WILDOMAR -- County officials are criticizing a self-styled taxpayer advocate for filing "frivolous" lawsuits that they say are doing exactly what he claims to fight: wasting taxpayer funds.
The focus of their ire, Gerard Ste. Marie of Wildomar, has filed multiple suits against the county in recent years and one of his suits stopped the county from selling land in Wildomar that had been tabbed for a regional park.
That sale to the San Jacinto Community College District could have netted the county, which has appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court, about $5 million.
The county also has spent an as-of-yet untabulated amount in legal fees and research costs associated with defending itself from the suits, said Dave Stahovich, chief of staff for Supervisor Bob Buster.
Stahovich said Monday that he was trying to put together the numbers that show how much Ste. Marie's suits have cost taxpayers.
Ste. Marie's latest suit, filed in May, seeks to invalidate the upcoming incorporation of Wildomar on July 1 because, as he contends in the suit, the county's Local Agency Formation Commission did not follow the letter of state law when it determined Wildomar would be a fiscally viable city.
The agency, composed of elected officials and a public representative, approved putting the incorporation question on the February ballot in August 2007.
Ste. Marie, who called himself a taxpayer advocate in an election filing, also contends in the suit that what he calls an "annual revenue augmentation" from the county to the city of Wildomar is an illegal gift of public funds from one municipal agency to another.
Without that augmentation, the city of Wildomar is not fiscally viable, according to Ste. Marie, and since it's not viable the incorporation should never have gone before voters, Ste. Marie argues in the suit.
While many Wildomar leaders decry Ste. Marie's legal challenges, he does have a fan base of like-minded residents who contend the area isn't ready to support cityhood.
The augmentation Ste. Marie refers to in the suit has the county giving Wildomar about $300,000 per year for 10 years. The $300,000 figure was developed by estimating the amount of money the county will be saving by not paying for services provided by the city of Wildomar.
There's a caveat attached to the augmentation, however. If Wildomar takes in more sales tax revenue than expected, the allocation will be decreased by a like amount.
The illegal gift of public funds charge and Ste. Marie's attempt to brand himself as a friend of the taxpayer are particularly offensive, Stahovich said.
"The waste of public funds are these frivolous lawsuits," he said.
Pam Walls, assistant county counsel, said Monday that the fiscal analysis used by the formation commission as justification for putting the incorporation question to voters was reviewed and cleared by the State Controller's office.
Ste. Marie, who didn't respond to multiple messages left at his listed phone number, requested that review, which found that a county could commit general fund revenues to help a proposed city become financially viable.
According to the county counsel's review of the suit, there is no "smoking gun" that implicates the county in any wrongdoing.
"We don't think there is," Walls said. "That fiscal analysis has been reviewed. It was appropriate and the revenue sharing agreement is based on the services that the county is no longer being required to provide."
Wildomar area voters approved incorporation in February's election and they selected a five-member City Council from a field of 14 candidates. The electorate also approved dividing the city into five districts to elect future council members. Dividing the city into districts was supported by Ste. Marie.
A case management hearing for Ste. Marie's latest suit is scheduled for late November.
Wildomar will incorporate July 1.
Contact staff writer Aaron Claverie at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2624, or aclaverie@californian.com.
