Staff Recommends Continuing Until December, but List Option for Approval. Calimesa Council Members Submit Opposition Letters.
By: Libi Uremovic | Original Article at patch.com
The Hidden Canyon Warehouse Annexation is listed on LAFCO’s September 24, 2015 Board Agenda with a recommendation from Staff to continue the Item until December.
An updated report submitted by LAFCO Staff includes quotes from Beaumont’s 2015/2016 Budget: “that our General Fund is insolent from a budget and cash basis. We are cash insolvent due to the City’s General Fund cash averaging a $10 million dollar deficit” and “the City does not have the funds to adequately sustain our current level of services”.
LAFCO Report further states: “Although the City previously mentioned producing a Financial Plan in August, it is highly unlikely it will be developed until the financial statements for FY 14-15 have been reconciled. At that time, the City anticipates that the Financial Plan will address the TUMF judgment and include some type of contingency plan to account for it.
COMMENTS FROM AFFECTED AGENCIES/INTERESTED PARTIES:
Staff received comments from the City of Calimesa. A letter from Mayor Joyce McIntire requests that the Commission deny this annexation. The City of Calimesa is concerned by the traffic impacts as a result of development in the City of Beaumont that has created heavy impacts to the Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 interchange. In addition, the City of Calimesa is concerned about Beaumont’s financial and administrative ability to provide the services and infrastructure within its current boundaries. This has impacted the City of Calimesa with the amount of residential homes near Calimesa’s city boundary.
Comments were received from Calimesa Council Member Jim Hyatt regarding the lack of fire stations within the City of Beaumont and that 22% of the calls that Calimesa’s Fire Station #21 receives come from Beaumont’s Summerwind development, located within Tukwet Canyon. In addition, the City of Calimesa is impacted by the traffic from new residential developments within Beaumont, since the City of Beaumont lacked contribution in the WRCOG TUMF program in mitigating traffic impacts.
CONCLUSIONS:
The projected water demand from the subject of annexation is relatively small. However, from a broader perspective, based on the documentation from BCVWD, Staff is reasonably confident in BCVWD’s ability to have adequate water supply to meet future demand. There are concerns over the fiscal ability to fund sewer plant expansion. However, based on the existing sewer capacity the City can meet the demand to provide service to this project.
There is still an outstanding concern with this proposal that does not favor the annexation of this area in regards to the City’s fiscal ability to provide services. The City adopted its budget on September 15, 2015 and that requires a $4 million reduction in expenditures. This will be achieved by deducting its staff by 23.5 positions.
The City still has long term debt due to the $43 million WRCOG TUMF Judgement. The City has yet to be able to generate a plan on how the City will meet its obligation if the appeal of the TUMF judgment is not in the City’s favor. The City has a multi-million dollar debt to other city funds that is till not completely known.
The focus of this analysis is the City’s financial distress. In the City’s 2015-16 Budget Summary the City Manager stated “However, given the magnitude of cuts that I am proposing in order to balance our budget within current revenues, I question whether we can and will meet the needs of our citizens.” The City has not yet demonstrated that it will have the ability to extend services to additional territory.
Staff recommends a two month continuance to December 10, 2015 to allow additional time for the City to complete its Financial Plan. In addition, the City states in its Budget Summary that its staff anticipates a comprehensive CIP Plan will be developed sometime this fall, which will be the final phase of its budget process. The Commission can continue this proposal until bot the Financial and CIP Plans become available. Hopefully, these plans will provide answers to our May 6, 2015 request on how the City will deal with the $43 Million TUMF judgement and other specific questions.
Although this is not the staff recommendation, approval could be supported by considering 1) the proposed industrial/warehouse uses, which are generally fiscally neutral or slightly positive; 2) the strong desire of the landowner to annex and 3) the relatively low demand for services from this small non-residential project.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based upon factors outlined above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Commission take the following action:
Continue LAFCO 2014-2005 REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF BEAUMONT to December 10, 2015, for the purpose of allowing the City to complete its Financial Plan and develop a comprehensive Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Plan.
ACTIONS FOR APPROVAL
Should the Commission wish to approve this proposal, STAFF RECOMMENDS that the Commission:
Find that the City of Beaumont, as lead agency under CEQA, as adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on the proposal. NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED;
2. Determine the proposed reorganization is consistent with the spheres of influence of the City of Beaumont, BCVWD, and all other affected local agencies;
3. Determine the proposed reorganization is legally uninhabited;
4. Approve, subject to the following terms and conditions:
In accordance with Govt Code 56886 (t) and 57330, the subject territory shall be subject to the levying and collection of any previously authorized charge, fee, assessment or tax of the City of Beaumont.
b. The City of Beaumont defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Riverside County LAFCO, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against LAFCO, to attach, set aside, void, or annul and approval of LAFO concerning this proposal.
5. Pursuant to Govt Code Section 56662 (d), waive Protest Proceeding, and make the following determinations:
The affected territory is legally uninhabited.
The proposal has the consent of 100% of the affected landowners.
NO subject agency has submitted written opposition to a waiver of protect proceedings.
6. Direct the Executive Officer to prepare and execute a Certificate of Completion upon receipt of required processing fees required by Section 54902.5 and compliance with applicable terms and conditions.