A taxing annexation for Salida

If Stanislaus County succeeds in annexing our homes into taxing districts, tax increases are never going to end. Every so often, they will want to raise taxes as they have already been doing to the people in those taxing districts.

As if 2020 hasn't been a bad enough year already, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors is moving forward with plans to annex all of Salida into taxing districts. They call it a community service "assessment" (CSA) but that's just another word for "tax", and this is why it's subject to a Prop 218 vote. Following are the politics behind this tax and my thoughts on why I am against it.

The first tax to be voted on is known as CSA 4 and applies only to the Bristol Glen (aka Amberwood) neighborhood for their storm drain maintenance. For the CSA 4 tax to apply to all of Salida, Stanislaus LAFCO will have to approve Salida being annexed into Bristol Glen's taxing district and then registered homeowners will vote. The second taxing district that the rest of Salida will be annexed into is CSA 10 which covers park maintenance and the landscaping around the current CSA neighborhoods.

Following are my comments regarding the proposed tax annexation at the August 11, 2020 Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors meeting:

"I would like to request that agenda item C-1 be pulled and the following points are taken into consideration. To quote from page 2:

"In November, staff led a second meeting with the community and explained the rate increase process, benefits and costs, and why the increase was needed for CSA 10. County staff performed an informal poll of those that attended using comment cards. Based on 19 comment cards submitted, 10 were for the increase and 9 were against the increase. However, the most notable of responses, both verbally and written, for that meeting was a request that all of Salida pay for their "fair share" of the storm drain maintenance costs before considering raising the rate for CSA 10."

Let's begin with that quote "fair share". In 2013, I asked Matt Machado (former Director of Stanislaus County Public Works) how the storm drain maintenance in Salida was funded in neighborhoods like mine which are not covered by a CSA and his reply was "the gas tax". And here we are, seven years later and in the intervening time, we've had SB-1 and Measure L which are nice hefty increases to gas tax revenue. As was brought up at the Salida MAC meeting and also in the intervening time, the County decided to raid the CSA to pay for storm drain maintenance in my neighborhood as well as others not in CSA Districts, and this you spin as we are not paying our "fair share"??? That section of the agenda item should be stricken because it is nothing more than a biased opinion to further an agenda. If you don't wish to strike it, you can just as easily add my negative comment from the nine that were opposed so it's a more balanced and fair government document. (The Board of Supervisors adopted neither suggestion and the comment still stands in the document. They approved the tax unanimously to proceed onto the annexation process.)

My County Supervisor once told me that I was smart for not buying a Mello Roos home. (Mello Roos homes in Salida also have CSA taxes). I replied that it isn't because I'm smart, I did it on purpose because I didn't want the added taxes. When the people in CSA and Mello Roos homes purchase those homes, they agree to pay those taxes. They know what they are getting into. When we bought our home 27 years ago, the real estate agent did not say, "Well, you don't have these additional taxes on your home, but just wait, you will in 27 years."

Personally, the amount you want to tax us with isn't a big deal to me. I'm against this tax in principle. The principle being that we DO pay more than our fair share and we did not sign up for this. Another principle is that I think your timing is horrendous because other than the Great Recession, you're going to push a tax during the second biggest economic downturn of the 21st century. While the amount may not be a big deal to me, you are imposing this tax on low-income areas of Salida - the same sections of Salida you use for DUC (Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community) status in grants so that tax may be a big deal to a lot of other people in Salida." (NOTE: Salida as a whole is not a DUC, but the county obtained the storm drain grant for the Historic neighborhoods by grouping them as a DUC.)

I can't combat this tax alone so if you wish to help, e-mail me.

Urban Limit Lines; the politics of invisible lines in the sand

Board members of the Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) in Salida and Wood Colony, along with members of other local boards like Salida Sanitary District, etc. received letters from the City of Modesto dated June 9, 2020 requesting feedback about their proposed Urban Limit Lines (ULL). So far, the correspondence and social media postings in response to the letter have been a resounding "leave us alone" from Salida and Wood Colony residents.

First, just what is an Urban Limit Line? That's an invisible line in the sand (or in our case, prime agricultural soil called Hanford Sandy Loam) that would prevent the City of Modesto from land-grabbing upon the communities of Salida and Wood Colony. As most local area 

Modesto Bee map 
https://www.modbee.com/article237666634.html

residents know, Salida and Wood Colony have been fighting proposed annexations by Modesto for quite some time now.  Typically, a ULL would be met with open arms by our unincorporated communities for the protection they offer, so why is this one not?

Because the ULL does NOT match up to our communities' boundaries which means that Modesto would still have the opportunity to develop and sprawl into Salida and Wood Colony. 

Politicians in Modesto didn't just wake up one day and decide to implement the ULL, nor did they wake up and decide to go after Salida and Wood Colony once again - they are doing this for two reasons: former Modesto City Councilman, Denny Jackman and landowners in Salida and Wood Colony. 

Denny Jackman is perhaps the most well-known farmland preservationist in our county. He co-authored with former Modesto mayor, Garrad Marsh, Measure E - a county-wide residential ULL that was passed by voters in 2007. Denny then tried to repeat the success with a City of Modesto ULL initiative in 2015 known as Measure I. The Modesto Chamber of Commerce and local unions poured money into an anti-Measure I campaign and the initiative was narrowly defeated.

Denny is not one to give up so easily. To put it bluntly, he is threatening Modesto with another ULL ballot initiative if they did not implement a ULL on their own. The June 9 letter even says this but much more diplomatically: "Mr. Jackman informed the City Council that he intended to proceed with another attempt to impose the same limitations as he had pursued in 2015." But this new ULL is not exactly the same as the one in 2015. The ULL sacrifices much more of Wood Colony. Salida's lines are pretty much the same as 2015 but they do not follow Salida's Community Plan (SCP) boundaries. Why? On both counts: landowners.

Based on social media posts on NextDoor regarding this topic and a recent Wood Colony MAC meeting, it appears that Bill Lyons Jr. is affecting the boundaries in Wood Colony. He is the largest landowner there. For Salida, the main chunks of land cut out of our SCP boundaries is everything south of Kiernan and Joe Gallo's land north of Kiernan. Back during the Measure I initiative, (this was told to me by a Wood Colony friend) Denny ran into Dave Romano (who reps for Joe Gallo) and Dave told him they'd fight the initiative if the land wasn't removed from the ULL. That's why it's not a clean line north of Kiernan (west of Dale), even though all that land has been designated for Salida in the SCP with a Development Agreement signed by Mr. Romano. 

Back to the ULL and my thoughts: the Modesto City Council is in a rock and hard place trying to appease Denny and compromise with powerful families like Lyons and Gallo who want to sell their lands for commercial prices (much higher than ag prices). Additionally, while their lands are in areas designated for Salida and Wood Colony, the land cannot be developed unless City of Modesto agrees to supply water for new development. Historically for Salida, this has meant that Modesto will not supply the water unless they get to annex the land. (That's how Salida lost Costco and Kaiser from it's districts.)

I cannot see the residents of Salida and Wood Colony being on board for something that does not fully protect our communities from annexation. We can let the Modesto City Council know what we think of their invisible lines in the sand, but they don't have a history of listening to us since we are not constituents. However, their past votes have proven to be political campaign ammo and have killed re-election bids so I guess we'll see.

Indentity and transparency for 95368

On Monday, April 20, 2020, Stanislaus County opened it's first free COVID-19 testing site at the Salida Library. Three days later on April 23, I submitted an email request to the county asking for Salida's COVID-19 cases to be broken out of the county numbers just as Alameda County has done for unincorporated Castro Valley. I copied members of Salida MAC on my request and learned they had also requested the same information. (THANK YOU SALIDA MAC!) 

On Monday, April 27, I sent another e-mail request to the county asking for an update and sending a link to a Sacramento Bee article showing that Sacramento breaks their COVID-19 cases down by zip code.

The Modesto Bee Editorial Board joined the call for the breakdown in numbers by zip code in an opinion piece on April 28, which specifically mentioned Salida

"Reporting by ZIP code would greatly increase clarity, for example, in Salida — the county’s largest unincorporated community, and host of the county’s new drive-up testing clinic. With 14,658 people, Salida actually is larger than three of our cities: Waterford (population 8,823), Hughson (7,370) and Newman (11,119). ZIP code-level reporting would do the trick, as Salida has only one ZIP code."

Unfortunately, the county's solution to our request was to break the numbers out by supervisorial district which doesn't tell anything specifically about Salida. That same day, Salida MAC again made the case for the breakdown of Salida's numbers. 

On May 4, the Modesto Bee Op Ed Board announced that the county would soon break down the numbers by zip code. 

"Perhaps people in Modesto soon will know whether their neighborhoods have had COVID clusters. It will be nice seeing 10 different reports for the 10 ZIP codes in Modesto, rather than just one for the entire city.  

The same goes for one-ZIP-code Salida. The unincorporated town has 14,658 residents but no clue whether the coronavirus is active there, despite serving as the county’s only testing site before others were added Monday in Patterson and Keyes.  

On Sunday, Merced County became more transparent by reporting to email alert subscribers its cases in Delhi (population 11,735) and Winton (11,761), both unincorporated like Salida although both are smaller. Salida also has more people that three actual Stanislaus cities: Waterford (population 8,823), Hughson (7,370) and Newman (11,119), all of which have benefited from specific coronavirus reports."

FINALLY! Finally...on Thursday, May 7, 2020, eighteen days after placing the first COVID-19 testing site in Salida, Stanislaus County debuted the COVID-19 numbers by zip code. If the first link doesn't work, click this link and then "Neighborhoods" at the top of the page.

District 3 has 20 cases. Salida has 12 of those cases.

They Know Not What They Do

NOTE: Due to the COVID-19 virus, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors has offered public comment on agenda items to be submitted via email before 5 pm on Monday and the comments will be distributed to the board. This was emailed to the Clerk of the Board at 1:20 pm on Monday, March 16, 2020

Public Comment Agenda Item.6.B.11 - Valley Home MAC

Supervisors,

I read through the agenda item for changing the Valley Home MAC from elected to appointed, and while I understand and sympathize with some of the points you make and the issues surrounding this, I do not agree with the change. As I have shared with you previously, the MACs in Alameda County are all-appointed and the supervisor will only appoint people to the MAC who follow his views. My nickname for the Castro Valley MAC is "The Stepford Wives MAC". And as I said at your January 2019 workshop during public comment, not being able to choose who represents you is about as un-American as you can get.

I also find it ironic and rather contradictory that Supervisor Olsen said at this same January 2019 meeting that she didn't "understand why the people of (another board) couldn't choose who represents them." I agree with her - the board she was referring to should be chosen by election of the people! And the same goes for Valley Home MAC!  (Also, I DO remember the name of the board she mentioned; just choosing not to throw her under a bus by saying it in public comment.)

I know you are dealing with apathy of getting people to serve - but their time is a valuable commodity. Please consider coming into the 21st century and offering a stipend to serve on MAC boards. The Stanislaus County Planning Commission has a small stipend but it's enough that you never once hear a planning commissioner say, "I'm just a volunteer" as MAC members are. Salida Sanitary District also offers a small stipend and they never lack for board members. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Katherine Borges

Salida

The due diligence of transparency, taxes, and development

My Public Comment to the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 9 am:

"Good morning, just to quickly address the email request I sent you to cease the practice of private meetings with MAC members: while it may be in compliance to the Brown Act, there's no way for the public to independently gauge the County's due diligence if there's no record via public attendance or minutes to record what transpired. I wrote to all of you because I don't know if this is something new or something that you all do, but I only know it because Salida MAC members have told me and my supervisor mentioned it at the last MAC meeting. The solution should not be that the supervisor stops mentioning it because that makes it all the less transparent; it just would be better to cease the practice and shine the light of transparency on all governmental meetings.

I do think, with much thanks going to Salida MAC, that the County HAS been (with the exception of the closed door meetings) demonstrating appropriate due diligence in regards to the proposed CSA10 tax increase meetings. My honest opinion is that $33 a year is not a big deal, but I am against the tax in principle. The principle being that it seems the County's first solution for any shortfall is to raise taxes on the constituency as opposed to finding another solution. I do know that the County did look at sub-contracting the landscaping work out and that prevailing wage killed that option. However, I don't think the County has exhausted all other options like applying for grants to xeriscape around the developments or reapportioning our property taxes to include more for park maintenance. 

And I take exception to County employees referring to those, like myself, who do not live in CSA 10 tax homes as “freeloaders”. Just because the County decided to raid CSA10 for my neighborhood's storm drain maintenance at some point between 2013 and now, does not turn my neighborhood into “freeloaders”. One of the biggest reasons I chose my house

Some CSA10 Parks & Streetscape budget for 2012-2013

is because it DID'NT have Mello Roos or CSA taxes on it. My realtor didn't say, “Well be prepared because in 27 years, the County is going to put a tax on you that you didn't sign up for, unlike the people in Mello Roos homes. In 2013, I asked Matt Machado what covered my storm drain maintenance and he replied, “the gas tax”. So yes, $33 isn't a big deal right now, but it all adds up in the long run. I think that if anyone deserves a tax increase in Salida, it's our fire department and the County should exhaust every available option including grants before proceeding with this CSA10 increase.

Now onto the topic of Vizcaya: it's appalling to expect the working people of Salida to plan to attend a neighborhood meeting with only 6-8 days notice which is what you are doing to them since you just announced the date yesterday. Why can't you give them two weeks notice at least? What's the rush? The short notice ensures a low attendance and that is poor due diligence for a county which is “striving to be the best in America”. Give them a second meeting at least for the people who cannot make the first one. And perhaps on a Saturday. 

I was reading the Salida Community Plan (SCP) over the weekend and it struck me what a strange limbo Salida is in with it. It says that “...one of the primary purposes of the Amendment Area is to provide for a mix of land uses that can facilitate the Salida Community's financial and fiscal self-sufficiency” but if you allow these two gas stations and other businesses the loophole of a “drafting error” to not be included in the SCP then that hurts the existing community. I believe that Jeff Grover had good intentions for us with the SCP but I one hundred percent disagree that a man who is a building contractor would have allowed a "drafting error" to proceed for 13 years, especially when it affects his cousins' land. Put yourself in the shoes of the people who live in Vizcaya, which also does include County employees: would YOU choose to buy a home by two gas stations and two hotels? What will that do to their homes' resale value? 

I can tell you how the potential of a 4-story hotel impacted MY neighborhood: when a home went up for sale across the street, two buyers backed out just from word that a hotel would be built on the lot behind us and this home didn't even border it! No one wants to walk out of their house and see hotels, or live with the noise, air, and light pollution of gas stations.

I also ask that when Planning does the environmental studies, to do them by a place with at least two gas stations to measure the pollutants that will be influencing the air quality around the homes. Thank you for your consideration."

"I wouldn't have bought a house there" in Salida's Vizcaya neighborhood

My comments during the public comment period at the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors 9 am meeting on February 25, 2020:

”I wouldn't have bought a house there” are words that have haunted me since the January Salida MAC meeting. They were spoken by a county employee; an honest answer to a Salida resident who asked him if he would want to live near the various developments being planned around Hammett and Pirrone.

“I wouldn't have bought a house there” begs the question then – is that because we cannot trust the County to not allow development conducive to homes? Checking what is to be built in empty lots and farmers' fields around your home is not something most people think to do, myself included. When I purchased my home 27 years ago I did not check the county zoning to see what was going to be built in the vacant lot behind my home. I was absolutely horrified last year when plans were circulating for a 4-story hotel and that's not something that would have surfaced either had I checked then.

Several years ago, I had a conversation with Supervisor DeMartini about my neighborhood and he also honestly remarked, “They should never have allowed homes to be built there, it should all be industrial and commercial.” I was surprised when he said it, but the more I think about it, I have to agree. As I've mentioned in recent public comment here, I can hear Freeway 99, even with my windows closed – that's how close I am to it.

But it is what it is and there are thousands of homes on the east side of Salida. We've been pretty fortunate as long as I've lived there with one or two exceptions, the businesses built along Pirrone have been pretty quiet and not a nuisance to their neighbors.

But that will all change now if you approve the planned developments at Pirrone and Hammett. And here's why you should not: It is a stupid use of that land. The developer does not even have a gas station committed – he's trying to sell it to 7/11 or Circle K. There are gas stations at Pelandale, Kiernan and Ripon, we do not need one there too that will cause noise, light and air pollution on the Vizcaya neighborhood. The other projects include a fast food type restaurant, two hotels, and a mini-storage. I don't know how close the hotels are to the homes, but if they are close, that's a permanent invasion of the homeowners privacy. And a mini-storage on that prime freeway frontage location is an insane waste of land! We already have two mini-storage businesses in Salida and one is a ½ mile down on Pirrone.

Modesto has been complaining for years that they don't have anywhere to build a business park on 99 and here's this beautiful pristine area that would be perfect for that or even better, my husband's idea that he wrote to you in an e-mail about – create tourism with a San Antonio River Walk-type development. If you haven't already heard, Madera County is building one along the San Joaquin River. A San Antonio River Walk in Salida would bring much more tourism to the county than shooting pumpkins out of catapults or the Frank Raines ATV billboard currently up in Salida.

And that's nonsense that it was a “drafting error” and not included in the Salida Community Plan. Jeff Grover would not have been able to vote on the Plan if his cousin's land was included and oh, they just all of sudden call it a drafting error when after 13 years they haven't complained nor was it corrected in the County's recent General Plan update.

To sum it up, the buck stops with you – you are the ones with the binding votes. Put yourselves in our shoes and don't vote to make Salida just another ho hum gas station exit next to a neighborhood where you or your employees wouldn't buy a house there."