Raul Madrid, who does not want to annex his 13 lots on San Bernardino Avenue, across the street from Seven W Enterprises (formerly the Lockheed facility), or pay Redlands’ “development impact fees” in the amounts presented to him, submitted two legislative amendments to Senator Mike Morrell’s office early last year. The proposed amendments languished in Sen. Morrell’s office for many months; late last year Sen. Morrell asked Madrid about it; he then called his office and a different legislative aide was assigned to take care of the proposed amendments. They were forwarded to Legislative Counsel and then rewritten according to that attorney’s suggestions. The proposed amendments were submitted as SB 646 and given to the Senate’s Governance and Finance Committee last month.
A Pamela Miller, whose website states she is the Executive Director of CALAFCo, a 501c3 private organization of LAFCos,called Sen. Morrell’s office and stated that the bills would “die in committee.” Sen. Morrell’s aide was adamant, Madrid says, that the proposed amendments would not pass through the Committee and be submitted to the entire Senate for voting.
The Senate’s Governance and Finance Committee, which is reviewing the proposed amendments, is composed of Senators Senator Mike McGuire, John M. W. Moorlach, Jim Beall, Robert M. Hertzberg, Melissa Hurtado, Jim Nielsen, and Scott D. Wiener; the Committee’s address is “State Capitol, Room 408, Sacramento, CA 95814,” should anyone care to write and ask that the Bill pass their committee and be submitted to the entire Senate, whose names and addresses are accessible on https://www.senate.ca.gov/ senators.
The proposed amendments read as follows (the most important part to us is underlined): (In regard to annexation) Government Code section 56133 adds to its subsection(b) “2) “The commission shall authorize a city or district to extend a service outside its jurisdictional boundary, but within its sphere of influence, if no city, district, or public utility, as defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code, provides that service, irrespective of whether a change of organization is anticipated. The city or district providing the extended service within the meaning of this paragraph shall not deny the extension of a utility service to a property owner located within the extended service area based upon a property owner’s election not to participate in an annexation or preannexation proceeding.” [Emphasis is added.]
Regarding the fees Redlands charges for services which it provides (and the ones it does not provide but still charges for), the proposed legislative amendment to Government Code section 56013(5), instead of ending with “facilities” adds: “and is of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged.” [Emphasis is original.] This amendment merely refers to Government Code section 66001(a)(1-3), with which some agencies have not been complying but which requires that “development impact fees” in other words, fees for water meters and traffic off and back on the Boulevard, for example, be reasonably related to the actual cost of providing such services. MM readers may remember seeing the list of fees charged to Tom’s Burgers, which is reportedly one of the reasons it hasn’t opened for 11 or more years.
LAFCO’s agenda at the last meeting attached CALAFCO’s “Legislative Report,” containing an accurate summary of the Bill; however, its first comment stated that the Bill did not provide for a change of organization (read: annexation). However, the code section contains the language “irrespective of whether a change in organization is anticipated”; thus, the amendment still anticipates a change of organization.
Its second comment was regarding LAFCO’s role approving the annexation; San Bernardino LAFCO’s Application for Extension of Service by Contract – although it asks about anticipated annexation and the reasons it is or is not anticipated – does not list annexation agreements as documents required for its review, nor require Redlands to demand annexation. CALAFCO’s third comments on §56133, in its section (3), substituted “water and sewer”, for the bolded words “a service” and “a utility service.” CALAFCO’s next section (3) comment, mentioned “higher fees and charges to those outside the jurisdictional boundaries,” and questioned the word “proportional” as undefined.
In a letter to LAFCO’s counsel about the inaccuracy of these comments, this writer concluded: “It is curious to this office that CALAFCo, in its advisory-only role and of all of the cities located in the 58 counties in the State of California, provides comments on the amendments which seem most related to the conflict between Redlands and Mentone, the subject of C.O.M.E.T. vs. City of Redlands. At best, CALAFCo seems to misunderstand its own summary; at worst, it appears an attempt, although a private 501c3 organization, to lobby against passage of the amendments.
“It seems that Government Code §56375(a)(6), stating “A commission shall not impose any conditions that would directly regulate. . . property development, or subdivision requirements” would preclude LAFCo from insisting that Redlands or any other city require an annexation agreement in exchange for water service. We in Mentone hope that the San Bernardino County LAFCo will not take any steps to frustrate the passage of the proposed amendments, intended for our – and all other unincorporated territories’ – benefit.”
LAFCo stands for Local Agency Formation Commission, which was set up by the California Legislature in the 1960s to oversee property development; each County has a LAFCO, as it is sometimes spelled.
CALAFCO is a private 501c3 organization which was formed to lobby the California Legislature on behalf of LAFCO, only; its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws state that it is limited to such lobbying subjects.