Comment on Board of Supervisors appointment of Director of Community Development Agency (CDA)

Re:  1/10/17 Board of Supervisors, Closed Session Item #30, File #17-0025, Appoint of Director of Community Development Agency

Dear Supervisors,

I ask that you do not appoint anyone to the position of Director of Community Development Agency. This Legistar item does not have information or attachments so we are left to assume that the action is to hire a CDA Director. This position is simply an additional layer of management that is not needed to serve the people of El Dorado County.

The #1 and #2 concerns of El Dorado County residents are public safety and road maintenance. The Director does not perform either of those functions.  Additionally, you have made it very clear at the last few Board meetings that you need to cut the budget wherever possible to balance the budget while maintaining critical services.

This is an excellent opportunity to start trimming the fat.

Thank you for your consideration,

Sue Taylor
530-391-2190

Below are some of the suggestions we sent to Don Ashton and Roger Niello after meeting with them on November 14:

1. Eliminate Long Range Planning – it was created recently by CEDAC and has completed its mission of the TGPA/ZOU

2. Eliminate the CDA – too many layers of bureaucracy.

3. Put Environmental Health back under the direction of Health and Human Services to return the checks and balances for development.

4. Put Code Enforcement back under the Building Department.

5. Hire a Director of Transportation who understands the importance of maintenance on our roads, can oversee a crew for that purpose and not be a lobbyist for new growth.

6. Eliminate CEDAC. It lost its way long ago and the Board has suggested several times that it has outlived its usefulness. It has become a divisive force in the County and used for political purposes. At the very minimum Maryann Argyres should be removed from the committee given her lawsuit against the County. Also remove those CEDAC members who have benefited personally and in regards to land use by the actions they have taken while on this committee.

7. Split the Planning and Building departments. They have very separate functions and funding mechanisms.

8. Create an Ad Hoc task force to streamline the permit process. The task force should consist of local users of the County Planning and Building Department Page 2 of 2 System and not stack the task force with those that want to change our General Plan for their own benefit. That is what derailed the attempt 9 years ago. Through this task force, create an easy to read brochure or matrix to assist an applicant through the planning/building process and the Ombudsman position could/should be eliminated. The task force should be disbanded immediately after it completes its task.4

We appreciate your efforts to improve the relationships between the public and the County, and also within the County itself.

Thanks again for your consideration of our concerns,

Sue

Ask County to Clarify Conflicting Message about Fee Program

On the Consent Calendar for Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 9:00 am, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors is being asked to approve spending an additional $200,000 on consultants for the Capital Improvement Program/Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (CIP/TIM Fee) project.  County staff is asking for the additional $200,000 to pay consultants to determine the impacts of Measure E on the CIP/TIM Fee project.

At the same time, the County has issued a Press Release stating that all progress on the CIP/TIM Fee project has been put on hold.  Not only is that contrary to the request for an additional $200,000, it also conflicts with the County’s statement that it will continue collecting comments on the CIP/TIM Fee environmental document until July 5.

How does it make sense to put a project on hold yet continue to request funding for the project and continue accepting comments on the project?

The County’s Press Release is available here:  http://www.edcgov.us/pressreleasedetail.aspx?id=30064772953

The County’s files for the CIP/TIM Fee project are available here:   https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2763880&GUID=0276DBB6-19C0-4B0D-B9CF-D3F2384F16A5&FullText=1

Please attend the Board of Supervisors meeting to request that the funding request be pulled off of the Consent Calendar for discussion:

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 9:00 am
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
330 Fair Lane, Building A
Placerville, CA 95667

To send in your comments via email, send to:

Supervisor Mikulaco <bosone@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Frentzen <bostwo@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Veerkamp <bosthree@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Novasel <bosfive@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Ranalli <bosfour@edcgov.us>,
Clerk of the Board <edc.cob@edcgov.us>

Subject:  Additional CIP/TIM Fee funding, File #14-0245, Agenda Item #28

Attend Board Meeting to Stop Property Tax Giveaway

UPDATE:  More detailed data was provided and used to tabulate the following projections of lost revenue:

Prop 90 Cumulative Calculation
As the number of Prop 90 recipients increases each year, the annual amount of lost revenue also increases.
Prop 90 Annual Calculation
The County staff report states that each Prop 90 recipient receives between $2,500 and $3,000 savings per year.

ORIGINAL POST:

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 3:00 pm, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors will review whether or not they will extend Prop 90, which is a tax-break incentive for senior citizens to move into El Dorado County.  Prop 90 allows homeowners to transfer their tax base value when selling their house in the Bay Area and Southern California, which significantly lowers their property taxes on the house they subsequently purchase in El Dorado County.

Former Chief Administrative Officers have advised the Supervisors to reject Prop 90 because of the lost revenues to the County;  however, past Boards of Supervisors have extended Prop 90 due to pressure from the El Dorado County Association of Realtors.

Statements from the Chief Administrative Officer and Assessor from a 1989 memorandum:

Upon review of the proposition (copy attached) and material submitted by County Assessor John Thorne, I can see no value for El Dorado County in opting into the program authorized by Proposition 90. Not only is there no benefit to El Dorado County, the program would actually place a disservice on those citizens who currently own homes in the county and would exacerbate the inequity of property taxes already occurring in El Dorado County and the remainder of California. If adopted, the effect of such an ordinance in El Dorado County would be to reduce property tax revenues with no correlating reduction in demand for services from those citizens moving into our communities.

As you can see, it appears that counties such as ours would suffer a considerable economical loss, as the majority of people coming into our county are from more costly areas within the state.

Here are diagrams showing the calculations of lost revenue to El Dorado County due to Prop 90:

Prop 90 Annual Calculation
Lost revenue calculation per house, per year
Prop 90 Cumulative Calculation
Cumulative lost revenue calculation

The above calculations were made from information in staff reports from the El Dorado County website:

2014 Report by El Dorado County Assessor Karl Weiland
2016 Report by Director of Economic Development Jeff McLaughlin

Please attend the public hearing to voice your concerns about extending Prop 90.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 3:00 pm
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
330 Fair Lane, Building A
Placerville, CA 95667

To send in your comments via email, send to:

Supervisor Mikulaco <bosone@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Frentzen <bostwo@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Veerkamp <bosthree@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Novasel <bosfive@edcgov.us>,
The BOSFOUR <bosfour@edcgov.us>,
Clerk of the Board <edc.cob@edcgov.us>

Subject: Prop 90, File #09-0992, Agenda Item #52