The following article, reprinted in the Rio Linda Elverta News, was originally published in the Sacramento Union Newspaper.
Merge Sac County into 'River City'?
By LAWRENCE C. IRBY
SACRAMENTO UNION STAFF WRITER
Cityhood for the unincorporated area of Sacramento County is an idea whose time has come, a Rio Linda man believes.
"Call it River City," Jay O'Brien told Sacramento County supervisors during
a recent hearing about a proposal to combine the city and county governments.
The Board of Supervisors should ask voters to incorporate the unincorporated
area, which excludes the cities of Sacramento, Folsom, Isleton and Galt,
O'Brien said.
Proposed city-county consolidation and the incorporation of River City could be on the ballot at the same time, he said.
Voters could be asked to incorporate the unincorporated area as River City if consolidation fails at the polls, O'Brien said.
Incorporating the unincorporated area would mean one giant new city, "not
five or 10 more little cities," said the proponent of Rio Linda/Elverta cityhood.
He wants Sacramento excluded from the proposed merger because some members
of the City Council want to reduce the authority that local community councils
could have over planning issues under citycounty consolidation and appoint,
rather than elect them.
A city-county merger will not work if its cornerstones -- the elected community -- are removed, he said.
City Council members want one level of taxation and one level of service
to force unwanted utility taxes and unwanted municipal services on rural
residents, he said.
"They would take police services away from our sheriff and give them to their
appointee -- not elected directly by the people," O'Brien said Wednesday.
He believes a new government without Sacramento could generate $20 million
in unfettered state motor vehicle fees at no cost to River City taxpayers.
Replacing the California Highway Patrol with River City's own traffic cops
would cost less than $9 million for 162 officers and support personnel, he
said.
Adding $2 million for 16 Local Community Councils and an expanded number of supervisors, leaves $9 million, O'Brien said.
That money could be used to hire more police to control the drugs and gangs, he said.
Supervisor Illa Collin believes the River City proposal could bankrupt the
county, which would still have to provide such countywide services as courts,
district attorney, probation, assessor, auditor/controller, health and welfare.
Actual testimony given in person to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on August 30, 1989:
Presentation by Jay O'Brien of Rio Linda Elverta:
I have attended almost every meeting of the Ad-Hoc Charter Commission.
The Commission has done a super job of assimilating input and producing a
model of a new government that could serve us well through the next century.
Mr. Brewer and his Commission have accepted my testimony on many occasions
and I am proud to say that I feel that I have had some small impact on the
product. Their staff is also very approachable, competent, and supportive.
I have withheld a conclusion on their efforts until now. My jury has
been out. As you know, I am a proponent of Incorporation for Rio Linda
Elverta. Incorporation is the only solution available now that would
address the issues of Community control of land use, better representation
and equity in services vs revenues. I have concluded that the Charter,
with Rio Linda Elverta as one of the LCCs as proposed, is another solution,
an alternative to Incorporation, that could satisfy enough of my concerns
for me to agree that Incorporation might not be necessary. I could
accept the proposed new government.
Unfortunately, however, it won't work. I've been made painfully aware,
after observing the City Council, that this new government just cannot and
will not work, given the present mind set of the City Council and perhaps,
also, their constituents.
The City Council members would eliminate or reduce the number and importance
of the cornerstones of this new government, the Local Community Councils.
They want appointed LCCs, not elected. They want one level of taxation
and one level of service, forcing utility tax and unwanted city services
on rural residents. They would take police services away from our Sheriff
and give them to their appointee not elected directly by the people.
LCC land use appeals would go to the metro body rather than to a panel of
other LCC electees, thus emasculating the LCCs. LCC boundaries would
fit the districts of the Council of Supervisors rather than follow community
lines. Our community identities would go away like Oak Park, Gardenland
and other communities eaten by the City of Sacramento.
I cannot support any of these positions expressed by the City Council Members.
Also, based on what I have heard from them, I am now unwilling to have anything
of mine in any way subject to the whim of any presently elected City official,
either in a transitional or final government.
And I am here today because you are the only people who can effectively request
the investigation of an alternative that I believe could salvage the good
work of this Commission. You can ask the Commission to assimilate the
hard facts and figures which would evaluate my proposal.
I propose an alternate scenario that I firmly believe would work. A
scenario that would use the craftsmanship of the Commission and be a better,
more responsive government. One based on very simple modifications
to the Charter as proposed. A scenario that I think would be political
suicide for the Commission itself to propose, because the Commission is funded
by both the City and the County.
My proposal is that the Commission amend the proposed charter to not exclude
just the Cities of Folsom, Isleton and Galt as written. Rather, it
should exclude Folsom, Isleton, Galt and the City of Sacramento. That
is, Incorporate just the presently unincorporated portion of Sacramento County.
Call it River City, for example.
What could we gain in River City?
Merely Incorporating River City would produce an additional revenue of $20M
from State motor vehicle in-lieu fees, with no cost to River City taxpayers.
With that $20M, however, comes the responsibility to replace the CHP and
provide our own traffic control. The consultant says that would cost
less than $9M for the required 162 officers and support personnel.
Add a couple of million for establishing 15 or so LCCs and for expanding
the Board of Supervisors. That still leaves $9M. That could buy
the sheriff 162 more people to control drugs and gangs. That's a possibility
of over 300 additional people for the Sheriff, requires almost no additional
changes in the rest of the County Government, and no new taxes. It
could probably even fund full medical coverage for the deputies. True,
we don't get the projected savings of combining the present City Government
with the County Government, but we also avoid the costs and headaches of
transition. We do get the benefit of assimilating traffic control into
the Sheriff's Department.
There would be one more City in the County under this scenario then under
the Charter as now proposed. Not five or ten more little cities.
Just one more giant city. And it would be an expansion of our present
County government, not a new government.
The Twenty Million Dollars from in-lieu fees, which would come in as new
revenue, under either scenario, is money made available by us in the unincorporated
area voting to incorporate. A new revenue stream for us in the County.
The City already has that revenue stream, and uses it plus their utility
tax to fund a different level of services than we receive (or desire) in
the County. I feel that the entire benefit of that new windfall revenue
stream should go back directly to the people who make it possible.
It should provide no new benefits for the present City of Sacramento.
I would be giving up my debatable right to Incorporate to get this revenue
windfall. So therefore, I want to get as much out of it as possible.
I would like to maximize the benefits of this windfall for County residents
and minimize the effect of the City Council's philosophy. River City
would do both.
I think it's doable. I think the other alternative is doomed to failure
at the ballot box, because the City and County philosphies are incompatible.
I can support River City. Lets build for the future. There could
be two issues on the ballot in the unincorporated areas. The second
could say if the first issue does not pass, would you accept the River City
government?
The Commission's staff and consultant can determine exactly how much discretionary
new revenue would be available to a River City which excludes the City of
Sacramento. Please ask them to review this proposal.
Thank you.