300 Turn Out for Castro Valley Cityhood Discussion
Some 300 people packed the Castro Valley Library’s largest meeting room on Sunday, July 23 to hear about an apparent new push for cityhood, some 20 years after residents voted down the idea.
Those attending the standing-room-only meeting came to discuss the release of a draft Initial Feasibility Analysis of incorporation from the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which would have to approve any such move prior to it becoming a ballot initiative.
LAFCO consultants Berkson Associates concluded that Castro Valley would indeed get somewhat more control over its destiny than it has at present, but that it would come at a substantial financial cost.
Specifically, a new City of Castro Valley could expect to receive about $36 million in revenues annually, but have to pay out $43 million in costs, for a shortfall of $7 million annually, the report said.
That amount just happens to be very close to the revenues from a tax that most California cities are allowed to collect, but which the legislature has banned new cities from receiving. No new cities have been formed in the state since the legislature banned the “in-lieu tax” on motor-vehicle registrations in 2011.
The meeting to discuss the report was called by several Castro Valley residents who contribute to the castrovalleycity.com website. Contributors include Gary Howard, vice president of the Chamber of Commerce, Peter Rosen, board member of the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD), Dennis Waespi, and Roland Williams, general manager of the Castro Valley Sanitary District (CVSan).
Several have written letters to the editor of the Forum making the case for cityhood, which have in turn drawn letters in opposition.
Howard said of the meeting “It went well. There was a good mix of pros and cons. That’s where we all are right now.”
He also said LAFCO erred in comparing the costs of a new city to “mature cities” like San Leandro and Dublin. A better comparison, he said, would be to newer cities like Jurupa Valley in Riverside County.
City’s costs change over time, Howard said.
There is not as yet any visible organized opposition to cityhood, but skepticism was expressed at the July 23 meeting. One man in the audience who did not identify himself asked, in several different wordings, who was behind the effort and why now.
Meeting moderator Ralph Johnson along with some meeting participants kept replying it was a presentation of the report, not a debate on cityhood itself. But cityhood advocate Howard replied that the last vote was 20 years ago, in 2002, and Castro Valley’s demographics had changed considerably since then, meriting another vote.
Johnson listed a number of hurdles any move toward cityhood would have to leap. There would have to be a formal application to LAFCO, which proponents would then have to pay to conduct a detailed feasibility study. District 4 county supervisor Nate Miley, who spoke in favor of Castro Valley as a city, noted his office had paid the estimated $100,000 cost of the one 20 years ago.
“I’m not paying for another one,” he said, to some laughter.
Miley kept a low profile during the meeting, beyond saying he would try to get any new city the best deal on tax revenues possible with the county. He was mobbed by constituents with questions and comments, though, just outside the meeting room during a break.
Only if LAFCO found cityhood feasible could the matter then proceed to a vote. Castro Valley residents voted it down both times it previously made it to the ballot, in 1956 and 2002.
“It’d be at least a two-year process after LAFCO found it feasible if they did,” moderator Johnson told the crowd.
Residents broke into smaller focus groups after a break, to discuss in greater depth the effects of possible cityhood on governance, economic development and business, public safety, the environment, and public works.
A number of concerns came out of those sessions, but the ones that generated the most passion were sidewalks and traffic calming, particularly near schools, according to group leaders.
LAFCO had looked at possible incorporation by the unincorporated communities of Castro Valley, Ashland, Cherryland, Fairview, Hayward Acres, and San Lorenzo, as well as several possible combinations of those. Its consultant concluded that Castro Valley had advantages over those other areas due to its strong commercial tax base, and its fiscal case for cityhood is stronger by itself than in combination.
Howard urged residents, whatever their views on cityhood, to send comments to LAFCO by their August 11 deadline. One can send an email by clicking on links from the agency’s webpage (https://alamedalafco.org/contact-us), phone at (510) 670-6267, or write them at 224 West Winton Avenue, Suite 110, Hayward, CA 94544.
Howard said additional public meetings on the issue are planned, hopefully starting in August or soon thereafter.