City of CV? Commission Revives Debate
Would Castro Valley be better off as a city? What about combining it with other unincorporated neighborhoods? The Alameda Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo) revisited the 20-year-old question following a presentation to County Supervisors Nate Miley and Dave Brown last week.
The commission told the Board of Supervisors’ Unincorporated Services Committee (Miley and Brown) it would like to contract with financial firm Berkson Associates to perform a Preliminary Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (PCFA).
The idea is to get a financial assessment for the unincorporated areas of Castro Valley, Cherryland, Ashland, San Lorenzo, and Hayward Acres. It’s the first step in the long process of getting residents to consider incorporation and becoming their own city.
The scope of the proposed study does not include Fairview, an unincorporated area next to the Five Canyons development, and east of Hayward with a population approaching 11,000.
Previous attempts to incorporate Castro Valley have failed. The first was back in 1957 when the vote was 75% against. The second was held in 2002 when a vote on incorporation garnered 27.9% in favor and 72.1% against incorporation. The 2002 vote was prompted by a similar financial analysis that LAFCo initiated. The 2002 report found cityhood would be possible if Castro Valley initiated a transient occupancy tax (also known as a hotel tax) and an ongoing utility users’ tax.
The updated report is expected to provide the community with information about the possibility of incorporation, its costs, and its tax revenue implications, according to LAFCo executive Rachel Jones. The financial report is expected to consider how successful the City of Castro Valley would be based on revenues from new housing development and increases from resales, franchise fees, gas taxes, county sales tax, and even growth due to new retail development.
“The report will demonstrate whether the new city would be fiscally viable and provide a basis for subsequent review, discussion, and decisions by the public, the County of Alameda, and LAFCo,” Jones said in her report.
The financial firm is expected to provide three options based on the following boundary options:
1. Castro Valley by itself
2 . Castro Valley plus Ashland, Cherryland, San Lorenzo, and Hayward Acres
3. Ashland, Cherryland, San Lorenzo, and Hayward Acres (excludes Castro Valley)
The report is expected to include a comparison of services whether or not these unincorporated jurisdictions adopt cityhood. It will also
look at the underlying growth and services that the City of Castro Valley would need in the future. While the report would outline the general characteristics of boundary areas, as well as the financial implications of each area, it will not detail a full budget analysis of each area.
Supervisor Miley asked Jones to provide an informational report where it would be discussed at the upcoming joint meetings of the Castro Valley, Eden Area, and Fairview MACs.
While a financial analysis of a new city is one hurdle, the political obstacles are higher. The last California community to incorporate was Jurupa Valley in Riverside County in 2011, which fell into deep financial distress until Governor Jerry Brown helped reallocate how vehicle license fees were spent. The process has made it even more difficult for unincorporated towns to transform on their own.
A longtime advocate for incorporation, Castro Valley resident Michael Kusiak says he hopes LAFCo considers other options as well.
“While I personally support an incorporated Castro Valley and the right of all unincorporated communities to seek incorporation, annexation is another tool that should be on the table,” Kusiak said. “LAFCo should expand the scope of the report to discuss the viability of annexation, a common strategy used in places like Orange and Santa Clara Counties to provide municipal governance to urban unincorporated communities.”