Incorporation Vote : Making Ends Meet: It Adds Up to Numbers Game in Fallbrook

If voters in Fallbrook are trying to decide whether to vote for incorporation Tuesday on the basis of dollars and cents, they had better have a few pencils and erasers on hand. A crystal ball would be helpful, too.

Depending on what numbers, projections and estimates are plugged into the incorporation equation, the bottom line is either that Fallbrook can’t afford to become a city, or can’t afford not to incorporate.

The debate is not lacking in numbers as both sides cite their respective reports and studies.

Proponents of incorporation are basing their arguments on studies by the consulting firm of Christensen & Wallace, a study that in turn is supported by the Local Agency Formation Commission, which approves or disapproves incorporations and, in the case of Fallbrook, says cityhood is financially feasible, if just barely.

LAFCO Report

“If the primary purpose of incorporation is to provide land-use control and more representation, and not to provide higher levels of service, then the residents of the new city of Fallbrook would not be disappointed,” LAFCO concluded. “However, the city’s funds would have to be closely budgeted.”

Opponents claim that the Christensen & Wallace figures adopted by LAFCO are unrealistically pro-incorporation, based on revenue projections that reflect Chamber of Commerce optimism while being shortsighted about expenses the new city will face in 5 to 10 years.

Incorporation critics say that, in order to make ends meet, Fallbrook will eventually have to seek new commercial and industrial growth, thereby compromising the rural ambiance most townsfolk want to preserve.

Proponents respond by arguing that both Christensen & Wallace as well as LAFCO have no vested interest in Fallbrook’s future and have no reason to artificially skew their numbers in favor of incorporation. Furthermore, they say, even if incorporation is only barely feasible, it is still a better alternate than remaining with the county, which is experiencing its own fiscal crisis. Under county rule, they say, Fallbrook is sure to suffer from budget cutbacks as an unincorporated community lobbying for public works funds at a time when the county is grappling with the expense of AIDS, crowded jails, understaffed courts and other countywide, state-mandated programs and projects.

Better to cut bait with the county now--and take advantage of a law that calls for the county to pick up nearly $1.5 million in expenses for the city during its first year of cityhood, proponents argue. That law no longer exists for future incorporations in San Diego County, but will be honored for Fallbrook since it met the deadline to be included under the old law.

In turn, incorporation opponents argue that, despite the county’s worsening fiscal condition, Fallbrook is no worse for wear. They argue, in what has become an anti-incorporation slogan, “If the wagon ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” If and when Fallbrook begins to suffer financially from county rule, then incorporate, they say.

The latest question being bandied about by both sides is how much money will be available to Fallbrook to build and maintain roads, depending on whether or not Fallbrook incorporates.

The issue is the allocation of funds generated by last November’s passage of county Proposition A, which increased the county’s sales tax by a half-cent per dollar to raise money for roads, highways and public transportation.

The Board of Supervisors then allocated the expected revenue among each of the 18 cities in San Diego County as well as the unincorporated areas. The formula was based on population and the amount of road in each jurisdiction.

Different Revenue Levels

For Fallbrook, two levels of revenue were determined--one, assuming the community incorporates, and the other, assuming the community remains under county jurisdiction as it now is.

Should Fallbrook incorporate, it would receive $2.3 million over the next five years--money that would be spent based on the priorities established by the community’s own town council, according to Bill Lorenz, program administrator for the county Department of Public Works.

Incorporation proponents note that the Proposition A funds were not included in LAFCO’s report supporting incorporation and that the money is icing on the cake for Fallbrook’s municipal budget.

Should Fallbrook remain under county rule, a budget already approved by the Board of Supervisors calls for the community to receive $5.7 million in road funds over the next five years.

That $5.7-million allocation calls for improvements to Reche Road and the widening of Mission Road for nearly a mile between Pepper Tree and Stage Coach lanes.

The allocation also includes engineering and right-of-way acquisition--but not the construction costs--for the widening of another 1.2 miles of Mission between Stage Coach and Canyon Road.

Lorenz said the actual widening of Mission between Stage Coach and Canyon will cost another $5.1 million and that, presumably, county supervisors would allocate those funds in a subsequent year.

Argument of Opponents

Incorporation opponents argue that under county rule, Fallbrook will receive $5.7 million in Proposition A road funds over the next five years, and likely another $5.1 million in the following year or so to complete a project begun in the first five years. Those numbers, they say, compare quite favorably to the $2.8 million Fallbrook will receive over the next five years if it incorporates.

But incorporation backers say they get the last laugh: Fallbrook, if it becomes a city, will get $11 million over the 20-year life of Proposition A, based on the allocation formula for cities. Yet there is no guarantee that Fallbrook will get a single penny more than the $5.7 million if it does not incorporate, since the allocation of road funds for unincorporated communities is made by county supervisors based on a list of priorities for road work throughout unincorporated regions.

Even if supervisors approve $5.1 million more for Fallbrook to finish work begun in the first five years of the Proposition A program, the $10.8 million is still less than what Fallbrook would receive if it incorporates.

Incorporation opponents say that, if Fallbrook incorporates, the $11 million in road money might be used for regular maintenance rather than much-needed road improvements, whereas, under continued county rule, Mission will actually be widened.

Incorporation proponents say it is better for a local town council to decide how to spend the $11 million than to rely on a decision by bureaucrats in San Diego.

And so the incorporation debate goes.