Hemet council reviews petition to annex large unincorporated area; residents raise service and process concerns

Mayor Daniel Peterson opened city council discussion of a petition seeking annexation of large unincorporated portions of the Hemet sphere of influence, saying the petition warrants more time and coordination with Riverside County before any final action. "Given the scope and significance of what's being proposed by the petitioners, I believe it is important to continue this item to a future date," Peterson told the council on March 25.

The petition, submitted through a group identified in the meeting as Hemet Unified, asks Riverside LAFCO to move detailed annexation steps forward. City staff provided a high‑level briefing about the LAFCO process, likely fiscal impacts and staff estimates of additional public‑safety and public‑works needs if the annexation proceeded. City Manager Mark Fleswig said staff would post the underlying data and continue to respond to information requests from the petitioner and the county.

Why it matters: the proposed annexation would transfer responsibility for police, fire, roads, code enforcement and other municipal services from the county to the city for the affected areas. That reallocation changes how property‑tax and sales‑tax dollars are shared, can require pre‑zoning by the city before an application is accepted by LAFCO, and can alter service delivery patterns — especially for emergency response and road maintenance.

Police, fire and public works sketches Police Chief Mike Arellano told the council the department’s analysis was conceptual but identified a need for additional sworn and civilian positions to provide at‑least the current level of service in the annexed area. Arellano described a preliminary request for roughly 14 positions (11 sworn) including a lieutenant, sergeants, corporals, patrol officers and one investigator, plus non‑sworn records and dispatch support; he said the department would seek an East‑side facility to improve response times.

Fire Chief (presenting on operations) described how Hemet Fire measures risk and response, noting recent call volumes exceeded 20,000 per year. Chief staff outlined a concept to use some county station facilities in the annexation area (for example converting County Station 72 into Hemet Station 7) and to add medic engines and squads; the department also recommended two additional code‑enforcement officers to support life‑safety work. The chief said specific staffing and apparatus plans would require detailed negotiations with the county on existing assets and longer‑term funding.

Public‑works director Noah (last name on file with city) said the annexation area adds roughly 123 road miles; a pavement‑condition index study prepared for the sphere of influence indicated an estimated minimum ongoing maintenance need of about $3 million per year to preserve the road network in the annexation area. He also flagged additional one‑time capital needs that would need more detailed engineering review.

Revenue picture and assumptions City staff and HDL (the city’s tax consultant) provided a headline estimate the annexed area could generate about $14.2 million in annual revenue under the accounting method the city used for the preliminary sketch. The analysis assumed the county‑to‑city property‑tax split rules the county and city have used historically (the city would receive approximately 25% of local property‑tax shares that remain after special‑district allocations) and noted some property‑tax portions for library and fire move automatically on annexation. Staff told council they used compensation and budget figures effective July 1, 2025, in the projection.

Residents press for more outreach, question petition validity More than two dozen county residents used the public‑comment period to urge the council to slow the process and hold town halls. Roxanne Partita, who identified herself as an unincorporated resident, said, "We do not want to be annexed," and raised questions about notification of property owners and local services such as trash, water and septic. Connie Coronado, another resident, urged the council to closely examine staffing and timing, saying cost and staffing demands "will not come fast enough" to meet service needs.

Several speakers said the petition signatures were collected years earlier and questioned whether consents were still valid or representative. One commenter referred to LAFCO protest rules: "State law indicates that if a written protest is filed by 25 to 50% of the registered voters or landowners, then an election is required; if it is greater than 50% the annexation is denied without election," she said.

Petitioner representative and petitioners’ priorities Representatives of Hemet Unified asked the city to supply zoning, fiscal and service data the petitioners need to prepare a formal LAFCO application. A petitioner representative said the effort aims to secure local representation and planning oversight for rapidly changing parts of the valley and urged multiple town halls and continued cooperation between city and county. Debbie Green, who spoke at the meeting and identified herself with the petition group, urged residents concerned about county projects (such as a recently discussed county homeless site) to consider the proposed route of more local representation.

Council action and next steps After receiving the staff briefing and public comment, council voted unanimously to refer the necessary pre‑annexation zoning actions to the planning commission so the city’s zoning would match the county general plan designations if annexation proceeds. The motion was moved and seconded and passed 5–0. City Manager Mark Fleswig said staff will provide the data package online and requested additional meetings with Riverside County executives.

What council did not decide No final decision on annexation was made at the meeting. Council stopped short of a formal approval of any annexation plan; the referral to the planning commission is a procedural step to ensure pre‑zoning is available to support any future LAFCO application. City staff cautioned the financial and operational figures were preliminary and that many details — including asset transfers, start‑up capital needs, and contractual arrangements for utilities and special districts — remain to be negotiated with Riverside County and developed by the petitioner.

The council directed staff to compile the data packet presented to the public and to continue follow‑up meetings with county officials and the petitioner. The city also said it would publish the supporting calculations and the staff assumptions used in the projections so residents and stakeholders can review the source material.

Ending: The council left the matter open for further study, asked staff to post the underlying data, and said it would hold additional public engagement before taking any substantive final actions on the annexation petition.