County Favors New Policy on Incorporation

San Diego County supervisors gave an informal nod Tuesday to a change in their policy toward annexations--a policy that now encourages urban areas to incorporate or be annexed to neighboring communities.

Chief County Administrator Clifford Graves proposed a policy of “neutrality” toward future incorporation efforts, pointing out that the county had “taken a bath” from recent annexations and incorporations, losing about $15 million in revenues annually to the newly formed communities. Although they took no action on the proposal, all five supervisors spoke favorably about Graves’ suggestion.

Graves said the county should investigate each incorporation proposal individually, determine how it would affect the county and attempt to persuade local incorporation groups to follow logical boundaries that would not leave

unincorporated gaps in the midst of incorporated areas.

He suggested that the board members might want to consider incentives for communities not to incorporate.

Incentives could include more local voice in planning decisions, which Graves said was a “prime reason” for incorporation moves; provision for higher levels of urban services; recognition of individual community needs and desires, such as social services or roads, and county help in financing local improvements.

But Graves warned the incentives offered by the county to prevent incorporation could cause “undue competition” among urbanizing areas seeking county benefits.

Supervisor Susan Golding, who earlier argued against the county policy favoring incorporation efforts, said Tuesday, “I have felt for some time that major revisions were needed in the (incorporation) policy.”

She called Graves’ report and recommendations “a good first step” in formulating a long-range policy on incorporations that would spell out strict requirements.

Golding and Supervisor George Bailey had attacked as “too vague” an earlier county staff study that showed that unincorporated urbanized areas were bringing in more tax revenues than they were receiving in services.

But county staff members pointed out that the county came out about even when incorporations occurred because the loss of state and federal revenues was offset by the decrease in county services demanded from the incorporating areas.

Bailey said Tuesday that current county policy does not take into account the long-range consequences of incorporations and annexations. He said the policy has allowed cities to annex tax-generating areas while leaving in the county the areas that generate less revenue but still demand services.

Bailey said he doubted that the county could curb “the ability of established cities to pick off the sales tax sites” for annexation and ignore the surrounding properties with less tax-producing ability.

Supervisor Brian Bilbray warned that the county may have to withdraw aid to unincorporated areas unless the communities are willing to pay for additional services.

The county report and recommendations will be distributed to community planning groups, Graves said, and a public hearing will be conducted before the Board of Supervisors takes official action on changing or reaffirming its policy on incorporation.