In August 2017 Raul Madrid, a developer who wishes to develop 13 lots he owns in Mentone, submitted to California Senator Mike Morrell a proposed bill containing two amendments to existing laws. One, concerning Government Code section 56133, prohibited cities from forcing annexation in exchange for water or other utilities; it would codify California Supreme Court case law already existing in 1996 [Ed.’s note: the year that Redlands enacted its ordinance that later became “Measure U,” a part of Redlands’ municipal law; it uses that “law” to “justify” demanding annexation to its city limits in exchange for water and, where available, sewer services].
The other proposed amendment concerned the reasonableness of “development impact fees,” concerning another Government Code section.
Madrid had worked with COMET’s counsel to prepare both amendments and is long-time friends with Senator Morrell.
In 2018 Morrell assigned the proposed amendments to an aide, Tess Scherkenback, who forwarded them to legislative counsel for review; that counsel added some language to the annexation portion and sent it back to Morrell’s office for submission to the Finance and Governance Committee, as SB 646. The Committee would review it before giving it to the entire Senate for approval.
Scherkenback communicated part of the legislative process to Madrid but failed to advise him that he and/or COMET’s counsel could appear before the Committee, to explain Mentone’s plight and why the bill was important to it and other similarly-situated unincorporated areas. [Ed.’s note: Some years ago, the Legislature excluded by law the shopping area around the intersection of Lugonia and Alabama Avenues from Redlands’ city limits.] No history or other information was submitted with the bill or solicited by Scherkenback.
In February 2019 Scherkenback e-mailed the entire bill to Madrid, as modified and approved by legislative counsel and then in purportedly the final form, the day before she was to submit it to the Finance and Governance Committee. However, Madrid only recently learned that the bill was actually missing the prohibition-of-demanded-annexation portion when she sent it to the Committee so the Committee never received it or voted on it.
In March 2019 Scherkenback told Madrid that Senator Mike McGuire, the chairman of the Senate Finance and Governance Committee, “didn’t like” the annexation portion of the bill. However, an aide in Senator Mike McGuire’s office recently confirmed that the annexation portion of SB 646 was removed before it was submitted to the Finance and Governance Committee, which would have reviewed, and possibly submitted, the bill to the full Legislature and the Governor.
Scherkenback also stated that CALAFCO was not in favor of the annexation portion, and that CALAFCO’s director had said the bill “would die in committee.” [Ed.’s note: CALAFCO is the 501c3 advisory, only, organization to which all county LAFCOs belong. LAFCO stands for “Local Area Formation COmmission”; it was set up by the Legislature in the 1960s to oversee property developments in all California counties, since cities oversee those projects within their city limits. The San Bernardino County LAFCO replaced the former Boundary Commission. According to the IRS’ website CALAFCO, as a tax-exempt 501c3 organization, is restricted in lobbying against proposed legislation and COMET’s counsel recalled that one of LAFCO’s agendas in the past had voiced its opinion in favor of annexation.] It is not yet clear what connection CALAFCO or its director, Pamela Miller, has with Redlands, said COMET’s counsel, or why Mentone’s protection would adversely impact LAFCO’s duties: LAFCO inquires about annexation but does not require it, for any purpose. COMET’s counsel added that CALAFCO, based in Sacramento, has ignored COMET’s service of the lawsuit.
In July of that year, a deputy legislative counsel wrote an opinion letter, which Scherkenback provided to Madrid; the opinion stated why, in the author’s opinion, forced annexation was proper. That letter, of course, contradicted the earlier, other legislative counsel’s opinion. Moreover, the later opinion did not address existing case law , nor an exception contained in Government Code Section 56133(e)(4), which states that, if the water customers were receiving water before January 1, 2001, section 56133 (a)’s mention of the “anticipation of a later change of annexation,” does not apply. [Ed.’s note: That exception was probably added because, beginning in 1915 the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that a city purchasing a water company must continue to provide water service to existing and new customers; there is no mention of a requirement of annexation.] However, adds COMET’s counsel, Redlands ignores that exception and the supporting case law – in Mentone’s favor, of course – and instead cites a lower case holding which appears to attempt to overturn the Supreme Court, which courts are not entitled to do. It is possible that – since earlier legislative counsel had approved the proposed amendment – Scherkenback may have requested the opinion so as to support her omission of the prohibition of forced annexation from the submitted SB 646.
It is not yet known how much territory Mentone has lost in the past 1 1/2 years due to CALAFCO’s interference and Scherkenback’s action. Since bills must be submitted to the Committee by late February each year, Madrid learned of this information too late to resubmit the proposed annexation prohibition for this year’s consideration by the Committee and the entire Legislature.
It is not clear whether Morrell knew of Scherkenback’s omission of the annexation portion of SB 646 until it came up for the Committee vote. Morrell told Madrid he is “terming out” this year, and presently does not know whether he will seek another legislative office in November.
Scherkenback, whose Linked-In page states she graduated summa cum laude from a private evangelical university and received various honors and awards, was awarded a fellowship in Morrell’s office, which position she held for a year and two months. Madrid said Morrell told him she is no longer working there; that is confirmed by Linked-In, which says she is a legislative aide in Sacramento, but not for whom.
The remainder of Senate Bill 646, concerning only the reasonableness of “development impact fees,” passed the Committee easily in May 2019 and was signed into law by the Governor. It clarifies another, similar law.
Seems like Morrell’s aide tanked the forced annexation portion of the bill and kept quiet until it was too late. Shame on her and Morrell. That “evangelical” university background didn’t seem to play a big part in her decision making process on how to fairly and ethically handle this project. And Morrell didn’t follow up with anyone but her. Big surprise. What is a tax exempt organization doing interfering in this process also? That‘s what I get from this article. Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of this information. Keep on fighting COMET! Thank you!
The Legislative Counsel had something to do with that, by stating a general opinion without knowing hte facts; it’s just sad that she lied about it and we only found ou tmonths later.
We’re not sure when Morrell became aware or even if he did. He had assigned the project to her and should have been able to trust her handling.
That’s not to say she personally yanked the provision, as we do not know who did, but it is suspicious that she sent Madrid the “official” bill, complete with bar code, and then submitted only the fees portion, as she said she was personally submitting the bill.
That’s what we ask about CALAFCO’s involvement. MM