HomeMy WebLinkAbout22-Development Services
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: JAMES FUNK, Director Subject: Authorization to Proceed with
the proposed annexation of three County
Dept: Development Services C,,,,, " '" ~ L islands located generally east of Central
. I I I W, I I \; d Avenue, north of Atlantic Avenue.
Date: July 23, 2002
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
File No. 12.01-343
MCC Date: 08/05/2002
05-23-2002 - Legislative Review Committee recommended approval of authorization to
proceed with the proposed annexation of three County islands located generally east of Central
Avenue, north of Atlantic Avenue.
06-17-2002 - Item was continued to the Council meeting of July 15,2002; Resolution No. 2-
002-173 was adopted authorizing an agreement with 0' Reilly Public Relations
07-15-2002 - Item was continued to the Council meeting of August 5, 2002
Recommended Motion:
That the Director of Development Services be authorized to initiate proceedings for the
annexation of three County islands generally located east of Central Avenue, north of Atlantic
Avenue, under the provisions of AB 1555
Il.,J (;[,~ /: lF
Contact person: LASZLO "Les" FOGASSY
Supporting data attached: Staff Report, Sununary
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
Source: fAcet. No.) 001-190-5502
$8,450.00 (LAFCO Fees)
(Acct. Description) General Fund Professional /
Contractual Services
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
;La...
g}S JOa-.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Staff Report
SUBJECT:
Authorization to Proceed with the proposed annexation of three County islands located generally
east of Central A venue, north of Atlantic Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
On January 21, 2000, Assembly Bill 1555 became effective, allowing for the annexation of
unincorporated territory of 75 acres or less, without the need to obtain property owner or
registered voter approval. There are three islands, located in the northeast portion of the City
that would qualify to be annexed under this bill. The elimination of these islands would result in
a more efficient delivery of services by reducing the irregular boundaries that currently exist.
The proposal was submitted to the Legislative Review Committee for consideration and on May
23, 2002, the Committee recommended the initiating of proceedings for the proposed
annexation. A summary of the proposal submitted to the Committee, including background
summary, maps, and the impacts on City services, is provided in Attachment A. Although the
issue of whether or not the City's Utility User's Tax could be imposed on the annexation area
without a vote has not been determined, it is anticipated that the tax would not be imposed. The
revenue from the application of the Utility User's Tax has been excluded from estimates of
revenue from the annexed areas.
In order to help educate and inform the residents on the merits of annexation the services of a
community outreach firm will be used to assist with the proposed annexation. The services
provided by the consultant will include: drafting a key messages document and collateral
material; drafting and distributing community meeting correspondence, briefing materials, and
distributing post meeting summary letter to residents; and preparing follow-up collateral
materials and media follow-up materials (if needed). These efforts will be accomplished
through mailings and community meetings. On June 17, 2002, Resolution No. 2002-173 was
adopted, authorizing an agreement with the firm of O'Reilly Public Relations to serve in this
capacity.
The application documents that will be need to be filed with the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO), as well as a request for authorization for the payment of filing fees, will
also be submitted at that time for your consideration. As stated in the summary, the filing fees
are estimated to be between $6,150 and $8,450, and will need to be paid from the General Fund.
LAFCO will conduct the formal proceedings for the annexation, which will include mailed
notices. They will also conduct a public hearing prior to the Commission's consideration for this
proposal.
" ,
Staff Report - continued
On June 17,2002, this item was continued to the Council meeting of July 15,2002, and again
continued to the meeting of August 5, 2002, in order to allow the Public Relations consultant to
sufficient time to initiate an outreach program.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
A maximum of $8,450 for filing fees from the General Fund when the proposal is filed with
LAFCO.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that authorization be given to proceed with the proposed annexation.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Inter-Office Memorandum
TO: FRED WILSON, City Administrator
FROM: JAMES FUNK, Development Services Director
By: Laszlo "Les" Fogassy, Real Property Official
SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation of Three County Islands under AD 1555
DATE: July 9, 2002
COPIES: File No.: 12.01-343; Reading
Overview of Recent Lelrlslation Rel!:ardinl!: Annexations.
AB 1555
On January 21, 2000, Assembly Bill 1555 became effective, allowing for the annexation of
unincorporated territory of75 acres or less, without the need to obtain property owner and/or registered
voter approval. The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the elimination of irregular boundaries that exist in
many Cities, which often causes confusion and inefficiency in the delivery of services between the
affected agencies. AB 1555 provides for a seven-year window, after which time it will expire.
AB 2838
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2838, which became effective January 1, 2001, and codified under
Govemment Code Section 56000, et. Seq., (known as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Govemment
Reorganization Act of 2000), the procedures for annexations and reorganizations has changed
substantially from the previous requirements. In substance, the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) is the lead and conducting agency for the proceedings, including notifications to property
owners and/or registered voters and also conducts the public hearing. Under the new law, notification
must include all property owners and registered voters within 300 feet of the external boundaries of a
proposed annexation. The only responsibilities of the City for the proceedings, are the preparation and
filing of the application and various appurtenant documents, maps, etc., and payment of fees.
Oualifvinl!: Islands Under AD 1555
The City of San Bernardino has three islands within its current Sphere of Influence that would qualify
for annexations proceedings under AB 1555. All three islands are located in the northeast portion of the
City and are depicted on the attached maps. Exhibit "]" is a vicinity map of the islands and Exhibit "2"
is a detailed map. Islands one and two are fully developed with single family residential use. Island three
is mixed, with two small commercial properties and the remainder being residential uses. Exhibit "3"
gives a summary of the characteristics of the three islands.
Filine Fees / Proceedines
Although normal filing fees for the annexation of the three islands would exceed $19,000, LAFCO has
advised us that the initial filing fees for Island Annexations under AB 1555 would be waived, if the City
requested. This is to encourage Cities to eliminate eligible to eliminate islands qualifying under AB
1555. The other various fees will be determined by the affected agencies, and whether or not they
combine fees as one annexation or separate fees for each island. Since no precedent has been set in this
area, the table below shows the minimum and maximum fees the City could expect to pay, and will be
determined once the filing has taken place.
Initial Filing Fee
Environmental Fee Deposit
LandownerlRegistered Voter Notifications:
Board of Equalization Fee
GIMS (County Mapping Fee)
Min.
$ 0
750
3,600
1,500
300
Max.
$ 0
750
3600
3,200
900
Total Fees
$6,150
$8,450
As stated previously, LAFCO would be the conducting A!gency for the proceedings under this
annexation, including the mailing of notices and conducting the public hearing. LAFCO's executive
officer has stated that the actions of the Commission are non-discretionary for proceedings under AB
1555, and approval of the annexations is mandated.
Provision of City Services
Upon annexation, the residents and/or property owners within the islands would receive all City services
available to current City residents, with the following exceptions: water and sewer service, which is
currently provided by East Valley Water, would continue to be provided by East Valley after annexation.
Refuse service would be available, but under a current City ordinance, residents may continue to use
their existing refuse hauler for up to five years after annexation.
Financial ImDact of Annexation-Revenues vs. EXDenses
As part of the filing proceedings, it will be required that the City and the County negotiate the amount of
the County's portion of the property tax that would be transferred to the City upon annexation. Since the
general formula for determining these amounts was agreed upon between the City and County in the
early 1980's, the "negotiation" process consists of the County and the City each adopting a resolution
applying the previously approved formula.
LAFCO has indicated to us that it is their understanding that the collection of the utility users tax is not
subject to voter approval under Proposition 218, which was approved in November, 1996. In most
situations, Proposition 218 requires voter approval of new taxes and various fees or assessments.
However, Government Code Section 57330, states that any annexed area would be subject to any
existing fees, taxes or assessments of the annexing agency. For example, the City of Fontana, which
charges a utility tax, has indicted that they impose the tax on newly annexed areas without separate voter
approval.
The City currently provides paramedic and fire suppression services to II County islands, including the
three small islands proposed for annexation, through an agreement with the County for $250,000 per
year. There would be no new costs associated with the annexation for fire services, but the revenue form
the County for the 3 islands would be lost. Although no formal amount has been agreed upon with the
County at this time, based on percentage of area and population of these islands in relation to all the
islands as a whole, the lost revenue is estimated at 7.5 %, or $18,750.
The Police Department did a "windshield survey" of the three small islands, and indicated that they
anticipate Island One and Island Two would require minimal police services. (See attached letter from
the Interim Chief of Police). They did indicate that Island Three would present some blight-related
challenges. However, due to the small size of these islands, it was felt that routine police calls for
services could be absorbed within current budget resources. Thus, no additional costs for police services
would be needed as a result of annexing the three islands.
Exhibit "4" shows a summary of estimated revenues from major sources. The annual revenue is
estimated to be $85,945.26.
Exhibit "5" shows a summary of estimated cost for major services. This is estimated to be $102,706.26,
thus leaving net loss of $16,760.77. Please note that this anticipated annual loss does not take into
consideration revenue from "one-time" grants to the City based on population, for example.
This estimated annual loss of$16,760.77 could be supplemented in a number of ways. For example,
improvements to the islands, such as street improvements and consistent application of maintenance
codes, would have the effect of increasing the value of homes, and, at the time of sales, would result in
higher assessed valuations and greater revenue from property taxes. Also, an increase in the quality of
neighborhoods may attract purchasers, over time, with higher incomes. The new owners would be likely
to have more disposable income resulting in greater per capita sales tax revenues and, if purchasing more
expensive vehicles, would result in greater vehicle license fee revenues being allocated to the City.
The infrastructure needs for the area will be addressed when the area is annexed, over time, with the
normal City wide programs in effect.
The cost and revenue estimates are based on information provided to the Real Property Official to date.
The estimates are continuing to be researched and updated.
The pros and cons ofthese island annexations are summarized in Exhibit "6".
Community Outreach
Although residents in the proposed annexation areas will not be voting on whether to be annexed or not,
it is recommended that some outreach activities take place in an effort to put the residents concerns at
ease. Staff contacted O'Reilly Public Relations and requested a proposal to conduct some community
outreach activities in the three areas.
O'Reilly is a large Public Relations firm in the Inland Empire that has a great deal of experience with
annexation issues. The proposal includes preparation of collateral materials (Fact Sheet, Q&A etc.),
drafting and distributing community meeting correspondence, drafting media materials, and preparing a
post meeting summary letter to residents. The cost to provide the outreach services described is $5000.
A copy of the proposal is attached and marked Exhibit "7".
Staff from Code Compliance, Fire, Police, Development Services, and elected officials will be asked to
participate in a community meeting at a location convenient to all three areas. The purpose of the
meeting will be to provide information to the residents regarding changes they can expect as a result of
being armexed into the city. The meeting will also allow residents the opportunity to address their
questions to the "experts".
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends that the proposal be allowed to move ahead with the armexation process. The
elimination of small islands within the 59 square mile of the City of San Bernardino allows for a more
efficient delivery of services both to the islands and the City as a whole and helps reduce confusion that
exists along these irregular boundaries.
;1 I
San Bernardino County's Newspaper
MONDAY
~ g. 51" C 5";J 8 g >- ~_ a v 9- ~ "8 ~ 8" ~ ~ r.n ~ g g- g ~
x~~~~~~c ~=ag~r.~~~a33og05 ~~~~
~ ~"~8zg~~~<~Q[~~.~~~~~n-a~~=_~>
gr&~~ra~~~~a>l.i~g~& -.~Wo~r&8aZ
o & _~~x~n=n~~~rG~o='__~8 R~~
8.lii~o Ii'::;:,,_osqo~."o.~ 0.'" i3'8~515:[a oCl
~ g,l! g;~::I a~s;3 ~Y'2' g ~~3 ::;i11 &" "" til~~ g:!l?~""'tIl
x ~-~~ _.Ra~ =~ ~G_O_~~OO ;_ ~
'2.. So (:5..JI.l ~ .. a. 0 0''2.,:r =' -< ~::r a' Cil S' 0 g ciQ' a: e- :i' ~::r Z
~oa~ ~ Oc=~oe ~o= n~o~g< oo::r>
f $'>Ot fa. ~ ; 6" 8 it ~. n 0 0 ~ [~~ ~ ~ g- 3 ~ ~ [fit ~ g- i ~ a: ~
~g- g[o.an~'~~g-:" ~~'gFs'~'a~.g-:~' ~.~o~z
z '0 fZ " o. il 0 . 'O.a ' . 3 c "" . " Po < Q ~;l 2 ~ 0
~~ gS~~~ ~~'~g ~i~2~ gg~g~ R~=
~~9[~~fit~ [g.[~ ~JJ'g~a ~~~J~~ 8.sJJ'2.i
"'= ~> Q....Jf""to.rJ1 .
.'<
~c ~t~ ~QCQt=
:l"z
~.>
"~ .....0.. ~ = = .
'"0
.., ~~ Q~=O
;:;] _.
~ ~o.. ="=Q
:= _.(1)
~~ =~~~
W ~rIJ~
o-n
-!I!o
i a5::1
.-Iit
I=!l
"..",
"l\l~
eli
10;
c~-
?<iI
n-
0"11I
i1,a
3::l'
!oil
-~
(too. :.c:;.g- 000 ~ =':I~~n g.nCo:J:: 5-
"'" 8 ..-.I =:>oi ~'O ...... ~ G ~ ::r 0 0 0 :::s :::s ~ R
Y,l oS ~-g .. tTJ oe 'g :::::: 0 2..;:S C 0 3 ::t ~ 5 s'~ ~ n 0
::! 0 _. rll" ~ ~ ~,;;: g- 9 g. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 -l -< 8 ~ ~ g e-
~ ~ ~ a. a 00 o' g ~ '< ~~ so:;> ~ ~. 0.. -g ~oe ~ ~
e- 0 0 :g. e.::S ~ 0 III ~ 0 O:l ~ 0 0 0.. 0 ~ ... R -.< ::s
o r4 _ 0 e. 0' p.. _. - 3 8, :t, 0.. ~ - 3 o:Il g ~ ~ 5- "'" sa.
ecr::r~~::s ::S;J';'""Oo..=:o&; Ill- (\lo~oocr'
nl :I g~" ~ g - c.l Q"? :t. - ~ a :n _,0.. _. s:: (b
~: ~ n g. g ~ ~ ~ ~3 9 ~ ~ [~g 3 fir ~ g ~l 'i
o " _ a -, n. n ~ "'" 0 ~ ~ ::s ::r ~
~ a 0.. ""+l X ::r (i; 00 (b::l -< 0 -,
::l'~".,,,,, g~&" ,,~30.- i<l~ tillS
o 00 C1l;:::r t/l.... ('0 0.. ~ ~ c.l 0 ~ -, ...
:rao oo~"::t r.nell~"::t"O _ :Ie
~ J5' R 0 ~ : ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ :::r ~ 'g 0 cr' ~ (ll ~
S~ <s:: 0:11' a ::I c.la~ ~sqnn
CT::l"'~". ::r:^, ~ ~::.",,,,,. ~ <:-"
(b ~ - c.l - ::s '.,w.... ,. ::I -" -'.... =
~ g ~ ~ q.' =is ~ fir 9 ~ 0 It g ~ g- Jg ~ tn'
!.!.
..
)!
::l
"
:D
~
"
%
n
t
ii,
--L
I::~ Ave
g-:
IS!!'
PalmAve,!. ,
I
r Hi ~~. ~ 8. g: ~ ~ 9] ~ 8. ~
'"'.fiP....'"8 [.g,Ii'::l'~';Ii'::l'fZ~ e:;';'"8 a
sQ "S'Z3:~03e~~ a~e;g8d.:=li' 5'
00 5..~00 O'Q-o$ [!2: Ern _::I Ii
. '" CT" a a "a. "," ~ '" ". 0 ~ '" - - El 0 0". Go
~~ 8.[$~~~[!.~~~~~[~~El"g~~ a
- I~"'" OC"'"t'i~'<::r-o~ ::I>~3
o ~~cw - :lo~:r R ~, 0::1
~ g- g: ~ ~" n 0.'"8 f!!1. i lii & Ii. ~ ~ F ~ !:
~.~ lii-o;: '~~li' ~~~~q~~",
= ~ a -l x ~ g, Cll 8.::1 f.~ S' ~.. [? g =-'
8" ""Cllo~ 0 ('Oa' .. ~ cD"
0. 31l".g ;;l'I"~ ~S1i "",.
8 ~~. 5. ~:;l W til ~ . co.;:,. a
S,2 ~.~ qo h il ".~ ~~~ ~J~
1__ 1_ _~"( ~lo.. 01_0
r
=
=
~'~ll!~ s~'!l'~ [I~'~i~ > l;~ ;"~ c ~~.~.
o ~1~::t ~ 0:1 !:t)~a ...~ oS::s 02&
g ~ s::: ::r 03 :;. 0 S'" < g. [qcl ~ Er g :to. III a . = g.;:l ~ R" frJA ..,
~::r::S~ ('000 ~CllO o.n ~5'" ('O_ON"'" >0
5 e; ~ ~ ~"r ~ (a :::! S 8 ~l ~ ~ [ R ~ ~ 8: ~ ~ ~
: J~i l~Ji ~:~ ~I ~.~ ~f ~~;g.~ ~ ~n.
&:j' -'::l Cll r;r.l ~ 0 . a Q -< ::t, 5 t6 _. ~ 0 S" 3 Cll" ~ i! ff ~
-"~o.s.~. ~,,_ "_ ~o~ c ~.lii"~~
~[~ o..::s~ ::s~~ l}l;.:;;:;.o'~"C -;:'0 ro-:r'<;
po c.l _ ~ ~.Q g ~fir a ~ :;.~. Cll :::s - a <!!.~" ~ ~ n ~
::S~ -, <' ~6~ Ri~ >< o...~~o o~
~ ~ ~ ~~~ 8ig 1a ~~g ~ :~~~l [1-
:c "0.." - ~:R a ~ 3 :c ~. ~ " "e; ....., -.l ~ _. o:c
1'<:1., 1"'11 nlll~_ TOV'l>l!= :In
,.
!
a
III
ICI
-
fn
~
Z
ICI
~
Z
Z
III
S
-
o
Z
fn
g,5~ ~l~ if~ ~n g~g:[ ~~ n 2'~ e..
:r 1;5 '<:::r ~ lr.l ... _. 0 S' ':;0' ::s ....: ~ 0 7' Q. .. ~ 0.: a - ..:!:l_
~(\llll ('O_~oo"'lo._~' Q.~_.~~<::I' s:: ~e~l
~r: ~ s ~. [~ g- ~ 5":r ft ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :;! ~tg- ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0 g OQ ~ fr .~ R ~"3: ~ s:: ~ if n ~ S. - ~ ~.?
- ",,"'" "'. ~ ::l'" _ ~. ~. & '" til tl" " . 0 til ., _ & e: :L
1<_" ~~_~~~~ - _,~'-'~~~no~_.dc,C
_::r::r_ fti-.l'to::rog.~ ::S<::S_fIl"ii30elROO,::!::S"O
""< 0 -:T ::: @' 2.?)"'; 0 ~ 0 8 Pi' -l}l; ~ 0 0 (JQ -
~~g~ ~ 1i:T ~::l'~~ I!o.. 'B...'l ~ [8. ,,: iil g g!i~ g 8.
,,0""'3 ~ ~ 0&0 ~""oo" ~g
(") c: ~ 0: 0 - a c.l -'~::r "'" ~ 7' . :;:::r? ~.'"1"~ ~
c.lS:~ Cil~o O~=e-Cll s...e-~:?: ell _::<Cl}_ ::s
~ c S- g- 0.: < ~ :::-: ~ Cll -, 0 0.. = n 0 0 : ~ 00 ~ ~
:::I ('0 ~. (tl ::::p '=t ~ e _. 0 _. ... ~ (") '"
~(to~.~~: ~(\l:58g... 5"'l~;-t g.oo'~!~~"Ci
~~.-l"5:t'~S' 3o..-s:::00' O[~'; ~a.~8..R~Oe:
:::s~::r_~::rn C:::S~ x ::r _o::so..~ :s
~0~0:::::-(1In c.l"09..-'<"'9 Ii' 9..0 o....,o..~~~~o
, '
.~
~,"
.~~: \
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Police Department
Interoffice Memorandum
To:
Fred Wilson, City Administrator
Mike Billdt, Interim Chief of Police 7) I )
Annexation/County Islands
From:
Subject:
Date:
3 January, 2002
Copies:
We have taken a "windshield survey" of the proposed annexation areas in the Highland
and Orange areas, Our conclusion is:
Islands I and 2 would present a favorable addition to the city, These areas have some
desirable properties and anticipated calls for police services would be minimal.
Island 3 will present a challenge to the city, primarily to code enforcement The area is
not well maintained and it is evident this area presents significant blight-related
challenges, However, the size of the proposed annexation is small enough to represent a
minimal increase in calls for police services,
We can absorb the costs of routine police calls for service within current budget
resources, However, due to unknown variables, absorbing costs of blight reduction
efforts can not be estimated at this point
I support, from a police perspective, annexation of the three areas,
-
"I ~j ~.~
-,
i i
,,\
JAW -7.
"
"
I
___.__..J
. '.;" ~: r; '"
. ~t
THE SBPD IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING.
PROGRESSIVE QUALITY POLICE SERVICE,
A SAFE ENVIRONMENT TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE,
A REDUCTION IN CRIME THROUGH PROBLEM RECOGNITION AND PROBLEM SOLVING
, '
, '.
18 ~.~..'.~ Island One
.-ld Island Two
Island Three
5th St.
Mill St.
~
o
c
o
u
~
a.
Oran e Show Rd. ~
.. .
o
VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT "1"
Na Scale
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REAL PROPERTY SECTION
PROPOSED ISLAND ANNEXATIONS
UNDER AB 1555
~ indicates un-incarporated areas
~ within City's Sphere of Influence
Created by: L FOQ055Y Date: 01/08/2002
, '
f'...j
,
\I ~
'0 ~ '0. '0"":
c ' .
~! ~! ~~
z.... Z"
"0 l5 i = 'V g'
.! ~ ....'0 .! 0
oiS 0" 06
g.!! j - g
;.~ ~2 ;.'0
:a 0 "2'b '=ij";j
~ii ~";j ~:I
H o>D.~ ii ~
CJI .... CI'IU
>-f b'f >.~
~~ :e~ ~~
~~ t!2 ~~
"S "28 ".2
,!m -gm .si
~o ~- ~~
o eO 0_
g-~-8-;;- ~;
~L&.I-H.5I-H~--
::).::5 .Dj~-H
.. >... t ~.. .
~~~2~~ltb
_"OIO~"OID~O-<
B:H:;;"1i~~
~oc~~~lii~
_D....J_
o
~Cf)Z
cwO
a:: 0-
<(_I-
>0
ZO:::W
a::WCf)
WCf)~
m!zo:::
Zww
<(:2:c..
". c.. 0
v, 0 0:::
LL...Jc..
OW...J
>(ij~
....00:::
-
o
\
I
~
1 1
/ Ti ~"
~\ '( III ~.
Tf>......"<...J... IT TII TI IT ,.~
(]) -X D L 3li""Y X....Vl -: L BE
o ~J-t-") F---1 T I~ I
-g Ii; ~I----'BE
III If. '-i rl I l~ ,.",
l/) t= ~f f- (j l.A I TlI~ ~J
&~'- q~ "'YO""'~I= BE
)- tJfI-L ~ 1= ~
I/:'-"':: W ~'f:1-,'F- --I::"'
? r ,,/r~~ C '!II
--!~!1V~~~~"-!~ [i
s y"t // 3nN""Y t Em
'i.'<i ~;<- -( I I QllO;"""S
.:~(IIIIII I III .ITtl:l1
~ t::1--- "t jc:j I "^"'lO Y!'NOS 6 L
"- I- f- I T"'\ '\_...c~ -c
L = ~ ~ _ ,,-, To\-' L ~
_ I- _ ~ I~~ Z
7- ~ - "C ~ ~ - """\ '!SlI3!N30 II- ~
....0 _ c: - ~ 1/' 1'- <(
~ _ III _ 0 _ ~ II-
II - l/) ,--" y,,- I
l - -~ - --\'""y>ooo"".lt
rn 3nN3^Y ----, I/IT lllli-
N-k S p::-, Ii-~ IT mY, -- L....
r ~ Y8ffitt83NVl SM0:>Y3" ON"",S ~~
'iU _ ci--
i : ~ j
Q V ~3AAKlNOANVO i:~
f$. '# "- ~ '-
<$ I 7J'-~'
_ ~rT r-ri hf~ \
301Ml0 ~ \
It
r-
~
. ~
S'l~
!::''''-..
!!!
J:
><
W
/~
~
~ -'~
~]
"'~ I) ~
~
~~
N
~~
i~
. u
. .
" ~
""
II~l~;
I--~ <mnl ~ I
I--~ <m I
~ ,t!!!:1 <m I
I-- ' ~ <m '''''' I
I-- ~ ~I<m l!IJ w I
_ I-- 0<m ~ I
I-- <m <m I
~ I-- ·
---./ ~ r- t= . ~~ <m
..._ l!IJ ffijji~
II----J I 1 ") r-
II-- 11,.11 ~
I I t:
II---l --- '--
r-.J. Ill-~ ~~
II-- f-~ ~i--
II 1-;=
T
"'"
L
o
z
<(
....I
:I:
Cl
:I:
;;
~
,
~
~
o
,
o
o
~
z
,
g
(
z
o
~
~
~
.
,
~
U
~
-z,~~
o \""&,. ~
V&,.\""\p 9s:.
0-
(])
~
..c:
I-
"C
c:
III
l/)
I
/1
.----.
'I I
Summary of Characteristics
County Islands Qualifying for Annexation Under AD 1555
Description Island One Island Two Island Three Total
Area 33.38 Acres 32.76 Acres 11.62 Acres 77.67 Acres
Laod Use by Parcel
Residential (Single) 88 Parcels 58 Parcels 37 Parcels 183 Parcels
Residential (Duplex) 0 0 4 4
Residential (Quad) 0 0 2 2
Commercial 0 0 2 2
Vacaot 2 0 9 II
Total parcels 90 58 54 202
Total Dwelling Units 88 58 53 199
Population 337 245 129 711
Linear feet of Asphalt 6,000 5,400 3,250 14,650
Linear feet of curb 12,000 10,800 0 22,800
Linear feet of sidewalk 9,600 5,400 0 15,000
Overall condition of streets Poor Poor Poor
Overall property maintenaoce Good Fair Poor
EXHIBIT "3"
.,1 I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ESTIMATED REVENUES
ANNEXATION OF THREE COUNTY ISLANDS PROPOSED UNDER AB 1555
Property Tax Total Assessed Value $ 22,171,921.00
Tax Revenue (1% of AV) $ 221,719.21
City's average of 14.3244% of Tax Revenue $ 31,759.95 $ 31,759.95
State Aid-Libraries 2001-02 Budget: $ 309,000.00
Per Capita Cost (Current 185,272) $ 1.67
Per Capita Extension to Islands
(Additional Population of 711) $ 1,187.37 $ 1,187.37
Traffic Congestion Relief (AB 2928) 2001-02 Budget: $ 560,000.00
Per Capita Cost (Current 185,272) $ 3.02
Per Capita Extension to Islands
(Additional Population of 711) $ 2,147.22 $ 2,147.22
Special Gas Tax Fund 2001-02 Budget: $ 3,499,000.00
Per Capita Cost (Current 185,272) $ 18.89
Per Capita Extension to Islands
(Additional Population of711) $ 13,430.79 $ 13,430.79
Motor Vehicle In Lieu 2001-02 Budget: $ 9,750,000.00
Per Capita Cost (Current 185,272) $ 52.63
Per Capita Extension to Islands
(Additional Population of 711) $ 37,419.93 $ 37,419.93
Sales Tax Safety 2001-02 Budget: $ 650,000.00
Per Capita Cost (Current 185,272) $ 3.51
Per Capita Extension to Islands
(Additional Population of 711) $ 2,495.61 $ 2,495.61
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES' $ 85,945.26
EXHIBIT "4"
'L I
. '.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS FOR MAJOR SERVICES
ANNEXATION OF THREE COUNTY ISLANDS PROPOSED UNDER AB 1555
Description of Services
Estimated
Annual
Cost
Police (Includes all divisions)
Note: Minimal costs are aticipated $
which can be absorbed within $
current budget resources.
$
$
Fire Suppression & paramedic
Note: Fire Suppression and
Paramedic service already being $
provided in these islands. Loss
of Revenue from County upon $
Annexation
$
(18,750.00)
Animal Control 2001-02 Budget: $ 1,293,300.00
Per Capita Cost (Current 185,272) $ 6.98
Per Capita Extension to Islands
(Additional Population of711) $ 4,962.78 $ (4,962.78)
Street I Street Tree Maintenance 2001-02 Budget: $ 3,253,100.00
Per Mile Cost (Current 536 Miles) $ 6,069.22
Per Mile Extension to Islands
(Additional 2.76 Miles) $ 16,690.36 $ (16,690.36)
Street Sweeping 2001-02 Budget: $ 431,700.00
Cost per Mile (Current 536 Miles) $ 805.41
Per Mile Extension to Islands
(Additional 2.76 Miles) $ 2,222.93 $ (2,222.93)
Pavement Rehabilitation (ongoin9) 2001-02 Budget $11,667,700.00
Cost per Mile (536 Miles) $ 21,768.10
Per Mile Extension to Islands
(Additional 2.76 Miles) $ 60,079.96 $ (60,079.96)
TOTAL ESIMATED COSTS
ESTIMATED NET REVENUES
$
$
$
85,945.26
(102.706.02)
LESS ESTIMATED GROSS REVENUES
(16,760.77)
Exhibit "5"
SUMMARY OF PROS AND CONS OF 3 ISLAND ANNEXATIONS IN THE
NORTHEAST AREA OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO UNDER AB 1555.
PROS
. Increased clarity of the boundaries of the City limits between City and County and clarity of
the responsibility for provision of services.
. Additional future revenues could be generated from the islands to upgrade infrastructure.
. Better code enforcement and improved property maintenance could result in increased
property values, thus generating additional tax revenues.
. Citizens and property owners would benefit from being in a smaller, more accessible
municipal government rather than the larger County government.
. Delivery of services to the islands would be more efficient.
. The City of San Bernardino would likely do a superior job of maintaining the improvements
in the public right-of-way.
CONS
. The City of San Bernardino would become responsible for maintaining the streets, curbs,
gutter, sidewalk, street light maintenance, street tree trimming and street sweeping within
the islands.
. Initial net annual loss estimated at $16,760.77 without Users Utility Tax revenues
EXHIBIT "6"
June 17, 2002
i '~,'~
'".J
Fred A. Wilson
City Administrator
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino Ca, 92418-0001
Dear Fred:
Thank you for inviting us to submit this proposal to serve as the Community Relations
Consultant for the City of San Bernardino relating to the proposal annexation of County
islands located adjacent to the City. We have revised this proposal to incorporate the
workscope changes we discussed with Teri Baker of your office.
OPR Inland EmDire Back2round
O'Reilly Public Relations (OPR) is the largest public relations firm in the Inland Empire.
Our office has worked successfully throughout the region on numerous public affairs,
government relations and community relations outreach programs.
OPR also specializes in land-use related issues and projects and have had a number of
successes both for and against annexation efforts including:
· Citizens For Good Government - Provided successful strategic plan for community
action groups opposed to City of Fontana's annexation attempt
. "Donut Hole" Property - Organized a public outreach campaign to defeat the City of
Redlands annexation attempt of the "Donut Hole"
. San Bernardino County Dairy Preserve - OPR designed and implemented a public
relations program that led to the successful annexation of 1,600 acre preserve to the
City of Chino
SITUATION
Surrounded by the boundaries of the City of San Bernardino are three unincorporated
territories or 'islands' which include a total of approximately 200 individual land parcels.
The City is considering the annexation of the three islands. The City is in the process of
considering whether to submit an application with the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) and is currently considering strategies for community outreach.
Annexation of the parcels would streamline the public safety services by placing both fire
and police services under City authorization. Potential resident benefits include shortened
emergency response times by law enforcement and the fire department.
'L'"
"
>Y.HIRTf',7
,.LYPR,COM
Annexation Proposal
June 17,2002
30f3
BUDGET
OPR estimates fees for this project to be approximately $5,000 for the above referenced
work scope.
The above program was tailored to address the relatively small universe of residents
associated with this particular unique annexation. Communication programs for large
annexation proposals should also include the following elements for consideration:
Research
. Public Opinion Survey
. Focus Groups
. Messaging Deck
. Target Audience Inventory and Target List
. Identify third party validators
Community Relations
. Coalition Development
. Community Advisory Council Development
. Direct Mail Program
. Townhall Meeting Program
. Speakers Bureau design and coordination
Media Relations
. Reporter briefings
. Editorial board briefings
. Author opinion/editorial articles
. Appoint project spokesperson
. Public Service Announcements (PSA's)
. Local cable buy
. Newspaper advertising
Again, thank you for considering O'Reilly Public Relations for this effort. We look
forward to the opportunity to work with you and are prepared to answer any questions you
may have regarding this opportunity.
Sincerely,
L
~-
Patrick 1. O'Reilly
President! CEO
Lou Monville
Public Affairs Director
Annexation Proposal
June 17,2002
20f3
However, the primary concern of the unincorporated area residents to the City annexation
would have been the payment of the city utility tax. However, it is our understanding that
the City will not seek to impose the Utility User Tax upon those three annexation areas.
GOALS
. Enhance the reputation of the City of San Bernardino by successfully positioning the
annexation application as a positive step toward improving the quality of life for area
residents.
. Positively position the City of San Bernardino as a forward thinking city that
promotes 'Good Government' practices.
. Clearly and accurately communicate project information and benefits among target
audiences.
STRATEGIES
. Be proactive. Clearly identify and communicate annexation public benefits.
. Be constant and consistent with communications. Interruptions or distractions will
prevent a compelling argument from resonating, and allow for the dissemination of
inaccurate information
· Utilize area Councilmember as key feature of outreach efforts, personalizing and
demonstrating the City's desire to be "actively engaged and listening".
TACTICS and TIMING
. Phase 1: Internal Research (Weeks 1 through 3)
-Step 1: Draft key messages document
-Step 2: Draft collateral materials (Fact Sheet, Q&A etc.)
. Phase 2: Pre-application Submittal (Weeks 4 through 6)
(">
-Step 3: Draft and distribute community meeting correspondence
-Step 4: Draft media briefing materials
-Step 5: Draft and distribute post meeting summary letter to residents
. Phase 3: Post-application submittal (Weeks 7 and 8)
-Step 6: Prepare any follow up collateral materials (if needed)
-Step 7: Prepare any media follow up materials (if needed)
..,AUG-05-02 11: 15 9098853187
08-05-02 11:13 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGARD' S~ITH LLP
P02
9098853187
R-m Job-778
T-871 P 02104 F-512
LEWIS,!)' AMATO, BRISBOIS & BISGAARD LLP
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Common COUIlcil
FROM:
Timothy 1. Sabo
DATE:
RE:
June 17,2002
Applicability of Proposidon Zl8 Election RequiremeDtli to Anqexation of
"lslaDd" Areas .
At this time the City of San Bernardino (the "City") is considering the annexation of three
"island" areas. May the utility uj;ers tax alreildy in place in the City be imposed on residents of these
"island" areas?
Proposition 218, approved by the California electorate on November 5, 1996, provides,
among other things, lhat no tax can be unposed, extended or increased without voter approval. In
1997, Legislati ve COUIlSCI ofCalifomia opined that the voter and landowner approval requirements
of Proposition 218 made no exception for taXes, benefit assessments or fees inlposed as a condition
of amu:xation and that Proposition 218 requirements were, therefore, applicable to annexations.
However, in 1999 the California Anomey Generdl issued Opinion No. 99-602, concluding that
when territory is annexed purs~t to the procedures for resident protest and election set forth in the
Cortese-Knox Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (now, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act of
2000, hereinafter referred to as the "Act") , the voter and landowner approval requirements of
Proposition 218 do not apply.
Under the protest-and-election procedures set forth in Section 57000 et~. of the Act, a
proposal to annex maybe (1) di~proved by the local agency formation comr:lission, (2) approved
without an election if the requisite number ofregistered voters or landowners do not object or (3)
subject to an election if the Teq\Jisite number of protests are presented. Thos!: who wOllld become
subject to an established tax upon the annexiltion have the opportunity to reject the imposition of the
previously approved tax by fl<iecting the annexation proposal, Since the protest-and-election
procedures of the Act may requife a vote of the landowners or the electorate in the affected area, they
coincide with the requirement~ of Proposition 218. According to the Attomey General, "ao
additional election under Propo6ition 218 would be wasteful of taxpayer tunds".
Section 56375.3 of the Act authorizes a simplified annention procedure for "island" areas
not exceeding seventy five (75) acres. Under Section 56375.5, a local area formation agency may
order annexation of the temtory without an election or waive the protest bearing proceedings sef
forth in Section 57000 et~. of the Act. If the three "islands" proposed for lllmexation at this time
are annexed in accordance with Section 56375.3, the requirements of Proposition 218 would not be
met, and the utility users tilX CQuld not be imposed on residents of those area,.
.~I+ ~ tIi L.. "2-
. #(9
..AUG-05-02 11 :15 9098853187
08-05-02 11 :13 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGARO l SMITH LLP
P03
9098853187
R-S75 Job-778
T-8T1 P 03/04 F-512
LEWIS, D'AMATO, BRISBOIS & BISGAAlID UP
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Common Council
FROM:
Timothy J. Sabo
DATE:
June 17, 2002
RE:
E~enditure of Pub lit Funds on Mane" Requiring Voter Approval
In connection with its Fonsidenuion of lIJlIlelcing three 'island" areilS, the City of San
Bernardino (the "City) propoge~ to enter into an agreement with O'Reilly Public Relations ("OPR")
pursuanltO which OrR will cliS$eminale infonnation to and generally commuQicate with residents
of the affected areas with respet;lto the annexation.
Proceeclings for annexation may be held in accordance with the protest-and-election
procedures set forth in Section 57000 S!~. (lfthe Correse-Knox-HertZberg Act of2000 (the "Act").
Under these procedures, residents of the 'island" areas may protest the arlllexation and, if the
requisite number of protests are presented, may vote at an election on the matterY
The basic rule with rcspj:Ct to the use of public funds and other public resources on maners
requiring voter approval is: "Eflucate-Don't Advocate"- The courts considcr spending taXpayer
funds to advocate for or against an issue reqUITing voter approval to "demean tho: Qernocratic
process". (Leupe of Women Vqters l'. Countrywide CnmmalJust;ce Coordinarion Commillee, 203
Cal App. 3d 529, 1988). Since II democratic form of government acknowledges the viability of both
sides of all issues, the governmenl must maintain a position of neutrality and impartiality. Using
public funds to disseminate one-sided information advocating in favor of or against any issue
"cannot be tolerated, clirectly o~ inclirectly, in a democracy." Voters opposing an issue have rights
to the expended public funds ~uallO those of voterS who suppon it. (Mmes v. Del Valle, 201 Cal.
273, 1927).
The defining case on th~ issue afthe expencliture ofpub!ic funds on maTters requiring voter
approval is Stamon l'. MOll (17 C .3d 206, 1976). In St01lson, the Director of the: State Department
of Parks and Recreation (the "Department") authorized the use of Depal1lnent funds fur the
.!IThe Act authorizes a ~implified annexation procedure for "island" areas not exce~ing
seventy five (75) acres. If the sifllplified procedure is utilized with respect to the three "island" areas
presently being considered for annexation, the atmexation is not subject to protest and election. In
that case, the constraints on the I!xpenditure of publiC funds discussed in this Memorandum may not
be applicable.
SB2llll2 2llO47.\
. AUG-05-02 11: 15 9098853187
08-05-02 11:13 From-LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGARO & SMITH LLP
P04
9098853187
R-675 Job-778
T-871 P.04/04 F-512
Mayor and Common Council
June 17, 2002
Page 2
dissemination of cenain Department publications regarding an upcoming bond election. The
Department publications contailled promotioIllll material in favor of the bond issue. A taxpayer sued
the Department Director for an fllegal expenditure of public funds.
The California Suprem~ Coun began its analysis by noting that expenditures by public
officials are proper "only insofar as they ~ authorized. explicitly or unplicitly. by legislative
enacnnent." Defendant Man cqntended thaI Section 512 of the Public Resources Code authorized
the use of pUblic funds for the Peparnnent publications. Section 512 provide; that for the purpose
of disseminating information re1ating to its activities, duties or functions, the Department may issue
publications and perform such <!Fts and carry on such functions as in the opinion of the director will
besttend to disseminate such infurmation. The Coun concluded that Section 512 authorized the use
of public funds for informatipnal malenal, but not for promotional nw.erial. Because the
Department publications adVOCjlted a favorJble position on the bond issue, they were promotional
publications; and the Director of the Deparnnent was precluded from spending public funds on their
preparation and dissenrination.
The City is allowed to present residents of the ''island'' areas a fair presentation of the facts
regarding antlCltation, and the al'"eement with OPR is an appropriate means to that end. However,
OPR may not engage in advocll(:y with respect to the proposed annexation in the course of fulfilling
its ohligations under the agteeq1ent.
5112002,20041\
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: JAMES FUNK, Dirtor
Dept: Development Services
, f
;
. ...
Subject: Authorization to Proceed with
the proposed annexation of three County
islands located generally east of Central
Avenue, north of Atlantic Avenue.
Date: May 30, 2002
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
File No. 12.01-343
MCC Date: 06/17/2002
05-23-2002 - Legislative Review Committee recommended approval of authorization to
proceed with the proposed annexation of three County islands located generally east of Central
Avenue, north of Atlantic Avenue.
Recommended Motion:
That the Director of Development Services be authorized to initiate proceedings for the
annexation of three County islands generally located east of Central Avenue, north of Atlantic
Avenue, under the provisions of AB 1555
~J~
Contact person: LASZLO "Les" FOGASSY
Supporting data attached: Staff Report, Summary
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
$8,450.00 (LAFCO Fees)
Source: (Aeet. No.) 001-092-5502
(Aect. Description) General Fund Professional /
Contractual Services
Finance:
Council Notes: f./WJ'~ roll//a.? F'=.:(3
Agenda Item I
#dJ-
tJSI()~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Staff Report
SUBJECT:
Authorization to Proceed with the proposed annexation of three County islands located generally
east of Central Avenue, north of Atlantic Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
On January 21,2000, Assembly Bill 1555 became effective, allowing for the annexation of
unincorporated territory of 75 acres or less, without the need to obtain property owner or
registered voter approval. There are three islands, located in the northeast portion ofthe City
that would qualify to be annexed under this bill. The elimination of these islands would result in
a more efficient delivery of services by reducing the irregular boundaries that currently exist.
The proposal was submitted to the Legislative Review Committee for consideration and on May
23,2002, the Committee recommended the initiating of proceedings for the proposed
annexation. A summary of the proposal submitted to the Committee, including background
summary, maps, and the impacts on City services, is provided in Attachment A.
In order to help educate and inform residents on the issues related to the proposed annexation of
three County islands, it is proposed to use the services of a community outreach consultant. A
separate agenda item has been prepared recommending the firm of O'Reilly Public Relations to
assist in this effort. O'Reilly Public Relations has worked successfully throughout the region on
numerous public affairs issues, govemment and community relations outreach programs.
Additionally, the firm specializes in annexation and land-use related issues.
The application documents that will be need to be filed with the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO), as well as a request for authorization for the payment of filing fees, will
also be submitted at that time for your consideration. As stated in the summary, the filing fees
are estimated to be between $6,150 and $8,450, and will need to be paid from the General Fund.
LAFCO will conduct the formal proceedings for the annexation, which will include mailed
notices. They will also conduct a public hearing prior to the Commission's consideration for this
proposal.
At this time, it has not been determined if the City's Utility User's Tax would apply upon
annexation, due to Proposition 218. An opinion has been requested from the City Attorney's
office on this issue.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
A maximum of$8,450 for filing fees from the General Fund when the proposal is filed with
LAFCO.
, I
Staff Report - continued
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that authorization be given to proceed with the proposed annexation.
,
. I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Inter-Office Memorandum
TO: FRED WILSON, City Administrator
FROM: JAMES FUNK, Development Services Director
By: Laszlo "Les" Fogassy, Real Property Official
SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation of Three County Islands under AB 1555
DATE: May 30, 2002
COPIES: File No.: 12.01-343; Reading
Overview of Recent Leeislation Reeardine Annexations.
AB 1555
On January 21, 2000, Assembly Bill 1555 became effective, allowing for the annexation of
unincorporated territory of75. acres or less, without the need to obtain property owner and/or registered
voter approval. The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the elimination of irregular boundaries that exist in
many Cities, which often causes confusion and inefficiency in the delivery of services between the
affected agencies. AB 1555 provides for a seven-year window, after which time it will expire.
AB 2838
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2838, which became effective January 1,2001, and codified under
Government Code Section 56000, et. Seq., (known as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act of 2000), the procedures for annexations and reorganizations has changed
substantially from the previous requirements. In substance, the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) is the lead and conducting agency for the proceedings, including notifications to property
owners and/or registered voters and also conducts the public hearing. Under the new law, notification
must include all property owners and registered voters within 300 feet of the external boundaries of a
proposed annexation. The only responsibilities of the City for the proceedings, are the preparation and
filing of the application and various appurtenant documents, maps, etc., and payment of fees.
OualifviBl!: Islands Under AB 1555
The City of San Bernardino has three islands within its current Sphere ofInfluence that would qualify
for annexations proceedings under AB 1555. All three islands are located in the northeast portion of the
City and are depicted on the attached maps. Exhibit "1 " is a vicinity map of the islands and Exhibit "2"
is a detailed map. Islands one and two are fully developed with single family residential use. Island three
is mixed, with two small commercial properties and the remainder being residential uses. Exhibit "3"
gives a summary of the characteristics of the three islands.
Filinl! Fees / Proceedinl!s
Although normal filing fees for the annexation of the three islands would exceed $19,000, LAFCO has
advised us that the initial filing fees for Island Annexations under AB 1555 would be waived, if the City
requested. This is to encourage Cities to eliminate eligible to eliminate islands qualifying under AB
1555. The other various fees will be determined by the affected agencies, and whether or not they
combine fees as one annexation or separate fees for each island. Since no precedent has been set in this
area, the table below shows the minimum and maximum fees the City could expect to pay, and will be
determined once the filing has taken place.
Initial Filing Fee
Environmental Fee Deposit
Landowner/Registered Voter Notifications:
Board of Equalization Fee
GIMS (County Mapping Fee)
Mi!!.
$ 0
750
3,600
1,500
300
Max.
$ 0
750
3600
3,200
900
Total Fees
$6,150
$8,450
As stated previously, LAFCO would be the conducting Agency for the proceedings under this
annexation, including the mailing of notices and conducting the public hearing. LAFCO's executive
officer has stated that the actions of the Commission are non-discretionary for proceedings under AB
1555, and approval of the am:texations is mandated.
Provision of Citv Services
Upon annexation, the residents and/or property owners within the islands would receive all City services
available to current City residents, with the following exceptions: water and sewer service, which is
currently provided by East Valley Water, would continue to be provided by East Valley after annexation.
Refuse service would be available, but under a current City ordinance, residents may continue to use
their existing refuse hauler for up to five years after annexation.
Financial Impact of Annexation-Revenues vs. Expenses
As part of the filing proceedings, it will be required that the City and the County negotiate the amount of
the County's portion of the property tax that would be transferred to the City upon annexation. Since the
general formula for determining these amounts was agreed upon between the City and County in the
early 1980's, the "negotiation" process consists of the County and the City each adopting a resolution
applying the previously approved formula. The Utility Users Tax issue is subject to Proposition 218
guidelines, which will require further review by the City Attorney.
The City currently provides paramedic and fire suppression services to I I County islands, including the
three small islands proposed for annexation, through an agreement with the County for $250,000 per
year. There would be no new costs associated with the annexation for fire services, but the revenue from
the County for the 3 islands would be lost. Although no formal amount has been agreed upon with the
County at this time, based.on percentage of area and population of these islands in relation to all the
islands as a whole, the lost revenue is estimated at 7.5 %, or $18,750.
The Police Department conducted a "windshield survey" of the three small islands, and indicated that
they anticipate that Island One and Island Two would require minimal police services. (See attached
letter from the Interim Chief of Police). They did indicate that Island Three would present some blight-
. related challenges. However, due to the small size of these islands, it was felt that routine police calls for
services could be absorbed within current budget resources. Thus, no additional costs for police services
would be needed as a result of annexing the three islands.
Exhibit "4" shows a summary of estimated revenues from major sources. The annual revenue is
estimated to be 585,945.61. If the Utility Users Tax does apply, revenue would be 5133,705.26.
Estimated costs range from 5199,400.04 to 5284,857.20, depending on the level of infrastructure
investment made to the annexed area.
The pros and cons of these island annexations are summarized in Exhibit "5".
Community Outreach
In order to assist staff with community outreach efforts, it is proposed to use the services of a community
outreach firm. The services of the consultant would include preparation of collateral materials (Fact
Sheet, Q&A, etc.); drafting and distributing community meeting correspondence, drafting media
materials, assisting with a community meeting and preparing a post meeting summary letter to residents.
The cost to provide the outreach services is estimated at 55,000.00.
.'>";'
<~/ . ,'", . . ':;,::'.7
',' ',),
_,,:\.' '_.r.'"
~.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Police Department
Interoffice Memorandum
To:
Fred Wilson, City Administrator
From:
,
Mike Billdt, Interim Chief of Police 711)
Annexation/County Islands
Subject:
Date:
3 January, 2002
Copies:
We have taken a "windshield survey" of the proposed annexation areas in the Highland
and Orange areas. Our conclusion is:
Islands 1 and 2 would present a favorable addition to the city. These areas have some
desirable properties and anticipated calls for police services would be minimal.
Island 3 will present a challenge to the city, primarily to code enforcement. The area is
not well maintained and it is evident this area presents significant blight-related
challenges. However, the size of the proposed annexation is small enough to represent a
minimal increase in cans for police services.
We can absorb the costs of routine police calls for service within current budget
resources. However, due to unknown variables, absorbing costs of blight reduction
efforts can not be estimated at this point.
I support, from a police perspective, annexation of the three areas.
-
:1 ~;} to:
.' --.-- "-,. .,
j,
.-7.
.---.--.....!
. ',0;' ~: r,.,:.,
::',
THE SBPD IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING:
PROGRESSIVE QUALITY POLICE SERVICE;
A SAFE ENVIRONMENT TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE;
A REDUCTION IN CRIME THROUGH PROBLEM RECOGNITION AND PROBLEM SOL VING
, '
Island Two
Island Three
5th 51.
Mill 51.
.. .
.
o
VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT "1"
No Scale
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REAL PROPERTY SECTION
PROPOSED ISLAND ANNEXATIONS
UNDER AS 1555
~ indicates un-incorporated areas
~ within City's Sphere of Influence
Created by: 1-. Foqa~~y Date: 0110812.002.
, I
~~' vi; ~, ,
T T_/~0t '" 1"'
rvU /, T". =~
~/I . I.~
" ~ f I
c:.g / ,1 "'.'"
Cll f;L . '1".- EmU
!!l t:::. 7;'1...........ii ~ l~o- i:I3
......= '1! 't./ QI~ Hi
Ji'f::l::11 1- wFfY-1- Lit !
~~'X."i \ _WON' I ~ =
l '7J:i, 11)' .~ '- 1-1 =
""')'~ // 3I1N31W I EEB
, ~,( if I I """,,"'.s
~:~u: III I 'L I:tJI
I _' f-f-::I ~ 3''''0 .~NllS ~
c- _ Nil T I .p-r
r-_ f- 0 I-- ~w
_ f- ~ = - "\.J III-- ~
~ " I-- ~ _ -{".3!H" I ~ <(~
I- c: _~ / 1-
_..!J1 -~f- '\:I I~
1--1 rJl \ :'-. V 1-
, _ I :~ill-- --{"'..:>O:>. -
\ I 7J] 3nN"'. .------, / I 1111 ~
=H '"g- \ I I .,... ~'-l
.,.! r '. 1. f--....l 3NVl SMllll'i3W, [
I , '-- ""lid. ~..-
~1" R c:""'"""'s ~-
~ "I ~ ~ 7>::::
~1 !): -"~I
_ 13~,( ~NVll~r ~ -
~
(
~L
~ "
Q)
c:
o
~
.
.
c
z
:5
:I:
Cl
:I:
-a.
-z,~~
O.....A~
Y.A~ ~
0-
,..-
r 1 f---I
I~
Q) I
E ---/I~
I- I
" 1-
1ij ~
en
--.
o
~CJ)Z
cwo
0:: () -
.....-1-
->()
zo:::w
o::WCJ)
wCJ)~
m!zo:::
zWW
<t~a..
U)a..o
00:::
LL-la..
OW-l
)-Gi<
~o~
(3
'0 ~ '0 Ii '0..
i -'= ~ 0
ic b! i~
z_ z Zu
i~ !~ i[
-i!Ii a. .... ~
8 II & ~ 80
.2a: -~ .2'0
>.~ ~ )0,
:g a 15'0 :g-;;
fi h l~
U's CJIW CJIU
"'t ~, ,.,~
Is.: _'_ h ~
~o 'ECS ~c
;; a ~ a ."='
....~ .... I-C
"=' g '3'5 "='~
.!CD oCD .!.!?
~o ~'O b:
~i-i'l: ~;
.!.!w"'slii.!I!--
C ~.c ce:'"
::t ~ .:).; .:::l(l)
ii" ~..'! ~~.. =
C5cclo~ gb
'1II1IO'"" a<
li~l:2 ~1-.J ~
Q.~CQ.~~i!"':
_Q.-.J_
h-
(; . CIl
~~
""'~ ,) ~
~
~~
I
-
,
-
-,
.
-~
-
IL ~
'-. \JT m:\-.' {ij
3llN3foY AOiBY CSl
~1'liIQl] QI]
C~
_~ m
-~ ~ ~
f-- ""lJmJ W ~
-~
- "1I!I!H
TtlPl <81 tIP
.----, ~
~
-
-
-
~-
.-
'-
~-
-
I
I
...
/1
~~
!'I ...
l-
iii
~
><
W
-.l
~~
.,,"
. .
1;;'t\
. .
" .c
uu
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
in
;1
.
!1
2
W
.
W
~
!
o
.
z
o
~
~
~
,
,
>
.
o
\' I
Summary of Characteristics
County Islands Qualifying for Annexation Under AB 1555
Description Island One Island Two Island Three Total
-
Area 33.38 Acres 32.76 Acres 11.62 Acres 77.67 Acres
Land Use by Parcel
Residential (Single) 88 Parcels 58 Parcels 37 Parcels 183 Parcels
Residential (Duplex) 0 0 4 4
Residential (Quad) 0 0 2 2
Commercial 0 0 2 2
Vacant 2 0 9 11
Total parcels , 90 58 54 202
Total Dwelling Units 88 58 53 199
Population 337 245 129 711
Linear feet of Asphalt 6,000 5,400 3,250 14,650
Linear feet of curb 12,000 10,800 0 22,800
Linear feet of sidewalk 9,600 5,400 0 15,000
Overall condition of streets Poor Poor Poor
Overall property maintenance Good Fair Poor
EXHIBIT "3"
" I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ESTIMATED REVENUES
ANNEXATION OF THREE COUNTY ISLANDS PROPOSED UNDER AB 1555
Properly Tax
State Aid-Libraries
Traffic Congestion Relief (AB 2928)
Special. Gas Tax Fund
Motor Vehicle In Lieu
Sales Tax Safety
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES
Utility Users Tax
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES IF
U.U.T. DOES APPLY
Total Assessed Value
Tax Revenue (1 % of AV)
City's average of 14.3244% of Tax Revenue
2001-02 Budget:
Per Capita Cost (Current 185,272)
Per Capita Extension to Islands
(Additional Population of 711)
2001-02 Budget:
Per Capita Cost (Current 185,272)
Per Capita Extension to Islands
(Additional Population of 711)
2001-02 Budget:
Per Capita Cost (Current 185,272)
Per Capita Extension to Islands
(Additional Population of 711)
2001-02 Budget:
Per Capita Cost (Current 185,272)
Per Capita Extension to Islands
(Additional Population of 711)
2001-02 Budget:
Per Capita Cost (Current 185,272)
Per Capita Extension to Islands
(Additional Population of 711)
Total utility bills based on monthly average of
$250 for 199 residential units (phone,
electric, cable, gas) 8% tax
EXHIBIT "4"
$22,171,921.00
$221,719.21
$31,759.95
$309,000.00
$1.67
$1,187.37
$560,000.00
$3.02
$2,147.22
$3,499,000.00
$18.89
$13,430.79
$9,750,000.00
$52.63
$37,419.93
$650,000.00
$3.51
$2,495.61
$31,759.95
$ 1,187,37
$2,147.22
$13,430.79
$37,419.93
$ 2,495.61
$85,945.26
$47,760.00
$133,705.26
SUMMARY OF PROS AND CONS OF 3 ISLAND ANNEXATIONS IN THE
NORTHEAST AREA OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO UNDER AB ISSS.
PROS
· Increased clarity of the boundaries of the City limits between City and County and clarity of
the responsibility for provision of services.
· Initial n~t annual revenue estimated at $30,399.23, which could be utilized to improve the
physical condition of the islands.
· Additional future revenues could be generated from the islands to upgrade infrastructure.
· Better code enforcement and improved property maintenance could result in increased
property values, thus generating additional tax revenues.
· Citizens and property owners would benefit from being in a smaller, more accessible
municipal government rather than the larger County government.
· Delivery of services to the islands would be more efficient.
· The City of San Bernardino would likely do a superior job of maintaining the improvements
in the public right-of-way.
CONS
· The City of San Bernardino would become responsible for maintaining the streets, curbs,
gutter, sidewalk, street light maintenance, street tree trimming and street sweeping within
the islands.
· The property owners might be subject to the City's Utility Users Tax.
EXHIBIT "S"