Larry Barnett lives in Sonoma where he was elected to three terms on the City Council and served twice as Mayor. A thirty-three-year resident, he currently serves as Chair of Sonoma's Planning Commission. He has been married for 48 years, has two daughters and three grandchildren.
Annexation: It’s about the economy
With the release of a Municipal Services Report (MSR) from LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission), a county body made up of political appointees that must approve the creation or expansion of municipalities and special districts, the subject of annexations is once again before the City of Sonoma. LAFCO is supposed to review the operations and services of the entities it monitors every five years, but the last MSR was conducted 12 years ago.
LAFCO describes its mission as being about creating the conditions for orderly growth and avoiding urban sprawl. Opinions about the success of the mission vary, however, and include that the way LAFCO operates produces exactly the opposite of its stated mission, namely encourages rampant growth and sprawl.
In its latest MSR about the City of Sonoma, LAFCO included a set of recommended annexations, the expansion of the city limits to include properties currently located within the County of Sonoma. Most of these parcels are just beyond the edges of the city, although one of them, the Train Town property, is completely within city limits. The annexation process generally requires the agreement of property owners, but recent state legislation also allows a municipality to annex property like Train Town unilaterally under certain conditions.
One area suggested by LAFCO for annexation to the City of Sonoma is the Harrington Tract, a collection of several dozen parcels located at the southwest corner of the city limits, bounded by Fifth Street West and Leveroni Road. In order for an annexation to occur, a vote of the affected property owners must take place, and a majority must agree to the annexation.
Generally, the benefits of annexation to a property owner includes access to municipal services, such as water and fire protection. Accordingly, annexation most often increases property values. On the other hand, annexation also means parcels are subject to the rules and regulations of the City of Sonoma, rather than those of the County; the differences in such regulations – permit approvals, building codes, fees, and so forth – can be substantial. In general, once a property is legally located within the city’s boundaries, it is subject to the city’s regulations; exceptions and variances can be difficult to obtain, despite pre-existing conditions.
An annexation discussion that has received, and continues to get attention is expansion of the City of Sonoma to include The Springs. LAFCO does not recommend such an annexation, but does suggest it’s a matter for consideration. An annexation of The Springs by the City of Sonoma was the topic of voter referendum in the mid-seventies; the will of The Springs at that time was negative, and the annexation never went forward. The subject continues to be raised, with advocates citing the benefits of extending equity in local policy making and political representation to an underserved and economically challenged population.
The merits and feasibility of annexation, however, are not focused on social and political equity, however significant those subjects are. Like all other land use issues in California and Sonoma Valley, annexation is driven by economic consideration: the value of assets and costs of liabilities. Unless the economic evaluation and analysis is favorable, annexation is unworkable, and LAFCO will not approve it.
The case of a Springs annexation is complicated; defining what constitutes the borders of The Springs and what properties annexation would include is itself difficult. Currently part of the unincorporated part of the county, a Springs border has never been codified. Definitions of an Urban Service Area do not necessarily conform with a logical border. Of greater import, however, is the economic analysis.
In order for annexation of the Springs to make sense, it must lead to an improvement in services to the annexed area, while simultaneously not undermining the ability of the City of Sonoma to provide municipal services within its boundaries. Accordingly, an economic analysis must show that the new revenues obtained by the city’s annexation of the Springs are sufficient to cover its costs of increased administration, service delivery, timely maintenance, police and fire protection, and other customary activities, like street, water service and infrastructure repair.
It may well be that the city’s cost of providing such services to an annexed Springs at the same level of service it provides within its current border is impossible. An economic analysis of property tax income, special tax income like TOT (hotel taxes) and other projected fee income must be conducted, as must a projection of increased costs; this analysis will either support annexation or not. The City of Sonoma is already unable to support its existing financial demands easily, and its budget is always very tight. Adding tens of miles of damaged roadways that need repair to its budget alone may tilt the financial calculation negatively. City Hall is already too tight for existing staff, and a new location would be required.
Then there’s the opinion of Springs property owners; only property owners can participate in an annexation vote, not renters. For many property owners in The Springs, being included within the City of Sonoma is not a favorable prospect; they like the lack of scrutiny and regulation they now enjoy and do not want to be subject to the city’s standards and regulations. Creating a special set of regulations customized for a territory within the city is not workable, and might create a two-tier system of standards and enforcement rather than extending benefits equally within its jurisdiction.
Finally, there is the matter of the city’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), which was renewed in 2020 for another 20 years by nearly 70% of the voters. For any annexations outside of the city’s current border to occur, the voters of Sonoma must agree to such an expansion.
Larry Barnett is Vice-Chair of Sonoma’s Planning Commission, and past Mayor of Sonoma
More: Should Springs become part of Sonoma?
2 thoughts on “Annexation: It’s about the economy”
Comments are closed.
Larry and the City Attorney are wrong about who can vote in an annexation election, all registered voters can vote, renters included. Registered voters can petition for annexation. And, LAFCO is about equity if there are DUCs (disadvantaged unincorporated communities) in play. That’s SB-244: Background/Purpose of SB 244
“According to legislative findings in SB 244, hundreds of unincorporated communities in California lack access to basic community infrastructure like sidewalks, safe drinking water, and adequate waste processing. These communities range from remote settlements throughout the state to neighborhoods that have been surrounded by, but are not part of, California’s fast-growing cities. This lack of investment threatens residents’ health and safety and fosters economic, social, and education inequality. Moreover, when this lack of attention and resources becomes standard practice, it can create a matrix of barriers that is difficult to overcome.” The Springs has a clear Latino DUC of more than 5000 people who make less than $50,000 a year, for whom lack of gov’t investment has serious negative consequences.
Plus, local DUC analysis has to go in the City Housing Element, which it currently is not.
Finally, can a City planning commissioner write a biased political opinion about LAFCO and annexation and then be ethically impartial to hear the same topic in a public hearing?
Well Fred, I guess who can vote (renters and or owners) has yet to be clarified; in any event, given the lack of a distinct border, defining who can and cannot vote remains unclear, as does the “border” of The Springs. As for the matter of bias, if you detect any, it’s a subjective conclusion on your part. I have merely pointed out the complexity of the issues raised by annexation but did not assert my personal opinion. I have speculated as to the challenges of an annexation, as any consideration of the subject requires. If the matter comes before me as a commissioner, I will hear all the arguments on both sides and offer my opinion at that time. That said, bias is an issue when matters of specific land-use applications or use permit hearings come before the commission; on matters of broad general policy, like a Springs annexation or support for Sonoma’s UGB, commissioners are allowed to express personal opinions, and bias does not apply. In any event, the opinion of the commission is just that, a recommendation. Thanks for chiming in.