Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Hemet council they oppose proposed annexation, question transparency and fiscal assumptions
Summary
Multiple speakers during public comment urged the council to halt or reconsider a proposed annexation of unincorporated areas, raising issues about transparency, timing, fiscal impact and public safety. A petition and past certifications to LAFCO were discussed by speakers; no council action on annexation was taken at the meeting.
A large group of residents used the public-comment period at the Oct. 28 Hemet City Council meeting to oppose a proposed annexation of nearby unincorporated areas and to criticize the city’s outreach and fiscal assumptions.
Several speakers said they had not been adequately notified and questioned statements in a staff report that described the petition as “several months” old. Public commenter Connie Coronado said she had filed a public-records request and argued the petition actually dates to 2022: “It was not several months ago, in fact, it was 3 years ago,” Coronado said, adding she was told the registrar of voters certified 1,089 sufficient signatures on April 4, 2022.
Other speakers raised concerns about water, open space, wildfire and traffic, and argued Hemet should address downtown blight, homelessness and infrastructure before expanding boundaries. Dr. Murphy, speaking on behalf of organized opponents, cited an online petition and more than 2,300 signatures on a change.org campaign opposing annexation and said residents fear higher taxes and reduced services.
Speakers asked whether the city had billed petitioners for staff time and outside-agency fees and noted a staff estimate in the report of new recurring general fund revenue offset by projected staffing and capital costs. The city did not vote on annexation that night; council members did not introduce an action item on annexation during the meeting.
City staff and the city attorney were asked about the underlying documents referenced in the staff report, including a LAFCO certificate of sufficiency. The city attorney and city staff did not present new, city-held documentary evidence to the council during the public-comment discussion; speakers said they had requested records from LAFCO and the registrar of voters.
The comments will likely be part of the public record as staff continues any review or consideration of annexation issues.
