Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 5 ANNEXATION 121 03-02-81DATE: TO: FROH: SUBJECT: March 2, 1981 NEW BUSINESS No. 5 3-2-81 Inter-Corn Honorable Mayor and City Council Members R.K. Fleagle, Co~nunity Development Consultant Annexation #121 (Irvine-Dean St.) Section 35066 of the Municipal Organization Act authorizes the City Council or any member or members authorized by it to file a written argument for an annexation proposal. If the City Council does not file an argument for the annexation, individual voters of the area may file an argument for the annexat ion. The argument may not exceed 300 words and must be filed with the City Clerk by March 13, 1981. Attached is a draft argument for the proposed annexation. The options available to the City Council are: 1. Determine if one, two, or all members of Council desire to sign the ballot argument. 2. Determine if there are changes to be made in the draft argument and designate a member of the Council to revise the draft. 3. Determine if the opportunity should be provided to initiating proponents of the annexation to submit the ballot argument in lieu of the Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION Determine if the draft argument should be amended and assign the responsibility. 2. Determine who should sign the ballot argument. Respectfully submitted, Community Development Consultant RKF/hn DRAFT ARGUMENT FOR ANNEXATION This annexation was requested by residents of the area because they would have much to gain and nothing to lose. GAINS FROM ANNEXATION: 1. Police patrol with a three minute emergency response. 2. Refuse service at no cost to the residents. 3. Street sweeping service. 4. Recreation programs and the use of parks and public build- ings. A direct and effective voice in the affairs of the community. An opportunity to vote and be elected to a city office. If there is a nuisance, complaint, need for service, or request for information, you can call City Hall and receive an immediate response. It costs less to be a city resident. The tax rate and assessed value are the same for city and county residents. The average city property owner pays $5.60 per year for parks and civic center bonds but still has a net savings of $30.00 per year in the cost of city residency. POTENTIAL LOSSES FROM FAILURE TO ANNEX 1. Proposed service charges for county residents resulting in in- creased living costs. 2. Requirement to pay annexation costs at a later date. 3. Loss of participation in recreation programs and use of facilities. e Surrounded by the city but not part nor having an effective voice in community affairs. Lower level of services and loss of opportunity to gain city services in the event of an emergency or catastrophe. CONCLUSIONS Residents by their "No" vote can say that they want nothing to do with the city. You have the opportunity to state your choice with knowledge of the potential consequences. On a rational basis, there is nothing to lose by a "Yes" vote for annexation and no logical reason for not being a part of the city. The majority vote of those voting will determine the future costs and service levels for your area. Signatures: PRO ANNIEXAT[ON ARGUI~ENT The undersigned residents of the area requested annexation to the city because we would have much to gain from being in the city and nothing to lose. We would gain the benefits of police patrol with an average of a 3 minute emergency response. In the event of a major catastrophe or merely a request for information, we can call City Hall and receive immediate attention. We can gain the benefits of street sweeping, tree trimming and refuse service at no additional cost. Park and recreation programs and the use of public buildings would be at reduced costs. We can vote in city elections and have an effective voice in the affairs of our community. We would receive better services with no increase in costs. The tax rate and assessed value is the same for'cii~y and county residents. The average residence would pay $5.60 per year for park and civic center bonds but we would still save $30.00 per year as a result of free refuse service. The probability of county service charges on a user fee basis makes city residency even more attractive. We are identified with Tustin by mail address, school system, and community of interests. We should be a full partner with the citizenship benefits that result from annexation. There is no logical reason for not being a part of the city. We urge you to vote "Yes" in your own best interests, Bob Johnson 13222 Woodland Ruth Pegau 13061 Wreath Jim Roy 13071 Dean 1 4 § 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O Zl 22 24 26 28 29 50 32 RESOLUTION NO. 81-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING A CITY MEASURE WHEREAS, a special annexation election is to be held in the City of Tustin, California, on June 2, 1981, at which there will be submitted to the duly registered voters residing is said territory the following measure: Shall the area known as "Irvine Blvd.-Dean Street Annexation No. 121" be annexed to the City of Tustin? NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That this City Council, being the legislative body of the City of Tustin, hereby authorizes DONALD J. SALTARELLI RICHARD B. EDGAR RONALD B. HOESTEREY URSULA KENNEDY JAM~ES B. SHARP members of said body, to file a written argument in favor of the City mea- sure set forth in the recitals hereof in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 5 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change said argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against said City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Tustin on the 2nd day of March, 1981. MAYOR CITY CLERK