.

Look at Oakhurst today. What grade would you give Madera County planning so far?

I hope to retire at Bass Lake very soon. I own a home up there now so that sorta makes me a local. I certainly hope the citizens of Oakhurst will protect what they have so I can look forward to visiting the big city in my golden years.

CatdaBrat

Nov 21, 2007, 06:50 PM

I miss those Big Foot burgers, too!

Those were the days...................

EdBailey

Nov 23, 2007, 03:05 AM

sorry it (I) sound negative Rimalicious, but it's honestly what I feel will happen. I'm not sure either of the differences, but I don't really think a verbage difference will matter in how the issues are addressed. Either way, the Town/City of Oakhurst will have to become more "self-sufficient" and starting up is not going to be cheap. Insurance costs (both for the town/city (liability, property loss, accident, health, workman's comp, etc.), and it's employees insurance costs are something else that can be added into the pot. I haven't even remembered all the costs of things associated with the budgets I used to work with, but it can be overwhelming. But all that aside, my gut feeling is that the town will change, and while change can be good, I don't think the kind of change we'll see is what some want. Oakhurst may become another small town with more problems than it wants to deal with from an influx of a new tax base, etc. I saw on another thread someone complaining of more traffic etc. from the casino expansion, well that's what we'll see with growth in the town, so what's the difference???? I'm sure the plan that was presented had a lot of information for the public, but it's the little things (that can become very big things because the results can't be predicted until you get into the negotiations for them) that I don't think enough information has been provided on. Maybe it's just that I overthink a problem. Like I said, this is all JMO. I like this town and don't want to see it become like so many other towns in the Central San Joaquin, I would like to see it keep it's uniqueness and build on that, not strive to become like it's bigger neighbors.

Ironhorse,

I'm sorry you have heard or imagined so many negatives about self rule for Oakhurst. First, the tax base will not change. The difference is that today we are paying approximately $3.5 million in taxes and Madera County is spending approximately $2 million of that outside of Oakhurst. Second all those costs you mentioned are covered in the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis and proposed budget which you can read at www.townofoakhurst.com. Please pay close attention to the conclusioins on page 28. Third, I think we all want to keep our rural atmosphere and lifestyles. Don't you think we can influence that more effectively with five coumcilmembers that we can vote for or against - all of them - than the one-of-five county supervisors who represents a portion of eastern Madera County, and four others who have no reason to care as much about Oakhurst as we do?

Ironhorse, there are people trying to scare you about this. Think about this, of 480 cities that have incorporated in California's 157 year history, 478, or 99.58 percent are incroporated today!

If all the negatives you are hearing were to materalize in just one city after incorporation, don't you think that city would move to disincorporate asap? That has not happened anywhere in California. Do you think any more cities would become incorporated? New cities are incorpating at a record pace of about one per year. Do you think all those 478 cities would remain incorporated? Self governance through incorporated cities or towns is not some kind social and political hell that is designed to destroy our way of life. It is, instead, just the opposite.

I'll just bet you that five years down the road you will be glad we did it!

Jerry

Nov 24, 2007, 05:49 AM

Ironhorse!

There is no legal difference between calling Oakhurst a town or calling it a city it is just a matter of local preference.

You are concerned about the insurance and other costs of operating a new town. You are paying these exact same costs now but the money is being paid to Madera County and they are taking a portion of that money and using it elsewhere. As Ed said, we are sending Madera about $2 million a year more than we are receiving in return.

You are concerned about Oakhurst changing. Oakhurst is not the same sleepy little town it was in the past, it is already changing. Oakhurst will continue to change whether it is incorporated or not. If it is incoporated, we will at least have some say in how it changes.

You don't believe you have enough information on this sbject. There have been numerous townhall meetings over the past several years that have done an excellent job of explaining most of your concerns. The information was presented to all that were interested.

I don't see how we can loose. If we incorporate and it doesn't turn out the way we think it will, we can unincorporate very easily.

EdBailey

Nov 24, 2007, 08:16 AM

[I][QUOTE=Jerry;50172]Ironhorse!

There is no legal difference between calling Oakhurst a town or calling it a city it is just a matter of local preference.

California law states that the two words as "explicitly interchangable." ACTION chose to use "Town of Oakhurst" because it better reflects the rural atmosphere that we wish to keep. Local control will give us a better opportunity to do that.

Ironhorse

Nov 24, 2007, 09:54 AM

I have been to some of the meetings and still felt they did not answer all the questions. If the "Town of Oakhurst" cannot fully support/operate it's own law-enforcement and fire-figthing units without have to rely on the state or county to provide those services via contract services, then they are STILL reliant/at the mercy of the County BOS. Those contracted services levels are negotiated, the costs are negotiated, and they aren't going to negotiate to benefit us, I've seen it happen. Sales tax sharing is negotiated with the county, the town doesn't automatically get to keep everything it generates. Sharing of other taxes is negotiated with the county. We MIGHT have more control over how our community grows, and we could have decisions made by a council at the beginning of their terms that we don't like/agree with and be faced with recall or waiting to vote them out. By the time that happens, the damage has been done. I've worked for both county and city governments and it's not quite the rosy picture that the people for incorporation would have it painted when it comes to how city/county governments get along. The egos get in the way and common sense flys out the door, as with many relationships. The incorporation may happen, who knows, I won't vote for it. I just don't happen to believe that people should walk down the "rose covered path" and made to believe that everything is going to be just fine. The incorporation is being represented as the cure to all the ails of the town, and it isn't. There are still major problems with the water systems, the waste treatment (which is already seeing increases in fees, albeit it is needed because the BOS didn't do what needed to be done before). When I see the background on some who constantly tout the incorporation, I find it interesting. Again, it's JMO, but we're all entitled to that, aren't we?

BGW

Nov 24, 2007, 10:14 AM

A lot of scary stuff is being posted and spread around town. It is not reality based - it is imagination based. Please go to www.townofoakhurst.com (http://www.townofoakhurst.com) and read the ojective "Comphrensive Financial Analysis" and real the objective letter from the Madera County Fire Chief.

Whatever one's concern, we will have a much better chance of responsive government with 5 peopll who live in Oakhurst, know Oakhurst, and care about Oakhurst. Don't you think we can do a better job of keeping our rural lifestyle with people that we can vote for or against - all five of them?

Don't let them scare you into voting against your own best interests.

***taken from last Wed. Sierra Star***
http://www.sierrastar.com/opinion/letters/story/14183410p-14717287c.html

--Ed, I'll let you post your letter :)

It's about the reality
Dear Editor:
Ed Bailey (Nov. 16) urged readers to review the Incorporation consultant's comprehensive fiscal analysis (CFA). We couldn't agree more. Specifically, refer to the general fund charts at the back.
For example, in 2009-10 (the first real year after transition), once you subtract projected expenses from the expected income, you're left with $1,263,116. The city must then subtract a minimum payment of $1 million to the county (the first installment of a $10 million debt to be paid over 10 years). That leaves a balance of $263,116. But the city still owes another $986,000 to the county, the first installment of an additional $9,860,000 debt to be paid over 10 years. But, there's not enough money--so this annual debt payment must be deferred this year and every year for the next 10 years. After year 10, the county will begin charging 3.5 percent interest on the unpaid balance.
Perhaps we should ask Mr. Bailey which CFA he would like us to read. Would it be the Aug. 16, 2007 version that states "Incorporation may require the town to consider additional taxes to meet basic municipal services, payments..." Or would it be the Aug. 28, 2007 version that states "due to the limited budget projected...a reserve fund is not included." Or would it be CFAs from 2004 and 2005 that were never released to the public because the numbers had to be "tweaked." No matter how many times you rewrite the CFA, it's the same story--hang on to your wallet.
Jeanne Aceto
Oakhurst

EdBailey

Nov 25, 2007, 08:04 AM

I can appreciate the concerns of Jeanne Aceto (Nov. 21) who quoted from a Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA) of August 16, 2007 (not the final version) “Incorporation may require the town to consider additional taxes to meet basic municipal services (COUNTY) payments…” (Note the words “may” and “consider.”) Several other references from non-finalized reports were cited in the letter.

In the “Conclusion” section, Page 28, of the final version of the CFA we read the following:

“As demonstrated in the revenue and expenditure estimates in this CFA,
incorporation of Oakhurst is anticipated to be fiscally feasible, as a result of the
agreed-upon revenue neutrality agreement and projected revenues and
expenditures. This conclusion assumes existing levels of service are maintained;
however, expansion of service levels may require additional revenues beyond
those foreseen in this forecast. Additional revenues necessary to provide for
additional reserve funds or additional services would be subject to voter approval
under Proposition 218.”

If the people of Oakhurst should choose to expand services beyond what current abundant revenues will cover, and are willing to vote by a super majority to increase revenues, it could conceivably happen. It is not likely because independent study shows a healthy surplus the first year and increasing surpluses in following years.

Again I suggest that voters read the final version of the CFA which can be found at www.townofoakhurst.com , and if all those numbers make you as dizzy as they make me, at least read the conclusions of the study found on page 28.

EdBailey

Nov 25, 2007, 08:46 AM

It was the new pastor’s first day on the job when he met an elderly volunteer. “I’m the oldest member of this church in more ways than one,” the gentleman said. He went on, “I joined this church when I was six years old and that was 90 years ago.” “My, oh my,” said the pastor, “you must have seen a lot of changes around here.” “I sure have” he said, “and I fought every one of them!”

If that gentleman were living in Oakhurst today, you can bet he would be opposing incorporation. Even if he were living outside the proposed incorporation area, as some of the most vocal opponents are, he would be joining in and helping to invent dire consequences that will never happen.

I lived in Lancaster in the early 70s and remember when their incorporation process was just about where Oakhurst is now. I heard the same “the sky will surely fall if we incorporate” rhetoric there that I am hearing here. Lancaster incorporated and the dire consequences did not materialize. They never do – That’s because they are imaginary. As Yogi Berra would say, “This is deja veu all over again,” for me.

The good news for those who fear change so much, is that after we have been incorporated for a while, and it has become status quo, even they will be comfortable with it. In fact, I’ll bet that if after ten years we had a movement to dis-incorporate Oakhurst, many of those same people would oppose that. It’s not that it’s good or bad, it’s just that it’s change.

It’s interesting that some who do not even live in the proposed incorporation area, are campaigning to deny the blessings of self government to those of us who do. Is that presumptuous, or what?

jakobscalpel

Nov 25, 2007, 11:27 AM

helping to invent dire consequences that will never happen.

I think it's wonderful you know exactly how the future will play out. With this kind of foresight, any underestimated tax revenues for the new town can be made up through your ability to predict the future and, by extension, the stock market. Nice to have that ace in the hole!

I lived in Lancaster in the early 70s and remember when their incorporation process was just about where Oakhurst is now.

Since incorporation, Lancaster has grown in population 288%.
LA County has grown 43% in that same time frame.
Well done indeed, incorporation, well done.

In fact, I’ll bet that if after ten years we had a movement to dis-incorporate Oakhurst, many of those same people would oppose that.

What odds are you offering? I've been known to lay down the occasional wager.

It’s interesting that some who do not even live in the proposed incorporation area, are campaigning to deny the blessings of self government to those of us who do. Is that presumptuous, or what?

I agree. How silly (and presumptuous!) of those who live two miles outside the proposed town limit to actually care what happens to the largest clustering of population in our area, where all we do is support the businesses, use the roads, use the medical facilities, and use the recreational facilities. All of which we have been paying for just as much as you geographically blessed individuals.

Let's take a look at this slam dunk decision financially shall we?
2009-2010
Revenue: 4,093,117
Expenses: 2,830,001
Neutrality payments: 1,000,000
Profit/Loss: 263,116

This shows a reasonable gross profit margin of 6.4%. Of course, the revenue stream, as indicated in the "NarrativeReportOctober22.pdf", is based on a 5 year average of the various components:

Property Tax: 18% of the total revenue. What has happened to property values the last five years? What is the most reasonable response of property values in the coming five years? Greater than or less than the assumed 3% annual appreciation rate? If appreciation is greater than the assumed rate then the neutrality payments go up. If it is lower, nowhere does it say the neutrality payment goes down! If true, this means that if property tax collection goes down, then the town of Oakhurst would still be on the hook for a 1mil payment based on higher estimated values! Nice cover charge. Not to mention the full 1% decline in total revenues for each 5% decline in property revenues.

Sales Tax: 36% of total revenue. They are assuming a 3.5% growth rate. If you feel this is reasonable (the ten years 92-2002 were 5.12%) then all is well. If you feel there is a relatively high chance of a recession and probable decline in sales tax receipts, then all is not well. Don't believe that sales tax receipts can decline over a period of time? http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jensena/sfp/ca/ca_ts_49yr.jpg Guess which stage of the ten year cycle we are at?

Assuming no growth in property tax and sales tax revenues (not even counting the already visible ~5-10% decline in property values since last year), what then are the new results?

2009 (with zero growth) profit = 190,085
2010 (with zero growth) profit = 180,059

Still profitable.

What about the transient occupancy tax? It comprises 21% of total revenue. Growth rate estimate is 3.5% per year. Still expect those hotels to be filled to the brim every year with rising consumer debt ratios and expensive gas?

Still profitable? Assuming zero growth for two years, yes. Net is 127,416

What about those expenses? Surely no outlandish assumptions went into those calculations have they? You make the call. But tell me one thing.. When has a government entity EVER accurately estimated costs before a project. Assuming their revenue growth rates are accurate, all it takes is a 9% underestimate on costs to wipe out the profit. With no growth a 4% underestimate wipes it out.

To me, this thing is priced for near perfection but there is some wiggle room. Assuming that they can restrain expenses and assuming there is no economic downturn then it can fly financially. Personally, I wouldn't bet on the Ed Bailey side of either of these requirements. I'd expect the first new tax to be levied by the town within four years, most likely on hotel rooms.

But what the hell do I know? I'm just some dumbass that lives outside the proposed incorporation limits and therefore should have no opinion.

mountainmissy

Nov 25, 2007, 01:17 PM

The total revenue neutrality agreement is for $19.86 million of which the minimum payment is $1 million annually for 10 years. The remaining $9.86 million is separated into payments of $986,041 per year for 10 years but the CFA charts conveniently list the amount and make it look like it's being paid--but when you do the math, all they did was defer it; they do that every year. If you read the neutrality agreement that the proponents signed on to it states that after year 10, the County will begin charging 3.5% interest annually on the unpaid balance. In other words, in 2009-10 the City is actually in the hole $722,925.

But the CFA Charts want you to believe there's a whopping balance of $263,116. This "cushion" is a joke since none of the subcontracts with fire, sheriff, planning, etc. have been officially negotiated/signed; numbers in the CFA are estimates from 3 years ago so would guess labor costs have gone up since then. $263,116 certainly won't go very far.

Ironhorse

Nov 25, 2007, 01:21 PM

I think it's wonderful you know exactly how the future will play out. With this kind of foresight, any underestimated tax revenues for the new town can be made up through your ability to predict the future and, by extension, the stock market. Nice to have that ace in the hole!

Since incorporation, Lancaster has grown in population 288%.
LA County has grown 43% in that same time frame.
Well done indeed, incorporation, well done.

What odds are you offering? I've been known to lay down the occasional wager.

I agree. How silly (and presumptuous!) of those who live two miles outside the proposed town limit to actually care what happens to the largest clustering of population in our area, where all we do is support the businesses, use the roads, use the medical facilities, and use the recreational facilities. All of which we have been paying for just as much as you geographically blessed individuals.

Let's take a look at this slam dunk decision financially shall we?
2009-2010
Revenue: 4,093,117
Expenses: 2,830,001
Neutrality payments: 1,000,000
Profit/Loss: 263,116

This shows a reasonable gross profit margin of 6.4%. Of course, the revenue stream, as indicated in the "NarrativeReportOctober22.pdf", is based on a 5 year average of the various components:

Property Tax: 18% of the total revenue. What has happened to property values the last five years? What is the most reasonable response of property values in the coming five years? Greater than or less than the assumed 3% annual appreciation rate? If appreciation is greater than the assumed rate then the neutrality payments go up. If it is lower, nowhere does it say the neutrality payment goes down! If true, this means that if property tax collection goes down, then the town of Oakhurst would still be on the hook for a 1mil payment based on higher estimated values! Nice cover charge. Not to mention the full 1% decline in total revenues for each 5% decline in property revenues.

Sales Tax: 36% of total revenue. They are assuming a 3.5% growth rate. If you feel this is reasonable (the ten years 92-2002 were 5.12%) then all is well. If you feel there is a relatively high chance of a recession and probable decline in sales tax receipts, then all is not well. Don't believe that sales tax receipts can decline over a period of time? http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jensena/sfp/ca/ca_ts_49yr.jpg Guess which stage of the ten year cycle we are at?

Assuming no growth in property tax and sales tax revenues (not even counting the already visible ~5-10% decline in property values since last year), what then are the new results?

2009 (with zero growth) profit = 190,085
2010 (with zero growth) profit = 180,059

Still profitable.

What about the transient occupancy tax? It comprises 21% of total revenue. Growth rate estimate is 3.5% per year. Still expect those hotels to be filled to the brim every year with rising consumer dept ratios and expensive gas?

Still profitable? Assuming zero growth for two years, yes. Net is 127,416

What about those expenses? Surely no outlandish assumptions went into those calculations have they? You make the call. But tell me one thing.. When has a government entity EVER accurately estimated costs before a project. Assuming their revenue growth rates are accurate, all it takes is a 9% underestimate on costs to wipe out the profit. With no growth a 4% underestimate wipes it out.

To me, this thing is priced for near perfection but there is some wiggle room. Assuming that they can restrain expenses and assuming there is no economic downturn then it can fly financially. Personally, I wouldn't bet on the Ed Bailey side of either of these requirements. I'd expect the first new tax to be levied by the town within four years, most likely on hotel rooms.

But what the hell do I know? I'm just some dumbass that lives outside the proposed incorporation limits and therefore should have no opinion.

Good response (and I live IN the proposed incorporated area. The move will affect those outside the area too potentially, can you guarantee no move will be made by the new council to annex in areas outside that area, or that those who will be forced into the "town" even want that to happen Mr. Bailey????)

EdBailey

Nov 25, 2007, 03:00 PM

Good response (and I live IN the proposed incorporated area. The move will affect those outside the area too potentially, can you guarantee no move will be made by the new council to annex in areas outside that area, or that those who will be forced into the "town" even want that to happen Mr. Bailey????)

Can you guarantee anything the County Board of Supervisors will or will not do? We have far less control over them than we will have over the town council.

No area can be "forced" into a town. That can happen only by a vote of the people in that particular area. I can't imagine why the council would want to take in people who do not want to be in the town. Can you?

I don't have the forsight to know everything that will happen in the future. No do the prophets of gloom and doom.

I do, however, believe that we the people of Oakhurst will be better able to control our destiny when we have five local people, all of whom we can vote in or out, making those decisions. I just don't like government by default like we now have.

oakhurstleaf

Nov 25, 2007, 03:34 PM

While Lancaster is Ed's example of personal experience with incorporation, I don't think that "city" is comparable to Oakhurst in it's landscape. There are far more many small mountain towns in California and elsewhere that would serve as a better model to what we have on our plate. There are many which have remained small in size, restrictive in development, and profitable!

Yes, Oakhurst is growing despite lack of incorporation and would regardless...but with that growth comes an inevitable milestone when responsibility, planning, and management need to take shape. Especially in the last 20 yrs and up to this point, the town has evolved and grown by way of the prospectors (realtors and developers)....if it stays on that track, I don't see it being better in the long run. Madera County has certainly beneifitted from our growth...but has Oakhurst itself? Oakhurst has enough in it's population to have a say, a voice, a vote in how this town should continue it's growth and preserve what we treasure.

I was raised in an incorporated, small 2-mile radius city with a pop. of 14000 or so....La Palma (nestled right in the middle of Cerritos, Cypress, Buena Park and La Mirada).... I think La Palma's been incorporated for at least 45 years now. Maybe more.

mountainmissy

Nov 25, 2007, 04:07 PM

Everyone should take a look at Lancaster:

The City of Lancaster has grown from 37,000 residents at the time of incorporation in 1977, to an estimated 143,818 residents in 2007

9th fastest growing city in the United States.

largest city named Lancaster in the world

The city has also been recently named one of the top 100 most dangerous cities in the United States, ranking 80th

The so called "housing bubble", fueled mostly by subprime mortgage failures, has recently caused a dramatic spike in foreclosures within the city, and thus some property values have begun to fall

mountainmissy

Nov 25, 2007, 04:32 PM

Ed Bailey said: I can't imagine why the council would want to take in people who do not want to be in the town. Can you?

“Local officials want to change their boundaries so they can serve additional areas, gain taxing powers, or encourage new development.” (LAFCo—It’s Time to Draw the Line; A Citizen’s Guide to LAFCo)

Ironhorse

Nov 25, 2007, 05:21 PM

Can you guarantee anything the County Board of Supervisors will or will not do? We have far less control over them than we will have over the town council.

No area can be "forced" into a town. That can happen only by a vote of the people in that particular area. I can't imagine why the council would want to take in people who do not want to be in the town. Can you?

I don't have the forsight to know everything that will happen in the future. No do the prophets of gloom and doom.

I do, however, believe that we the people of Oakhurst will be better able to control our destiny when we have five local people, all of whom we can vote in or out, making those decisions. I just don't like government by default like we now have.

I've seen the proposed boundaries for the incorporation, and with the smaller "population" of those areas, they can indeed be forced into the incorporation, by the vote of the other areas. This isn't being voted on by several small areas individually. The housing/voters areas within the current town boundaries could force in those smaller areas, easily. Annexations "force" areas into a town or city all the time, sure there's a public hearing, but then the county and town or city do what they want, based on LAFCO/Planning Department recommendations. If the current town wants to incorporate, then why are the proponents trying to increase the boundaries?????? Not everyone living outside the current boundaries wants to be included in this.

Ironhorse

Nov 25, 2007, 05:28 PM

...............Yes, Oakhurst is growing despite lack of incorporation and would regardless...but with that growth comes an inevitable milestone when responsibility, planning, and management need to take shape. Especially in the last 20 yrs and up to this point, the town has evolved and grown by way of the prospectors (realtors and developers)....if it stays on that track, I don't see it being better in the long run. Madera County has certainly beneifitted from our growth...but has Oakhurst itself?.............

Exactly. And the realtors and developers are in it to make money, for themselves, not for the general population. Look at the increase in available housing for sale, and the amount of time it stays on the market now. I see more signs every week on my drive home and around town.

oakhurstleaf

Nov 25, 2007, 07:21 PM

Exactly. And the realtors and developers are in it to make money, for themselves, not for the general population. Look at the increase in available housing for sale, and the amount of time it stays on the market now. I see more signs every week on my drive home and around town.

Well, of course, realtors and developers are in it to make money...but these days most aren't making much money at all with the real estate slump we're in which predictors say won't even bottom out until winter 2008. Lots of new builds and existing homes sitting vacant with their over-the-top sticker prices. However, this is prevelant in a lot of places...not just here. Before the real estate market's current downturn...things were very much diferent. Realtors/developers were making a killing...the county was/is making a killing on property taxes. Oakhurst has been saved from indiscriminate over-development because of all the water and sewage problems...but it's obvious development that has happened didn't exactly happen with much good planning. We've all complained about the haphazard lay-out in town and the disproportionate amount of fast-food chains all near the main intersection.

Truthfully, and this might not seem agreeable to some, but incorporation could well bring us some strong limitations on development (if we all voted for it)....which in turn, would increase real estate value. I'd confidently say that already real estate is way too expensive right now. Most home prices and commercial real estate prices are way out of reach for the locals....and this town does not provide near enough sustainable income for most families to afford a home. But frankly, demand drives prices. I've come to sense that Oakhurst, as it is, has become a place for people with big bucks made elsewhere to come....but it's not necessarily the place for people to make big bucks. At least, right now anyway.

I might be going off the main subject a bit...but oh well. To get back on it....I don't think
developers, realtors, and the county should be reaping all the benefits of Oakhurst's growth...nor do I think the developers, realtors, and the county should be deciding how our town will be or become. Property taxes are a given. And yes, they are crazy-high. But if anyone should be benefitting from the exhorbitant property taxes in Oakhurst...it should be Oakhurst and Oakhurst should decide how best that will be spent. I think it's high time this town take some control.

oakhurstleaf

Nov 25, 2007, 07:39 PM

EdBailey

Nov 25, 2007, 10:56 PM

If the current town wants to incorporate, then why are the proponents trying to increase the boundaries?????? Not everyone living outside the current boundaries wants to be included in this.

The additional areas weree added by LAFCO, not by the proponents of incorporation. Some people from two of the proposed additional areas appeared at the LAFCO meeting and asked to be excueded. LAFCO granted their wishes. We have no way of knowing if the people who made these request at the meeting represented a mojority of the people in the areas in quesation. It was a "squakey wheel" action. A town council cannot annex an area without a vote of the people of that area.

jakobscalpel

Nov 26, 2007, 12:27 PM

Property taxes are a given. And yes, they are crazy-high. But if anyone should be benefitting from the exhorbitant property taxes in Oakhurst...it should be Oakhurst and Oakhurst should decide how best that will be spent. I think it's high time this town take some control.

This is it exactly. The only valid justification for incorporation is more local control (a good thing, no doubt). Based on the finance estimates it seems reasonable this control will come at a marginally higher cost to town residents. Will the cost associated with incorporation be higher than the benefits of local control (and, by definition, an additional layer of government)? If you think so, vote no.

Summer

Nov 26, 2007, 03:34 PM

Gosh, Lancaster sounds a lot like Fresno.

I don't know what Lancaster has to do with anything....but I'd wager that incorporation itself didn't cause the 30 yr population explosion. That place grew like any other desert mecca....it was affordable. The population density from Santa Barbara to San Diego has squeezed the "American Dream" inland. I'd bet you many places that became cities in the 70's are huge now by comparison. But I'd also wager, those places *wanted* growth and industry...they welcomed it. No more long commutes to the bigger city.

If there's a will, there's a way.

Well, I don't think Lancaster is like Fresno, but yes, I don't know what Lancaster has to do with it either. It grew for those reasons you stated. If it was brought up as a good example of cityhood, bad choice. City or no city, I would never want to live there. Housing values fell shortly after being developed and thus brought in poverty and crime. Santa Clarita also became a city - but went the other way. It grew very big and very rich. But it was followed up with new industries, massive new housing, high end shopping mall. Yes, it is very beautiful and very successful - but I would never want to live there either. When we first moved there (before incorporation) we loved the open rural town. It was a great place to live - sure, you had to commute to work (45 min. to 1 hr. - like Fresno), but it was worth it. As soon as incorporation plan started buzzing, then came the promises, the "great city of SCV would be able to manage itself", no more bad L.A. influence, taxes would not increase - much - HA HA Ha, they would maintain the small town atmosphere and we would be so happy if we voted yes. They did and the city grew at an alarming rate. Within 10 years it had grown even bigger than what we moved from! The land developers had their golden day in the sun. They and the city fat cats became mega rich. So we found another little town - Oakhurst. Now, the incorporation buzz is starting again. Being uneducated in the political arena I cannot debate the financial, political hows or such, but I do know what I've seen. I would hate for Oakhurst to have the same fate as either towns like Lancaster or SCV. I think like most people here we don't want something we moved to get away from. Incorporation leaves a sour taste - I know growth is inevitable but why hit the meter to max right away? And, just who would profit from this move exactly? I've tried to keep an open mind, really. But when I read Ironhorse and Jacabscalpal's well thought out comments I know in my heart that it is not a good thing for Oakhurst. But being another "dumbass" outside the proposed city limits, maybe I shouldn't comment either. JMO

Sandman

Nov 26, 2007, 03:37 PM

Someone tried to hang an anti-incorporation sign in the window of my store today. I wouldn't let him do it. The bottom line is that I just have not read enough about it. I'll take some time to read this thread later tonight.

Ironhorse

Nov 26, 2007, 04:36 PM

Well, I don't think Lancaster is like Fresno, but yes, I don't know what Lancaster has to do with it either. It grew for those reasons you stated. If it was brought up as a good example of cityhood, bad choice. City or no city, I would never want to live there. Housing values fell shortly after being developed and thus brought in poverty and crime. Santa Clarita also became a city - but went the other way. It grew very big and very rich. But it was followed up with new industries, massive new housing, high end shopping mall. Yes, it is very beautiful and very successful - but I would never want to live there either. When we first moved there (before incorporation) we loved the open rural town. It was a great place to live - sure, you had to commute to work (45 min. to 1 hr. - like Fresno), but it was worth it. As soon as incorporation plan started buzzing, then came the promises, the "great city of SCV would be able to manage itself", no more bad L.A. influence, taxes would not increase - much - HA HA Ha, they would maintain the small town atmosphere and we would be so happy if we voted yes. They did and the city grew at an alarming rate. Within 10 years it had grown even bigger than what we moved from! The land developers had their golden day in the sun. They and the city fat cats became mega rich. So we found another little town - Oakhurst. Now, the incorporation buzz is starting again. Being uneducated in the political arena I cannot debate the financial, political hows or such, but I do know what I've seen. I would hate for Oakhurst to have the same fate as either towns like Lancaster or SCV. I think like most people here we don't want something we moved to get away from. Incorporation leaves a sour taste - I know growth is inevitable but why hit the meter to max right away? And, just who would profit from this move exactly? I've tried to keep an open mind, really. But when I read Ironhorse and Jacabscalpal's well thought out comments I know in my heart that it is not a good thing for Oakhurst. But being another "dumbass" outside the proposed city limits, maybe I shouldn't comment either. JMO

I disagree Summer, you should comment, in fact everyone outside the proposed limits should comment. One way or another, if you wind up in the boundaries or not, it will affect everyone living up here. Another thought, the bigger a town is, the more potential crime there is, just goes with the territory. And don't take the "crime stats" at face value, believe me, those can be written to reflect whatever the departments writing them want. Suddenly, crimes become "not reportable" on state stats, or because the department no longer responds (you have to file the report yourself via mail or in person at the department, then those stats don't get reported anymore either sometimes, but they still happened. A crime is a crime.) Homeless populations, transients, pan-handlers, etc., also increase. A person may not know the ins and outs of all the political rhetoric associated with an incorporation, but their own experiences in watching/living with similar situations can pretty well make them familiar with the potential risks and empty political promises.

Yosemite_Wolf

Nov 27, 2007, 12:43 AM

lancaster... subprime mortgages.... foreclosures... and this has something to do with Oakhurst incorporating?? Lancaster is a bedroom community. Subprime mortgage brokers took advantage of people who wanted to own homes... they gave them loans that should have never been given... cos they told the people that they were "approved" Well, I was approved for a loan.. am good for it.. and I then took out a HELOC on the good advice from Mom who had a HELOC.. than stuff changed... and blammo.... interest rates went up on those ARMS. No subprime, foreclosures and Lancasters have little to do with our lil Oaky.

Lancaster was doomed to grow... and so is Oakhurst.. cos more and more people want to live in Cali and want to live in the suburbs/rural areas.

EdBailey

Nov 27, 2007, 08:37 AM

Of course, Oakhurst is not like Lancaster. No one has said it was. My point was that the oponents' predictions of dire consequences are virtually the same here and now as they were in Lancaster 35 years ago (similar campaign tactics, not similar cities). Those predictions did not materialize there after Lancaster incorporated and we really have no reason to believe they will materalize here.

For those who are still inclined to fear the worst, just ask yourself why that of 480 cities that have incorporated since California became a state, all but two are incorporated today. If being incorporated is such a bad thing, don't you think more would have taken steps to go back to being unincorporated?

Communities such as Oakhurst have not experienced being both unincorporated and incorporated. But communities that HAVE experienced both have shown, and continue to show a strong preference for remaining incorporated. Does anyone think that Oakhurst, unlike 478 other cities in California, will choose to go back to being governed by someone else, who lives somewhere else, whose primary focus in governing is somewhere else, and who takes huge sums of money out of our pockets to spend somewhere else? These are the elements of governing that let to the Boston Tea Party.

Someone said it well, "It's time for Oakhurst to grow up."

oakhurstleaf

Nov 27, 2007, 09:36 AM

What would our country be like if we were just one big British Colony? Imagine that.

jakobscalpel

Nov 27, 2007, 09:45 AM

For those who are still inclined to fear the worst, just ask yourself why that of 480 cities that have incorporated since California became a state, all but two are incorporated today. If being incorporated is such a bad thing, don't you think more would have taken steps to go back to being unincorporated?

Please stop using this as an argument for why cityhood is a good idea. It is utterly meaningless. Incorporation may very well be a good idea, but not for this reason. It will be a good idea only if the benefits outweigh the costs. Saying it is a good idea because 478 cities remain incorporated is just silly. Why?

1. If the city was incorporated then it was passed by a majority of the voters. Disincorporation would require a substantial number of defectors. Vote inertia is very strong, as most people refuse to admit when they are wrong.
2. Once a period of time passes cityhood becomes institutionalized. No one can imagine it not existing, even if totally dissatisfied. Can you imagine the city of Fresno disincorporating? Why not?
3. Just to consider the notion of disincorporation, a petition must be submitted to the council containing 20% of the city's voters! 20%!! Jeez, no wonder nobody disincorporates. I mean, you all know what the standard voter turn out percentage is for local elections, right?
4. As time goes on, more and more of the city economy becomes tied into the existence of city government, so more and more individuals find themselves dependent on the status quo.

Frankly, I'm amazed that two cities have actually disincorporated, considering the difficulties in doing so. Of course, disincorporation was much more common back around 1880, when cities were smaller (also, many of them disincorporated to force the state or county to pay for infrastructure. smart!). Also, the cities that disincorporated early on reincorporated. If you should be using any argument, that is the one to use.

EdBailey

Nov 27, 2007, 06:46 PM

Press Release – 11-27-07

ACTION PAC Committee To Support measure C

Contacts

Joe Smith, ACTION 559-683-0212

Dave Herb, LAFCo Executive Officer 559-474-3181

Jim Simon, RSG 714-541-4585

The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), in the impartial ballot analysis has once again declared the incorporation of Oakhurst financially feasible. The analysis states “A comprehensive fiscal analysis of the proposed incorporation, based on existing service levels and revenue sources, and not assuming any increases in the tax rate or the levying of any new assessments, was performed. The results of the analysis estimated that the proposed city would collect approximately $2 million in revenues during the first fiscal year of cityhood (2008/2009), while expending approximately $1 million during that same period for municipal services and other obligations. The $1 million in revenues which have not been appropriated could be used at the discretion of the town council to increase the level of selected services, provide new services, fund capital improvements, accumulate a reserve, or for other municipal purposes. The analysis further shows general fund surpluses each of the first 10 years of the cityhood”. Dave Herb, LAFCo Executive officer, stated “California State Law prohibits LAFCo from moving forward any incorporation petition unless it is found financially feasible. In this case the Town of Oakhurst is clearly financially feasible with excess reserves even after revenue neutrality with the County of Madera”. The mission of LAFCO is to coordinate logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries and to implement the applicable provisions of State law, namely the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. LAFCO is responsible for reviewing potential simplifications and streamlining of governmental structure and increase cost effectiveness. LAFCo commissioned the firm Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc (“RSG”) to study the financial feasibility of the Town of Oakhurst. RSG is recognized as a leader in providing consulting services to local government agencies and private clients within California and Nevada for the past 26 years. Headquartered in Santa Ana, California, RSG serves over 130 local government agencies and approximately 20 private clients with its staff of 33 members. During the public meeting to review the CFA, RSG consultant Jim Simon stated “it’s hard to find a more favorable financial picture for a new town than the one for the Town of Oakhurst”. Both Dave Herb of LAFCO and Simon from RSG have indicated the CFA has to be a very conservative document to avoid any problems after incorporation. Joe Smith of the ACTION committee to incorporate Oakhurst commented “We have a CFA that not only shows the financial feasibility of the Town of Oakhurst but produces yearly budget surpluses from $263,116 to $602,494. The CFA also states it is a conservative document by growing revenues much lower than historically experienced. LAFCo and RSG have done this to ensure the financial feasibility, by understating the revenues it creates a cushion for the town going forward. The CFA and the analysis confirms that the Town is financially feasible, without any new taxes. We have said all along that incorporation is not a magic pill that will solve all our problems, but rather an opportunity for us to assume our responsibilities of self governance and take local control of our future rather than leaving it in the hands of those who do not live here. Incorporation is a change in government- not more government, no new taxes, no debt, no ordinance changes, no service reductions, just local citizens making local decisions that can protect our rural culture.”

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.8/1154 - Release Date: 11/27/2007 11:40 AM

mdswb

Nov 27, 2007, 10:57 PM

Oakhurst,Inc. that sounds more like a business name than anything. I am sure that incorporating the town of Oakhurst is a bad idea because the town of Oakhurst cannot afford to be a city. As of now the entire Madera County is benefiting from tax revenues generated by our community; bass lake, ahwahnee, north fork, oneil's, and coarsegold included. No person residing outside the imaginary lines of the oakhurst city boundry can vote on this measure even though they will be directly affected by the change. Property owners (Commercial or Residential)will not be able to vote on measure C if they reside outside proposed city bounds.Renters should at least consider owners vote. Affected by increase in an already elevated consumer market. Also affected by a lack of funds county wide provided by the current Oakhurst tax base. We will still be paying madera county 20 million dollars spread out over ten years as an adjustment period, to them not getting our tax money after that. At the same time trying to generate enough revenue to run a city, city government, fire department(which will be contracted).The cost of living in this community will rise above and beyond the standard rate of inflation. the initial proponents of this change will have a financial investment and eventual financial gain from the incorporation of Oakhurst, by way of rezoning lands that are now restricted by county regulations. Our town is not perfect, nor will it ever be, but it is just right for the people who have chosen to make it home.If a city is what you desire, move to the city. If you came from a city then this town is what you wanted.DON'T RUIN OUR TOWN!!!DON'T INCORPORATE!Vote NO on measure C.

EdBailey

Nov 28, 2007, 09:55 AM

No person residing outside the imaginary lines of the oakhurst city boundry can vote on this measure even though they will be directly affected by the change.

Also, no person residing outside those (imaginary) lines of the Oakhurst city boundary can vote for, or against, four of our five County Supervisors.

Ironhorse

Nov 28, 2007, 03:32 PM

EdBailey

Nov 28, 2007, 10:23 PM

With the downward swing in the economy, the rise of fuel costs (gasoline and heating oil), the revenues predicted may or MAY NOT be generated, most likely not. Tourism and housing are already seeing the fallout, people will be cutting back on travel if the trend continues. How much of those enormous "projected revenues" are based on monies from tourism????????? Regardless of whether tourism continues at current levels, or decreases, the county will still expect the 20 million to be paid. People have less discretionary funds now, and it is likely to get worse. Predicting revenues is like Palm Readers, they tell a story people want to hear, not necessarily based on facts, just supposition. As costs of fuel increase, so will costs of food, entertainment, clothing and every other aspect of our lives. And businesses profits will decrease as they seek to try to draw people in to spend more money, by having sales and whatnot. No one can guarantee that the revenues to support a local government will be there when needed. Not so many years past, most local governments were scrambling for monies, running in the red in some instances, cutting back positions and services, because the State and Feds took hits on the revenues to cover their own deficits.

And even if we don't incorporate, Madera County will still get it's more than $20 million over the next ten from Oakhurst taxpayers, as it is doing now to the tune of more thanm $2 million per year, over what it spends on services for Oakhurst. As revenues increase, our contribution to the county will increase even more. By incorporating we can stop paying alimony to Madera County after ten years. If we fail to incorporate we will be paying an equal or larger amount to Madera Counry forever. Please help me to understand why you find that so appealing.

Ironhorse

Nov 29, 2007, 09:11 AM

And even if we don't incorporate, Madera County will still get it's more than $20 million over the next ten from Oakhurst taxpayers, as it is doing now to the tune of more thanm $2 million per year, over what it spends on services for Oakhurst. As revenues increase, our contribution to the county will increase even more. By incorporating we can stop paying alimony to Madera County after ten years. If we fail to incorporate we will be paying an equal or larger amount to Madera Counry forever. Please help me to understand why you find that so appealing.

And if the economy takes a downswing, Madera County won't get the 2 million per year either, because the revenue won't be there, oops, guess I'm just being dumb.

EdBailey

Nov 29, 2007, 09:25 AM

And if the economy takes a downswing, Madera County won't get the 2 million per year either, because the revenue won't be there, oops, guess I'm just being dumb.

And if a frog had wings he would not bruise his butt on so many rocks.

mdswb

Nov 29, 2007, 10:02 AM

Are any of you familiar with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Controll District. They are the somewhat new agency located on HWY 41 and Gettysburg Ave in fresno. They are not a government agency. They are the people who determine which days (during the wet winter months ) we can do hazard reduction burning, regardless of if it is raining heavily or wet with an extemely low probability of clean natural fire and smoke adding to the poor quality of air that the valley has created for itself. I HATE them. They have nothing to do with me. I am smarter than them, I will not have them tell me yes or no. I get the feeling that this LAFCo, an outside agency of persons who have nothing in common with us mountain folk, is looking to come and impose rules, regulations, fees, fines, based on the theories that either have or have not worked in other communities, regardless of size. I cannot stand by and let the few people in position to gain from this, change this comunity for the masses who have nothing to gain and much to lose.I'll say it again, If you dont like it here you can leave just as easily as you came.

mdswb

Nov 29, 2007, 10:40 AM

The folks who live in the mountain area called oakhurst are a much larger population than the people who are actually going to vote NO on Measure C. Limiting the vote only to people who reside in the proposed city boundries, is unfair. Unfair to property owners whose residences may be outside the boundries. They don't get to vote... that is crazy. I am sorry but a person renting an apartment in Royal Oaks cannot have more influence on the vote than a property or business owner, in the same area, who may not live there. You self righteous agenda pushers are ruining peoples lifes with your own selfish actions, but you probably cannot recognize that fact because you moral pricipals are gone. Put this vote up to every voter in the district, and lay the facts on the table so when a decision is made the voters don't feel like they got ripped off, things aren't as groovy as they thought they were going to be. NO on Incorporation. NO on measure C.

Mysteefied

Nov 29, 2007, 11:42 PM

I would just like to drop a little reminder here to play nice. Please no name calling.
Thank you

EdBailey

Nov 30, 2007, 01:05 PM

I agree mysteefied, but personally I don't mind people expressing how they feel. Change is difficult for many people, and they need to, not only express their feelings, but to be reassured that bringing local control to Oakhurst will benefit everyone, including those living outside the proposed boundaries.

City governments are the closest to the people, the most scrutinized, most accountable, most responsive to the will of their citizens, of any form of government at any level. They are the most popular form of government in the world today. But we will have to experience change to get there.

We have more educating to do.

Ironhorse

Nov 30, 2007, 03:19 PM

And some people need to understand that just because someone's opinion/wants are not theirs, it doesn't make the other people wrong. To assume more education of those people is needed is to presume they don't know what they want, or are incapable of making those judgements. Different strokes for different folks, everyone's idea of paradise is different.

mountainmissy

Dec 01, 2007, 11:47 AM

Change is difficult for many people, and they need to, not only express their feelings, but to be reassured that bringing local control to Oakhurst will benefit everyone, including those living outside the proposed boundaries.

City governments are the closest to the people, the most scrutinized, most accountable, most responsive to the will of their citizens, of any form of government at any level. They are the most popular form of government in the world today. But we will have to experience change to get there.

We have more educating to do.

Please don't patronize me by thinking we need to be "reassured" or that "change is difficult" or that we need to be "educated". When anyone says "we're from the government and we're here to help," run the other way. Incorporation proponents mode of education is spin. Read the CFA for yourself and study the spreadsheets in the back. Those posting on this thread have done a great job sharing stories of what has happened in other incorporated cities. Find out for yourself how strapped city governments are for cash and the control they wield over their citizens in their insatiable need for $$$. How many more freedoms will we lose as we're burdened with more regulations with more fees.

The only way to ensure that government is truly representative is for citizens to be actively engaged. If people don't get involved, they get what they get.

Incorporation proponents complain about poor planning in Oakhurst but perhaps they need to look in the mirror. The Oakhurst Community developed their Area Plan; all planning actions are reviewed by the Oakhurst Community Advisory Council. (OCAC). How many residents ever bothered to attend Oakhurst Area Plan Committee (OAP) meetings or OCAC meetings and participate in the public process? Too few. However, many of the proponents of incorporation sat on the OAP, and still sit on the OCAC. If planning has been faulty, then it is indicative of what will continue as a City.

Incorporation proponents complain about MD 22A--the Waste Treatment Plant. The Plant was designed and built with the approval of the Oakhurst MD22A committee and public vote. Many of the Waste Treatment Plant Steering Committee are now drivers of the Incorporation movement. If they allowed mismanagement of a sewer plant, then what lies ahead for the City.

Granted, the County is far from perfect, but creating a whole new layer of government while subsidizing heavy-handed LAFCo is no panacea. The key to accountability is public involvement. Voters need to vote NO on Incorporation and make a pledge to become actively involved in oversight at the County level--that is the only way to ensure the community we all love stays rural.

Sandman

Dec 01, 2007, 12:03 PM

My main concern is that I do not want to see more big chain stores coming to Oakhurst. I DO NOT want a WalMart!!! I do not want large chains to push small businesses out. I fear that incorporating as a city will attract the attention of these large corporations. I'm not saying that I am for or against incorporation since I don't yet know all of the facts. But this is a huge concern for me.

mountainmissy

Dec 01, 2007, 01:30 PM

Sandman--A very interesting site to check out is the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). They do lots of surveys of cities, their issues and concerns.

Prop. 13 put a cap on property taxes, so cities have to find other ways to generate revenue. According to LAFCo's own documents, cities expand their boundaries "to gain taxing powers" and "to encourage new development." The obscure expansion of Oakhurst incorporation boundaries from what was originally proposed and the extremely large proposed Sphere of Influence include a substantial inventory of undeveloped land.

PPIC conducted a statewide survey (471 cities) on “Development Priorities in California Cities” with a 70% return. The questionnaire asked City managers/administrators what factors influence local officials’ decisions about how their cities will develop and grow.

Here's what they learned:

--In California, promoting retail development in order to generate new sales tax revenue is the highest development priority for city managers and administrators. Attracting retail development is the highest priority for new development on existing vacant land and for cities’ redevelopment areas. Gaining sales tax revenue is also one of the most important motivations affecting cities’ plans for annexation of new territory.

--Retail projects are the preferred land use for both new development projects on vacant land and city redevelopment project areas. Light industrial, office, and mixed-use development are also considered quite desirable.

--In the case of new development on vacant land, survey respondents were also asked to judge how likely it would be that their cities would offer a general plan change or financial incentive to the developer. Retail was ranked as the type of land use for which they would be most likely to make such offers.

--For new growth on vacant land sites, generating new sales tax revenue is the most important consideration for respondents when seeking development or evaluating developer proposals.

--The quest for sales taxes appears to be a major consideration in local development decisions, which leads cities to favor retailing over other types of land use. Sales tax revenue generated by local retailing is one of the few sources of flexibility and potential growth in local budgets.

When you read the stories of other cities that incorporated, they've become magnets for growth, big-box stores, and large chain stores. Another good publication to read that offers lots of information about the financial challenges facing cities is "From Home Rule to Fiscal Rule--Taking a Measure of Local Government Finance in California;" it too is a PPIC document.

Sandman

Dec 01, 2007, 01:44 PM

I'd have to say at this point I am leaning towards wanting to remain unincorporated. However, I do not live within the proposed area so I will not have a vote on this. :(

wahine67

Dec 01, 2007, 04:12 PM

When you read the stories of other cities that incorporated, they've become magnets for growth, big-box stores, and large chain stores.

I don't think that's a bad thing. We began our land-hunt up here five years ago and since then I've sorely missed having more options in shopping/city services. I don't mean Wal-Mart (no one should ever shop at Wal-Mart), but I could think of a thousand uses for a Target. I also think the nursery needs competition and so does True Value. I'ld also love to see more ethnic restaurants. Doesn't anyone like Indian or Thai food? And totally off the topic, if there were pizza/chinese restaurants that delivered within a 10 mile radius of town, they 'ld have my business.

We have literally pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the local economy by buying land and building here and I don't see the return on that money in my local services. (we are not retired) I don't know what kind of rosy picture is being painted here, but Oakhurst needs help. The public schools desperately need help, at least OES and OCI, the library cant' stay open enough hours for lack of funds, and I think driving up and down certain parts of 41 is depressing as hell. Dilapidated, run-down buldings, etc. And I'm sorry to say this, but I don't see a need for another Mom & Pop gift shop in this town. Change is inevitable and will come in one form or another, we might as well embrace it and keep our money here locally.

W.

Ironhorse

Dec 01, 2007, 06:42 PM

Please don't patronize me by thinking we need to be "reassured" or that "change is difficult" or that we need to be "educated". When anyone says "we're from the government and we're here to help," run the other way. Incorporation proponents mode of education is spin. Read the CFA for yourself and study the spreadsheets in the back. Those posting on this thread have done a great job sharing stories of what has happened in other incorporated cities. Find out for yourself how strapped city governments are for cash and the control they wield over their citizens in their insatiable need for $$$. How many more freedoms will we lose as we're burdened with more regulations with more fees.

The only way to ensure that government is truly representative is for citizens to be actively engaged. If people don't get involved, they get what they get.

Incorporation proponents complain about poor planning in Oakhurst but perhaps they need to look in the mirror. The Oakhurst Community developed their Area Plan; all planning actions are reviewed by the Oakhurst Community Advisory Council. (OCAC). How many residents ever bothered to attend Oakhurst Area Plan Committee (OAP) meetings or OCAC meetings and participate in the public process? Too few. However, many of the proponents of incorporation sat on the OAP, and still sit on the OCAC. If planning has been faulty, then it is indicative of what will continue as a City.

Incorporation proponents complain about MD 22A--the Waste Treatment Plant. The Plant was designed and built with the approval of the Oakhurst MD22A committee and public vote. Many of the Waste Treatment Plant Steering Committee are now drivers of the Incorporation movement. If they allowed mismanagement of a sewer plant, then what lies ahead for the City.

Granted, the County is far from perfect, but creating a whole new layer of government while subsidizing heavy-handed LAFCo is no panacea. The key to accountability is public involvement. Voters need to vote NO on Incorporation and make a pledge to become actively involved in oversight at the County level--that is the only way to ensure the community we all love stays rural.

Well stated! Another aspect to consider is that the retail development that the proponents want to see in Oakhurst WILL attract crime, whether it be shoplifting, car theft, robberies, or assaults. And also look at the Fresno Bee with it's stories of the City of Fresno and County cutting their next year's budget already, because of falling property values. They are not the only agencies doing this. City of Madera has just cut benefits and salaries of its employees is my understanding, and they are praying that the new casino along 99 gets built soon, for the promised revenue. Rather than keep grasping for more revenues to fill a black hole, the cities and counties would be better off considering how to better spend the monies they generate now, instead of being insatiable black holes. The idea that incorporation will suddenly make our schools better, or fill our pockets more is crazy. As stated before, incorporation is not a panacea for all that ails this area, voter apathy is! Hold our government more responsible for what we have and do better homework on how they perform their jobs, before election time. Attend a Board meeting sometime, start demanding that more of those meetings be held up here so that all constituents have a better chance of attending. Other counties rotate their meeting locations occasionally, why not here? Even the city councils get out and hold their meetings in different areas of the city, not just at city hall, so why not our BOS? And if they do something you don't like, don't wait till election time to let them know, write/phone/email them when it happens!

Summer

Dec 01, 2007, 07:28 PM

I don't think that's a bad thing. We began our land-hunt up here five years ago and since then I've sorely missed having more options in shopping/city services. I don't mean Wal-Mart (no one should ever shop at Wal-Mart), but I could think of a thousand uses for a Target. I also think the nursery needs competition and so does True Value. I'ld also love to see more ethnic restaurants. Doesn't anyone like Indian or Thai food? And totally off the topic, if there were pizza/chinese restaurants that delivered within a 10 mile radius of town, they 'ld have my business.

We have literally pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the local economy by buying land and building here and I don't see the return on that money in my local services. (we are not retired) I don't know what kind of rosy picture is being painted here, but Oakhurst needs help. The public schools desperately need help, at least OES and OCI, the library cant' stay open enough hours for lack of funds, and I think driving up and down certain parts of 41 is depressing as hell. Dilapidated, run-down buldings, etc. And I'm sorry to say this, but I don't see a need for another Mom & Pop gift shop in this town. Change is inevitable and will come in one form or another, we might as well embrace it and keep our money here locally.

W.

Well, I think this post sums up what most of what the anti-incorporation people do NOT want. Why the heck did you move here if this is what you want? It can all be had 45 min. down the road. No, we do not want the Targets, etc., home food delivery, abolition of the "Mom & Pop" shops! Sorry about your "pumped $$ into this economy and not getting your returns" but Puleeeez you are portraying yourself as a raper of our small time community - looking for that almighty dollar. What the heck did you expect? If our community is so depressing get the he** out of here! Most of us like our community just the way it is - go back to the city!

EdBailey

Dec 01, 2007, 07:56 PM

[QUOTE=mountainmissy;50314]Please don't patronize me by thinking we need to be "reassured" or that "change is difficult" or that we need to be "educated".

Are you suggesting that you don't think "change is difficult" for some, or that we should vote without being "educated?"

(quote)The only way to ensure that government is truly representative is for citizens to be actively engaged. If people don't get involved, they get what they get.

You're right. Let's get more involved. That's just what we are trying to do. Let's bring government here, where we can keep an eye on it, where we can vote in or out every member of the town council. Tell me, how do we influence the Supervisors of Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4? Do we threaten to vote them out office? Oooops! We don't get to vote for or against any of them
(80 percent of county government). Good luck at getting more involvement in county government and on being effective even if we should get increased involvement.

(quote)Granted, the County is far from perfect, but creating a whole new layer of government while subsidizing heavy-handed LAFCo is no panacea.

Who told you that the new Town of Oakhurst will be obligated or even permitted to subsidize LAFCo? LAFCo is a function of county government. It is their job, under state law, to make sure that a proposed incorporation is fiscally feasaible (possible, viable, reasonable, realistic, practical, sufficient) before it is allowed to go forward. They have done that, and their work on this particular issue is finished.

(quote)The key to accountability is public involvement.

I completely agree. The five town Council Members will all be accountable to us, and only to us. Only one of five county supervisors is accountable to us, and that one supervisor has to also be concerned with a larger area than Oakhurst.

I know our Supervisor Tom Wheeler personally. I like him, I respect him, and I trust him. I campaigned for him, and I think he is doing a great job. But he is limited to his role as one of five supervisors. We have five supervisoral districts in Madera County. One and one half are mountain area, and three and a half are valley area. The valley interests can out vote us on any issue, and they usually do.

I applaud your call for more involvment, and I'm convinced that bringing local control to Oakhurst is the only practical way to do that.

mountainmissy

Dec 01, 2007, 10:14 PM

Ed Bailey said: "Who told you that the new Town of Oakhurst will be obligated or even permitted to subsidize LAFCo? LAFCo is a function of county government. It is their job, under state law, to make sure that a proposed incorporation is fiscally feasible (possible, viable, reasonable, realistic, practical, sufficient) before it is allowed to go forward. They have done that, and their work on this particular issue is finished."

Guess you haven't read the CFA... The budget spreadsheets reveal that the new CITY will be paying/subsidizing LAFCo nearly $8,000 per year annually (increasing 2.27% per year)--for perpetuity-- to intrude in Oakhurst affairs. LAFCo is NOT a function of county government. LAFCo was sanctioned by the state legislature to oversee land-use planning--there's one in every county. They are suppose to be an independent, autonomous agency; their decisions are legislative and are backed by the courts. Anything to do with annexations, water districts, etc. has to go through LAFCo. Madera's LAFCo is particularly interesting. They are housed within the Resource Management Agency (formerly the Planning Department). Their Executive Officer used to be the head of Madera's Resource Management Agency. Their Deputy EO is currently the Assistant Planning Director. They contract with County planning staff for their "independent" analysis. Normally, County Planning has some checks and balances through oversight by the Board of Supervisors. But these same employees put on their LAFCo hat and they can justify whatever they want.

There are those who say it was LAFCo who arbitrarily decided to expand the boundaries for Incorporation--not the proponents. IF that is true--witness firsthand the power of this agency.

You want to believe LAFCo is all that's right with the world because in this instance they support what YOU want (i.e., incorporation). Wait until you are on the other side of the issue and your life, your property or even your water are on the line... Dancing with LAFCo is like dancing with the devil... They represent all that is wrong with abuse of government power.

EdBailey

Dec 01, 2007, 11:15 PM

I stand corrected. There is a provision on page 4 providing for a LAFCo fee at least until 2018/19. I suppose that is our share of the cost of operating the state mandated commission. I assume that some Oakhurst taxpayer money is being used to support LAFCo now, and that will continue whether we incorporate or not. The county is spending the $2,000,000 surplus they are collecting from us for something. That leaves them $1,992,000 for other county expenditures outside of Oakhurst.

If you're satisfied with the way Madera County collects and spends revenues from Oakhurst taxpayers, you can vote in favor of letting things continue as they are.

I have faith in the people of our community that we can do it better.

We all contemplate change with two types of fear.

Type 1 - Fear that if we don't change things won't get better.
Type 2 - Fear that if we do change things will get worse,

I lean more toward type 1 than type 2.

oakhurstleaf

Dec 02, 2007, 09:38 AM

EdBailey

Dec 02, 2007, 09:57 AM

Well said. Thank you.

mountainmissy

Dec 02, 2007, 02:34 PM

I don't understand why there is so much fear that Oakhurst, if incorporated, will become some big city with all the trappings. There are small towns everywhere that've remained small for 100 years or more past their incorporation.

Oakhurst's geographic landscape is not condusive to being over-built with urban sprawl. Nor would the population even want it. Walmart or Target would be stupid to want to plant themselves up here... For the size of our population and surrounding mountain towns, there's not enough disposable income to support more retail...it would result in existing retail shutting down.

Take the "City" of Big Bear Lake, CA....they've been incorporated for almost 30 years!

It's not about fear. It's about the money--or lack of it. In their desperation to put Incorporation on the ballot ASAP, the unelected proponents for Incorporation unanimously agreed to saddle the community with a $19.86 million debt to be paid to the County over 10 years. The new City is supposed to cough up $1.98 million each year to meet that obligation, but when you look at the budget spreadsheets in the back of the CFA, they can't do it; there's not enough money. If they try to keep a tight budget, they believe they can make the minimum payments of $10 million over 10 years ($1 million/year); but they are deferring the other $9.86 million to the second 10 years at 3.5% interest. So, in reality, it's a 20 year debt...

At issue is Revenue Neutrality. As stated in a 2006 article:

"The 2,000 pound gorilla hindering incorporation of new cities in California is something called “revenue neutrality.” Amended to a 1985 law in 1992 and currently listed as Section 56815 of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, revenue neutrality has caused incorporations across California to grind to a virtual halt. Prior to revenue neutrality (1992), California averaged about four incorporations per year, which was natural given the rapid growth in the state. Since revenue neutrality was adopted, there has been less than one new incorporation per year in California on average. In fact, since 1992 only eight cities have actually incorporated. Revenue neutrality was enacted in 1992. It took an additional five years before the first city, Citrus Heights incorporated in 1997. Since then, seven additional cities incorporated, the last of which, Rancho Cordova was in 2003. No other cities have incorporated in California since that time."

"In reality, there is no standard mechanism to implement revenue neutrality. The law does not specify any formula for satisfying revenue neutrality. It does state that the county can agree to the incorporation without insisting on revenue neutrality, or that revenue neutrality can be satisfied through “tax sharing agreements, lump-sum payments, payments over a fixed period of time, or any other terms and conditions. . . .” In short, whatever deal the county and new city strike satisfies the law."

Thirty years ago, when the City of Big Bear Lake was incorporated, there was no such thing as revenue neutrality so they never had to face an almost $20 million debt right out of the starting gate. Having such a huge obligation staring you in the face before you even open your doors is a huge red flag. Incorporation proponents were naive, ill-prepared, and under-educated to ever go along with such a huge sum; blind ambition overruled fiscal common sense. Even wealthy Rancho Santa Margarita (whose mayor is a consultant for the Oakhurst group) only had to pay $12 million over 10 years. And this same mayor/consultant is working with Wildamar who will also be voting on incorporation in February, but Wildamar negotiated a "reverse" revenue neutrality agreement; the County is paying the community to incorporate.

So the first issue is a badly negotiated Revenue Neutrality Agreement. Secondly, as has been brought out in other postings--the base year used for projected income and expenses is 2005-2006. During that year, the Housing Market was out of control and property values were skyrocketing; now, the market is spiraling downward with people wanting reassessments to lower their taxes. Then there's the Ferguson Rock Slide with Highway 140 traffic being rerouted through Oakhurst, bringing with it artificially high sales tax and bed tax figures; but now 140 is once again open to through traffic. Meanwhile, Chukchansi is expanding with 219 additional hotel rooms which most certainly will compete with our local hotel base and affect the amount of bed tax that will be generated within the City limits.

On the other side--look at expenses. As the CFA states, the City will be a "contract city", meaning we will contract out for services. Rough estimates of possible contracts were made in 2005-06, but things frequently change when contractors have to sign on the dotted line. Meanwhile gas prices are higher increasing cost of delivery of services. Oil prices are higher affecting cost of asphalt.

All of this impacts the amount of money that will be left to actually run the City. Desperate times call for desperate measures. All the research shows that property tax is capped--it is what it is and can't be increased (but it can be decreased if homeowners request a reassessment). That leaves retail sales tax, bed tax, business taxes, fees, and penalties as ripe for increases. By increasing the number of retail establishments, the City doesn't have to go to the voters--hence the attraction of large chain stores and big-box stores. Bed taxes and business taxes are easier for voters to accept--as in stick it to the tourists; and if a resident is not in business, they disassociate from the businesses as well. In fact, many business owners don't live within the boundaries and can't even vote on such a tax, leaving them especially vulnerable. As to fees--would you believe the City of Fresno has over 3,000 fees; just hanging up an advertising banner requires payment of a fee. In Rancho Santa Margarita, you can't leave your car in the driveway overnight--or there's a penalty fee.

As soon as Oakhurst is a City, the State comes down and requires target housing allotments. If you look at the Housing Element of the County's General Plan right now, it suggests between 3,000 to 4,000 affordable housing units in the Oakhurst area alone but because we're not incorporated, the County can spread that allotment out over lots of unincorporated acreage throughout the entire County. When we're a City, there will not be the flexibility. Hence, Oakhurst is guaranteed to grow.

Is there a market for more retail and big box stores?? Absolutely. Not only will such retail benefit from the forced growth in Oakhurst, but North Fork, Coarsegold, Ahwahnee, Bass Lake, and Mariposa shop in Oakhurst as well. The small town of Sonora with a population of 4423 has a Wal-Mart; they've successfully kept out a Home Depot and are fighting to block Lowe's in litigation right now. And you're right about existing retail closing down. For example, when Wal-Mart opened in Sonora, County officials confirmed more than 50 mom and pop's closed their doors...

So Oakhurst Leaf--it's not about the fear. It's looking at the CFA, the economy, the budget spreadsheets, the research, and the track record of what goes on in other cities. We already know the Incorporation proponents were fiscally naive in agreeing to the Revenue Neutrality Agreement--that certainly doesn't inspire confidence in their ability to run a City on a next-to-nothing budget.

wahine67

Dec 02, 2007, 04:33 PM

No, we do not want the Targets, etc., home food delivery, abolition of the "Mom & Pop" shops! Sorry about your "pumped $$ into this economy and not getting your returns" but Puleeeez you are portraying yourself as a raper of our small time community - looking for that almighty dollar. What the heck did you expect? If our community is so depressing get the he** out of here! Most of us like our community just the way it is - go back to the city!

Thanks for the welcome neighbor!

I'm not sure what you mean by 'raper of small community', I go out of my way to shop here in Oakhurst, I volunteer in community clean-up projects and at the school, I donate to the library and the Mana House. I spend my money here and I'm sure many of the shop owners don't want me gone. I don't want the 'Mom and Pops' gone but we dont' need another knick-knack shop, IMHO, but maybe I do need to buy a child's bathing suit in an emergency in July and I don't want to spend $45 at Gottschalks. All I'm saying is additional business is not bad and what is wrong with food delivery?

There are new houses being built left and right, seems like all the people moving into them will be demanding additional services so you might as well get used to it.

oakhurstleaf

Dec 03, 2007, 06:43 AM

Thanks Mountainmissy. You've given me much food for thought.

EdBailey

Dec 03, 2007, 07:52 AM

[QUOTE=mountainmissy;50347]It's not about fear. It's about the money--or lack of it. In their desperation to put Incorporation on the ballot ASAP, the unelected proponents for Incorporation unanimously agreed to saddle the community with a $19.86 million debt to be paid to the County over 10 years. The new City is supposed to cough up $1.98 million each year to meet that obligation, but when you look at the budget spreadsheets in the back of the CFA, they can't do it; there's not enough money. If they try to keep a tight budget, they believe they can make the minimum payments of $10 million over 10 years ($1 million/year); but they are deferring the other $9.86 million to the second 10 years at 3.5% interest. So, in reality, it's a 20 year debt...

Call it what you like Mountainmissy, but it sounds like it is all about fear to me.
Opposition to social change is always based on fear - fear that the change will make things worse. Do you deny that? Sometimes the fear is justified and sometimes, as I see it in this case, it isn't. But let's call it what it is.

It's true that under the revenue sharing agreement, we will be giving $20 million to Madera County over the next 20 years, but the $2 million per year surplus they are extracting from us now under the current structure will add up to $40 million over that same 20 year period - That is, if revenues stay at current levels. As revenues increase that amount will go up accordingly. And unless we take control of our tax revenues, that cound go on forever.

I'm sorry, but I don't have as much faith in the tender mercies of Madera County as you appear to have.

Bye the way, there is no interest to be paid on any of the revenue sharing. Read the current corrected CFA.

mountainmissy

Dec 03, 2007, 08:54 AM

Bye the way, there is no interest to be paid on any of the revenue sharing. Read the current corrected CFA.

Sounds like word games to me. The Revenue Neutrality Agreement specifically states: "In the event that the...Obligation amount...has not been fully paid by the end of Fiscal Year 2018/2019, then the terms of payments...shall continue for each succeeding fiscal year until the entire...Obligation is paid in full. For each subsequent fiscal year past Fiscal Year 2018/2019 that the...Obligation remains unpaid, the baseline amounts...are increased by 3.5% each year." Webster defines "interest" as "payment of more than is due." 3.5% sounds like "interest" to me...

EdBailey

Dec 03, 2007, 09:28 AM

Sounds like word games to me. The Revenue Neutrality Agreement specifically states: "In the event that the...Obligation amount...has not been fully paid by the end of Fiscal Year 2018/2019, then the terms of payments...shall continue for each succeeding fiscal year until the entire...Obligation is paid in full. For each subsequent fiscal year past Fiscal Year 2018/2019 that the...Obligation remains unpaid, the baseline amounts...are increased by 3.5% each year." Webster defines "interest" as "payment of more than is due." 3.5% sounds like "interest" to me...

After the meeting where the Board of Supervisors approved the RN agreement, Dave Herb had the CFA revised to include the terms of the RN agreement. But, the consultant got it WRONG and initially put in that we would be paying interest on any unpaid installment after 10 years and failed to understand the annual payment would only be $1,000,000 plus any amounts of revenue collected over the projected increases in revenue as set forth in the CFA. But, because the projections only went out 10 years in the CFA, the agreement provides that any unpaid amounts after 10 years would be the $1,000,000 PLUS any revenue collected over a 3.5% baseline increase from the prior year.

The revised CFA was circulated and Ron Bucheger caught the error and advised Dave. Dave then contacted the consultant who revised the CFA to properly reflect the terms of the RN agreement. Unfortunately, Dave or his staff posted the original draft of the CFA on their website after the town hall meeting which contained the erroneous information in the incorrect CFA. The correct CFA is now posted on the LAFCo website. Check it out.

mountainmissy

Dec 03, 2007, 12:56 PM

Thank you for your interpretation on the 3.5% issue, Ed. That doesn't change the fact that the City still must pay the County $19.86 million as part of the Revenue Neutrality Agreement negotiated/approved by the Incorporation proponents (ACTION) Board of Directors.

EdBailey

Dec 03, 2007, 01:58 PM

True, but that is less than half of what they will take from us if we don't incorporate.

EdBailey

Dec 05, 2007, 09:46 AM

PRESS RELEASE

From: Action PAC Committee in Support of measure C

Contacts:
Joe Smith, ACTION PAC 559-683-0212

Mike Martin, Fire Chief Madera County 559-675-7799

Fire Chief Martin Confirms Town of Oakhurst Fire Protection

To address misconceptions regarding fire protection that has been stated by opponents to incorporation Fire Chief Mike Martin was asked by Madera County Chief Administrative Office, Stell Manfredi, to clarify the facts. Chief Martin states “the proposal to incorporate provides that fire department services currently available within the proposed incorporated area will continue, without change, on a contractual basis. As you are probably aware, the fire department assets currently stationed within the proposed incorporated boundaries depend on resources from outlying areas to provide an appropriate level of response for some emergencies. The practice of dispatching the nearest appropriate resources to any emergency within the Oakhurst area will continue under a fire protection contract with the Madera County Fire Department. Additionally, as is the case throughout the State of California, Mutual Aid resources from neighboring jurisdictions, will be requested if, and/when, emergency incident circumstances dictate the necessity for responses in excess of what the local jurisdiction can muster. Mutual Aid Resources are provided to the host agency free of charge, for the duration of need. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) will continue to dispatch state funded resources to any fire incident within proposed incorporation area, which represents a direct threat to watershed values protected by the state. Additionally, as a neighbor jurisdiction, Cal Fire will continue to provide assistance to this area on incidents which are not defined as a threat to its jurisdiction, through the Master Mutual Aid System.”

Joe Smith with the ACTION committee to support Measure C (incorporation) stated: “The Nay Sayers have consistently gotten this one wrong. At one point they were declaring the town would go bankrupt after the first fire because the state would charge the town back for helping fight the fire. Chief Martin is clear that Mutual Aid is available to the town and fire services currently available will continue. I guess when people have no logical reasons to oppose something they just make things up! Our goal at ACTION is to make available to the citizens accurate information directly from people like Chief Martin”. Incorporation is not a magic pill that will solve all our problems but rather an opportunity for us to assume our responsibilities of self governance and take local control of our future rather than leaving it in the hands of those who do not live here. Incorporation is a change in government- not more government, no new taxes, no debt, no ordinance changes, no service reductions, just local citizens making local decisions that can protect our rural culture.

EdBailey

Dec 05, 2007, 10:00 AM

The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), in the impartial ballot analysis has once again declared the incorporation of Oakhurst financially feasible. The analysis states “A comprehensive fiscal analysis of the proposed incorporation, based on existing service levels and revenue sources, and not assuming any increases in the tax rate or the levying of any new assessments, was performed. The results of the analysis estimated that the proposed city would collect approximately $2 million in revenues during the first fiscal year of cityhood (2008/2009), while expending approximately $1 million during that same period for municipal services and other obligations. The $1 million in revenues which have not been appropriated could be used at the discretion of the town council to increase the level of selected services, provide new services, fund capital improvements, accumulate a reserve, or for other municipal purposes. The analysis further shows general fund surpluses each of the first 10 years of the cityhood”. Dave Herb, LAFCo Executive officer, stated “California State Law prohibits LAFCo from moving forward any incorporation petition unless it is found financially feasible. In this case the Town of Oakhurst is clearly financially feasible with excess reserves even after revenue neutrality with the County of Madera”. The mission of LAFCO is to coordinate logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries and to implement the applicable provisions of State law, namely the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. LAFCO is responsible for reviewing potential simplifications and streamlining of governmental structure and increase cost effectiveness. LAFCo commissioned the firm Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc (“RSG”) to study the financial feasibility of the Town of Oakhurst. RSG is recognized as a leader in providing consulting services to local government agencies and private clients within California and Nevada for the past 26 years. Headquartered in Santa Ana, California, RSG serves over 130 local government agencies and approximately 20 private clients with its staff of 33 members. During the public meeting to review the CFA, RSG consultant Jim Simon stated “it’s hard to find a more favorable financial picture for a new town than the one for the Town of Oakhurst”. Both Dave Herb of LAFCO and Simon from RSG have indicated the CFA has to be a very conservative document to avoid any problems after incorporation. Joe Smith of the ACTION committee to incorporate Oakhurst commented “We have a CFA that not only shows the financial feasibility of the Town of Oakhurst but produces yearly budget surpluses from $263,116 to $602,494. The CFA also states it is a conservative document by growing revenues much lower than historically experienced. LAFCo and RSG have done this to ensure the financial feasibility, by understating the revenues it creates a cushion for the town going forward. The CFA and the analysis confirms that the Town is financially feasible, without any new taxes. We have said all along that incorporation is not a magic pill that will solve all our problems, but rather an opportunity for us to assume our responsibilities of self governance and take local control of our future rather than leaving it in the hands of those who do not live here. Incorporation is a change in government- not more government, no new taxes, no debt, no ordinance changes, no service
reductions, just local citizens making local decisions that can protect our rural culture.”

Jim Simon, RSG 714-541-4585
ACTION PAC Committee To Support measure C
Contacts
Joe Smith, ACTION 559-683-0212
Dave Herb, LAFCo Executive Officer 559-474-3181

Farrah_9

Dec 12, 2007, 04:53 AM

I like this poem

Three monkeys sat in a cocoanut tree
Discussing things as they're said to be.
Said one to the others, "Now listen, you two,
There's a certain rumor that can't be true.
That man descended from our noble race-
The very idea! It's a dire disgrace.

No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life,
And you've never known a mother monk
To leave her babies with others to bunk,
Or pass them on from one to another
'Til they hardly know who is their mother.

And another thing! You will never see. . .
A monk build a fence 'round a cocoanut tree
And let the cocoanuts go to waste,
Forbidding all other monks to taste.
Why, if I put a fence around the tree,
Starvation would force you to steal from me.

Here's another thing a monk won't do. . .
Go out at night and get on a stew,
Or use a gun or club or knife
To take some other monkey's life,
Yes, Man descended, the ornery cuss. . .
But brother he didn't descend from us!

Chem101

Dec 12, 2007, 10:50 AM

Ummmm.... OK... I give up. what do Monkeys and coconut trees have to do with incorporation?

Sandman

Dec 14, 2007, 12:14 AM

Two months and counting

Editor's Corner
By David Richards (editor@sierrastar.com)
 (Updated Monday, December 10, 2007, 11:20 AM)

In what could be a monumental vote in the history of Oakhurst, residents will decide whether to incorporate Oakhurst as a town or leave it the way it is during the Feb. 5 primary election.

 They will also get the chance to vote for five candidates for the first Oakhurst Town Council, which will form if incorporation, also known as Measure C, lands a simple majority vote of 50 percent plus one.

At the Sierra Star, our reporters have worked hard on getting incorporation stories out in a timely manner, and we will continue to do so.

We also encourage our readers to send us letters to the editor on how they feel about incorporation, and we will publish them, both for and against, on a space-available basis.

Our editorial board is also in the process of investigating the issue, as we know there are members of the community who are intensely for incorporation and others who are intensely against it.

We plan to speak to them.

We know the simple answers.

A vote for incorporation allows us to retain local control and keeps our tax dollars here. A vote against it voices concern over breaking away from the county, a move we may not be ready for and ultimately may not be able to afford.

We're guessing the answers lie somewhere in the middle, and if we feel making a stand on incorporation either for or against is in the best interest of our community, we will do so before Jan. 7, the date absentee ballots go out by mail.

What we won't do is endorse any town council candidates or publish any letters for or against candidates. Our aim is always to be as neutral as possible, and we feel endorsing candidates in this election goes against that.

more (http://www.sierrastar.com/columnists/drichards/story/14228376p-14756753c.html)

QuestionMan

Dec 14, 2007, 04:13 PM

Me thinks ACTION has it backwards--our forefathers were NaySayers who defeated the British and created the greatest government in the world until organizations like ACTION learned how to add layers to government as in County, City, and LAFCo.

ACTION is even thinking they have mastered political speak and spin. For instance, ACTION touts their own accuracy of facts while those who seek to inform the public (and disagree with ACTION) "conjured up misrepresentations." Let's ask ACTION if the following "conjurations" are accurate.

By California State Law, cities are removed from State Responsibility Areas (SRA) for fire protection and become Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). To receive the same guaranteed wildland fire protection already paid for, the proposed city of Oakhurst has projected a budget cost of about $150,000/year. Why should proposed taxpayers pay twice for the same fire protection already paid for??

Unlike what ACTION hopes proposed taxpayers/voters will believe, the fire protection delivery system has never been in question--only the double payment.

Still on fire, another "conjuration." Why isn't a Wildland Fire Contract a condition of incorporation?? It appears with the proposed 10% cut across the board in the California State Budget, plus not IF but WHEN, the next Harlow Fire hits and IF CALFIRE resources are stretched to the limit fighting fires, hard choices must be made. Priorities probably would be SRAs, then LRAs with Wildland Fire Contracts, then LRAs. Since a Wildland Fire Contract is in the budget, why isn't the Wildland Fire Contract a Condition of Incorporation?

If the proposed General Law City (called a town) is only a change of government, how come said proposed city did NOT take over ALL County functions as our forefathers did when they banished the British government forever?

If the proposed city has no debt (3 unelected signatories in the Revenue Neutrality Agreement obligated proposed taxpayers to a $19.86 million mitigated obligation to the County), why do the proposed city taxpayers have to pay the County a minimum of $1 million each of the first 10 years? The County did not take this money; ACTION agreed to give it to them...

Why is the Revenue Neutrality Agreement missing from the townofoakhurst.com website? Page 28 of the CFA does NOT explain the Revenue Neutrality Agreement. Please read page 29 of the CFA too, where it states no reserve fund without additional revenues...

Why does ACTION tout the October 22nd CFA as Bible when it did not exist when LAFCo approved the proposed City on September 25th and the Board of Supervisors approved the February election on October 2nd?

We are working to keep Oakhurst REALLY rural; rural environment w/rural quality of life. Please ACTION, explain what rural "culture" is???

Joe Smith

Dec 15, 2007, 09:22 PM

Facts not Fears--- Look at the web site and you will find a letter from the Fire Chief stating a no change on fire protection after incorporation:

Misstatement by Nay Sayers: The city immediately assumes $19.86 million in debt to the County – $1.98 million to be paid each year for 10 years, with a 3.5% charge on the unpaid balance after 10 years.

• The Facts From ACTION PAC: It is an incorrect statement: First the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA) states we are a TOWN not a city and we are assuming NO DEBT in the incorporation. This $1.98 million is money that Madera County is taking away from Oakhurst now (each and every year) and will continue to do so until Oakhurst is incorporated. Some people don’t understand revenue neutrality mitigation (or chose to misstate) and the agreement with the County. Because the Oakhurst area generates far greater income to the County than it costs to provide current levels of service, we are required by law to share those excesses revenues with the county for a period of time. We were able to craft a very favorable deal for the Town of Oakhurst by committing to the amount of excess revenue for a ten year period, equaling a total sum of $19.86 million. The CFA clearly identifies on page 23 the agreed upon payment structure calling for a flat amount of $1 million per year with the balance carried forward and due only when revenues increase beyond annual levels budgeted in the CFA. The CFA also states “ Revenue Neutrality Payments do not accrue Interest” Since LAFCo and the Consultant they hired agreed the CFA uses very conservative estimates, we hope to have this revenue sharing amount paid off in 10 to 15 years but it could go out as far as 20 years. After completion of the revenue sharing the Town of Oakhurst to immediately receive a revenue windfall of $2 million or more per year.

• What the Madera County & The State of California Experts Have to Say: The County of Madera states “Revenue Neutrality is the sharing of excess revenue defined in the Comprehensive Fiscal Audit (CFA) as current revenue less the cost of services currently provided by the County to the proposed incorporated area”. “The County goes on to state no interest is charged on the total amount or any deferred payments”. The state sponsored Fiscal Analysis agrees with the ACTION PAC and Madera County understanding that revenue neutrality is the sharing of excess revenue with no interest paid. On page 23 of the CFA it states ““The County and the Proponents negotiated a revenue neutrality payment tat results in the County receiving the equivalent of full revenue neutrality over a period of 10 years. The payments are to be a minimum of $1.0 million in each year beginning in the first year following the transition period and concluding in 2018-19. In addition, should sales tax, property tax, property transfer tax, and / or transient occupancy tax revenues exceed projections in this CFA, the balance of the annual revenue neutrality obligations shall be paid from the surplus amounts. Revenue neutrality payments do not accrue interest”.
Reference Sources are Final CFA 10/22/07 & letter from Madera County found on the web site

jakobscalpel

Dec 16, 2007, 09:42 AM

Since LAFCo and the Consultant they hired agreed the CFA uses very conservative estimates...

My* only quibble with your reply is the continuing reference to these conservative estimates. They are certainly conservative when compared to the recent debt driven economic boom. However, considering several facets of the boom are not sustainable, those estimates may not look so conservative in a few years. It was my understanding from the website that the neutrality payment would not be adjusted downward if revenue significantly declined. If true, this would be the equivalent to holding a debt denominated in a depreciating currency. Again, if you feel that the economy will continue to boom, incorporation looks like a reasonable idea. If you feel the economy will decline, the financials are shaky at best.

*Disclaimer
I do not live in Oakhurst
I have no certified training in financial, legal, or economic fields
English is my fifth language
My computer is a 386 running linux with a lynx browser

Joe Smith

Dec 16, 2007, 11:35 AM

The fiscal review conducted for the state was by design very conservative. This is done to protect the community from any downturn that could affect the financial feasibility of incorporation. Growing tax revenue far below the current actual levels has resulted in a cushion in the town budget. Growth rates in sales, Property, and TOT taxes stated in the CFA are far below what we have historically experienced. They used lower growth numbers to get to the base year calculations and lower than current going forward. The State's CFA was summarized by their consultant and that is currently on the townofoakhurst web site. In order for this effort to go to a vote of the people state law requires a finding of financial feasibility not just for a year or so but for 7 years. The findings in this CFA go out 10 years and shows excess revenues (after all revenue and expenses including revenue neutrality) every years ranging from the first year high of 945,312 to 602,494. This is after the yearly contingency fund of that runs between 93,173 in the first year to 347,841 in the tenth year.
We can look at this one of two ways--- if revenues fall we are already protected --- if revenues do not fall we have a significant upside.
Now if this seems like a lot of money it is a demonstration of how strong the sucking sound has been coming from Madera County into our wallets!

The Nay Sayers say Hold on to your Wallets and i say you first have to go down to Madera and get your wallet back from the county.

mary oleary

Dec 17, 2007, 01:59 PM

here's that web sight

http://www.townofoakhurst.com/

is there a webight from "nay sayers" point of view?

Are Nay Sayers saying ney because they want to keep Oakhurst from developing any further?

We are working to keep Oakhurst REALLY rural; rural environment w/rural quality of life. Please ACTION, explain what rural "culture" is???

EdBailey

Dec 18, 2007, 12:43 PM

Hi Mary,

Thanks to you and Joe Smith for using real names. Maybe we can start a trend.

Nay sayers say nay for various reasons, but the most powerful reason is that change does not come as easy for some, and those who have significant discomfort with change will always be nay sayers, no matter what the issue or the merits. This is not to suggest that all nay sayers are motivated by fear of change alone, but that is probably the case for the most ardent nay sayers.

Development is now controlled from Madera, by people who don't live here and who don't care as much about Oakhurst as we do. When we have five locally elected representatives, all of whom we can vote in or out, people of Oakhurst will finally have some real input about development and other issues as well.

QuestionMan

Dec 18, 2007, 01:22 PM

Joe Smith seems to not answer questions asked and answers a question not asked.

Not answered questions:

1) Why should proposed taxpayers pay twice for the same fire protection? Read ACTIONS's CFA, p. 20, "Additionally, the town would need to fund additional costs for coverage of undeveloped (currently within the State Responsibility Area) within the town limits...representing an added cost for local fire service not charged to the County today."

2) Why is the Wildland Fire Contract listed in the CFA projected budget and NOT as a Condition of Incorporation?

3) If the proposed City is only a change of government, how come the proposed City did not take over ALL County functions? The Resolution approved by LAFCo Commissioners, 2nd page-2a.v., states "The Town of Oakhurst shall be incorporated as a General Law City."

4) Why (as of 16 Dec.) is the Revenue Neutrality Agreement not on the townofoakhurst.com website? CFA does not explain that the Revenue Neutrality Agreement calls the $19.86 million a "Mitigation Obligation" (p. 4) that is due regardless of City's revenues and if City, called town, cannot make its minimum payment, "the County may order the County Auditor to sweep any funds on hand due the town."

5) What is "rural culture?"

6) Why does ACTION tout the October 22nd CFA as its "bible" when it did NOT exist when LAFCo approved the proposed City on September 25th and the Board of Supervisors approved the February election on October 2nd?
(But the August 16 and 28 CFAs which have the same revenues and expenses did exist and were used for the approvals...)

Please answer above questions directly.

Question not asked...

1) Interest on deferred obligation . The consultants and LAFCo both stated in their documents that interest was due, the same "experts" ACTION wants voters to believe; we believed too until the issue was clarified by the County CAO. Ed Bailey even admitted that ACTION's consultants were WRONG and that No Interest was Due.

Point of information for all who "shop locally" in Oakhurst but do not live in the proposed City boundaries. IF the City becomes a reality, EMC taxpayers will have to decide where they want their tax dollars to go--to proposed City of Oakhurst or to the County general fund which supports them.

Suggestion for ACTION, as soon as possible, since one of your City Council candidates is related to the Editor of the Sierra Star--have the Star run in every edition opposing views on Incorporation; and instead of Chamber of Commerce Chili Cook-Offs as ACTION fundraisers, have REAL debates.

EdBailey

Dec 19, 2007, 08:46 AM

EdBailey

Dec 19, 2007, 09:58 AM

There is no legal difference between calling Oakhurst a town or calling it a city it is just a matter of local preference.

You are concerned about the insurance and other costs of operating a new town. You are paying these exact same costs now but the money is being paid to Madera County and they are taking a portion of that money and using it elsewhere. As Ed said, we are sending Madera about $2 million a year more than we are receiving in return.

You are concerned about Oakhurst changing. Oakhurst is not the same sleepy little town it was in the past, it is already changing. Oakhurst will continue to change whether it is incorporated or not. If it is incoporated, we will at least have some say in how it changes.

You don't believe you have enough information on this sbject. There have been numerous townhall meetings over the past several years that have done an excellent job of explaining most of your concerns. The information was presented to all that were interested.

I don't see how we can loose. If we incorporate and it doesn't turn out the way we think it will, we can unincorporate very easily.

Right on all counts, Jerry.

California Law states that the words "City" and "Town" are explicitly interchangeable

Joe Smith

Dec 19, 2007, 08:50 PM

The Nay Sayers stood up at a LAFCo meeting and they talked about the catastrophe waiting to happen once a fire rolls into town. They spoke of the charges the Town would be hit with because the state agencies would charge them for air tankers and bulldozers. They said the town would go bankrupt! If you were there you heard it! Its recorded remarks! They put out info saying we will have decreased fire protection The Fire Chief wrote a letter outlining how fire protection is a no change issue for incorporation and the Town would not be charged for any assistance. SEE Fire Chief’s letter on TOWNOFOAKHURST web site THE NAY SAYERS WERE WRONG ON THIS ONE

The Nay Sayers stood up at a Rotary meeting and gave out handout stating revenue neutrality was debt and the town had to pay interest on the money. If you were there you heard it! This is something they repeated in the argument agents Measure C in the ballot. On the TOWNOFOAKHURST web site you will find a letter from Stell Manfredi the Madera County Administrative Officer stating revenue neutrality is the sharing of excess revenues as defined as current revenues less cost of current services. That is the amount of money the county is taking from us each year (1.98 million). Stell also states no interest is charged THE NAY SAYERS WERE WRONG ON THIS ONE AS WELL!

The Nay Sayers are going around telling people the CFA was tweaked and the numbers are wrong. They tell people the financials show the town is upside down right away. Look what the State’s consultant has to say in the letter on the TOWNOFOAKHURST web site! The States Consultant state this is one of the most financially feasible situations he has seen! He confirms the financials are very conservative to protect everyone from the downside. THE NAY SAYERS WERE WRONG ON THIS ONE AS WELL!

The Nay Sayers tell people if we incorporate businesses will have fees raised on them by the new town but look what the county just did! They raised fees by as much as 2,700% and that is going to harm businesses in the area. THE NAY SAYERS WERE WRONG ON THIS ONE AS WELL!

It’s all fear driven --- go with the facts not the fears!

HOW MANY STRIKES DO THE NAY SAYERS GET BEFORE THEY ARE CALLED OUT!

QuestionMan

Dec 20, 2007, 12:22 PM

Joe Smith, why do you again avoid answering the simple questions asked? Instead you use "smoke and mirrors" to confuse readers with partial information. If you had answered the questions, you would acknowledge that ACTION's "state consultants" called baseline increases "interest", as did LAFCo. Your fellow ACTION Director Ed Bailey stated in this Forum that your consultants were WRONG. So please place the blame where it belongs. Until the County CAO clarified the Revenue Neutrality Agreement, why shouldn't we believe ACTION's consultant and LAFCo?

How about if we agree to open, uncontrolled debates by the Chamber, so the public can decide for themselves who is "accurate?" Charging the public $10 to meet the candidates does not qualify. Show the world you have confidence in the voters by starting with FREE Meet the candidates on January 5th--just seems un-American for taxpayers to have to pay to listen to politicians.

When answers are posted to the questions you keep avoiding, we will respond to your latest post. Responding to one of your "inaccuracies"--the one where a percentage exaggerates reality (a County Fee increased 2700%)...what was the actual proposed dollar increase? Besides City fees historically are higher than County fees. ACTION's October 22nd CFA, p. 15, states Madera County fee recovery is 37.3%, while City of Chowchilla is 50% and the City of Madera is 75%; no wonder the "state consultant" suggests the new town (City) conduct a fee study to recover (raise fees) a higher percentage of costs. Gee, ACTION's 4 candidates failed to promise no new or higher fees on residents in your mailers--how come?

We look forward to your answers...

mountainmissy

Dec 20, 2007, 12:55 PM

Mr. Smith—you’ve turned up the volume so loud, it’s hard to hear you… This forum has been about dialogue, not rants. It’s disappointing you don’t care to answer questions—is it that you don’t know the answers or you just don’t want to give the answers.

Questions about the wildland fire situation require thoughtful responses. You wave your 1-page letter from Chief Martin as though it’s the answer to everything. Up to this point, the discussion has not been about delivery of services (the subject title of the Martin letter), it has been about the COST of delivery. That is not a black and white issue…

Some things for you to think about:

California State Law (Public Resources Code 4125) states "the board shall classify all lands within the state…for the purpose of determining areas in which the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires is primarily the responsibility of the state. The prevention and suppression of fires in all areas that are not so classified is primarily the responsibility of local or federal agencies, as the case may be." PRC 4127 states "the board shall not include within state responsibility areas…(b) lands within the …boundaries of any city…" Stated more simply, according to the CAL FIRE website: a "State Responsibility Area" (SRA) is a legal term defining the area where the State has financial responsibility for wildland fire protection. Lands are removed from a state responsibility area when they become incorporated by a city. The prevention and suppression of fires in all areas that are not state responsibility areas are primarily the responsibility of local or federal agencies.

Your consultants state in the CFA that the proposed City should contract with Fire Station 12 for delivery of fire protection as the least expensive option. I was in the audience at the LAFCo Public Hearing when Commissioner Ronn Dominici brought up that Station 12 is a “life and property” station—not a “wildland fire station.” He was concerned about wildland fire protection and wanted to know what State Law would guarantee wildland fire protection for wildlands included within a “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA)—especially since the expansion of Oakhurst boundaries included so much undeveloped/underdeveloped land. (In fact, if you check the State of California Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps on the CAL FIRE website, you will note that the John West Area which is now included in the City boundaries has the highest hazard severity ranking.) LAFCo’s County Counsel came back after the break and said he didn’t know of any such law. You might check all the way up to the Sacramento Headquarters of CAL FIRE and talk to the Director of Cooperating Services—he, too, will tell you there’s no such State Law. That the ONLY State Law is that land within City boundaries is no longer the responsibility of the State…

Your consultant in attendance heard the concerns about fire raised by Commissioner Dominici and others so the next rewrite of the CFA included some new text in an effort to offset those concerns:

“Additionally, the Town would need to fund additional costs for coverage of undeveloped land (currently within the State Responsibility Area) within the Town limits, via a three-party agreement between the Town, County, and CDF, representing an added cost for local fire service not charged to the County today. The cost of the CDF to serve the undeveloped or underdeveloped areas of the Town limits is based on an annual per-acre cost provided to LAFCo by CDF, which effectively acts like an insurance policy to cover the costs of fire services in the event of a fire in these areas."

Now if you checked with other cities that have these agreements, you might find that it is critical that Wildland Fire Agreements be included as a “Condition of Incorporation.” Otherwise entering into such an agreement is at the OPTION of the City Council. Chief Martin has already confirmed this. And since there is no law on the books mandating CAL FIRE enter into such agreements, entering into such an agreement is also at the OPTION of CAL FIRE.

The LAFCo Resolution approving the Incorporation of Oakhurst DOES NOT STATE that entering into a Wildland Fire Agreement is a Condition of Incorporation; it merely states that fire protection services shall be transferred to the town. So not only is such an agreement OPTIONAL for the proposed City of Oakhurst at the discretion of the City Council (and OPTIONAL according to State Law for CAL FIRE), it also would represent an additional cost. And there is also no law that says this “insurance policy” covers 100% of the costs of fighting a wildland fire and that the local agency won’t have to contribute something…

Meanwhile, the Governor has declared a Fiscal Emergency for the State of California asking all departments to cut their budgets by 10%. Communication within CAL FIRE is exploring ways to make local governments pick up more of the financial responsibility for fire protection. If resources are spread thin, it would seem that State Law will determine the “pecking order:”
First Priority—CAL FIRE is charged with protecting lands in the “State Responsibility Area;” that is their mandate.
Next Priority—based on available resources, would be protection of Local Responsibility Areas that have signed a Wildland Fire Agreement with CAL FIRE
Third Priority—again based on available resources, would be protection of Local Responsibility Areas.

People have a right to ask questions that affect their lives and their properties and they deserve to have those questions answered. It would be much more helpful if you would respond to people’s concerns. Your consultants have projected a budget that is cut to the bone; decisions on fire were based on taking the cheapest option and now even a wildland fire agreement (though in the suggested budget) is not a Condition of Incorporation. It would appear you are gambling with people’s lives and properties all to save a buck—people should be asking questions, especially since insurance companies are looking for any reason to drop homeowners after the latest round of SoCal fires.

EdBailey

Dec 20, 2007, 01:59 PM

Now that is what I call a rant!

EdBailey

Dec 20, 2007, 02:11 PM

[QUOTE=QuestionMan;50853] "Your fellow ACTION Director Ed Bailey stated in this Forum that your consultants were WRONG. So please place the blame where it belongs. Until the County CAO clarified the Revenue Neutrality Agreement, why shouldn't we believe ACTION's consultant and LAFCo?"

Actually this is what my post said: "After the meeting where the Board of Supervisors approved the RN agreement, Dave Herb had the CFA revised to include the terms of the RN agreement. But, the consultant got it WRONG and initially put in that we would be paying interest on any unpaid installment after 10 years and failed to understand the annual payment would only be $1,000,000 plus any amounts of revenue collected over the projected increases in revenue as set forth in the CFA. But, because the projections only went out 10 years in the CFA, the agreement provides that any unpaid amounts after 10 years would be the $1,000,000 PLUS any revenue collected over a 3.5% baseline increase from the prior year."

What is the problem? The consultants made a mistake and corrected it. Should we go with the most recent, corrected information, or pick and choose from earlier, inaccuarte versions?

jakobscalpel

Dec 21, 2007, 10:23 AM

The Nay Sayers, THE NAY SAYERS, The Nay Sayers, THE NAY SAYERS,The Nay Sayers,THE NAY SAYERS,The Nay Sayers,THE NAY SAYERS,THE NAY SAYERS

That is the highest "Nay Sayer" to word ratio I have ever seen! If you are trying to convince people with facts and not fear (i.e. spin), I'd suggest using a little less labeling of the opposition. Honestly, your post sounded so peevish I can't imagine that it convinced any fence sitters.

The Nay Sayers are going around telling people the CFA was tweaked and the numbers are wrong. They tell people the financials show the town is upside down right away. Look what the State’s consultant has to say in the letter on the TOWNOFOAKHURST web site! The States Consultant state this is one of the most financially feasible situations he has seen! He confirms the financials are very conservative to protect everyone from the downside. THE NAY SAYERS WERE WRONG ON THIS ONE AS WELL!

They are certainly wrong that the city will be upside down financially right away, unless of course the expenses are higher than the initial estimates and we all KNOW that has never happened in the history of government. Personally, I expect it to be viable year one. But, for the last time, please stop calling the estimates conservative! They are conservative based on the longest running debt boom we've ever had. They are not, repeat NOT, conservative based on a stagflation economy at best and a recession at worst. Your vaunted surplus goes away the second the economy contracts, even slightly.

Best of luck to both sides. I'm more interested in this election than the interminable presidential marathon.

mountainmissy

Dec 21, 2007, 11:22 AM

http://www.sierrastar.com/opinion/

Letters to the editor for Friday December 21, 2007 edition

Oakhurst, more than downtown

Dear Editor:

On Feb. 5, residents within the proposed city limits of the "Town of Oakhurst" will have to decide for or against incorporation. Many controversial issues are being discussed, but to date I haven't seen anyone speak to the impact incorporation will have on all the mountain communities of Eastern Madera County.

Over the years people have been encouraged to "shop local" to support our business owners. To me shopping locally meant supporting businesses located in all the mountain communities, not just within the proposed city limits. Incorporation would have a big impact on what shopping locally means.

More than 35,000 people live in Eastern Madera County and other than shopping in Coarsegold or going to Fresno most come to Oakhurst. Slightly more than 4,000 people live within the proposed "Town of Oakhurst" city limits.

If Oakhurst incorporates people who live outside the city limits will have to decide where they want their tax dollars to go. To Oakhurst or to the county general fund which supports them? I suspect that much of the excess revenue that the proponents claim exists comes from people who would not live within the city limits. What happens to the "Pot-0-Gold" when those people vote with their wallets and spend their money outside of Oakhurst?

My fear is that incorporation will put a big rip in the fabric that binds all the mountain communities together and that it will become "us against them." Is incorporation worth that risk?

Robbie Hill
Oakhurst

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do the math

Dear Editor:

Proponents of incorporation state the new city would have a revenue surplus that grows each year. The Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA) and the Revenue Neutrality Agreement (RNA) tell a different story.

According to the CFA the projected revenue for the first 11 years will total approx. $49 million and total expenditures for the same period will be approx. $34 million. That leaves general fund revenues of approx. $15 million before any revenue neutrality payments. The RNA clearly states in paragraph 3.01 that the Town of Oakhurst would be obligated to pay the county $19.86 million dollars over the same period. Subtract $19.86 million from the $15 million general fund, and you will see that the general fund will be in the red by more than $4 million.

So how is it that the proponents keep saying there will be surplus revenue? Easy, they have simply deferred payment of almost $1 million a year for 10 years hoping there may be excess revenue to pay this debt. What if they're wrong? The housing market is in terrible shape, the economy has slowed and many experts are forecasting a recession, but the CFA forecast shows only continued growth. They say they want to protect our rural culture but are planning for and dependent on growth.

Proponents state incorporation will provide local control and no new taxes. My questions are "local control by whom?" and "no new taxes for how long?" Ask yourself who controls city governments. The average citizen or the power brokers?

Barbara Bissett
Oakhurst

EdBailey

Dec 28, 2007, 08:30 AM

The math has already been done by independent, unbiased, experts. It appears the letter writer is not unbiased, as evidenced by the tone of the letter. It also appears that the letter writer is far from expert, as evidenced by the content of the letter.

When emotions run high, reason takes a back seat.

jakobscalpel

Dec 28, 2007, 09:41 AM

When emotions run high, reason takes a back seat.

Obviously.

The math has already been done by independent, unbiased, experts. It appears the letter writer is not unbiased, as evidenced by the tone of the letter. It also appears that the letter writer is far from expert, as evidenced by the content of the letter.

The letter writer was doubting the result of the unbiased experts. That does not make her inherently biased. Believing economic experts with the fervor of dogma when the town's future is riding on their estimates.... that is biased.

EdBailey

Dec 28, 2007, 12:42 PM

Obviously.

The letter writer was doubting the result of the unbiased experts. That does not make her inherently biased. Believing economic experts with the fervor of dogma when the town's future is riding on their estimates.... that is biased.

What do you call fearing the experts "with the fervor of dogma?"

mountainmissy

Dec 28, 2007, 02:24 PM

Cook-off with a catch

Dear Editor:

Recently a friend told me that the Chamber of Commerce was sponsoring a Chili Cook-Off where the public could meet the candidates who are running for the proposed City of Oakhurst city council and "get answers to your questions about Measure C." As a voting resident of the recently expanded boundary that includes the John West area, I am extremely interested in the pending vote on incorporation and in hearing what the candidates have to say. At first, the Chili Cook-Off planned for Jan. 5 appeared to be a great opportunity. However, in reading the fine print, I noticed that not only do I have to pay $10 to meet candidates who are running for a public office, but that all proceeds support the Political Action Committee (PAC) that funds pro-incorporation activities.

Why didn't the Chamber of Commerce call this what it is? A fundraiser for the ACTION committee to incorporate Oakhurst! Since August when proponents started their final push toward incorporation there has been only one informational meeting (Sept. 13) where the public could ask questions regarding incorporation and no opportunity for the public to interface with all the candidates in a neutral setting. It now appears that the only opportunity to meet all the candidates prior to absentee ballots being mailed is really a pro-incorporation bash. With so much at stake, don't residents deserve ample opportunity to meet all the candidates and see how they respond to questions raised by both sides? I've studied the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis and the Revenue Neutrality Agreement and I have questions.

Bruce Triebold

We don't need another Clovis

Dear Editor:

I live in Clovis. And I believe a "yes" vote on the upcoming ballot Measure C will turn Oakhurst and several adjacent communities--into Clovis.

For years, whenever possible, I have spent time with close Oakhurst friends of mine. And I've recently and quite clearly come to see that if the Oakhurst area financial power elite wins on C, and thus incorporates Oakhurst and neighboring lands, Oakhurst as I know and love it will cease to exist. Indeed, incorporation will spur economic over-growth in pursuit of maximal profit--Oakhurst will turn into Clovis.

Clovis is great for people like me. I grew up a city person; I live in a cheap one-bedroom apartment; I don't have a car, and don't need one: Within a 10-minute walk from my home are several hundred retail outlets in strip malls, and an equal number of professional offices. Within this same area, however, is a main avenue with eight clogged traffic lanes, skirted by a super-dense grid of other surface streets, huge apartment complexes and still more retailers and professionals.

The resultant smog is scary. If your readers want to live in Clovis (or worse), they should vote for C. But if they don't, if they want to preserve and enrich their mountain way of life--their priceless human and natural resources, their history of self-reliance and self-renewal, their sheer quietude: A "No" vote on Measure C is imperative.

Eric Krueger

Clovis

Has anyone considered fees?

Dear Editor:

I've noticed that the "Yes on Incorporation" signs around town say "no new taxes," but don't mention fees. Interesting, because raising fees will take a simple majority of the Town of Oakhurst governing board. I'd like to list a few:

Business licenses -- Madera County charges a flat fee of $40. However, the cities of Madera and Fresno charge a quarterly license fee based on gross sales, considerably more than the county fee. Will the Town of Oakhurst do the same?

Bed tax -- Madera County imposes a bed tax on all hotels and motels. Will there be an Oakhurst tax also or will Madera turn over the entire bed tax to Oakhurst? Building fees -- It is likely that the Town of Oakhurst would increase the cost of permits and inspections. In the budget, permits are expected to cover 100 percent of costs. Homeowners and renters can expect sewer increases, and should the Town of Oakhurst acquire the water company, the cost of water could go up.

These are only a few of the possible fees that could increase if we burden the local taxpayers with another layer of government. And I have to agree with Barbara Bissett when she asks, "no new taxes for how long?"

Judith Gallardo

Bass Lake

(Oakhurst property owner)

EdBailey

Dec 28, 2007, 03:08 PM

Dear Editor

I realize, that to some in this town, I fit the definition of a lowly "flatlander" however, I feel compelled to share my experiences regarding incorporation.

Having spent 40 years of my life with the goal of owning a home and eventually retiring up at the lake, I have a vested interest in quality of the closest big city (Oakhurst). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see growth coming like a freight train. Look at the shopping center off Friant. Look at the Children's Hospital. Look and the new casino. Look at all the home development, all heading directly north. Oakhurst has already grown at an alarming rate. I miss the Bigfoot Burgers, the small community feel, but those days are gone forever. As a young boy I remember my father working with other folks in the small community I grew up in to try and incorporate the town into a city. At the time it was a small community surrounded by orange groves, walnut groves, cattle ranches and beautiful rolling hills. The effort to incorporate failed. People were worried about taxes.

The town's growth was guided by the benevolent care of Los Angeles County. This town can now be conservatively classified as a rat hole. There are strip malls everywhere. The hills are covered with high density housing. Every corner has a gas station. During rush hour it takes 30 minutes to drive the two-mile length of the main drag. It breaks my heart to visit that town knowing what was and what is. After graduating from college I bought a home in a new community in Chino Hills. Like the town I grew up in, like Oakhurst, it is a beautiful rural setting in the hills. Unlike the town I grew up in, the people of Chino Hills did vote to incorporate early on. Just like before, the growth came. However, this time the growth was controlled by community members. Chino Hills maintains it's rural atmosphere today. Lots of open spaces were left in the master plan. Housing densities were maintained low. Retail and industrial areas were laid out to minimize impact on the quality of life. Chino Hills has the lowest crime in the county and is rated as one of the best communities to live in Southern California. And guess what! I'm not paying any higher taxes then if I had stayed in the town I grew up in. Nor did the city fathers create any nonsense city ordinances.

Look at Oakhurst today. What grade would you give Madera County planning so far? I will be moving to Bass Lake this year. I own a home up there now so that sorta makes me a local. I certainly hope the citizens of Oakhurst will protect what they have so I can look forward to visiting the "big city" in my golden years.

Jeff Burks

Chino Hills

mountainmissy

Dec 28, 2007, 08:00 PM

The math has already been done by independent, unbiased, experts.

Interesting comment Mr. Bailey. Am assuming your "independent" and "unbiased" experts are Rosenow Spevacek Group/RSG. How can experts be "independent" and "unbiased" when you paid them. These same "experts" were released from their contract with Wildomar (another community seeking incorporation) in June 2006 because the numbers didn't work out right. Interestingly, Madera LAFCo minutes from June 2006 quote ACTION as saying: "The applicants expressed a lack of faith in the hired consultant.” Perhaps if RSG thought they might lose 2 jobs, might they have decided to work a little harder on tweaking the numbers?? After all, each successful incorporation helps pad their resume for future jobs.

Also, it's interesting to recall the Fresno Bee article from 2004:

Fresno Bee, The (CA)

November 16, 2004

Oakhurst as city may not be able to pay bills
Incorporation consultant warns about finances.

Author: Charles McCarthy THE FRESNO BEE

Edition: Sierra Gateway
Section: LOCAL NEWS
Page: B1
Dateline: MADERA

11/16/2004

A private consultant warns Madera County that the proposed city of Oakhurst wouldn't collect enough money to pay its bills for at least the first 10 years.

County Administrator Stell Manfredi said that Madera County and Oakhurst incorporation proponents will weigh the findings of this month's draft analysis. It cautions that the new city couldn't afford the same level of services the county now provides.

"It looks initially at this point that the incorporation process is not fiscally feasible," Manfredi said.

It's not the last word, county officials and Oakhurst incorporation leader Ron Bucheger said. Proponents expect to take at least two weeks to digest the study. There will be meetings to tweak the numbers, which have not been revealed.

The analysis by Santa Ana-based Rosenow Spevacek Group was done for Madera County's Local Agency Formation Commission and paid for by the Action Committee to Incorporate Oakhurst Now.

"They have some preliminary numbers," committee President Bucheger said. "It's not an official report ... because it's not complete enough yet."

Proof of ability to pay its bills is just one more step, albeit a big one, toward Oakhurst having its own city hall. That comes after all hurdles are cleared and at least 50.1% of the voters in the affected area approve incorporation.

Last year, the incorporation committee presented the county with a petition calling for making 5,500 acres -- 8.6 miles of central Oakhurst -- the county's third city. Madera and Chowchilla are incorporated.

The committee estimated that the area produces annual tax revenue of $3.4 million for the county.

The new city would get tax revenues generated within its boundaries and a measured share of countywide property and road taxes. But the fledgling city would need to negotiate with the county over road maintenance, animal control, administration, law enforcement and fire services.

Bucheger said that hopes of incorporating Oakhurst by January might be premature. He depicted the incorporation process as "a trial and error kind of thing."

Dave Herb, the county's interim Resource Management Agency director, called the study a preliminary draft. He said the community must meet the "challenge of financial viability."

"We haven't polished the numbers yet," Herb said. "There's no deadlines. We're going to work with people until we're comfortable with the details of the report."

QuestionMan

Dec 28, 2007, 08:12 PM

And aren't these the same "experts" that didn't know the difference between interest and baseline caps?? And even you, Ed Bailey, stated that they got it WRONG...

EdBailey

Dec 29, 2007, 07:19 AM

Some things scare me a lot, some a little, and some not at all. We all have some fears that are strong enough to override our willingness to apply reason. Not everyone will admit it, and I won’t argue with you if you don’t, but the rest of us have such fears, and they are different for each of us. I’m that scared of bungee jumping, for example.

We know from our own personal experiences that all our choices involve an element of emotion and an element of reason. We also know that we make the best choices when the two elements are in balance. Further, we know that the more weight we give to one, the less weight we give to the other. When such fear is “fear of change,” the issue and its merits become secondary and the fear itself can paralyze our thinking.

In our community we are seeing evidence of emotion overriding reason in the efforts by some to get others to buy into their fears of change that incorporation will bring. In every community where incorporation, disincorporation, or other similar change is proposed, we can expect a campaign of fear from the chronic nay sayers among us.

More than seven decades ago a great American said “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” That was true then for our country, and it is true today for our community. Fear did not prevail then and we must not let it prevail now.

Here is another messenger for fear mongers to shoot:

Fear of Change is Scary
by Jack Burke
Everyone agrees that change is inevitable and in today's world it is an absolute necessity to survival. Yet, despite its constancy in our lives, change still evokes fear that creates resistance.
Whether it's modern folklore or truth, there's the old story about the barber in the Pittsburgh airport in the late sixties that said he would never change his operation to a unisex stylist salon. He resisted that change until he went out of business and has since been replaced by a salon.
I experienced this same resistance when critiqued by some of the world's top image consultants during a convention workshop. Among a number of recommended changes was the shaving of my 27 year mustache.
I arched my back on that until a friend said, “Isn't change a b______!” Upon realizing that change was the issue, not the mustache, I proceeded to shave it off -- and the compliments have been unbelievable. But, my resistance to change forced me to ignore the sage advice of the world's top professionals in the image field.
Does fear paralyze your ability to change? Do you resist change even against expert advice? Does your resistance jeopardize your business or sabotage your personal relationships?
Let's try to look at this fear from a different light. On the emotional side, I've heard fear described as “False Evidence Appearing Real”. How often that has proven true. My mind projects a certain outcome to a difficult situation that prevents me from taking action due to fear. Yet once I take the action and walk through the fear, I usually find that my mental projections had no basis in reality. That's why the psycho-experts tell us that we have to walk through our fear to conquer it. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!”
Making any headway yet in shifting your sense of fear? Let's try the rational and logical approach taught me by my Jesuit educators. Whatever the fear, all fears stem from losing something we have or not getting something we want. If you find yourself fearful of change -- losing something you have, or not getting something you want -- you have entered a philosopher's nightmare.
If change is truly inevitable and a necessity to survival, our fears should be based on “failure to change”, rather than “change.” If we fail to change, we may lose our business, that valued client, or a special relationship. Likewise, If we fail to change we may not achieve the goals that we have set, either in our personal lives or our business lives.
Therefore our fear of change is a true oxymoronism. We are fearing the wrong thing. False evidence has definitely appeared real and thereby perpetrated a gigantic hoax on all of us. The only fear we have to fear is the fear of failure to change.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Change-Management:-No-More-Fear-Of-Change&id=126860
http://chetday.com/fearofchange.htm
http://nehemiah.gospelcom.net/change3.htm
http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=290:1681
http://www.answers.com/topic/tropophobia-1?cat=health
http://servant-of-jc.blogspot.com/2007/04/metathesiophobia.html

mountainmissy

Dec 29, 2007, 09:53 AM

So is the strategy here that if you can't respond to concerns about the "expertness" of your "expert"--change the subject??? In fact, resort back to the same tired argument about fear of change...

Here's a thought. The two primary drivers for incorporation have only lived in Oakhurst barely 12 years, if that. But they publicly admit they've spent the last 9 of those 12 years trying to change Oakhurst into the city they left behind. Sort of makes one wonder who is really afraid of change. Are the proponents so uncomfortable in this rural mountain environment of self reliance that they feel driven to remake it in the image of where they came from rather than adapt and embrace our mountain way of life. They need the structure of a City government with all of its rules and regulations to feel at ease--unable to adapt to change.

Just interesting that relative newcomers feel they have the right to turn Oakhurst upside down to accommodate their own perceived comfort level--AND, they're not even elected officials but have no problem signing off on $19.86 million of debt obligating taxpayers of the proposed City for the next 10-20 years. Something just doesn't seem right here...

Ironhorse

Dec 29, 2007, 11:25 AM

Interesting comment Mr. Bailey. Am assuming your "independent" and "unbiased" experts are Rosenow Spevacek Group/RSG. How can experts be "independent" and "unbiased" when you paid them. These same "experts" were released from their contract with Wildomar (another community seeking incorporation) in June 2006 because the numbers didn't work out right. Interestingly, Madera LAFCo minutes from June 2006 quote ACTION as saying: "The applicants expressed a lack of faith in the hired consultant.” Perhaps if RSG thought they might lose 2 jobs, might they have decided to work a little harder on tweaking the numbers?? After all, each successful incorporation helps pad their resume for future jobs.

Also, it's interesting to recall the Fresno Bee article from 2004:

Fresno Bee, The (CA)

November 16, 2004

Oakhurst as city may not be able to pay bills
Incorporation consultant warns about finances.

Author: Charles McCarthy THE FRESNO BEE

Edition: Sierra Gateway
Section: LOCAL NEWS
Page: B1
Dateline: MADERA

11/16/2004

A private consultant warns Madera County that the proposed city of Oakhurst wouldn't collect enough money to pay its bills for at least the first 10 years.

County Administrator Stell Manfredi said that Madera County and Oakhurst incorporation proponents will weigh the findings of this month's draft analysis. It cautions that the new city couldn't afford the same level of services the county now provides.

"It looks initially at this point that the incorporation process is not fiscally feasible," Manfredi said.

It's not the last word, county officials and Oakhurst incorporation leader Ron Bucheger said. Proponents expect to take at least two weeks to digest the study. There will be meetings to tweak the numbers, which have not been revealed.

The analysis by Santa Ana-based Rosenow Spevacek Group was done for Madera County's Local Agency Formation Commission and paid for by the Action Committee to Incorporate Oakhurst Now.

"They have some preliminary numbers," committee President Bucheger said. "It's not an official report ... because it's not complete enough yet."

Proof of ability to pay its bills is just one more step, albeit a big one, toward Oakhurst having its own city hall. That comes after all hurdles are cleared and at least 50.1% of the voters in the affected area approve incorporation.

Last year, the incorporation committee presented the county with a petition calling for making 5,500 acres -- 8.6 miles of central Oakhurst -- the county's third city. Madera and Chowchilla are incorporated.

The committee estimated that the area produces annual tax revenue of $3.4 million for the county.

The new city would get tax revenues generated within its boundaries and a measured share of countywide property and road taxes. But the fledgling city would need to negotiate with the county over road maintenance, animal control, administration, law enforcement and fire services.

Bucheger said that hopes of incorporating Oakhurst by January might be premature. He depicted the incorporation process as "a trial and error kind of thing."

Dave Herb, the county's interim Resource Management Agency director, called the study a preliminary draft. He said the community must meet the "challenge of financial viability."

"We haven't polished the numbers yet," Herb said. "There's no deadlines. We're going to work with people until we're comfortable with the details of the report."

From working within government for 20+ years, I am well aware of how numbers (statistics or finances) can be tweaked by entities, candidates and consultants to say anything they want. As a result, I have little faith OR trust in numbers quoted by people with an agenda. Especially when their proposal paints a completely rosy path, and leaves out the "what ifs" associated with an unstable economy, housing market and job market. I don't find the numbers in the report to be believable, not reflective of actual costs associated with actual running of a government. In my opinion, they are grossly underestimated. I also find it interesting that anyone not agreeing with Mr. Bailey and his associates is automatically labeled as being afraid and not having done their homework on this matter, simply because they don't "rely" on his/their information, but rather take into consideration issues that Mr. Bailey and his associates don't/refuse to address. JMO.

EdBailey

Dec 29, 2007, 03:07 PM

"Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue" At least this makes some sense.

Ironhorse

Dec 29, 2007, 05:18 PM

"Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue" At least this makes some sense.

Another answer avoidance.

EdBailey

Dec 29, 2007, 06:26 PM

It seems to me that you have been answering your own questions with the only answers that are acceptable to you.

Ironhorse

Dec 29, 2007, 07:30 PM

It seems to me that you have been answering your own questions with the only answers that are acceptable to you.

http://bestsmileys.com/lol/5.gif Now that's funny, because that's exactly what I was thinking about you.

EdBailey

Dec 29, 2007, 08:40 PM

Whatever...

jakobscalpel

Dec 29, 2007, 10:17 PM

Whatever...

Finally how Ed Bailey REALLY feels about all us naysayers (copyright Committee to Incorporate Oakhurst @2007)!

What do you call fearing the experts "with the fervor of dogma?"

Fearing??? That is priceless. Have you even read my posts (of course not)? That is why I called you dogmatic. I'm talking percentages, you are talking certainties. You call caution fear. I call it reviewing a situation with an open mind. If your experts hadn't used numbers based on an economic boom and called them normal, I wouldn't be complaining. But they did. And I'll complain about it until you admit their probable mistake. If your expert's analysis is as solid as you say, you have nothing to worry about. However, your repeated attempts to dodge questions and hide behind name-calling implies you are afraid of the questioning. Whatever indeed. You are singlehandedly making me think incorporation is a bad idea after all.

Summer

Dec 29, 2007, 11:00 PM

Whatever...

Wow, this all got reduced down to one word. But that's ok - I like short and to the point thoughts. How bout this one - "Just say no...to Measure C"! Public Forum and Chili Cookoff -Indeed!

EdBailey

Dec 30, 2007, 07:38 AM

Finally how Ed Bailey REALLY feels about all us naysayers (copyright Committee to Incorporate Oakhurst @2007)!

"If your experts hadn't used numbers based on an economic boom and called them normal, I wouldn't be complaining. But they did. And I'll complain about it until you admit their probable mistake. If your expert's analysis is as solid as you say, you have nothing to worry about. However, your repeated attempts to dodge questions and hide behind name-calling implies you are afraid of the questioning. Whatever indeed. You are singlehandedly making me think incorporation is a bad idea after all.

The CFA uses much lower growth rates than actual growth rates have been.

In sales tax the CFA uses a growth rate of 3.5% annually when the actual growth rate from 92 to 02 was 5.12%. The CFA projection is 31.67% lower than the 1992-2002 actual growth rate. I Call that conservative!

In TOT tax the CFA uses a growth rate of 3.5% annually when the actual growth rate from 92 to 02 was 5.47%. The CFA projection is 36.01% lower than the actual 1992-2002 actual growth rate. I call that conservative!

Using the actual growth rates shouild give us a budget cushion, even in an economic downturn. Besides, don't economic downturns affect the county budget too?

We all need to review this CFA in great detail to make sure everyone gets the numbers and recognizes that this is really a conservative budget.

I am flattered, Jakobscapel, by your suggestion that I may have enough influence to "singlehandedly" make you "think incorporation is a bad idea after all." Tell me, if my posts were dripping with the fear, gloom, doom, and alarm that I am reading from some of the more "dogmatic" opponents of local control, would that make you think that incorporation is a good idea? You may want to seek a broader basis for your judgements.

Jakobscapel, I am finding our dialogue interesting and often enlightening. I DO read all your postings. Otherwise, how could I disagree with you?

Have a great new year.

EdBailey

Dec 30, 2007, 08:11 AM

So is the strategy here that if you can't respond to concerns about the "expertness" of your "expert"--change the subject??? In fact, resort back to the same tired argument about fear of change...

I don't have a problem with the "expertness" of the "experts. You do.

(QUOTE)...AND, they're not even elected officials but have no problem signing off on $19.86 million of debt obligating taxpayers of the proposed City for the next 10-20 years. Something just doesn't seem right here...

The $19.86 million agreement does not take effect unless the voters approve incorporation on February 5. Otherwise the county will take more than twice that amount from Oakhurst taxpayers to spend somewhere else during that same time period. You don't want them to take $19,86 million but would rather they take $50, $60 million instead?

In your own words, Mountainmissy, "Something just dosen't seem right here."

EdBailey

Dec 30, 2007, 09:15 AM

Wow, this all got reduced down to one word. But that's ok - I like short and to the point thoughts. How bout this one - "Just say no...to Measure C"! Public Forum and Chili Cookoff -Indeed!

I respect your position, Summer, but here are some that I prefer:

Just say no to letting Madera County Board of Supervisors, four of whom are beyond our ballot box influence, continue to make all our decisions for us.

Just say no to Madera County continuing to extract $2 million and more per year from Oakhurst taxpayers to spend in other areas. Maybe $60 million over the next 20 years.

Just say no to letting valley based officials direct the planning and development of our mountain community.

Just say no to those who prefer to not leave the nest, even though we are prepared to soar.

Just say yes to a Town Council of five, all of whom are accountable to every registered voter in Oakhurst.

Just say yes to official meetings in Oakhurst, rather than an hour and a lifestyle away, in the smog.

Just say yes to people who live in Oakhurst, know Oakhurst, and care about Oakhurst.

Just say yes to better use of tax revenues.

Just say yes to community pride.

Let's have the courage to preserve and enrich our rural mountain way of life, and do it OUR WAY, NOT THEIR'S. It is time to make Oakhurst OUR TOWN.

Let's walk through the fear, and accept responsibility for our own future.

Summer

Dec 30, 2007, 11:28 AM

Now Mr. Ed, ya didn't hafta go to all that trouble tellin me what to say yay or nay to, but I preciate it. Even tho I hafta read up on politik stuff and not good at expressin my self, my Pawpa and Meemaw made shure I lerned how ta read. I been readin what ya'll been writin and I done made up my mind that this here incorporation is bad for Oakey. Een the people agin it still love Oakey too! But it ain't no matter cuz I can't vote cuz I live out here in the hills. Durn it all! Guess all Ima good fer is to sit out on my hill & strum my banjer. But its good to know ya have all this spirit Mr. Ed & we enjoy readin yer stuff. Ya got a lotta people riled up and we havin a good time on this here forum.

Mysteefied

Dec 30, 2007, 01:11 PM

I enjoy reading the insights of those who are for AND against the incorporation of Oakhurst, it gives me as a voter lots of information to take into consideration.

I don't particularly enjoy reading the smart A$$ed remarks against the for and against ideas. It's in bad taste.

I do believe it's possible to hear both sides without being mean to each other.

Lets keep it nice here people.

Dodgergirl

Dec 30, 2007, 02:05 PM

...:yt:...

mountainmissy

Dec 30, 2007, 02:19 PM

Otherwise the county will take more than twice that amount from Oakhurst taxpayers to spend somewhere else during that same time period. You don't want them to take $19,86 million but would rather they take $50, $60 million instead?

Mr. Bailey, will you please validate your numbers. Have read every CFA that's been released to the public. Where does the CFA state "the County is taking nearly $2 million a year away from Oakhurst to be spent in other areas of the County"? Where did that number come from and what proof do you have as to where that money was spent?? Folks even asked Stell Manfredi and he said it came from ACTION--and I guess that's why the proposed City of Oakhurst now is stuck with a $19.86 million debt--nearly $2 million per year. If ACTION said it, it must be so???

The other thing--there's a whole lot more people who shop and spend money in Oakhurst than the 4200 people who live within the proposed City boundaries; like the more than 35,000 people of Eastern Madera County who support the area year-round. So are you saying those folks outside the proposed boundaries who actually spent money in Oakhurst don't deserve to get a piece of the mystical $2 million to cover fire, police, snow removal, and other services where they live??? That Oakhurst wants to keep all that money to themselves?? That's not right. Besides, there are County expenditures in other areas of Eastern Madera County that help Oakhurst; e.g., a new fire station in North Fork will help Oakhurst in a fire emergency--North Fork needs it and it's good for Oakhurst, too. Why shop locally if Oakhurst wants to hog all the money and hang their neighbors out to dry...

Another number that doesn't make sense... ACTION claims the County will take an additional "$50 to $60 million over the next 20 years." Where does that number come from? Even if the mystical $2 million were true; multiply that times 20 years and that only comes out to $40 million--but of course that doesn't reflect the nearly $20 million that should be subtracted for Revenue Neutrality...

So, please validate your numbers. Right now, the only documented for-real numbers is that the proposed City owes $19.86 million to the County to be paid over 10 years. Everything else is just a guesstimate or a projection or a forecast. And of course you know the old adage: "Statistics lie and liars use statistics." (No offense intended.)

Dodgergirl

Dec 30, 2007, 02:44 PM

Mr. Bailey, will you please validate your numbers. Have read every CFA that's been released to the public. Where does the CFA state "the County is taking nearly $2 million a year away from Oakhurst to be spent in other areas of the County"? Where did that number come from and what proof do you have as to where that money was spent?? Folks even asked Stell Manfredi and he said it came from ACTION--and I guess that's why the proposed City of Oakhurst now is stuck with a $19.86 million debt--nearly $2 million per year. If ACTION said it, it must be so???

The other thing--there's a whole lot more people who shop and spend money in Oakhurst than the 4200 people who live within the proposed City boundaries; like the more than 35,000 people of Eastern Madera County who support the area year-round. So are you saying those folks outside the proposed boundaries who actually spent money in Oakhurst don't deserve to get a piece of the mystical $2 million to cover fire, police, snow removal, and other services where they live??? That Oakhurst wants to keep all that money to themselves?? That's not right. Besides, there are County expenditures in other areas of Eastern Madera County that help Oakhurst; e.g., a new fire station in North Fork will help Oakhurst in a fire emergency--North Fork needs it and it's good for Oakhurst, too. Why shop locally if Oakhurst wants to hog all the money and hang their neighbors out to dry...

Another number that doesn't make sense... ACTION claims the County will take an additional "$50 to $60 million over the next 20 years." Where does that number come from? Even if the mystical $2 million were true; multiply that times 20 years and that only comes out to $40 million--but of course that doesn't reflect the nearly $20 million that should be subtracted for Revenue Neutrality...

So, please validate your numbers. Right now, the only documented for-real numbers is that the proposed City owes $19.86 million to the County to be paid over 10 years. Everything else is just a guesstimate or a projection or a forecast. And of course you know the old adage: "Statistics lie and liars use statistics." (No offense intended.)

While your question is valid. I believe you could of just asked for the information, and not left with a parting jab, which, IMHO, is very close to what we discourage on this site... unnecessary name calling. Your disclaimer (NOI) didn't do that much for me. Please keep it civil in the future. Thanks

EdBailey

Dec 30, 2007, 05:17 PM

Summer

Dec 30, 2007, 05:32 PM

Thanks Summer,

That is adorable! I grew up in the southern backwoods, where people talk a lot like that.

Hey Mr. Ed, I'm glad you liked it - some people on here didn't take too kindly to it but glad you're not offended. As a matter of fact I have some relatives in W. Virginny who talk like that too - that's how I know how to do it. Reckon you have to walk on eggshells on these here forums to keep politically correct! :D

EdBailey

Dec 31, 2007, 04:33 PM

Change Doesn't Have to Hurt, If You Don't Want it to.

Change Management: No More Fear Of Change
By Nick Arrizza, M.D.

Personal and/or organizational change often is met by stiff resistance. Such resistance is however thought of something that is desirable to those who are resisting it.

As such the instigators of the change itself then find themselves having to use considerable effort and/or ingenuity to affect others to make the required change. This strategy not only takes tremendous energy but is also, in my view, misguided from the start.

The greatest impediment to any change is the "fear of change" itself. Now because many "think" that this is a normal human emotion that needs to be "overcome" in a manner of speaking, then this is the tack that many change management consultants find themselves taking. That is they put energy into trying to "overcome" it.

I would like to suggest another way. Why not simply eradicate it, i.e. the fear of change, once and for all?
Is this even possible? Well it is if you address what I refer to as the "anchoring beliefs" that keep it, the fear of change, anchored in one's mind and body.

Such anchoring beliefs include such things as:
1. If I change I will encounter new situations I am not prepared for that will make feel uncomfortable, anxious, or inadequate.
2. If I change then I will be allowing myself to become exploited.
3. The fear of change helps protect my rights as an individual.
4. Change is only uncomfortable.
5. Change means I'm being passive.
6. The unknown is fraught with uncertainty and where I am now is certain and more comfortable.
7. Change requires effort and is inherently painful.
8. And so on.

Such “anchors” can be released using a new approach which I will mention later in this article.
In this article I wish to address the "fear of change" that is inherent in a given individual. Whether the change is “desired” or not is not actually determined by such a fear. Now I know that may sound odd because so many of you are accustomed to equating the "fear" with the "lack of desire".

These are actually two different things.
The fear is associated with anxiousness, nervousness, trepidation, paralysis, a feeling of immobilization, confusion, indecisiveness and so on.

The lack of desire for some form of change is actually associated with a sense of inner certainty, feelings of strength or sureness, conviction, integrity, personal honesty, inner calmness, resilience, clarity and so on.
If you compare these two descriptions I think you will recognize them for what they are and for their differences.
Hence to assume that the latter is the former is a mistake in my view. This by the way also affects what one can do about each of these.

The fear is in my view always the result of some form of emotional trauma that an individual has become conditioned with at some time in their life.

The lack of desire on the other hand represents and reflects the deeply held core values of on individual and make up who they are at their core.

The former can be released easily, quickly and permanently if an individual is willing, employing a new modality called the Mind Resonance Process(TM) (MRP). I have written extensively about MRP here in this e-zine and elsewhere.

Conversely trying to “overcome” such fear through effort only serves to re-traumatize the individual thereby “enhancing” their experience of the fear. This is the reason why organizations find themselves having to find new and more powerful ways of “defeating” this menace in their employees. In truth, it is getting progressively stronger and defeating them.

Additionally, the greater the instability an organization experiences the more traumatized the employees become and the greater the fear of change becomes. This can become vicious negative spiral, all of which can be remedied or prevented with MRP.
The latter, i.e. the lack of desire, cannot be changed, only suppressed for a while, as it reflects, as I said, the core or essence of an individual. Many have tried to suppress it through unethical repressive means. Ultimately however it will always remain firmly anchored at the heart of the individual as a representation of their inner truth, so to speak.

If you would like to know more about how MRP can help you or your organization get beyond the negative emotional block that prevents you/it from achieving success kindly visit the web link below where I have a special audio message waiting for you.

Dr. Nick Arrizza is trained in Chemical Engineering, Business Management & Leadership, Medicine and Psychiatry. He is an Energy Psychiatrist, Healer, Key Note Speaker, Editor of a New E-zine Called "Spirituality And Science" (which is requesting high quality article submissions) Author of "Esteem for the Self: A Manual for Personal Transformation" (available in e-book format on his web site), Stress Management Coach, Peak Performance Coach & Energy Medicine Researcher, Specializes in Life and Executive Performance Coaching, is the Developer of a powerful new tool called the Mind Resonance Process(TM) that helps build physical, emotional, mental and spiritual well being by helping to permanently release negative beliefs, emotions, perceptions and memories. He holds live workshops, international telephone coaching sessions and international teleconference workshops on Physical. Emotional, Mental and Spiritual Well Being.

http://www.telecoaching4u.com

Ironhorse

Dec 31, 2007, 05:13 PM

EdBailey

Dec 31, 2007, 09:23 PM

Forgive me if this offends anyone. But isn't it arrogant to assume that people don't want the incorporation because they're "afraid of change"???????????? Maybe, just maybe, they are well educated, informed enough on the subject to make an adult decision that incorporation is BAD for Oakhurst. To me, for someone to assume that I don't want it just because I'm afraid of change is arrogant and insulting to me. JMO, and everyone has an opinion.

You have a point, Ironhorse. It is reasonable to assume that not all those who oppose incorporation are driven primarily by fear of change. It is also resonable to assume that virtually all those who have a serious fear of change will be against incorporation and will likely be in the forefront of the anti-incorporation campaign. I'm willing to take you at your word for what motivates you.

By the way, I don't see how anyone could be offended by your comment - I am not.

Kat

Jan 04, 2008, 10:46 AM

This has been fascinating reading! As a newcomer to Oakhurst (owned and lived here for only 1 1/2 years ) I guess I haven't earned the right to an opinion.
But, since I live in the proposed Town/City of Oakhurst, I do get to vote...

NO! on Measure C!

Kathryn McClellan

EdBailey

Jan 04, 2008, 08:33 PM

Sierra Star Takes a Position in Favor of Incorporation (Jan 4, OpEd)

It's far from simple, but here's our take

(Updated Friday, January 4, 2008, 10:55 AM)

It's a very important time for Oakhurst, its residents and the outlying communities.

On Feb. 5 during the primary election, roughly 2,753 registered voters will have the chance to decide if they want Oakhurst to incorporate as a town.

Incorporation needs a majority of 50 percent plus one vote to pass, and if it does, Oakhurst will incorporate as of July 1, 2008 and become the third incorporated area of Madera County, joining the cities of Madera and Chowchilla.

On the same ballot, voters will be asked to vote for five out of six candidates to be elected to the first town council if incorporation is approved.

As we said, it's an important time.

Over the past several years and more intensely over the last several months, our editorial staff has kept a close eye on this issue, written articles on the process and spent countless hours interviewing residents on both sides, the council candidates and county officials to keep our readers informed.

These efforts will continue.

Last week, the Sierra Star editorial board sat down separately with two groups of Mountain Area residents, one that feels strongly for incorporation and one that feels strongly against.

We chose these individuals because we felt they spent a great deal of time and energy on their efforts.

In addition, following these meetings we made phone calls to more residents and county officials to ask our questions in order to have the most accurate and current information possible so we could pass that on to our readers.

At the end of this process, after careful discussion and after sifting through this complex information, the editorial board of the Sierra Star came to one conclusion.

At this time, incorporating Oakhurst is in the best interest of the residents within the proposed incorporated area.

With our endorsement of Measure C, the incorporation of Oakhurst, we feel it is crucial to make the following points.

Both groups we talked to have done their homework and made valid points in their arguments.

If incorporation passes, the first year will be a crucial one, and we are convinced that while we believe the town will be strong, there will be challenges along the way.

The five town council members will make key decisions on everything from what to do with fire protection to who will be the first mayor of Oakhurst out of the five elected candidates.

After the first year and throughout the future of Oakhurst, these council members will continue to make crucial decisions, and it is important that residents vote and make sure the right candidates are elected to these positions.

It is also key that residents make their voices heard. While the increase of general and special taxes requires an election by state law, the town council will have the power to raise fees, which can range from planning fees to business license fees, if it feels a need to do so. However, state law requires a public comment period for that process.

In addition, we have read the comprehensive fiscal analysis (CFA) on incorporation that has been approved by the Madera County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). The final copy is dated Oct. 22, although until Jan. 2, according to library officials, the only copy available at our library was an older draft that contained dated information. LAFCo officials said Wednesday that a final copy would be at the Oakhurst library this week. The final CFA is also available online at www.townofoakhurst.com.

After reading through the CFA, we are convinced there is enough evidence that the town of Oakhurst will be financially feasible.

Under the revenue neutrality agreement, approved by LAFCo and negotiated by ACTION (Action Committee to Incorporate Oakhurst Now) and Madera County, and available through LAFCo, (559) 675-7821, the town will have to pay a sum of $19.86 million interest free.

A revenue neutrality agreement is required by state law, mandating a financial agreement be negotiated with the county, so the county would not be harmed if incorporation succeeds.

While we encourage the town to pay this amount off in 10 years if the revenue allows, we feel comfortable that the town will at least make annual payments of $1 million per year for the following nine years after incorporation as it states beginning in section 3.01.1 in the agreement, then pay the rest off thereafter at a rate of $986,041 per year.

In regard to emergency services, both Madera County Sheriff John Anderson and Madera County Fire Chief Mikel Martin feel there is no reason the town of Oakhurst cannot continue the same level of services it has now if it chooses to contract with them.

In regard to some feeling LAFCo will create a second layer of government, LAFCo officials state they have little to no jurisdiction once a town has been incorporated. The exception is in certain circumstances, such as the annexation of outlying areas, if ones were to be added in the future.

In regard to the outlying communities, the point has been made that folks in other areas, such as those in Coarsegold and Ahwahnee would no longer have reason to shop in Oakhurst as the revenues will be going to Oakhurst and not to their communities.

While the taxes in Oakhurst will not directly go to pay for these outlying areas, we feel they indirectly affect the entire Mountain Area, by way of residents traveling from their communities to the schools in Oakhurst, businesses and en route to other locations.

And in regard to the slow economy, the CFA calls for a 10 percent contingency for that reason, and if the economy worsens, we just may be in worse shape by not incorporating as the housing market seems to be hitting Madera harder than the mountains.

The bottom line is that our tax dollars have not been entirely coming back to Oakhurst for some time and incorporating is a way to keep our funds local.

In addition, we much prefer to have decisions that affect us here be decided by our own town council than by a board of supervisors that contains only one person who represents us.

While we are in favor of incorporation, we want to add that we also feel that the latter stages of this process have been rushed.

Since Oct. 22, 2007, the date that appears on the final CFA, there has not been one public meeting hosted by either LAFCo or ACTION PAC (Action Committee to Incorporate Oakhurst Now Political Action Committee) to answer any questions and continue to offer information to the public on this very complex issue.

"Once the commission took action, there is no requirement of state law to hold informational meetings," said Dave Herb, executive officer of LAFCo. "I have encouraged ACTION to hold informational meetings and said that I would attend them. As is my understanding, they plan to do so in January."

We hope ACTION PAC holds a variety of meetings before the Feb. 5 election because the public deserves to have its questions answered.

With just more than three months from the date of the final CFA to the primary election, public meetings should have been held on a regular basis already.

With only 33 days left until the election, we encourage our readers to learn as much as they can about this issue through one or more of the following ways.

Study the sample ballot available online (www.madera-county.com/countyclerk/upcoming-elections.html), talk to the candidates involved and obtain information from both those for www.townofoakhurst.com and those against by calling KORC (Keep Oakhurst Rural Coalition) (559) 683-1868 and attend any meeting or forum in regard to incorporation or town council. It's an important time.

The issues above are discussed and chosen by the Sierra Star editorial board, made up of Betty E. Linn, publisher, and David Richards, editor.

QuestionMan

Jan 05, 2008, 09:40 AM

Is this what is called the ultimate in media bias?? The Star endorses Incorporation...should we be surprised?? After all, the publisher Betty Linn is married to candidate for City Council, David Linn. How cozy... Perhaps the thought was that such an endorsement would boost his chances for election?? Since perception is reality, is this really an exercise in good judgment??

Kat

Jan 05, 2008, 09:50 AM

EdBailey

Jan 05, 2008, 10:16 AM

I was very disappointed in the Sierra Star's "unbiased" article. Now I understand why the article went that way. I expected the Star to support incorporation, I just thought they would have been more impartial.

Being "unbiased" means taking no position at all. Has anyone noticed that the Sierra Star has been running more "against" letters than "for" letters - more "fear" based letters than "hope" based letters? I hope that is not because they are "biased."

Kat

Jan 05, 2008, 10:49 AM

Unbiased:
adjective

Showing no prejudice for or against something, impartial

Really has nothing to do with fear:
I am a retired city employee. I know too much to want to go down that road.

EdBailey

Jan 05, 2008, 11:54 AM

I'm sorry you had a bad experience.

mountainmissy

Jan 05, 2008, 12:30 PM

Has anyone noticed that the Sierra Star has been running more "against" letters than "for" letters"

Could that be because more people are against Cityhood?

EdBailey

Jan 05, 2008, 01:41 PM

No...........

Kat

Jan 05, 2008, 04:36 PM

I'm sorry you had a bad experience.

I did not say, or mean to imply, that I had a bad experience. What I said was I know too much. I did not have a bad experience. My husband and I have a combined total of 26 years in city government. I learned a lot about how cities work. I do not wish to live in one again.

Vote No! Vote for Bryce Shears for Town Council. He says he is against incorporation, just wants us naysayers to be heard in the Council-to-be.

Kathryn McClellan, a naysayer

Kat

Jan 05, 2008, 04:38 PM

Could that be because more people are against Cityhood?

It could be, Mountainmissy. And we are trying to be heard!

EdBailey

Jan 06, 2008, 09:38 AM

Some – not enough - were heard at the Chili Cook Off event sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. People were able to sit down and talk with each of the five candidates that participated. At least two people, one from Ahwahnee and one from Bass Lake, who had reservations about incorporation were there and talked with several people, including the candidates.

I don't think any opponents of incorporation were inside the hall, although there was some picketing outside. It was a great opportunity for undecided voters to gain information. The chili was great and and it was great chili weather!

Yosemite_Wolf

Jan 06, 2008, 10:40 AM

Oakhurst is getting to be tooo big to be a un incorporated area. It needs to be a city.. so that it has a say in county politics. All the money goes to the county seat. Oakhurst needs to stand up and roar and get what it deserves.

but heck, i live in Coarsegold. what do i know.

Sandman

Jan 06, 2008, 11:40 AM

but heck, i live in Coarsegold. what do i know.

I wish people that lived in outlaying areas would get to vote.

Yosemite_Wolf

Jan 06, 2008, 11:50 AM

i would rather that business owners get to vote.. more than people who live outside the town limits.. but than.. im a spy......

Sandman

Jan 06, 2008, 11:51 AM

i would rather that business owners get to vote.. more than people who live outside the town limits.. but than.. im a spy......
I agree that business owners should get a vote. Why are you a spy? I never called you a spy Wolfie. In fact, I was agreeing that you should get a say in the vote.

Sandman

Jan 06, 2008, 04:50 PM

I have added a poll to this thread. See above.

nosmatt

Jan 06, 2008, 07:39 PM

Ed, do you REALLY think anyone can make sense of that reply?

c'mon!

what was the point of posting that nonsense? must have taken you hours.

anyway, only people interested, have a vested interest in a local seat with the "new" government.

Summer

Jan 06, 2008, 08:04 PM

This is like the most major "bump" I've ever seen on these forums!

jakobscalpel

Jan 06, 2008, 09:01 PM

As a professional pollster, economist, political manager, and circus freak, I hereby declare success for Oakhurst Incorporation. In the spirit of the Iowa caucus, I've extrapolated the current poll results (11 for, 4 against, 3 i don't knows) into a clear and overwhelming victory for the measure. Congratulations to all and may the future occupancy tax increase be bearable.

mountainmissy

Jan 06, 2008, 10:15 PM

Mr. Bailey, you have waaaay too much time on your hands...

cmanofm

Jan 06, 2008, 11:26 PM

this has become the slogan to the growing number of anti-measure c voters.

personally i do not feel that the proposed government will succeed, based on the current leaders. also i do not feel that the money measure c claims will be enough to run a city. a few million is not enough to run a city. and yet the claim to not raise taxes.

yes there are problems with current system. at first i was all for incorporating oakhurst into a city. but i don't feel that this is the way to do it. maybe with different tax systems, or when the town is more populated, but not now.

i may be only eighteen. but i still hope that when i bring friends from college, they will see a strong mountain community, and be envious. this same vision i want my future wife to see, and my kids to see. but if oakhurst falls into debt or raises taxes too high, this vision will fade.

what if there is not enough money to repave roads, or plow the roads in the winter, or pay police men. what then.

i hope my rant at least accomplishes one thing, that you will read further into this upcoming measure c.

thank you

cmanofm

Jan 06, 2008, 11:31 PM

oh and before i forget:

though risks do occasionally pay off, is it worth risking the town of oakhurst?

Ironhorse

Jan 07, 2008, 09:13 AM

Voting for incorporation is just ADDING another layer of government. The "Town of Oakhurst" will still be reliant on services provided by the County of Madera, i.e., police and fire services. And while both the sheriff and CDF have said that we can continue to enjoy our current level of service, I noticed they didn't say it won't cost us MORE via contractual negotiations with them to provide those services. And Mr. Bailey, the example used re: the City of Madera fire services IS relevant. The City of Madera didn't DO AWAY with City services, they contracted with the CDF/Madera County to provide those services, exactly as the Town of Oakhurst would. They must have learned a lesson from it somewhere along the way, because when the opportunity to have the county of Madera take over Animal Control services came along a couple of years ago, the City decided they were better off doing their own animal control, that the County wanted to much money, for less service! You say everyone should make their own decisions, right, as long as it agrees with YOUR decision/recommendation. I still intend on voting against the incorporation, and from now until the election, I will continue to recommend that to anyone else. A non-existent (at this point) City Council for the Town of Oakhurst is promising no new taxes, but they haven't promised no new fees, or no increased fees (I just recently got my notice of the fees for the Sewer services more than doubling, from $70/qtr to $153/qtr). Oh gee, I forgot, in 8 quarters, the $24 fee will "be gone", but in 2 years, I'm sure someone will have figured out how to raise the base fee to get that back. You are trying to lead people down a path that says there will be no new taxes (and trying to avoid to issue of no new fees, or increased existing fees). Incorporation will have a price tag, and with the economy the way it is right now, I don't believe we can afford that price tag. At SOME point, incorporation may be the way to go. I don't believe that time is now with so many fiscal uncertainties in our local/state/national economy. Change is NOT always good and being "afraid of change", as you so often chant, has nothing to do with recognizing that change is not always good, or necessary.

EdBailey

Jan 07, 2008, 11:52 AM

Thank you for your comments, Ironhorse. You have given the matter a lot of thought and I appreciate it. You say "Incorporation will come with a price tag........" Of course it will. I sincerely hope that the new Town Council will spend more than Madera County is spending for services in Oakhurst now - but they won't need to spend $2 million more! Incorporation will allow for a much larger portion of our tax base to be spent in our mountain area, and I see that as a good thing.

Maybe this will put your mind more at ease: I just compared the median purchase price of all single family (stick built) homes that closed through our local MLS for the calendar years of 2005, 2006 and 2007. The 2005 median price was $262,500, the 2006 median price was $299,000. The 2007 median price was $312,500, or 5 percent higher than 2006, and 19 percent higher than 2005. The areas included are Ahwahnee, Bass Lake, Coarsegold, North Fork, and Oakhurst.

It's true that we are selling fewer homes, but purchase prices appear to be holding up very well. If you would like, I will meet with you, access the MLS data, and let you have a look for yourself.

I don' have any figures how well home prices are holding up in the valley portion of Madera county, but I think they have much more to worry about that we do.

It seems like a good time to incorporate to me.

MisterVacation

Jan 07, 2008, 12:04 PM

It is the right time to incorp. Oakhurst. There is so much development the county already has in the works. New hotels, apartments, townhouses, etc. The only way we can control growth and retain our rural community is to incorp. Look at the County's track record, they don't do a good job planning.

mountainmissy

Jan 07, 2008, 01:31 PM

The only way we can control growth and retain our rural community is to incorp. Look at the County's track record, they don't do a good job planning.

The CFA claims the proposed City will operate with 7 full-time employees--5 of which will be managers. The City will then contract back to the same County departments you are complaining about for delivery of services. You don't like the job the County has done in planning, but you want to contract back to them??

The Oakhurst Area Plan process was also interesting. The originally proposed plan which was pushed by many who are now driving incorporation was even more liberal/more commercialized than the County's General Plan--so much for "rural". Area Plans are supposed to be more restrictive. For example, Ron Bucheger pushed very hard to turn 75 acres of Residential land into Light Industrial on the north end of 41 (Empty Creek area); the County wisely said "no" because of lack of infrastructure and separation from the downtown core. He pushed very hard for 145 acres of River Front Mixed Use--which is basically a mish-mash of zoning (commercial, entertaiment, and various densities of residential, etc.) which would nearly double the commercial square footage over that allowed by the General Plan designations; the County wisely reduced it to 70 acres. There was another 80 acres that were supposed to be designated mixed-use/commercial that was also reduced. And earlier in the process, they had their eye on the 30+ acre Williamson Act property north of Road 222 on Hwy 41 between the Elk's Lodge and 620, wanting to make that property commercial; thankfully that, too, was rejected.

There is a public process in place for planning; it was integral to Area Plan development; there is the Oakhurst Community Advisory Council; there is the Planning Commission; and there is an appeals process through the Board of Supervisors. When the public has been engaged--the County has responded; if the public went to sleep, they got what they got. Bringing in a management level Community Development Director who will share a secretary with the Public Works Director--while both contract back to the RMA and the Roads Department and other county departments for on-the-ground services certainly doesn't set up a scenario for better planning.

It would appear that the incorporation proponents were hoping to get as much commercialization as possible in place through the Area Plan so there would be less they would have to change should Oakhurst become a City. Make hay while the public sleeps. There's no doubt that should Oakhurst become a City, the proponents for Incorporation will amend the Area Plan to get back what the County put a lid on--after all, commercial development represents the greatest opportunity for city budget growth... So much for "rural."

Ironhorse

Jan 07, 2008, 02:10 PM

Mountainmissy brings up a good point. While the Board of Supervisors may not have our best interests at heart, a lack of involvement by the area residents has certainly contributed to the BOS poor management. If people don't stand up and say they don't want/like/support something, then the BOS is going to push it through, no matter how it affects the residents up here.

And as she also says, 7 full-time employees of which 5 will be managers (talk about management top heavy), and they are contractual employees with loyalties to the county???? If you think they'll take their orders from this community, then you're sadly mistaken, because the bottom line is they will take the final orders from the county, who will be their true bosses.

People have done their "homework" on this issue and what you are saying doesn't add up. On the surface it looks all roses and honey, underneatch it's pure compost. A lot of those funds for the $2 million income will come from tourist industry driven sources. If the economy takes a dive, then what? I doubt that you have the funds in your back pocket to make it up. This is NOT the time to incorporate, that's not a "fear driven" opinion, it's looking at realities.

As for housing values, those cycle, dependent on the economy and the lenders greed. It's not good business putting people into housing that they can't afford when their variable rates start changing. Property/housing is only worth what people will pay, and it will peak and start a downslide when the influx of people into the valley and foothills stops, as it will. With increased population comes increased need for schools, law enforcement/fire, city services, a hospital, stores, jobs, water/sewer services, transportation, and city services. It also brings more traffic congestion, higher crime rates, more need for social services, among other things. The "Town's" income may or MAY NOT increase at a pace to provide all of that, without increased taxes.

EdBailey

Jan 07, 2008, 04:24 PM

Ironhorse

Jan 07, 2008, 04:30 PM

Maybe this will put your mind more at ease: I just compared the median purchase price of all single family (stick built) homes that closed through our local MLS for the calendar years of 2005, 2006 and 2007. The 2005 median price was $262,500, the 2006 median price was $299,000. The 2007 median price was $312,500, or 5 percent higher than 2006, and 19 percent higher than 2005. The areas included are Ahwahnee, Bass Lake, Coarsegold, North Fork, and Oakhurst.

It's true that we are selling fewer homes, but purchase prices appear to be holding up very well. If you would like, I will meet with you, access the MLS data, and let you have a look for yourself.

I don' have any figures how well home prices are holding up in the valley portion of Madera county, but I think they have much more to worry about that we do.

It seems like a good time to incorporate to me.

Hmmmm, so much for that improved housing market...........on of many reports in recent weeks that say the housing market will continue its slump.

http://promo.realestate.yahoo.com/pain_street_usa_2008_housing_outlook.html

Pain Street USA: '08 housing outlook
The forecast is for a longer, deeper home-price slump than previously expected, with double-digit declines in many markets.
By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The United States is deep in its worst housing slump since the Great Depression, and according to a new report, it's not going to get better any time soon.

In a new survey, Moody's Economy.com says many metro areas will record losses of 20 percent or more during the downturn, with the national median price for single-family homes dropping 13 percent through early 2009. Factoring in discount offers from sellers, the actual price decline would be well over 15 percent.

Eighty of the 381 metro areas covered by the report will record double-digit losses, according to the report. Most of the worst-hit markets are in once high-flying areas, such as California and Florida..................................

Ironhorse

Jan 07, 2008, 04:42 PM

Come now Ironhorse, You can think of more claims, interpretations, charges, concerns, worries, alarms, anxieties, discomforts, doubts, qualms, suspicions (let's not admit anything is Fear Driven), to use in your efforts to frignten people into voting to leave over half our tax money and three fifths of all decision making affecting our mountain area, to people in the valley.

I'll admit that I am fear driven. I fear the types of projects that Madera County will continue to approve, to help the county tax base. I fear more of the ugly buildings that now scar Highway 41. I fear that an even larger share of revenues produced in our mountains will be siphoned off to the valley. After all, Oakhurst is not the only "contributor" community in these mountains. I fear that the County of Madera, not the Town of Oakhurst, will bring undesirable retailers. I fear that Madera County will continue to accept grants (which we can get once we are incorporated) and spend it all in the valley.

At least every registered voter in Oakhurst will be able to vote for - or against - every Town Councilmember. That will calm my fears. Try threatening to vote Supervisors Bigelow, Moss, Dominici, and Rodriguez out of office if they don't vote the way our community wants them to vote - if they won't allow Oakhurst remain rural, the way we all want it to stay.

Fear change and trust the county, or fear the county or trust the change Trust people outside our area, or trust each other. We're all in this together.

If you read the Business sections, listen to the news about the economy, etc. it seems to me it's not "fear driven" (how you love those two words, don't you), rather, it's driven by information from research and "homework" (another word you love to throw around). Better to have people stop and think about these "fears" than to have them rest on the "facts" that the proponents for incorporation are throwing out there. People will vote their hearts and their pocketbooks on this issue, WITH their brains. That's all I ask, that they not rely solely on information provided by the proponents for incorporation. Question that information, research, talk with your neighbors, DON'T rely on "projected" revenues. If those "projections" fail to materialize, incorporation will be a disaster. Many questions have been asked, few real answers are given. The answers given are based on the "we project" theories, and the "I promise no new taxes" theory. YOU don't know what the real cost will be for incorporation, no one does. It could be less, it could be more, it could be the same as we spend now. Does that mean it should never be done? No. Does it mean this may not be the time to incorporate??? YES. I'd rather see it happen, if it has to happen, when our state and federal economy is in better shape. And that time is not now. JMO

Celticsoul

Jan 08, 2008, 10:40 AM

EdBailey

Jan 08, 2008, 10:44 AM

I understand your passion Ironhorse, but not your reasoning. Should existing towns and cities disincorporate because of economic fears (there's that word again, but only because it's appropriate)? What would your dreaded economic downturn do to the Town of Oakhurst that it won't do to the County of Madera? How have California's 478 cities survived economic fluctuations in the past? What cities have suffered the economic disasters? Well, there is Hornitas.

Sandman

Jan 08, 2008, 10:57 AM

Wow! According to the numbers on this poll, it's gonna be a close one.

EdBailey

Jan 08, 2008, 10:59 AM

Are there any other passionate proponents of incorporation in the group other than Ed? I would love to hear a valid, fact-supported, comprehensive argument in favor of incorporation without the crooked finger of fear continually pointing at those who disagree with Ed's views.
Question: Of all those incorporated cities that Ed counts and quotes, how many of them are comparable to the town of Oakhurst? Are they mountain and tourist-trade related? Did they incorporate out of desperation and frustration with their county government? Or were they driven by higher goals and ideals?

Let me say this one more time. I do NOT suggest that all those who oppose incorporation or who disagree with me are fear driven. That simply is not true. But here is something that is true. All those who do have a serious problem with fear of change (I hope you don't deny that they exist) will oppose incorporation or most any other proposed change that comes along.
They will also try to scare others into voting against their feared change.

Ironhorse

Jan 08, 2008, 12:24 PM

Let me say this one more time. I do NOT suggest that all those who oppose incorporation or who disagree with me are fear driven. That simply is not true. But here is something that is true. All those who do have a serious problem with fear of change (I hope you don't deny that they exist) will oppose incorporation or most any other proposed change that comes along.
They will also try to scare others into voting against their feared change.

Well, looks to me like the best argument for incorporation you can make is to continually push the logic that people who are against it are "afraid of change". Hmmmm, nope, doesn't work for me.

Ironhorse

Jan 08, 2008, 12:29 PM

Wow! According to the numbers on this poll, it's gonna be a close one.

Yep, I don't think it will be a "slam dunk" either way. But then people who don't want it are beginning to be more vocal.

mountainmissy

Jan 08, 2008, 12:42 PM

Celtic Soul--here's some interesting information to consider. 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

All of these communities started with large populations that contributed to the tax base. in contrast, Oakhurst population would be less than 4,200 people... It's also interesting to do some research on 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--they've been dubbed the "fastest growing city in the United States." It's also interesting to check out these cities with respect to their commercial base--definitely not "rural."

Ironhorse

Jan 08, 2008, 02:38 PM

Another indication of economy woes that would indicate the "projections" touted by some proponents for incorporation of the Town of Oakhurst just may not materialize from housing sales and property taxes..........

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080108/wall_street.html

AP
Housing Woes, AT&T News Sink Stocks
Tuesday January 8, 5:20 pm ET
By Madlen Read, AP Business Writer
Wall Street Plunges -- This Time, on Worries About Countrywide, AT&T, Pending Home Sales Drop

NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street skidded lower in another fitful session Tuesday, with investors worried that the tumbling economy may not only cripple mortgage lenders like Countrywide Financial Corp. but also create problems for other companies like AT&T Inc. The Dow Jones industrials fell nearly 240 points.

Investors tried to take the market higher at many points during the day, but eventually succumbed to another stream of bad news. The Dow and the Standard & Poor's 500 index are down more than 5 percent so far this year and the Nasdaq composite index is down nearly 8 percent, having been pummeled since Jan. 1 on worse-than-anticipated readings on the economy.

That could mean that fourth-quarter earnings reports, which start pouring in later this week, may not meet already lowered expectations ..........................

EdBailey

Jan 10, 2008, 06:17 AM

Existing-Home Sales to Hold Steady in Early 2008

Jan 08, 2008

Over the next few months, existing-home sales are expected to hold fairly steady as indicated by pending sales activity, and then rise later in the year and continue to improve in 2009, according to the latest forecast by the National Association of REALTORS®.

Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, says there is a pull and tug exerting itself on the market.
“On the one hand, we have a pent-up demand from the four million jobs added to our economy over the past two years of sales decline,” he says. “On the other, consumers continue to wait for additional signs of market stabilization. There are more people with financial capacity now than in 2005, but many are trying to market-time their purchase. As a result, the exact timing and the strength of a home sales recovery is a bit uncertain. A meaningful recovery in existing-home sales could occur as early as this spring, or it may be further delayed toward late 2008.”

The Pending Home Sales Index, a forward-looking indicator based on contracts signed in November, fell 2.6 percent to a reading of 87.6 from a strong upward revision of 89.9 in October, but remains above the August and September readings and indicates a broad stabilization. The index was 19.2 percent below the November 2006 level of 108.4.

“Although there could be some minor slippage in the first quarter, existing-home sales should hold in a narrow range before trending up,” Yun says.

Across the Region

Regionally, the PHSI showed the following:

South: rose 2.3 percent in November to 100.7 but is 19.8 percent below a year ago.
West: slipped 2.1 percent to 86.6 but is 18.5 percent lower than November 2006.
Midwest: fell 4.1 percent in November to 82.1 and is 18.6 percent below a year ago.
Northeast: dropped 13 percent in November to 70.1 from a spike in October, and is 19.1 percent below November 2006.

Existing-Home Sales Forecast

Existing-home sales for 2007 will probably total 5.66 million, the fifth highest on record, then edge up to 5.7 million this year and 5.91 million in 2009, compared with 6.48 million in 2006. Existing-home prices for 2007 are likely to be down 1.9 percent to a median of $217,600, hold even this year and then rise 3.1 percent in 2009 to $224,400.

“Rising home prices in the affordable midsection of the country are likely to offset declines in some of the previously hot markets,” Yun says.

There are wide variations in housing market conditions around the country, with nearly two-thirds of the metropolitan areas showing price gains. Healthy increases in metro prices are occurring in places such as Pittsburgh; Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas; San Jose, Calif.; and Bismarck, N.D.

“Our consumer survey shows buyers today are in it for the long-haul, planning to stay in their home for a median of 10 years,” Yun says. “This is a wise approach to housing because the data shows the longer you own, the better your investment.”

New-home sales are projected at 773,000 for 2007, and declining to 669,000 this year before rising to 730,000 in 2009. However, that is well below the 1.05 million 2006.

With an appropriate slowdown in production, housing starts — including multifamily units — are forecast at 1.36 million for 2007 and 1.09 million this year before edging up to 1.1 million in 2009. Starts totaled 1.8 million in 2006.

The median new-home price should drop 2.1 percent to $241,400 for 2007, and then rise 0.4 percent to $242,200 this year and gain another 5.9 percent in 2009.

Call for Legislative Action

“Some policy changes, such as raising the loan limit on conventional mortgages, would provide a significant boost to home sales, increase liquidity, strengthen home prices and lessen foreclosures, but it is unclear as to if and when the measure will be implemented,” Yun says.

NAR strongly supports raising the Government-Sponsored Enterprise loan limit to at least $625,000 from the current $417,000 so that more consumers will have access to lower interest rates on safe conforming mortgages.

“NAR estimates that raising the GSE loan limit will result in interest rates savings for an additional 330,000 home owners,” Yun adds.

NAR also encourages the Fed to make a single lump-sum cut in the Fed funds rate to 3.5 percent at the January Federal Open Market Committee meeting, rather than a series of modest cuts throughout the year.

“Consumers are also looking to market-time interest rates, and the expectations of further rate cuts are pushing some home buyers to delay,” Yun says. “Monetary policy will be much more effective with a one-time large cut, rather than a series of small cuts.”

The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is expected to rise slowly to the 6.3 percent range by the end of this year, but an additional cut in the Fed funds rate would lower short-term interest rates.

Meanwhile, growth in the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) is seen at 2.1 percent in 2007, below the 2.9 percent growth rate in 2006; GDP growth will probably be 2 percent this year.

After averaging 4.6 percent for both 2006 and 2007, the unemployment rate is estimated to rise to 5.3 percent in the second half of 2008. Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, is projected at 2.9 percent for 2007 and 3.1 percent this year; it was 3.2 percent in 2006. Inflation-adjusted disposable personal income is forecast to grow 3.1 percent for 2007, the same as in 2006, and then grow 1.6 percent this year.

— REALTOR® Magazine Online

For more economic news and research reports, visit NAR's Research division at REALTOR.org.

Ironhorse

Jan 10, 2008, 07:31 AM

As housing slumps, realtors quit By Patrik Jonsson
Wed Jan 9, 3:00 AM ET

ATLANTA - After three years showing houses in Atlanta's hilly suburbs, Dee McMahon is finished with real estate.

Yanking up her custom-made "For Sale" signs in her North Lake neighborhood rattled her ego, she admits. But when Ms. McMahon closed her final sale, a house in Snellville, Ga., in late November, the mother of two felt a swell of relief.

"Now I can finally get my own house back together," she says. "I'm nervous about the future, but I feel happy."

McMahon is one of thousands of real estate agents across the US wandering with mixed emotions and uncertain prospects through the debris of a real estate gold rush. ...........

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080109/ts_csm/arealtors

We could go back and forth all day with the stories, but I've seen more negative ones like this than positive ones. With the budget deficit to be announced later today for the state, I don't think the fiscal outlook is that great. Just yesterday in the Bee there was a story about people's spending habits, that less is being spent on things like going out to eat, as people tighten their belts (and wallets) to pay for things like food, fuel and housing. Retail sales being posted are lower than normal for this time of year, for the last several months. So I don't see all that big money coming in to Oakhurst that you guys keep talking about. Stands to reason that people will cut travel too (i.e. tourist dollars). Just my opinion, but what do I know, I "haven't done my homework".

More stories on the "stable" housing situation:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/Business/Real_Estate_and_Housing;_ylt=Ajjaq3WCu3Vt7TTd3JzKA M1u24cA

jakobscalpel

Jan 10, 2008, 08:45 AM

Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, says there is a pull and tug exerting itself on the market.

You quoted Lawrence Yun as an example of why the housing market won't decline further?!? My god you are living in a dream world. Lawrence Yun is a paid shill, following in the not so proud footsteps of David Lereah. He has been revising his "forecasts" lower each and every month as reality (not realty) crushes his fragile spin. Don't take my word for it. Do a search on google and read his historical quotes. Here, I'll save you the time http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=Lawrence+Yun&btnG=Google+Search. Now come back and tell us why you would believe his latest forecast. It must be along the lines of "You can only be wrong so many times in a row, so he MUST be right this time!".

Again, the deeper we get into this, the more convinced I am that these financial numbers for the proposed city are going to come out looking as stupid as the National Association of Realtor forecasts for real estate from the past two years. It is a shame too, because local control would be a wonderful change.

EdBailey

Jan 10, 2008, 02:10 PM

I did not "quote. " I posted the article without comment. Let anyone interpret, believe, or disbelieve as they will.

Ironhorse

Jan 10, 2008, 03:23 PM

Well, we either face less spendable cash, or increased taxes because of the state problems, neither of which would bode well for trying to make it through an incorporation at this point...... How can anyone "project" revenues with this kind of instability?????

http://www.maderatribune.com/news/newsview.asp?c=233541

State faces tough choices

Thursday, January 10, 2008

By The Associated Press - Aaron C. Davis

AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gestures to a chart that shows projected future budget figures if the reforms he has called for are put in place, during a meeting with advisers at his Capitol office in Sacramento on Wednesday. Schwarzenegger will unveil his 2008-09 budget Thursday.
SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday comes face to face with a massive budget deficit that could prove to be his toughest test in office.

The $14 billion shortfall rivals the one he covered with loans and other fixes after the 2003 recall election, but this time he has far fewer options left to close the gap.

California is further in debt thanks to bonds the governor has championed, voters have cut off the option to borrow more, and Schwarzenegger has promised not to raise taxes.

As a result, Schwarzenegger is expected to announce cuts that will short classrooms, close some state parks and reduce health and welfare coverage for the state's poorest residents. He also has floated the idea of releasing tens of thousands of nonviolent inmates early and is expected to propose new property insurance fees to supplement state firefighting costs

frmmts2sea

Jan 11, 2008, 04:34 PM

LMBO. Fear? I think not. this is in reply to EDBailey. What a joke

mountainmissy

Jan 12, 2008, 10:02 AM

Cost of incorporation

01/12/08 00:07:38

While incorporation may provide certain benefits to residents of Oakhurst, we fear the community may be saddled with a huge financial obligation to be met only by reducing services or increasing taxes and fees. Proponents boast that incorporation will provide a $1 million surplus. But the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis dated Oct. 22, 2007, prepared by consultants for incorporation, clearly shows that after the first 10 years of incorporation, a deficit of more than $5 million will be owed by the city, a discrepancy unexplained by proponents.

Furthermore, the consultants rely upon data from relatively prosperous fiscal years (2002-2007). Economic conditions are now worsening with a housing market meltdown, rising transportation costs and growing unemployment. Predictable shortfalls in projected revenues with increased costs of delivering services will force the city council to raise fees or ask voters to increase sales taxes, imposing unfair burdens upon seniors whose limited incomes will leave them feeling trapped.

No incorporated city has preserved a prior rural atmosphere; all experience greater development and density -- a debatable desired result. But a decision to incorporate Oakhurst, once made, is irrevocable. There will be no returning to a way of life that will be lost forever.

James H. Watkins

Oakhurst

Bruce Francis Kennedy

Oakhurst

cecutekitten

Jan 12, 2008, 09:27 PM

mountainmissy

Jan 12, 2008, 10:58 PM

Also it would be great to get are own building plans approved by people who live in this community not all the way in Madera ..

Guess you haven't read the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis. The proposed City will be a "contract city." What that means is we would have to pay for 5 manager-level employees who will then contract back with County departments for services. So your building plans will still be dealt with by people in Madera. You probably will get to drop off/pick up the final product in Oakhurst, but is the cost of a whole new layer of government worth that convenience...

EdBailey

Jan 12, 2008, 11:10 PM

Cost of incorporation

01/12/08 00:07:38

"While incorporation may provide certain benefits to residents of Oakhurst, we fear the community may be saddled with a huge financial obligation to be met only by reducing services or increasing taxes and fees. Proponents boast that incorporation will provide a $1 million surplus. But the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis dated Oct. 22, 2007, prepared by consultants for incorporation, clearly shows that after the first 10 years of incorporation, a deficit of more than $5 million will be owed by the city, a discrepancy unexplained by proponents."

James H. Watkins

Oakhurst

Bruce Francis Kennedy

Oakhurst

Now this is rich. Two people representing themselves as from "Oakhurst" to the Fresno Bee, when a quick check of their residential listings in the local telephone directory reveals that one lives in Coarsegold, and the other in Bass Lake. You'd think at least one of these two lawyers would know better. But even that is no more inaccurate than their claim about that $5 million deficit at the end of ten years. I call your attention to the chart at the bottom of page 27 of the CFA which shows these totals for the ten year period: Revenues $48,997,974, Expenditures $33,518,280. Net surplus before Revenue Neutrality $15,479,695, Net surplus after Revenue Neutrality $5,479,695.

mountainmissy

Jan 13, 2008, 10:11 AM

Two people representing themselves as from "Oakhurst" to the Fresno Bee, when a quick check of their residential listings in the local telephone directory reveals that one lives in Coarsegold, and the other in Bass Lake.

But even that is no more inaccurate than their claim about that $5 million deficit at the end of ten years. I call your attention to the chart at the bottom of page 27 of the CFA which shows these totals for the ten year period: Revenues $48,997,974, Expenditures $33,518,280. Net surplus before Revenue Neutrality $15,479,695, Net surplus after Revenue Neutrality $5,479,695.

My goodness, Mr. Bailey. Seems like you have a double standard operating here--as in what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander... Greg Chappel, your ACTION vice president lives in Bass Lake; Angelo Pizelo, one of your prime cheerleaders, lives in Coarsegold; and Monika Moulin, the ACTION Honorary Mayor and songstress, lives in Ahwahnee. But no one objected to the active participation of all three of these individuals because they all OWN A BUSINESS IN OAKHURST. The same for Bruce Kennedy and Jim Watkins--they, too, each OWN A BUSINESS IN OAKHURST. One of the most objectionable things about Incorporation is that it ignores the rights of those who own a business and/or property within the proposed boundaries; they'll have to comply with whatever the City Council decides yet they have no real say about anything because they live outside the boundaries. That's just plain wrong!!

Secondly, you've said on other occasions that numbers make you dizzy--but you (and the consultant) sort of need to brush up on your math... You are claiming that the Net Surplus before Revenue Neutrality is $15,479,695. But the Revenue Neutrality Agreement agreed to by your 3 unelected signatories indicates a debt of $19,860,410 to be paid over 10 years.

Doing the math:
15,479,695 (your "surplus") - 19,860,410 (your debt) = -$4,380,715

In other words, you're "in the hole" by more than $4 million.

EdBailey

Jan 13, 2008, 01:19 PM

There's nothng like missing the point. I don't recall any of those people you listed writing a letter to an area newspaper and signing it "Oakhurst." But they have businesses in Oakhurst, you say. But they don't live in Oakhurst as their letter led us to believe. I know people who have a business in Fresno - guess they should vote there. Wha do you think?

Let's follow that logic. I own an interest in a gas well in Kentucky - I guess I should be able to vote there, and here too, of course.

Thanks for sharing how they arrived at that preposterous figure. I just could not find where the CFA "clearly shows" it. I guess I just have to change the way I think about things. If I write down my bank balance and subtract the balance on my home mortgage, I'm in deficit, big time! But I'm still going to vote yes on Measure C. I guess KORC just can't save me from myself, Mountainmissy. Thanks anyway.

Jerry

Jan 13, 2008, 03:32 PM

mountainmissy

Jan 13, 2008, 05:07 PM

Interesting Jerry... I just did a reverse look-up myself on that phone number and couldn't find anything. How did you find Coarsegold??
http://switchboard.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=33&qnpa=559&qp=6831868

Besides, why don't you come on Tuesday to the Chamber's event at the Oakhurst Community Center and you can talk to all kinds of people. Nobody's ashamed of anything... All that anybody wants is for the voters to have as much information as possible so that they can make an informed decision. Unfortunately, those voting no on C just don't have the all the money that the proponents have. But then, we all know that politics is all about "follow the money"...

EdBailey

Jan 14, 2008, 04:19 AM

You are thinking small Ed. If you invest $47.72 and buy one share of Wal-Mart stock, this logic would allow you to vote in 6775 locations. Ya, that really makes sense.

What bothers me is I keep getting mail from both sides in Measure C. The vote yes side lists an Oakhurst street address, a web site, and a Fair Political Practices No. but the vote no side only lists a telephone number. I checked that phone number in the reverse directory and it is listed to a home in Coarsegold. Makes me wonder what these people are ashamed of.

You raise a good point, Jerry. No address, no Fair Political Practices Number, no real names. How can one find out who these people are, who they have been affiliated with, what they have supported or opposed in the past. Why are they so adamantly opposed to local control? What are their real objectives?

ACTION is an open book. We are a legal registered Political Action Committee. Go to www.townofoakhurst.com. You'll find a lot more than a telephone number. You wiill find the names of all Action Members, along with telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. You'll also find a copy of the CFA and letters from the County Chief Administrative Officer, the County Fire Marshal, The Coiunty Sheriff, and the State's independent consultant.

We want you to know who we are, what we stand for, and why. Voters are entitled to expect at least that much from any campaign group.

Ironhorse

Jan 14, 2008, 10:00 AM

Hmmm, strange, I've had names, return LOCAL addresses and phone numbers on information I've received from the opponents to incorporation. Didn't look like they had anything to hide to me.

QuestionMan

Jan 15, 2008, 10:13 AM

Hide behind a phone number?? Nobody's hiding anywhere--the opposition is all around you. ACTION was present on September 25th where many testified in opposition to Incorporation at LAFCo's ONLY Public Hearing. ACTION was present at the October 2 Board of Supervisors meeting where many testified in opposition to Incorporation. ACTION was present at the October 23 LAFCo meeting where many drove down to Madera to attend and witnessed LAFCo's attempts to stifle public participation. Signs are in business windows all around town in opposition to Incorporation. The opposition has been sitting in front of grocery stores and will be at the Chamber Forum this evening. You can go up and talk to any of them...

What's more interesting is that ACTION refuses to publicly name their major donors--because ACTION knows the public knows how to "follow the money."

So the question begs to be asked: Who are ACTION's major donors and what is their vision for the incorporated General Law City of Oakhurst? Those who have a personal financial interest and stand to benefit? One has to wonder how ACTION can afford weekly mail-outs to 2,500+ people (printing and postage alone ain't cheap), twice-weekly ads in the Sierra Star (big ones at that), telephone surveys, expensive signs and whatever else.

Jerry

Jan 15, 2008, 11:24 AM

Try running 683-1868, the phone number on the KORC information, using phonenumber.com or whitepages.com. Both services list Coarsegold.

Ironhorse

Jan 15, 2008, 04:57 PM

What difference does it make if people from Coarsegold, Bass Lake, Fish Camp, or in Oakhurst outside the proposed incorporation area work against the incorporation. They've done their homework too and they know they will pay a price in higher prices when (not if, when, because it will happen) higher fees and TAXES happen. They will either pay higher prices or take their business elsewhere, which will mean a drop in revenues for the Town of Oakhurst. For candidates to promise that they won't raises taxes is ridiculous, sooner or later it will happen, and once in place, it's hard to get rid of them. Most people in the affected area have already experienced new fees from propane companies ( a pumping fee of $8.50/mo), a more than 100% fee increase for Sewer service (mine went from $70/qtr. to $153/qtr) and a new fee on Hillview's bill with additional notice being sent out that the water costs will raise 2.5% next month. That's only the start. Regardless of whether the county or the Town of Oakhurst run/buy/administer these facilities, the fees will continue to increase. Grants for Law Enforcement, yeah, wonderful things. BUT you better do with those grants what your proposal says you will or you WILL have to pay that money back. Regardless, the grants run out eventually and one of the conditions of those grants is that after 5, or 8, or 10 years (it varies) when the grant runs out, the city MUST pick up those costs. Specific people are identified in those grants, because their time/salaries/benefits must be tracked each month and submitted to the federal entity or state. So they don't get laid off when the time comes, other people do. Grants have a price, and at the end of time, your usually not much better off. And grant money can be wasted. What need did the Sheriff's office have for a street motorcyle that winds up being towed around to presentations/county fairs, etc.? You think it cost you nothing, so why worry about it, WRONG, your tax dollars paid for it through that grant that bought it. Saying that there will be no new taxes is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. Sure, they might not be called taxes, rather they'll be called fees...........................

EdBailey

Jan 18, 2008, 05:54 AM

Ironhorse

Jan 18, 2008, 07:57 AM

The CFA analyzes the incorporation of the Town of Oakhurst, an area of 13.1 square miles with an estimated population of 4179 residents. The CFA concludes that incorporation of Oakhurst is fiscally feasible based upon
projected revenues, expenses and the agreed upon revenue neutrality agreement. The CFA assumes that existing levels of services will be maintained or improved and provides for a ten year plus transition year financial plan. That plan projects a cumulative surplus of $5.4 million by year 2018-19, while also including a 10% operating contingency fund. The plan projects a $945 thousand reserve fund at the end of the transition year which starts July 1, 2008 and ends June 31, 2009. General fund revenues range from $4.09 million in 2009-10 to $5.43 million in 2018-19 arising from property taxes, sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes, fines, interest earnings, state subventions and fees for service, with no new taxes. Expenses range from $2.83 million to $3.83 in the same respective period. Road fund revenues include gas tax, Prop 42 apportionments, Measure T sales taxes, some property tax and service charges, while expenditures include routine maintenance, road repair and new road construction. The CFA projects a Road Fund surplus of $3.6 million over this same period. Services are projected to be provided by 7 full time employees and by contracts with appropriate service providers.

Which doesn't address at all the fact that these are just projections, there's no certainty that the revenues will come anywhere near these supposed figures. If the state reduces funding to the counties, or the tourist business takes a downturn (which affects transient occupancy taxes, sales taxes from various business AND potentially jobs up here), interest rates fall, gas tax income goes down due to reduced tourist travel and people just having to tighten their belts and a hundred other possibilities, then these figures are dust, what part of that don't you understand?????? Projections are pie in the sky, looks good on paper, but no substance in a recession.

Ironhorse

Jan 18, 2008, 08:12 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorporation an expensive adventure

Dear Editor:

The A.C.T.I.O.N. Committee to incorporate Oakhurst has declared not only "Local Control" and "NO NEW TAXES," but that "better services" will be available for Oakhurst.

According to the Comprehensive Financial Analysis, the city government will consist of five city council members, and seven employees. A business manager, administrative assistant, public works director, planning director, a clerical position shared between the two directors, an accountant and accounting technician. To house and supply these folks the city will need to rent, lease or purchase property, furniture, computers, telephones, utilities, etc. Also needed is a room large enough to hold council meetings, with room for the public. None of these expenses are currently required.

Seven employees cannot provide a lot of services so how are improved services to be provided? I understand the city anticipates providing services as listed below.

The Highway Patrol does not have responsibility for incorporated areas so the Sheriff's Department, under contract with the city, would assume all law enforcement duties including traffic control, citations, accident investigation and reports. The cost for these services would be the actual costs to provide services plus a fee to administer the service.

For fire services, incorporation will cause the city to become a Local Response Area (LRA) instead of a State Response Area (SRA). The city may negotiate contracts to provide fire services, including wild land fires, but at added expense. Our state taxes provide wild land fire coverage for us as an SRA. As an LRA we will pay for the protection twice.

Planning functions, including plan checks, permits, code enforcement and inspectors are expected to be contracted from the county, as are public works and animal control functions.

It appears the "improved services" will more likely be the same services we presently receive, but with added administrative costs. I am told administrative expenses generally are 11 to 15 percent over the actual costs.

In the last couple of months, Clovis has announced a $2 million dollar shortfall. Fresno County said it may have to lay off 200 employees. Madera County announced plans to increase fees although this has been mostly deferred due to a large number of complaints.

The supposed improvements are for the benefit of an estimated 4,200 residents of the proposed city. The remaining 31,000 people in the Mountain Area who contribute to the economy by shopping in Oakhurst will not only not receive the benefits but will have less money available from the county for their communities. Seems like a very expensive adventure! I urge a NO Vote on Measure "C."

Richard W. (Dick) Craig
Oakhurst

EdBailey

Jan 18, 2008, 08:29 AM

Dear Editor:

Of late I have overhead a gaggle of comments by locals about Measure C, the proposed incorporation of Oakhurst.

I've overheard people say they're against incorporation because they don't want bright street lights, they don't want sidewalks in Oakhurst, they don't want more stoplights on Highways 41 or 49, even that they don't want to be paying for a local dog catcher.

I've overheard people say they think incorporation is a "power grab" by an insider group, that they are sure more taxes will be forced on them sooner than later, and that Oakhurst doesn't need a fancy city hall.

I've heard, often, that local merchants are "all" against incorporation, and that the city limits boundaries would be expanded in short order to include neighborhoods not in the new city limits.

I've been hearing knee jerk b.s. over and over again, and I've kept my mouth shut. My telling someone they don't know what they're talking about won't change their minds. That I know from long experience.

Most comments come from people that don't live in the proposed city limits. Indeed, most don't even live in the "Area of Influence." But they know what they think, and they're ready and willing to pass their thoughts on to anyone who will listen.

Here's what I think. I think everyone has a right to their opinions.

Here's what I don't think. I don't think people should open their mouths until they have the facts and have pondered them. I don't think, if they really care about Oakhurst, they should expound on the issues and ramifications of incorporation before they know what they're talking about.

Before someone endorses or condems incorporation, they should search out answers to their concerns. If they haven't attended the many community meetings on the issue, if they haven't been reading the Sierra Star's coverage, if they won't bother with looking through the Web sites on the subject, they shouldn't opinionate.

There are two remaining public meeting, at the Community Center, on Jan. 15 and 29. For those that care, attend one or both, then comment. For those that don't understand the facts, please put a gag on your mouths until you do.

That's what I think.

John W. Hays
Oakhurst

EdBailey

Jan 18, 2008, 08:40 AM

Which doesn't address at all the fact that these are just projections, there's no certainty that the revenues will come anywhere near these supposed figures. If the state reduces funding to the counties, or the tourist business takes a downturn (which affects transient occupancy taxes, sales taxes from various business AND potentially jobs up here), interest rates fall, gas tax income goes down due to reduced tourist travel and people just having to tighten their belts and a hundred other possibilities, then these figures are dust, what part of that don't you understand?????? Projects are pie in the sky, looks good on paper, but no substance in a recession.

If, if, if, if, if..... Fear of Change (metathesiophobia) can cause our minds to imagine all kinds of evils that are sure to follow. The good news is that they are imaginary. If Madera County gets starved for money, they will bleed Oakhurst even more? The only way to prevent that is to take that power away from the County via incorporation.

Tell me, Ironhorse, after this latest launday list of your fears, do you still insist that "fear has nothing to do with it?"

Ironhorse

Jan 18, 2008, 09:04 AM

If, if, if, if, if..... Fear of Change (metathesiophobia) can cause our minds to imagine all kinds of evils that are sure to follow. The good news is that they are imaginary. If Madera County gets starved for money, they will bleed Oakhurst even more? The only way to prevent that is to take that power away from the County via incorporation.

Tell me, Ironhorse, after this latest launday list of your fears, do you still insist that "fear has nothing to do with it?"

Fear has nothing to do with it, common sense does. Common sense and experience working in the government sector and experience in contracting with the county for city services. I'm very well experienced with the operations/abilities of city councils and administration/functions/services of city governments. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you don your "Professional psychiatrist hat" and start diagnosing them, that can be offensive and annoying, especially when it your only defense. When you get your psychiatric degree, let me know. You keep making statments that "people fear change", "people need to get educated", "people who are against this don't know what they're talking about". What makes you so expert? Because you're a realtor?????????????????? Give me a break. Sounds a bit self-serving to me, as you're one of the few who would stand to profit from this. Why at the last meeting were questions from people who were against incorporation, not answered? Why were they either ignored or shouted down??????? We got no answers to our concerns, just more of the same rhetoric.

Ironhorse

Jan 18, 2008, 09:38 AM

Is incorporation realistic?

Dear Mr. Editor:

I am concerned as a business owner, a past president of the Eastern Madera County Chamber of Commerce and a past president of the Oakhurst Sierra Sunrise Rotary about the reality of the fiscal analysis for the incorporation of Oakhurst. The proponents of incorporation communicate no new taxes are needed because the new town will experience a surplus in each of its first 10 years. Is this realistic?

The overall state of the economy due in part by the softening housing market, increasing energy costs, the current state of the Middle East, and the huge deficit the state of California is facing makes me wonder what impact it will have on revenue to the county and cities. How will it impact forecasts made in the recent financial feasibility study supporting incorporation? What is reality?

The citizens entitled to vote on the incorporation of the town of Oakhurst are encouraged to ponder the first statement made by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. on Page 10 of the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA) before casting a vote. It can be found online at www.townofoakhurst.com. The CFA was prepared for the Madera County Local Agency Formation Commission, dated Oct. 22, 2007 and reads:

"The CFA is based upon information in the form of forecast and includes an evaluation of the support for the assumptions underlying the forecast. There will usually be differences between the forecasts and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material."

Does this mean the forecasted outcome could be better or worse than the CFA states?

I encourage the citizens entitled to vote to do so, furthermore, do so based on what they believe to be realistic.

Don Olsen,
Oakhurst

EdBailey

Jan 18, 2008, 09:53 AM

Fear has nothing to do with it, common sense does. Common sense and experience working in the government sector and experience in contracting with the county for city services. I'm very well experienced with the operations/abilities of city councils and administration/functions/services of city governments. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you don your "Professional psychiatrist hat" and start diagnosing them, that can be offensive and annoying, especially when it your only defense. When you get your psychiatric degree, let me know. You keep making statments that "people fear change", "people need to get educated", "people who are against this don't know what they're talking about". What makes you so expert? Because you're a realtor?????????????????? Give me a break. Sounds a bit self-serving to me, as you're one of the few who would stand to profit from this. Why at the last meeting were questions from people who were against incorporation, not answered? Why were they either ignored or shouted down??????? We got no answers to our concerns, just more of the same rhetoric.

I am not a shrink, but I do have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Orgaizational Behavior and a Master of Science in Organization Development.
I have had more than a passing interest in change and change management for some time now. I am sorry if you are offended, but I did not invent fear of change. Most of us have at least some of it and some of us have an inordinate amouint. Fear is a natural part of our defense mechanism systems. Our fears are not voluntary and we do not all fear the sime things. Our fears are useful, and they serve us well most of the time. It is when our fears become phobic that they tend to cloud our jucgement.

Let me say again that I do not beleive that all those who oppose incorporation are driven by fear of change. That is simply not true. But one does not need a Graduate Degree in Behavioral Science to understand that those who have a high level of fear of change will oppose incorporation and virtually all other change being proposed. We can also expect that those with the strongest fear of change will be in the forefront of the opposition, and without that element there would be no significant campaign against incorporation.

EdBailey

Jan 18, 2008, 10:02 AM

Is incorporation realistic?...

...I encourage the citizens entitled to vote to do so, furthermore, do so based on what they believe to be realistic.

Don Olsen,
Oakhurst

I couldn't agree more. Vote on what you believe to be realistic, not on the fear tatics being served up by the chronic nay sayers.

Ironhorse

Jan 18, 2008, 10:20 AM

I am not a shrink, but I do have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Orgaizational Behavior and a Master of Science in Organization Development.
I have had more than a passing interest in change and change management for some time now. I am sorry if you are offended, but I did not invent fear of change. Most of us have at least some of it and some of us have an inordinate amouint. Fear is a natural part of our defense mechanism systems. Our fears are not voluntary and we do not all fear the sime things. Our fears are useful, and they serve us well most of the time. It is when our fears become phobic that they tend to cloud our jucgement.

Let me say again that I do not beleive that all those who oppose incorporation are driven by fear of change. That is simply not true. But one does not need a Graduate Degree in Behavioral Science to understand that those who have a high level of fear of change will oppose incorporation and virtually all other change being proposed. We can also expect that those with the strongest fear of change will be in the forefront of the opposition, and without that element there would be no significant campaign against incorporation.

Maybe the forefront of the opposition and the significant campaign against incorporation are just because a significant number of people don't want it. There you go again, putting down those that don't agree with your hidden agenda. Your fear seems to be that people won't succumb to your campaign that there is something wrong with them if they don't vote to incorporate. Hmmm, maybe that's why you keep preaching the same tired record. People are going to look at our economy, they are going to look at the pitfalls (and regardless of what you say, there are pitfalls to incorporation), they are going to look at their own personal finances, and they are going to "project" whether or not this makes financial sense to them, and that's what they should do. People are doing their homework and educating themselves on this issue, regardless of your constant harping that they are not. That's why they showed up in such large numbers at the last meeting (too bad they didn't get answers to their questions). And that's what they should do..........ask questions, demand answers, not take the people pushing so hard for incorporation as the final authority on the subject. This will affect everyone, inside the sphere of influence or not. It will have long lasting effects on the whole mountain community. Incorporation could have good or could have bad consequences. Unfortunately, bad consequences will take a long, long time to recover from, and that's why people should be cautious. It's not something to be entered into lightly. So you continue to preach your "trust me" doctrines, some people aren't listening, thank goodness. They're doing their own homework and making their own decisions, not relying on you to tell them what to think and do.