Yuba City annexation sparks debate among residents

The annexation proposal of a 625-acre Sutter County “keyhole” parcel into Yuba City sparked several concerns with residents of and around the area.

Some 40 people attended the Local Agency Formation Commission public hearing Sept. 22. Most were against the annexation, but the commission unanimously approved it.

Those who spoke offered many reasons for the commission to approve or deny the proposal, from the difference in marijuana ordinances to taking on the city’s pension liability debt.

Darin Gale, Yuba City’s Economic Growth and Public Affairs manager, has said a main driver of the push to annex is bringing the area under the service umbrella of the Police Department. He said if the annexation proposal goes through, the city would hire five officers,

one community service officer and one dispatcher.

Helen Bozzo, a resident of La Ramada, which is in the annexation zone, said a key issue for her opposition is the change in police service. She referenced the addition of police staff but said that during the public hearing, Gale said the police beats would be re-drawn to incorporate the new officers – that all five would not be policing the annexed area alone. The Walton area would also be included in this new service area, per a 2000 master tax agreement.

“It’s very misleading,” Bozzo said Thursday. “How many are we really going to have?”

Gale said Friday that there are currently five city police beats. With the annexation, five new officers would be hired, and another beat would be added, which would include the Walton area.

At any given time there will be one officer patrolling each beat, in addition to the five other officers and one sergeant on duty in the city available to provide assistance, Gale said.

He said the beats are not based on square miles, but rather on other factors like call volume and population.

He said the city is 14 square miles with those five police beats, and with the annexation, that would grow to 15 square miles with six beats.

Three Sutter County sheriff deputies are available at any given time to respond to a 608-square mile area, including the annexation area, he said.

In addition to questioning the number of officers who would be available, Bozzo said she was happy with the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department.

“Right now, we have three sheriff’s (deputies) patrolling our area,” Bozzo said. “We’ve never had a problem with the Sheriff’s Department responding within minutes.”

Tony Galyean, who lives on Hunn Road, on the other hand, welcomes the idea of the annexation. He said he is looking forward to the policing service provided by the city.

“The great concentration you have of peace officers in an area … is a great deterrent to crime, the speedier the response, and the better a relationship (with the residents),” Galyean said Thursday.

He also said the back fence of his home forms the boundary of the city and county.

“If we were annexed into the city, it would put to rest any uncertainty of which agency responds (to a call),” Galyean said.

Dan Weber, a resident of South Palora Avenue, opposes the annexation and said there is no benefit for residents to join the city.

“I’m not buying that officers are going to spend their time in our area,” Weber said Thursday.

Gale said during the public hearing that residents who use septic systems would not be forced to connect to city water or sewer but have the choice.

Bozzo said if a resident were to connect to city water, it would not only be extremely expensive, but she understood the entire neighborhood had to pay and join the city, not just the one home. She said this is also true if residents want to put in sidewalks and lighting.

Gale said Friday any resident who wants to install a sewer line to connect to the city’s wastewater would have to pay. He said the sewer connection fee runs $6,543.91 and doesn’t include the necessary infrastructure, and each resident’s cost could be different. But he said replacing a septic tank with a new engineered one can also be costly.

“I knew the cost can be similar,” Gale said. (A quick online search for installing a septic tank system said the cost could run from $4,000 to $14,000.)

Weber said the area’s roads are regularly paved and look new, and questioned the city’s ability to keep up the area.

“Yuba City can’t even fix Bridge Street,” Weber said.

Like Bozzo, he also mentioned the cost of connection to city water.

“They’re behind on everything; they’re behind on finances,” Weber said. “The city should be in the black with how much they’re charging.”

Galyean believes because residents already pay for some city services like fire and water, being annexed into the city would give them representation they don’t currently have.

“I don’t get to vote in citywide elections; I don’t have a voice as it is,” Galyean said.

David Kuhnen said the possibility of connecting to city wastewater hasn’t been a factor for him to oppose the annexation.

“I have septic ... (and) I get to stay on septic,” Kuhnen said Friday. “There’s just this panic that we’re going to have to shell out thousands and thousands of dollars ... that’s not the case.”

Ozz Diessner, who owns a home on Briar Lane, said one of the key factors contributing to his opposition is the pension liability residents’ would take on by joining the city.

“I don’t think it’s right,” Diessner said.

Kuhnen doesn’t agree with some opponents’ views on pension liability.

“I think it’s ridiculous,” Kuhnen said Friday. “There’s never been a jurisdiction that’s pushed pension liability on their residents – that’s where the state comes in.”

Gale said during the Sept. 22 public hearing and a previous interview that through water and fire services those residents receive from the city, they are actually already paying into the pension liability, as well as indirectly through the 1 percent sales tax that goes back to the city, which in part also goes to fund the pension liability.

In a phone interview Friday, Gale said that since the pension system is backed by California, the entire state is on the hook for all pension liability.

“It’s not like a property has burden on it,” Gale said Friday.