Sacramento exploring annexation of Arden-Arcade, Natomas and South Sacramento

urban_encounter · #1 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 2:25 PM**

City exploring annexation of Arden Arcade
Despite incorporation bid, a councilman says merger
would be a better option.
By Ed Fletcher - Bee Staff Writer
Last Updated 6:33 am PDT Monday, April 23, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1

Arden Arcade is a popular place.

Some residents are fighting to incorporate it. County officials desperately want to keep the revenue generated there. And now, some city of Sacramento elected leaders say the city should consider annexing the unincorporated county turf.

Sacramento City Councilman Steve Cohn said he respects cityhood backers' desire to break from the county but said he has an alternative.

"There is a an even better option, and that is annexing into the city of Sacramento," Cohn said.

Earlier this month, cityhood advocates were told their petition drive was successful, clearing the way for an intensive incorporation study and keeping a November 2008 election in sight.

Because Sacramento borders Arden Arcade to the east, north and south, annexing the 13.3-square-mile area east of the Arden Fair mall would create a "more seamless efficient government," Cohn said.

The city hasn't officially launched an annexation effort, but the council did authorize staff members to study the issue.

It also asked staff members to consider for annexation some areas of Natomas and south Sacramento.

The discussion about what's best for Arden Arcade illuminates a larger debate over whether the region is best served by larger regionally thinking governments or smaller governments with a careful eye on local neighborhoods.

Joel Archer, chairman of the cityhood campaign, said Arden Arcade residents aren't interested in I Street City Hall running things.

"Arden Arcade does not want to be a part of the city of Sacramento. The community does not want another downtown government," Archer said.

"What Arden Arcade wants is to be safer, cleaner (streets) and a more responsive government."

But that feeling is not absolute among residents.

Steve Eggert, a recent addition to the Arden Arcade community council, says small governments can result in parochial decision-making that doesn't take the wider community into account.

"I'm against Balkanization. I strongly favor annexation," Eggert said.

Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said he doesn't want to lose Arden Arcade to either self-incorporation or annexation into the city.

"It continues to make sense for Arden Arcade to continue to be part of the unincorporated part of the county," Dickinson said.

He said the cost effectiveness for providing police protection, fixing streets and picking up garbage is diminished as chunks of the unincorporated area are removed.

Still, if Arden Arcade were determined to change governance, Dickinson said, he finds annexation would be less onerous than incorporation.

"If we keep chopping up the county into more and more jurisdictions, it will have an adverse effect on the ability of the county and the region as a whole to come to agreement on issues."

As a former member of the local intergovernmental agency in charge of the incorporation process, Sacramento City Councilwoman Lauren Hammond said she helped clear the way for two of the region's new cities -- and doesn't regret her actions.

All the same, she said she's "growing increasingly concerned about the number of new cities."

She said cities need to work together.

"We are going to have to learn to be more regional, from water to solid waste," Hammond said.

As for Arden Arcade, Hammond said annexation might make sense.

"You talk to folks in Arden Arcade, and many don't know they don't live in the city," Hammond said.

"It might be better to just annex and square off our borders over time."

Cohn suggests the environmental study and fiscal analysis triggered by the incorporation petition also should study the merits and cost of annexation as an alternative. But annexation requires separate action.

Sacramento County Executive Terry Schutten said in a statement released last week that given the city's possible interest, "it stands to reason" that annexation should be studied as an alternative.

Peter Brundage, executive director of the Local Agency Formation Commission, said it's not clear how thoroughly the annex- ation possibility will be examined as part of the current process. He didn't know how much such a study would increase costs and who would pick up the tab.

He stressed, however, that annexation requires a separate proposal before LAFCO considers it.

"The proposal is an incorporation. It's not one or the other," Brundage said.

But while incorporation re- quires a vote of the people, annexation -- once revenue agreements between the city and county are made -- could proceed without an election.

Archer said cityhood backers shouldn't have to pay to study annexation.

"Why should we have to pay to research an alternative that the community doesn't want?" he said.

goldcntry · #2 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 3:03 PM**

And once again... Rosemont, the red-headed step-children that we are, is unwanted for annexation by anyone...

Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place...

Rosemont: Stuck between Sacramento and Rancho Cordova

urban_encounter · #3 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 3:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldcntry

And once again... Rosemont, the red-headed step-children that we are, is unwanted for annexation by anyone...

Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place...

Rosemont: Stuck between Sacramento and Rancho Cordova

I think the city council is exploring all unicorporated urbanized areas within the city's sphere of influence (and i would bet that Rosemont would be included in that study.)

I don't think that Rosemont is within the Rancho Cordova's sphere of influence as recognized by LAFCO..

I'm just curious why they didn't move to study annexation a lot sooner??

Frankly I'm surprised that the city is interested in doing this now. Since North Sacramento was last annexed, (I believe) the city had moved away from annexing older urbanized areas of the county and only seemed to show interest in newer neighborhoods and undeveloped land (ie.. the "Northern Territories")...

reggiesquared · #4 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 4:12 PM**

What kind of population increase would result of a hypothetical annexation of arden-arcade? And or north / south sac (What areas does that even mean?)

ozone · #5 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 4:53 PM**

Of course, as you know I'm very interested in this topic. I don't think simple annexation is acceptable to anyone -considering the fate of North Sacramento. However the balkinization of Sacramento County will only hurt the region IMO and it means that Sacramento will end up no different than LA of San Jose. That's why I think we need a restructuring of the city and not simple annexation.

Sacdelicious · #6 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 5:57 PM**

According to everyone's favorite source, Wikipedia, the population of Arden-Arcade is around 83,000.

urban_encounter · #7 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by reggiesquared

What kind of population increase would result of a hypothetical annexation of arden-arcade? And or north / south sac (What areas does that even mean?)

There are now approximately 650,000 (+/-) people living in the unicorproated parts of the county known as "The Un-City"" of Sacramento

Sacramento County total population 1,374,724 (2006)

City of Sacramento 458,00
City of Elk Grove 120,000 (+)
City of Citrus Heights 85,400 (+)
City of Folsom 51,300 (+)
City of Galt 19,550 (+)
City of Isleton 840 (+)
Rancho Cordova 55,000 (+)

2000 census information for the unincorporated parts of the county...

Antelope 36,421

Arden-Arcade 96,025

Carmichael 49,742

Fair Oaks 28,008

Florin 27,653

Foothill Farms 17,426

Gold River 8,023

Herald unavailable

La Riviera 10,273

Laguna West-Lakeside 8,414 (Elk Grove Sphere of Influence)

Locke unavailable

North Highlands 44,187

Orangevale 26,705

Parkway-South Sacramento 36,468

Rancho Murieta 4,193

Rio Linda 10,466

Rosemont 22,904

Vineyard 10,109 (Elk Grove eyeing for future annexation)

Walnut Grove 669

Wilton 4,551

Arden Arcade had approximately 96,205 residents in 2000, so i would assume they are nearly around the same (maybe right at 100,000?),

South Sacramento (Parkway and Florin combined): 64,121

So that's approximmately 164,121 (+) residents in Arden Arcade and South Sacramento, not inlcuding Rosemont or any other locales within the county, that could become city residents. By annexing Arden-Arcade and South Sacramento, the City of Sacramento would instantly become the fourth largest municipailty in the state with an adjusted population of 621,121 (and assuming no other unincorporated neighborhoods are included)

I did place in bold letters, those unicorporated parts of the county that could be looked at by the city for annexation due to their proximity to the city or because they have already been part of the pseudo city for a long time (like North Highlands, La Riveria and Foothill Farms)..

Another alternative to more balkanization would be for Sacramento County to incorporate itself into a Metro City (Think Metro Dade).. That would allow it to collect Vehicle Licensing Fees that cities traditonally collect (i think that's still the case in California). Although we would effectively have two cities of Sacramento. Though this senario is highly unlikely since it would make more sense for the existing municipalities to annex the remaining urbanized areas of the County.

I think that unless Sacramento is going to be carved up into more competitive jurisdictions, Sacramento City is going to have to start annexing. I think they've watched Elk Grove and Folsom stake their claims in LAFCO for long enough and now the city has finally decided to study the idea.

urban_encounter · #8 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone

Of course, as you know I'm very interested in this topic. I don't think simple annexation is acceptable to anyone -considering the fate of North Sacramento. However the balkinization of Sacramento County will only hurt the region IMO and it means that Sacramento will end up no different than LA of San Jose. That's why I think we need a restructuring of the city and not simple annexation.

I think that if the city were to annex Arden-Arcade and South Sacramento you would deifinitely see restructuring of the city.

Most likely you would see one or two additional Council members to represent the new population and i think that the city would have to guarantee an increased level of service to the new city residents, since that's why they're looking at incorporation.

You could probably expect the City to contract with the County Sheriff to provide law enforcement service until the size of the City Police force could be beffed up. Sacramento Metro Fire would also probably continue covering fire protection until Sacramento City Fire could assume fire protection and County waste services would probably continue to provide trash collection.

Equipment and personell would probably simply change logos and uniforms and would simply be abosorbed into the city. The City would probably be asked to compensate the County to some degree.

Finances might be the stubbling block to this anyway.

Can the City of Sacramento afford to assume responsibility for another 164,121 new residents???

BTW the new Sacramento City Council Chambers was built to accomodate a few addtional Council members...

otnemarcaS · #9 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 7:05 PM**

When I lived across from Cal Expo several years ago, I really had no idea that Arden-Arcade was not in the city of Sacramento even though I was somewhere in AA almost every day. Like Hammond said in the artcle, there's probably a whole lot of folks living in AA that don't know either. While it is a pretty dense area population wise, the size (21 sq miles) and boundaries of Arden-Arcade really makes me feel that the community should be annexed as part of Sacramento.

urban_encounter · #10 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 7:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by otnemarcaS

When I lived across from Cal Expo several years ago, I really had no idea that Arden-Arcade was not in the city of Sacramento even though I was somewhere in AA almost every day. Like Hammond said in the artcle, there's probably a whole lot of folks living in AA that don't know either. While it is a pretty dense area population wise, the size (21 sq miles) and boundaries of Arden-Arcade really makes me feel that the community should be annexed as part of Sacramento.

That's the same problem with parts of South Sacramento/Florin and Fruitridge.

In fact I had to inform a couple of my friends who bought a house over off of 40th Avenue last year that they lived in the county and not the city.
They were quite surprised, but honestly i don't think that they care one way or the other.

They live in one the unincorporated pockets, that if you were to head in just about any direction (north/south/east or west) you cross back into the city limits.

urban_encounter · #11 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 8:12 PM**

Editorial: Fruitridge's Uncity
Water problems point to neglected 'pocket'
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, April 23, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B4

An old water main broke the other day in a neighborhood known as Fruitridge Vista, outside Sacramento's city limits. The gushing water started to flood nearby yards and garages. The Sacramento Fire Department showed up, but it didn't know how to turn off the water mains.

Firefighters called the small private water company that provides water to the area. They had to leave a message. Eventually the Fruitridge Vista Water Co. realized it had a problem. Once again, the company and firefighters pledge better communications.

Yes, the incident exposed a glitch in the water company's 24-hour customer service system but, more important, the problems of government boundaries and government services.

This community, part of what is known as the Fruitridge Pocket, belongs in the city of Sacramento. Its services, including water, should be provided by the city. Its leader should be a member of the Sacramento City Council fighting hard for the community, just as Bonnie Pannell does for Meadowview and Lauren Hammond for Oak Park.

On a map, the area juts like a strange finger surrounded largely on three sides by Sacramento. The tip is to the north, at 14th Avenue. And then it jigs southward, bordered at times by Stockton Boulevard to the east and the old Western Pacific railroad tracks to the west.

If city limits were drawn sensibly for residents, fire departments and water providers, this pocket wouldn't exist. A key southern boundary for Sacramento would be moved, possibly to Florin Road or beyond. It would take some experts at the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission to help figure that out.

In any unincorporated community, there are longtime residents who don't want to join anything. The turf of the water company and some small government districts would be challenged. The same goes for Sacramento County, nominally in charge of that area. It is far easier to neglect the struggling neighborhoods of the Fruitridge Pocket than for Sacramento to try to adopt them.

Maybe, however, Sacramento leaders will find the gumption to take on this project. The city is reviewing its growth document, known as the general plan. So it's the right time to consider boundary changes.

The Fruitridge Pocket neither makes sense on a map nor in reality. When the Fire Department doesn't know how to turn off a water main or whom to call, that is a sign of a dysfunctional community. This community needs a home and a government looking after the people who live there.

ltsmotorsport · #12 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 11:03 PM**

I can't believe this has taken this long to come back to the attention of the City of Sacramento (or can I

). This, along with the other areas talked about in the article, should have been annexed 10+ years ago. Now they'll have a fight on their hands from provincial-thinking homeowners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Because Sacramento borders Arden Arcade to the east, north and south, annexing the 13.3-square-mile area east of the Arden Fair mall would create a "more seamless efficient government," Cohn said...

...Steve Eggert, a recent addition to the Arden Arcade community council, says small governments can result in parochial decision-making that doesn't take the wider community into account...

"I'm against Balkanization. I strongly favor annexation," Eggert said...

...Dickinson said, he finds annexation would be less onerous than incorporation...

..."If we keep chopping up the county into more and more jurisdictions, it will have an adverse effect on the ability of the county and the region as a whole to come to agreement on issues."...

...she said she's "growing increasingly concerned about the number of new cities."...

..."We are going to have to learn to be more regional, from water to solid waste," Hammond said...

...As for Arden Arcade, Hammond said annexation might make sense...

Excellent reasons why annexation is the best option for the region as a whole, not just a small portion of the population.

urban_encounter · #13 Posted **Apr 24, 2007, 3:28 AM**

Map of current city limits.

Map of possible annexation (city study area). Arden-Arcade, N. Natomas and South Sacramento (shaded in black) btw this was my handy work so the city could explore additional unicorproated portions of these areas or less. But at least it will give everyone idea where exactly the city is looking at.

Mike I agree with you that the city has been too indecisive for so many years and has essentially sat back and allowed smaller and newer cities to go on a territorial feeding frenzy. The City at one time had eyed West Laguna, but because of the way things move in Sacramento government, Elk Grove laid quick claim to that area.

The cities of Folsom and Elk Grove are seeking to move unincorporated areas of the county into their spheres of influence in LAFCO (the first step to annexation) and Sacramento City leaders may want a piece of th pie themselves.

I think they really see it as an opportunity to "square off" the "borders" of the city as Lauren Hammond said.

In any case, I believe that Arden-Arcade will probably end up incorporating into their own city. But in the case of South Sacramento and the unincorporated areas of North Natomas, I think you may see those areas annexed into the city within the next 5 years... (Or that's my prediction)..

Now if the cityhood drive were to fail in Arden-Arcade, then that might open the door for Sacramento to annex that area. But it would be the height of arrogance for Sacramento to move to annex them, while they're trying to incorporate.

Of course were Arden-Arcade a Chicago neighborhood, then they could kiss their incorporation efforts goodbye, because they would be annexed one night while they slept and wake up Chicagoans.....

ltsmotorsport · #14 Posted **Apr 24, 2007, 4:03 AM**

That's what I want Sacramento to do.

Originally, when Sacramento was fumbling around with annexation talks, the south eastern city limits would be bound by Calvine to the south, and Bradshaw to the east. I agree with the guys in Rosemont that they should also be thought of in this round of talk, but who knows if it will happen.

foxmtbr · #15 Posted **Apr 24, 2007, 5:41 AM**

^ I wouldn't mind if they snagged Gold River while they're at it.

ltsmotorsport · #16 Posted **Apr 24, 2007, 7:19 AM**

Naw, that's Rancho's job.

urban_encounter · #17 Posted **Apr 24, 2007, 2:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by foxmtbr

^ I wouldn't mind if they snagged Gold River while they're at it.

ltsmotorsport's right, Gold River (if memory serves me correctly is in Rancho Cordova's sphere of influence as recognized by LAFCO. Also Gold River doesn't border Sacramento's City limits...

futurearchie317 · #18 Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 4:05 AM**

Is Carmichael not a city?? Because I know people write Carmichael on mail whereas you would write Sacramento if you lived in an unincorporated area of Sacramento County. In any case, I really think Watt ave. would provide a good eastern boundary for the city. Just seems less arbitrary I guess.

Random thought: Is anyone else annoyed by the inherently unurban sound of "Elk Grove". I mean it has 120,000 people. (yes I realize its really suburban btw)

ltsmotorsport · #19 Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 7:47 AM**

Yeah, Watt Ave always seemed like a natural eastern limit to me too.

And no Carmichael isn't a city. Just like Fair Oaks, Orangevale, and Rio Linda.

TWAK · #20 Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 8:16 AM**

are those places you listed in the city? I see them everyday at work (UPS)
good to know that I'm actually in the city (south pocket/greenhaven)