Received After Agenda Printed
August 18, 2026 - City Council Meeting
Item No. 17 Correspondence
Murrieta Annexation Feasibility Study — Agenda Item #17, Murrieta City Council Meeting, August 18, 2026
Review of the City Council Agenda Report, proposed RSG scope, and verified related public records.
Prepared by Christi White
Introduction
This Review identifies material concerns, questions, unresolved topics, and potential downstream consequences associated with the proposed Annexation Feasibility Study. It distinguishes between: (1) what the August 18 Agenda Report states; (2) verified information from current City, LAFCO, legal, and other public sources; and (3) information that remains unresolved or warrants further consideration. The Review is not intended to predetermine whether annexation should ultimately be pursued, but to identify information that may be important to the City Council's and Public's understanding before action is taken.
The August 18 proposed action would not approve annexation. It would authorize a professional services agreement with RSG, Inc. (RSG) to evaluate the feasibility of potential annexation scenarios and, if later authorized, provide LAFCO support. Phase 1 is intended to inform a later City Council decision regarding whether proceeding with annexation is in the City's fiscal and operational interest.
A feasibility study is appropriately intended to develop information that is not yet known, including projected revenues, additional service costs, fiscal impacts, and long-term financial consequences associated with the potential annexation scenarios. However, certain baseline information is already known or reasonably available to the City and could have been provided to Council and the Public before authorization of the study. This includes:
• the basis for the approximately $5 million annual Fire Station No. 6 operating-cost estimate; • existing or previously contemplated funding sources for those operations, including Measure T and other fire/public-safety revenues;
• expenditures and financial commitments already made toward Fire Station No. 6; and • the City's current estimate of the remaining annual funding shortfall, if one has been calculated.
The Agenda Report does not explain why this baseline information was omitted, whether Staff considered it necessary to Council's initial consideration of the proposal, or when it will be presented for Public review. This raises a broader threshold question underlying this Review: What information should reasonably be available to Council and the Public before the City authorizes an annexation feasibility study, as distinguished from information that legitimately requires the study itself to determine? The Agenda Report also provides limited discussion of several broader considerations associated with evaluating a potentially significant governmental boundary change, including the meaning and implications of annexation and the Sphere of Influence (SOI); the history and existing funding of Fire Station No. 6; service reciprocity with Riverside County Fire/CAL FIRE; Council-district and redistricting implications and costs; and public engagement during the feasibility process. These and other matters are addressed in the sections that follow.
Before authorizing the proposed $91,010 expenditure, Council may wish to consider whether this additional factual foundation should first be provided—or whether Staff should explain why particular information is not presently available or necessary—so that Council and the Public may better understand the circumstances underlying the proposed study and the potential consequences of proceeding.
A related threshold question concerns the foreseeable costs of pursuing annexation itself. If we're exploring annexation because we're concerned about how to pay for a major ongoing expense, shouldn't we first identify—at least approximately—the additional expenses we could incur by pursuing annexation?
Topics
Summary Points (Read this if you read nothing else.)
I. What is Actually Proposed on August 18, 2026
Murrieta Annexation Feasibility Study — Agenda Item #17, Murrieta City Council Meeting, August 18, 2026
Review of the City Council Agenda Report, proposed RSG scope, and verified related public records.
Prepared by Christi White
II. Foundational concern: The Agenda Report may not adequately ‘set the table’ III. Fire Station No. 6 and the financial rationale
IV. Service reciprocity and automatic aid
V. Governance and Council district consequences
VI. Principal concerns with the August 18, 2026 Agenda Report VII. Questions for Staff/RSG/City Council/City Manager
VIII. Open/unresolved topics requiring further verification IX. Conclusions
Source notes
Summary Points (If you only read a portion of this document, start here.) • The Agenda Report explains why staff wants to study annexation, but it does not first define the two foundational concepts at issue: “annexation” and “Sphere of Influence.” • Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) defines annexation as the addition of territory to a city or special district, while an SOI is LAFCO's plan for a city's probable future physical boundary and service area. Inclusion in an SOI does not itself annex the territory. [W1–W3] • The City is evaluating three geographic scenarios: the existing LAFCO-proposed area, a modified City-requested area, and full annexation of the City's SOI. [Agenda Report 1, pp. 1–2] • The City's current annexation webpage describes the exploratory area as approximately 1,740 to 3,884 acres, including Spencer's Crossing, and states that the areas being studied are currently unincorporated Riverside County within Murrieta's SOI. [W4] • Fire Station No. 6 is a principal stated driver. The Agenda Report estimates $15–20 million to construct it and approximately $5 million annually to operate it; Staff states the annual cost is not currently financially feasible for the City to absorb. [Agenda Report1, pp. 1–2] • The Agenda Report presents annexation as a potential source of new revenues to help fund the approximately $5 million annual operating cost of Fire Station No. 6, but does not provide a baseline funding-stack showing the City's existing or planned funding sources for those operating costs or identify the current estimated unfunded amount.
• Currently verified sources show existing recurring public-safety/fire revenue mechanisms that should be evaluated in that funding stack, including Measure T-related City revenues, the Fire Suppression Assessment, and CFD No. 2025-S Safety Services. The record reviewed here does not establish that any one of those sources is specifically earmarked to cover Station 6's full operating cost. [W5–W7] • The Agenda Report does not discuss Council-district representation or redistricting consequences. Murrieta's own current redistricting page states that redistricting occurs not only after the census, but also when the City annexes or gains new territory. California Elections Code §21603 provides rules for adding annexed territory to Council districts. [W8–W9] • The potential downstream/duplicative taxpayer costs of annexation-related redistricting followed relatively soon by the required post-2030 Census redistricting. • The Agenda Report's statement that unincorporated residents do not contribute certain municipal revenues is relevant, but incomplete, as a description of fire-service relationships. Murrieta's General Plan states that MFR and Riverside County Fire participate in an Automatic Aid Agreement allowing cross-boundary response in both directions. The reimbursement terms of the current agreement remain unresolved in this review. [W10]
Murrieta Annexation Feasibility Study — Agenda Item #17, Murrieta City Council Meeting, August 18, 2026
Review of the City Council Agenda Report, proposed RSG scope, and verified related public records.
Prepared by Christi White
• The unexplained change in the Station 6 annual operating estimate from approximately $3 million in 2025 to $5 million in the August 2026 Agenda Report needs written clarification. • The fact that community engagement is optional, rather than part of the core Phase 1 scope.
I. What is actually proposed on August 18, 2026
Council is being asked to authorize the study and related contract—not annex territory. The proposed agreement has a not-to-exceed amount of $91,010, funded by a transfer from the General Fund Reserve Balance. Phase 1 is $61,595; an additional $29,415 is identified if the City proceeds with the LAFCO annexation process. [Agenda Report 1, pp. 2–3]
Phase 1 includes analysis of property-tax exchange agreements, out-of-area service agreements, existing and planned service providers, service levels, City direct and indirect costs, revenue estimates, and a 10-year operating and capital forecast. RSG must present findings and recommendations to Council. [Agenda Report 1, RSG Scope/Exhibit A]
The first exploratory phase is estimated for completion in February 2027. Staff states that Council will receive the results before optional implementation services or a formal annexation application proceed. [Agenda Report 1, p. 2]
II. Foundational concern: the Agenda Report may not adequately 'set the table' A. Annexation is not defined
The Agenda Report repeatedly uses “annexation” but does not provide a plain-language definition of the governmental change being contemplated. Riverside LAFCO defines annexation as the inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or special district. [W1] To me, a reader should not have to infer that municipal annexation would move currently unincorporated territory into the City and change governmental/service responsibility subject to the LAFCO process.
B. Sphere of Influence (SOI) is not defined
This omission is particularly significant because the full SOI is one of the three study scenarios. Riverside LAFCO defines an SOI as its plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency and describes it as a planning tool. LAFCO expressly states that inclusion within an SOI does not mean an area will automatically be annexed. [W1–W3]
The map provided distinguishes the City/SOI, annexation, LAFCO-proposed annexation, and Spencer's Crossing boundaries, but the Agenda Report does not explain what each boundary represents or the governmental status of the territory within those boundaries, such as: [A1, Attachment 2]
• the existing City boundary identifies territory already incorporated into the City of Murrieta; • the SOI boundary is a LAFCO planning boundary and does not mean that territory within it is part of the City;
• territory within the SOI but outside the City remains unincorporated Riverside County; • an annexation boundary/scenario represents territory being considered for possible incorporation into Murrieta—not territory already annexed; or
• the LAFCO-proposed annexation boundary represents a particular potential annexation configuration rather than an existing governmental boundary.
C. Foundational context not provided in the Agenda Report A concise introductory section might have explained: (1) the existing City boundary; (2) the SOI as a LAFCO planning/service boundary; (3) that SOI territory outside the City remains unincorporated Riverside County territory; (4) that annexation would constitute a jurisdictional boundary change subject
Murrieta Annexation Feasibility Study — Agenda Item #17, Murrieta City Council Meeting, August 18, 2026
Review of the City Council Agenda Report, proposed RSG scope, and verified related public records.
Prepared by Christi White
There is also a related question regarding what the proposed feasibility study itself will ultimately provide.
The proposed RSG scope includes revenue estimates and a 10-year operating and capital forecast, but the Agenda Report does not expressly state that the final analysis will identify the net Fire Station No. 6 funding gap after accounting for existing City funding sources and compare how each annexation scenario would affect that gap.
Clarification is therefore warranted as to whether the final feasibility analysis will expressly identify the existing Fire Station No. 6 funding gap and quantify the extent to which each annexation scenario would reduce—or otherwise affect—that gap.
Measure T and Existing Fire & Rescue Commitments
Measure T warrants particular consideration because it is an existing recurring City revenue source that currently supports public safety, including Fire & Rescue. However, the existence of Measure T revenue should not be interpreted to mean that uncommitted Measure T funds are necessarily available for Fire Station No. 6.
Current City financial records show that Measure T revenues support substantial existing personnel, operating, capital, transfer, and other commitments. Accordingly, a meaningful assessment of Fire Station No. 6's estimated $5 million annual operating cost should identify the amount of Measure T currently supporting Fire & Rescue, the purposes for which those funds are committed, any projected future commitments, and whether the City's financial planning has contemplated any Measure T contribution toward the recurring operation of Fire Station No. 6.
The Agenda Report does not provide a clear accounting of Measure T funding that currently supports Murrieta Fire & Rescue, nor does it indicate whether Measure T was considered in Staff's conclusion that the City cannot currently absorb the approximately $5 million annual cost of operating Fire Station No. 6.
IV. Service reciprocity and automatic aid
The Agenda Report focuses on the fact that nearby unincorporated residents do not contribute certain municipal revenues used to fund City services. That is a legitimate fiscal consideration, but it is not the complete fire-service context.
Murrieta's General Plan Safety Element states that Riverside County Fire serves the SOI; Murrieta Fire & Rescue participates in an Automatic Aid Agreement with County Fire to expedite service to eastern Murrieta; and Murrieta Fire & Rescue may also provide service to the SOI through that agreement. It also states that Murrieta Fire & Rescue participates in the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement. [W10] Accordingly, the feasibility analysis should quantify the actual cross-boundary service relationship rather than assume it is one-directional. This review does not establish the current agreement's reimbursement terms; those remain an open document question.
V. Governance and Council district consequences
The Agenda Report does not discuss how annexed population would be incorporated into Murrieta's five Council districts. This is not merely a map issue; it affects representation.
Murrieta's current redistricting webpage states that redistricting occurs after the census and also when the City annexes or gains new territory. California Elections Code §21603 provides that when city boundaries expand, new territory is added to the nearest existing Council district without changing other district boundaries, subject to the statute's further provisions. [W8–W9] The study therefore should identify the population—not merely acreage—of each annexation scenario, the district assignment implications, and any resulting population deviation or later redistricting Murrieta Annexation Feasibility Study — Agenda Item #17, Murrieta City Council Meeting, August 18, 2026
Review of the City Council Agenda Report, proposed RSG scope, and verified related public records.
Prepared by Christi White
requirement. Geographic footprint alone is not the equal-representation measure; total population is the central balancing metric.
Potential Redistricting Costs and Timing
Murrieta's prior districting and redistricting processes demonstrate that changes to Council district boundaries are substantive municipal undertakings involving both direct expenditures and significant use of City resources. The City's initial transition from at-large elections to five Council districts occurred in 2017, with formal proceedings extending from approximately May through August 2017. [W11] Following the 2020 Census, the City began another redistricting process in 2021, retained Q2 Data & Research in June 2021, conducted community outreach, workshops, public hearings and mapping work, and adopted revised district boundaries in March 2022. [W12]
The potential costs of another districting or redistricting process extend beyond the fees paid to a demographer or redistricting consultant. Hard/direct costs may include demographic and mapping consultants, legal review, public noticing, community outreach, translation and accessibility services, mapping tools, GIS and election-system changes, and coordination with the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. Soft/indirect costs may include substantial City Clerk, City Attorney, GIS/IT, Communications and executive-management staff time; preparation and analysis of maps and staff reports; processing public submissions; community-of-interest analysis; public hearings and workshops; and implementation of revised district boundaries.
The timing of a potential annexation creates an additional concern. Murrieta states that redistricting occurs not only following the federal decennial census, but also when the City annexes or gains new territory. Depending upon the population, configuration and timing of a future annexation, the City could incur the costs and administrative demands of an annexation-related districting or redistricting process in the late 2020s [W8}
This creates a potential unintended or downstream financial consequence that is not addressed in the Agenda Report: Murrieta could expend taxpayer dollars and substantial staff resources on an annexation-related districting/redistricting process, only to undertake another redistricting after the 2030 U.S. Census. The post-2030 Census redistricting is a foreseeable future obligation for the City's district-based election system. Depending upon the timing of annexation, the two processes therefore could occur within a relatively short period.
The total hard and soft costs of Murrieta's prior districting/redistricting processes have not been quantified for this review and should not be represented as established historical dollar amounts.
Nevertheless, the City's prior processes demonstrate that districting and redistricting involve professional consultants, legal and administrative work, mapping, public participation and substantial City staff resources. The Agenda Report does not identify or discuss the potential cost of an annexation-related districting/redistricting process, the possibility of duplicating those expenditures shortly thereafter following the 2030 Census, or whether annexation timing could be coordinated with the post-2030 redistricting process to minimize unnecessary taxpayer expense.
VI. Principal concerns with the August 18 Agenda Report • Foundational terminology is missing. “Annexation” and “Sphere of Influence” are used without definitions, despite being essential to understanding the proposed study. • The report does not clearly explain that SOI territory outside Murrieta remains unincorporated Riverside County and is not already part of the City.
Murrieta Annexation Feasibility Study — Agenda Item #17, Murrieta City Council Meeting, August 18, 2026
Review of the City Council Agenda Report, proposed RSG scope, and verified related public records.
Prepared by Christi White
• The three scenarios are identified, but the report does not provide basic comparative metrics for each scenario such as acreage, population, parcels, assessed value, current land uses, or existing service providers.
• The approximately $5 million Station 6 annual operating figure is presented without a funding-stack analysis showing existing revenue contributions and the resulting net funding gap. • The report does not explain the historical financing strategy for Station 6 operations before annexation became an expressly stated potential revenue strategy. • The report does not discuss existing recurring fire/public-safety revenue mechanisms in the narrative rationale for annexation.
• The report does not explain the reciprocal Automatic Aid relationship between MFR and Riverside County Fire when discussing cross-boundary service benefits. • The report does not discuss Council-district assignment, population balance, representation, or redistricting implications.
• Community engagement is included as an optional scope item rather than clearly established as a required component of the Phase 1 feasibility work.
• The report requests authorization of the full $91,010 from General Fund reserves even though Phase 1 is $61,595 and later implementation/LAFCO work requires a subsequent policy decision. • The map included with the report provides boundary categories, but the map does not substitute for a narrative explanation of what each boundary means legally and operationally. • The Agenda Report does not identify the current assumptions regarding property-tax sharing or other intergovernmental financial arrangements that could materially affect the financial feasibility of annexation. These matters are instead included within RSG's proposed scope of analysis. • Fire Station No. 6 operating-cost planning has evolved without explanation in the report. City planning documents from 2025 identified approximately $3 million annually in operating expenses that would need to be set aside and indicated that the City would review interim operating models and proceed with design when ready for the ongoing financial commitment. [W13]The August 2026 Agenda Report now estimates annual operating costs at approximately $5 million but does not explain the approximately $2 million increase, the assumptions underlying either estimate, or how the City's operating-funding strategy has evolved since the property acquisition.
VII. Questions for Staff / RSG / Council
1. Please define “annexation” and “Sphere of Influence” in plain language and explain what governmental changes would and would not occur if annexation ultimately proceeds.
2. For each of the three study scenarios, what are the acreage, estimated population, number of parcels, assessed valuation, current land uses, and major planned developments?
3. Which territory is included in the existing LAFCO-proposed area, which territory is included in the modified City-requested area, and what additional territory is included in the full-SOI scenario?
4. What is the source and methodology for the approximately $5 million annual Station 6 operating-cost estimate?
5. What portion of that $5 million is personnel, benefits, apparatus/fleet, facilities, utilities, supplies, dispatch, administration, and other costs?
6. What existing revenues were assumed when staff concluded that the annual Station 6 expense is not currently financially feasible for the City to absorb?
7. What annual contributions, if any, were contemplated from Measure T, the Fire Suppression Assessment, CFD No. 2025-S, General Fund growth, development-related revenues, or other sources?
8. What is the actual projected net annual Station 6 funding gap after those existing/planned revenues are accounted for?
Murrieta Annexation Feasibility Study — Agenda Item #17, Murrieta City Council Meeting, August 18, 2026
Review of the City Council Agenda Report, proposed RSG scope, and verified related public records.
Prepared by Christi White
9. When did annexation first become an identified strategy for funding Station 6 operations, and what operating-funding strategy preceded it?
10. What are the current Automatic Aid Agreement terms between Murrieta Fire & Rescue and Riverside County Fire/CAL FIRE, including reimbursement, cost-sharing, response-area, and resource- deployment provisions?
11. How many MFR responses into the proposed annexation areas occur annually, and how many County Fire/CAL FIRE responses into Murrieta occur annually? What are the associated costs?
12. What City services would replace County services in each annexation scenario, and what are the incremental annual and capital costs by department?
13. What property-tax exchange assumptions will be used, and what happens to feasibility under alternative tax-sharing outcomes?
14. What Council district would initially receive each proposed annexation area, how many residents would be added, and what population deviation would result?
15. Would any scenario require or warrant further Council-district boundary adjustments, and what process/timing would apply?
16. Why is community outreach optional rather than part of the core Phase 1 feasibility scope, particularly for existing residents of the unincorporated study areas?
17. Why authorize the full $91,010 now rather than only the $61,595 Phase 1 amount and return for a separate appropriation if Council later elects to proceed?
18. What objective decision criteria will Council use in February 2027 to determine whether annexation is fiscally and operationally in Murrieta's best interest?
19. What amount of Measure T currently supports Fire & Rescue operations, what existing and projected commitments are associated with those funds, and was any current or future Measure T contribution to Fire Station No. 6 assumed when Staff determined that its approximately $5 million annual operating cost is not currently financially feasible for the City to absorb?
20. When the City originally identified Fire Station No. 6 as a necessary capital facility, later selected the Clinton Keith Park-and-Ride location, committed funding, and acquired the property [W14], what was the City's documented plan for financing the station's ongoing operating costs.
21. When did annexation of Spencer's Crossing and/or the northeastern Sphere of Influence first become part of that funding strategy (as referred to in Question 20 above)?
22. Given that Murrieta will be required to redistrict following the 2030 Census, could the timing of a potential annexation require the City to undertake a separate district-assignment or redistricting process beforehand; if so, what are the estimated direct and indirect costs of that process, and could the annexation timetable be coordinated with the post-2030 Census redistricting to avoid unnecessary duplication of taxpayer expense?
23. Fire Station No. 6 Operating-Cost Planning Has Evolved Without Explanation in the Agenda Report.
City planning documents from 2025 identified approximately $3 million annually in operating expenses that would need to be set aside and indicated that the City would review interim operating models and proceed with design when ready for the ongoing financial commitment. The August 2026 Agenda Report now estimates annual operating costs at approximately $5 million but does not explain the approximately $2 million increase, the assumptions underlying either estimate, or how the City's operating-funding strategy has evolved since the property acquisition.
Murrieta Annexation Feasibility Study — Agenda Item #17, Murrieta City Council Meeting, August 18, 2026
Review of the City Council Agenda Report, proposed RSG scope, and verified related public records.
Prepared by Christi White
24. Before authorizing the $91,010 feasibility study, has the City prepared any preliminary estimate of the reasonably foreseeable downstream costs associated with pursuing annexation—including districting/redistricting, legal, administrative, LAFCO, public-engagement, implementation, and staff costs—and, if not, why not? Let’s do the basic arithmetic that can reasonably be done before deciding whether spending $91,010 on the annexation feasibility study makes fiscal sense.
VIII. Suggestions for open / unresolved topics requiring verification • Exact net annual funding gap for Fire Station 6 after all existing/planned revenue sources. • Historical Council/staff record showing when annexation first became part of the Station 6 operating- funding strategy.
• Current Automatic Aid Agreement between Murrieta and Riverside County Fire/CAL FIRE, including reimbursement provisions.
• Scenario-by-scenario population, parcels, assessed value, revenue estimates, and service costs. • Current property-tax exchange framework/assumptions applicable to a Murrieta annexation. • Detailed Station 6 operating-cost methodology underlying the approximately $5 million estimate. • Current and projected Measure T contribution specifically to Fire & Rescue operations and whether any amount is planned for Station 6 recurring operations. • Current Fire Suppression Assessment revenue available to the Murrieta Fire District and how that revenue is incorporated into long-range Station 6 planning. • Projected CFD No. 2025-S revenues and the extent to which they reduce future incremental public- safety costs.
• District-representation analysis for each annexation scenario. • Community support/opposition and formal outreach plan for affected unincorporated residents/property owners.
• Whether additional CEQA, LAFCO, service-review, protest/election, or other procedural requirements would apply to the eventual configuration selected. The August 18 CEQA exemption concerns approval of the study contract, not a final annexation approval. • Current Measure T funding of Fire & Rescue—including existing and projected commitments—and whether the City's financial planning contemplates any Measure T contribution toward the recurring operation of Fire Station No. 6.
IX. Conclusions
The City Council is not being asked on August 18, 2026, to approve an annexation. It is being asked to authorize a $91,010 Professional Services Agreement with RSG, Inc. to evaluate the feasibility of potential annexation scenarios and, if later authorized, provide LAFCO support. While the immediate decision concerns a consultant agreement, the policy subject underlying that agreement is substantially broader and potentially consequential.
A feasibility study is an appropriate means of developing information that is not presently known.
However, this Review identifies several areas in which baseline information or broader policy context appears to be missing, incomplete, or unresolved and may warrant consideration before the study is authorized. These areas include the historical and current funding strategy for Fire Station No. 6; the change in its estimated annual operating cost from approximately $3 million to $5 million; the role of existing fire/public-safety funding sources and the resulting net funding gap; the reciprocal Automatic Aid relationship with Riverside County Fire/CAL FIRE; and the potential governance, representation, redistricting, timing, and taxpayer-cost consequences of annexation. This information is important because it would provide Council and the Public with a clearer understanding of the existing circumstances, the problem or problems the proposed study is intended to evaluate, and the potential Murrieta Annexation Feasibility Study — Agenda Item #17, Murrieta City Council Meeting, August 18, 2026
Review of the City Council Agenda Report, proposed RSG scope, and verified related public records.
Prepared by Christi White
consequences that should be considered in determining whether—and how—the City proceeds with the feasibility study.
The approximately $5 million annual operating estimate for Fire Station No. 6 is central to the Agenda Report's financial rationale, yet the Agenda Report does not identify the actual net annual funding shortfall after existing and planned revenues are considered. Nor does it explain how the City's operating-cost estimate for Station 6 changed from approximately $3 million in 2025 to approximately $5 million in August 2026. Establishing this financial baseline would provide Council and the Public with a clearer understanding of the financial problem annexation is being studied, in part, to address.
Annexation should also be considered as more than a potential revenue strategy for Fire Station No. 6. A future annexation could change municipal service responsibilities, governmental jurisdiction, Council- district representation and population balance, and the relationship between the City and currently unincorporated communities. Depending on timing, annexation could also require taxpayer expenditures and substantial City resources for a district-assignment or redistricting process, potentially followed within a relatively short period by another redistricting after the 2030 Census.
The Agenda Report also leaves unresolved when and how affected residents and property owners would participate in the feasibility process, because community engagement is included as optional rather than core Phase 1 work. Given the geographic scope and potential governmental consequences being studied, Public participation is an important consideration in determining whether the proposed scope is sufficiently comprehensive.
Accordingly, before authorizing the proposed study and expenditure, Council may wish to determine whether additional baseline information should first be provided; whether the proposed scope adequately addresses the fiscal, service, governance, representation, and downstream consequences identified in this Review; and whether community engagement should be incorporated into the core feasibility process. Doing so would not predetermine whether annexation should ultimately proceed. Rather, it would provide Council and the Public with a clearer understanding of what problem the City is attempting to solve, what is already known, what remains to be determined, and the potential consequences of the alternatives being studied.
Source notes
A1. City of Murrieta, City Council Agenda Item No. 17, August 18, 2026, “2026 Annexation Feasibility Study and LAFCO Support,” including Professional Services Agreement with RSG, Inc., Scope of Services, cost exhibit, and proposed annexation map. Attached source supplied for this review.
W1. Riverside LAFCO — Definitions (current page).
W2. Riverside LAFCO — Frequently Asked Questions (current page).
W3. Riverside LAFCO — What We Do / SOI and boundary-change explanation.
W4. City of Murrieta — Spencer's Crossing Annexation (last revised June 16, 2026).
W5. City of Murrieta — FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Budget Report (March 2026).
W6. City of Murrieta — FY 2026/27 Fire Suppression Assessment public hearing notice (June 26, 2026).
W7. City of Murrieta — CFD No. 2025-S Safety Services / Gierson Ranch annexation public notice (2026).
W8. City of Murrieta — Redistricting (current page).
W9. California Elections Code §21603, as enacted/amended; annexed territory and Council districts.
W10. City of Murrieta General Plan 2035 — Safety Element; MFR/Riverside County Fire Automatic Aid.
W11. City of Murrieta — 2017 Districting Archive; City transition from at-large elections to five Council districts, including public-hearing and district-map process. Official source.
W12. City of Murrieta — 2021 Redistricting Archive / post-2020 Census redistricting materials; City redistricting process, Q2 Data & Research involvement, public outreach/hearings, mapping, and adoption of revised district boundaries in March 2022. Official source.
W13. City of Murrieta — 2025 City Council Priorities / Fire Station No. 6 planning materials; identifies approximately $3 million in annual operating expenses to be set aside, consideration of interim operating models and other funding sources, and proceeding with design when the City is ready for the ongoing financial commitment. Official source.
W14. City of Murrieta — November 19, 2024 City Council records regarding acquisition of the Fire Station No. 6 property; Council approval of the property transaction for the planned Fire Station No. 6 site. Official source.
CITY OF
MURRIETA
File #: 26-2143 Version: 1
Type: Discussion Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 7/22/2026 In control: City Council
On agenda: 8/18/2026 Final action: 8/18/2026
Effective date:
Title: Approve a Professional Services Agreement with RSG, Inc. for an Annexation Feasibility Study Attachments: 1. ATT 1 - Professional Services Agreement with RSG, 2. ATT 2 - Map of Proposed Annexation Areas TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Justin Clifton, City Manager
PREPARED BY:
Isaac Bravo, Management Analyst
SUBJECT:
t t e
Approve a Professional Services Agreement with RSG, Inc. for an Annexation Feasibility Study
ABSTRACT
Approval of a proposed Professional Services Agreement with RSG, Inc. for preparation of an annexation feasibility study to evaluate the fiscal, operational, and service delivery implications of potential annexation scenarios within the City's Sphere of Influence. The study will provide the City Council with the information necessary to determine whether to proceed with a formal annexation application to the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
RECOMMENDATION
ecommenda ion
Authorize a transfer of $91,010 from the General Fund Reserve Balance to the City Manager’s Consultant Contracted Services Account (60320) to fund the Professional Services Agreement;
Approve a Professional Services Agreement with RSG, Inc, in the amount of $91,010 for preparation of an annexation feasibility study in a form approved by the City Attorney; and
Authorize the City Manager to execute the Professional Services Agreement.
body
PRIOR ACTION/VOTE
Sign In
Home Legislation Agendas Council Members
Details Reports
History (0) Text
On February 26, 2026, the City Council adopted tiered priorities for citywide projects and initiatives, identifying Fire Station No.6 as a Tier 1 Priority.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
This item aligns with the City Council goal to maintain a high performing organization that values fiscal sustainability, transparency, accountability and organizational efficiency relating to a Tier 1 priority. The feasibility study will provide the City Council with the information necessary to evaluate the fiscal, operational, and service delivery implications of potential annexation scenarios before determining whether to proceed with a formal annexation application.
DISCUSSION
Construction of Fire Station No. 6 is identified as a Tier 1 City Council Priority. The station is planned on a City- owned parcel located near the City's northeastern Sphere of Influence. While the station would improve emergency response capabilities for both existing City residents and nearby unincorporated communities, residents outside the City do not contribute certain municipal revenues that fund ongoing operations and maintenance of City services. In addition to the estimated $15-20 million cost to construct a new fire station, the estimated annual operating cost for a new station is approximately $5 million per year, which is not currently financially feasible for the City to absorb as an ongoing annual expense. Annexation could result in new revenues to help cover this annual cost, but would also create additional operational responsibilities for the City to provide other municipal services in the annexed area. The purpose of this feasibility study is to conduct an in-depth analysis to understand the long-term cost-benefit of a potential annexation.
To better understand the long-term fiscal and operational implications of serving these areas, the City developed a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking professional consulting services to evaluate the feasibility of annexing portions of the City's northeastern Sphere of Influence. The feasibility study would evaluate three (3) potential annexation scenarios: the existing LAFCO-proposed annexation area, a modified City-requested annexation area, and full annexation of the City's Sphere of Influence.
The study is intended to provide the City Council with sufficient information to determine whether annexation is fiscally and operationally feasible before initiating a formal application with the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). If the Council determines annexation is not in the City's best interest, the project may conclude following completion of the feasibility study.
The City released an RFP in May 2026 and received two (2) proposals from qualified firms in July 2026. An evaluation committee reviewed the written proposals, conducted interviews, and completed reference checks.
Based on the evaluation process, RSG, Inc. was determined to provide the best overall value to the City based on its project understanding, experience with annexation feasibility studies, familiarity with Riverside LAFCO, and proposed project approach.
The proposed agreement also includes optional services that may be authorized in the future, including preparation of a LAFCO application, Proposition 218 engineering reports, assessment district modifications, and community outreach. These services are included to streamline future implementation should the City decide to proceed with annexation. Authorization of the agreement does not obligate the City to utilize these optional services. Any decision to proceed beyond the feasibility study will return to the City Council for consideration.
The estimated timeframe for completion of the first phase of the exploratory study is February 2027. Before any optional implementation services are authorized or the City proceeds with a formal annexation application, the City Council will be presented with the results of the feasibility study to determine whether moving forward is in the City's best fiscal and operational interest.
PUBLIC NOTICING
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
CEQA AND REGULATORY OVERVIEW
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
FISCAL IMPACT
The current budget does not included funds appropriated for this work. Approval of this item includes authorization to transfer $91,010 from the General Fund Reserve Balance to the City Manager's Consultant Contracted Services Account (60320) to fund the Professional Services Agreement. The cost for the first phase of work is $61,595. If the City opts to proceed with the LAFCO annexation process, the additional cost would be $29,415, for a grand total of $91,010.
The agreement establishes a not-to-exceed amount, and actual expenditures may be less than the authorized amount depending on the level of services ultimately required.
ATTACHMENTS
ATT 1 - Professional Services Agreement with RSG
ATT 2 - Map of Proposed Annexation Areas