"Spheres of Influence" can become double edged swords
Thanks to Frank Mickadeit of the Register for covering possible annexation of Coto de Caza by RSM.
As the Juice team member responsible for south county coverage I do need to address this issue.
Other than throwing away their calendars what happened between May of 2009 and April of 2010 that caused some members of the RSM City Council to do a 180 on the topic of annexation?
In May of 2009 the RSM city council opposed LAFCO’s “sphere of influence” yet now has changed their minds?
According to Minutes of the May 13, 2009 council meeting the staff report reads in part: “City council discussion included lack of inclusiveness by LAFCO; the proposal would change the city from its original intention; quality of life concerns are important; concern that Coto de Caza might lose their governance options; a review of the proposed letter to LAFCO; the inclusion of Wagon Wheel and/or Las Flores in the future is problematic; the entire process used by LAFCO is flawed; previous analysis indicated that annexing Coto de Caza could bankrupt the City..” etc.
At that same time, referring to Coto, LAFCO was advised that “the city would actively oppose any action that would preclude any community from exploring the full gamut of options available to it for self governance. Would LAFCO’s action legally inhibit Coto de Caza from exploring all other governance opportunities available to it currently?”
The May 2009 letter from RSM to LAFCO closes in part: “We believe that a change to our Sphere of Influence would eventually lead to a change in what makes our city unique. Consistent with our General Plan Vision to maintain a city with a ‘small town character’ the city opposes any modification to its Sphere of Influence.”
So let me repeat my question. What happened in that 11 month window to have this matter return for council Reconsideration at the July 14th meeting?
Based on Frank’s June 24th report I contacted our City Clerk to ask a few questions relating to similar efforts by LAFCO that impacted our city of Mission Viejo.
In 1992 we conducted an Advisory Survey relating to the annexation of the unincorporated area of Aegean Hills. The question for voters read as follows: “Should the neighborhood known as Aegean Hills be annexed to the city of Mission Viejo if the majority of Aegean Hills residents supports annexation?”
While the answer from our voters was 81% YES we do not report the second part of the question as to how the Aegean Hills homeowners felt about this eventual annexation. I may need to go to the County ROV to get the result of that vote.
Note: Aegean Hills, which had a favorable tax base, was added to the planned city of Mission Viejo.
In my 10 year old notes, which must be verified, I read that our city consultant, Alfred Gobar, stated that annexation can be stopped if 25 percent of the residents in either community file a petition to terminate the process. If accurate, that would provide a legal way out for residents of either community should they object to the potential takeover.
For those not familiar with LAFCO, the Local Agency Formation Commission, let me provide a simple Mission statement. “LAFCO is a state mandated local agency that oversees boundary changes to cities and special districts, the formation of new agencies including the incorporation of new cities, and the consolidation of existing agencies. The broad goals of the agency are to encourage compact development within cities and to discourage urban sprawl.”
Fast forward to a 1999-2000 LAFCO Workshop that was held in Mission Viejo where we reviewed and considered a fiscal impact study for the potential annexation of the planned communities of Las Flores and Ladera Ranch.
In one of my city documents on annexation it refers to Coto de Caza/Wagon Wheel in which apparently a Coto de Caza Cityhood Committee made their own application for incorporation of that planned community.
One sentence in that detailed report reads that “approval of the RSM incorporation did not include either Coto de Caza or Wagon Wheel because of the negative fiscal impact inclusion would have had on the new city.”
Reading further, under Study Area 3A, it reiterates a concern that “including Coto de Caza in the new city (RSM) would present a substantially large deficit to the city making incorporation fiscally infeasible.”
So while we rejected LAFCO’s desire for Mission Viejo to include Las Flores and Ladera Ranch in our sphere apparently the County agency is applying a full court press on our neighbor RSM to offload some of their operating deficits as RSM is being courted to absorb the fiscal burden of providing services to Coto, Wagon Wheel, Las Flores and the Stonecliff communities.
The agenda of LAFCO is very clear as spelled out in that Mission Viejo workshop where they acknowledge the “County’s commitment to facilitating the transition of unincorporated territory to municipalities. Unlike the State prescribed methodology for the exchange of property tax in the incorporation process, the annexation process affords the County and the affected city latitude to calculate an exchange of property tax revenues that can mitigate all or some of the impact of the addition of an area to a city.”
A few cost drivers of any annexation include expenses related to expanded police and fire protection, street and infrastructure maintenance costs, parks, recreation and community services, animal control and added government administration and corresponding overhead including pensions and health care is surely not free.
I would be remiss not to add a sidebar to this report. On March 10th of this year the Press Enterprise ran a story whose headline reads: “Auditor to investigate Menifee’s finance controls.” Note: Menifee is a small city located in Riverside County.
What caught my attention in the story was the inclusion of RSM councilman Gary Thompson. Gary managed Menifee’s finances in 2008 and his “financial study that proved to the Riverside Local Agency Formation Committee that the Menifee area could generate enough revenue to sustain cityhood.” The story addresses auditing of their contract awards and alleged overpayments to city vendors.
“The unanimous [March 9, 2010 Menifee city council] vote, which followed a 2 1/2 hour closed session, essentially displaced Gary Thompson as the city finance director for the duration of the audit.” Only time will tell what they might uncover.
I have just received the following response from RSM councilman Gary Thompson along with a follow up email granting me permission to post his response in its entirety.
He also notified me that the original July 14th date to hear the LAFCO issue will be pushed out until the meeting of July 28th as he will be out of the country.
“Larry,
There is a lot of misinformation out there concerning the RSM LAFCO item as well as my role in Menifee.
First of all, there is absolutely no intention or plan by the city or any member of the city council to annex Coto, period. Isn’t going to happen.
For the record on Menifee, I was not responsible for the city’s finances in 2008 nor most of 2009. Another person was and she was let go because of several issues, including many in the “audit” that were laid on me. Also, I have been doing work again for Menifee for the last month, and as a result of my response to the “audit”, the Menifee city attorney at the time is no longer there. You can read between the lines on that. If you read Teri Sforza’s columns in the Register on this subject, you will see the picture you don’t see in the Press Enterprise.
If you would like to hear the details give me a call. I would be more than happy to get together and discuss all of this.”
Larry, just follow the money if you really want answers to the questions you raise about why three members of the RSM City Council did this rather stunning 180. As Mickadeit pointed out, all three are up for re-election this year. This is the worst kind of back room politics and deal making. Very sad.
Observer.
See the fast reply from Gary Thompson
Folks. I guess the $64,000 question is which member, or members, of the RSM council is behind the possible annexation effort. If no one wants to Annex Coto, is this simply another “receive and file” report or was there pressure from someone in the County?
Why waste staff time? Based on the above comment from Gary, I doubt it is being driven by the city manager who surely knows how to count to three, if in fact he even supports the concept, which I doubt.
While the issues center on RSM, Coto residents should be the ones objecting. Look what happened in Mission Viejo. A peaceful community became a city, which has been overtaken by a corrupt city council majority. Check the news any week. A council majority can give itself lifetime medical benefits (rescind them before an election, reinstate them after an election), double its salary and pay its members mileage for attending a spelling bee.
Coto resident watcher.
Both sides have a say in any ANNEXATION.
If we lived in Coto I would organize opposition to any merger. There is no upside for RSM or Coto.
As to shopping and other services we probably already patronize Ladera, RSM and MV. That would not change. The only possible beneficiary is the County who is probably struggling to pay their bills.
So just who composes this bunch from LAFCO ? Looks like an agency that can be done away with and save the tax payers a lot of money from a bunch of Amateurs, and old ladies.
Laughing at LAFCO
Think about it for a minute.
If the County, and LAFCO, can unload all of the unincorportated areas in Orange County we can actually shut down one of our agencies in my lifetime. Sadly the cost of said services would fall on the local cities who will be forced to pick up all of the costs as mentioned earlier.
Larry is correct. LAFCO is working to achieve the county’s stated mission of relieving the county from the burden of providing services to unincorporated communities — and local cities will get left holding the bag. Everyone understands that.
What is simply beyond comprehension is why three elected RSM City Council members would reverse years of their own opposition to the LAFCO/County plan thereby exposing their own city and residents to this risk. It makes absolutely no sense.
Obviously, these three had to have made an unseemly deal with the County that resulted in them selling out their own city and residents. I hope you keep digging and get to the bottom of this Larry.