San Bernardino County | Michael Reiter, Municipal Attorney. Partner with Cole Huber, LLP in Ontario, Roseville California

The Ralph M. Brown Act codified at Government Code section 54950 et seq., California’s open meeting law gives the public the opportunity to know what their elected officials are doing, and requires their meetings to be open and public.

When does the Brown Act allow a Council or Board to meet outside their jurisdiction?

Generally, the Brown Act does not allow legislative bodies to meet outside their jurisdiction “Regular and special meetings of the legislative body shall be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction . . .” Government Code section 54954(b).

However, there are the exceptions listed in the same section:

(1) Comply with state or federal law or court order, or attend a judicial or administrative proceeding to which the local agency is a party.

(2) Inspect real or personal property which cannot be conveniently brought within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the real or personal property.

(3) Participate in meetings or discussions of multiagency significance that are outside the boundaries of a local agency’s jurisdiction. However, any meeting or discussion held pursuant to this subdivision shall take place within the jurisdiction of one of the participating local agencies and be noticed by all participating agencies as provided for in this chapter.

(4) Meet in the closest meeting facility if the local agency has no meeting facility within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, or at the principal office of the local agency if that office is located outside the territory over which the agency exercises jurisdiction.

(5) Meet outside their immediate jurisdiction with elected or appointed officials of the United States or the State of California when a local meeting would be impractical, solely to discuss a legislative or regulatory issue affecting the local agency and over which the federal or state officials have jurisdiction.

(6) Meet outside their immediate jurisdiction if the meeting takes place in or nearby a facility owned by the agency, provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the facility.

(7) Visit the office of the local agency’s legal counsel for a closed session on pending litigation held pursuant to Section 54956.9, when to do so would reduce legal fees or costs.

There are also special rules for school boards:

(c) Meetings of the governing board of a school district shall be held within the district, except under the circumstances enumerated in subdivision (b), or to do any of the following:

(1) Attend a conference on nonadversarial collective bargaining techniques.

(2) Interview members of the public residing in another district with reference to the trustees’ potential employment of an applicant for the position of the superintendent of the district.

(3) Interview a potential employee from another district. Government Code section 54954(c).

Also, Joint Powers Authority have special rules.

(d) Meetings of a joint powers authority shall occur within the territory of at least one of its member agencies, or as provided in subdivision (b). However, a joint powers authority which has members throughout the state may meet at any facility in the state which complies with the requirements of Section 54961. Government Code section 54954(d).

Practically, it can be very difficult for a legislative body to meet outside its jurisdiction. For one, politically, it looks like the agency is hiding something.

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

Filed under City Council, City of Chino Hills, City of Riverside, Municipal Law, Ralph M. Brown Act, Riverside County, Riverside Superior Court, San Bernardino County Tagged with Brown Act, Closed Session, outside of jurisdiction

Thoughts on the 2012 San Bernardino County Bar Association’s Annual Installation & Awards Banquet at the San Bernardino Hilton, San Bernardino County

October 19, 2012 Leave a comment

Last night, I had the good fortune of attending the San Bernardino County Bar Association’s Annual Installation & Awards Banquet. The 2012-2013 Board of Directors was sworn in by San Bernardino Superior Court Presiding Judge Marsha G. Slough. The 2012-2013 Board of Directors is President Kevin Bevins, President-Elect John Zitny, Vice President Bradley R. White, Secretary-Treasurer Jack Osborn, Immediate Past President Jennifer M. Guenther, and Directors-at-Large the Honorable Diane I. Anderson, the Honorable Khymberli S. Apaloo, Victor J. Herrera, Barbara A. Keough, Eugene Kim, John W. Short, Sandy L. Turner, and me, Michael Reiter.

I have been a member of the San Bernardino County Bar since around the time I was admitted as an attorney, and through the years I participated in many Bar-related activities, from Lawyer Referral Service to Law Day to the Resolutions Committee.

The Installation was brief, with the bulk of the night devoted to honoring three legal titans: Grover Porter, Paul Shimoff and Bruce Varner. Here is the night’s program:

When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, I prosecuted roughly half of the code enforcement cases, along with Jolena Grider, who is now Senior Assistant City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino. During that time, we would spend a lot of time waiting for second call on our cases before bench warrants were issued to no-shows. During that time, I would get to hear stories from and about the criminal bar, which included an institutional memory at least into the 1960s. I had heard Grover Porter’s name when I worked at Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino, but it was not until I was a Deputy City Attorney that I had a chance to see how well Mr. Porter operated in the courtroom.

I have had many occasions to interact with Mr. Shimoff. As he said in his speech last night, he has never had to advertise, because he gets a constant stream of referrals from other attorneys. That is because his reputation, particularly in taxation, is unparalleled. He has been very generous with his time with me, particularly when I was an attorney for Legal Aid Society in San Bernardino. I asked him for tax advice on a transaction to convince a member of the community to donate his building to Legal Aid Society. If you have ever seen the beautiful potted plant in my office, it was a gift from Mr. Shimoff.

Bruce Varner is a legend of the Inland Empire, not just as an attorney, but as a community leader. I worked for his firm, then Gresham, Varner, Savage, Nolan & Tilden in the summer between high school and college, and the first winter break of college. Last night, he was a introduced by Jack Brown, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Stater Bros. Jack Brown lauded the expert legal work of Bruce Varner during Stater Bros. 1986 proxy fight that almost destroyed Stater Bros. Since 2006, he has been a University of California Regent, which is very impressive.

We are lucky in the Inland Empire to have such fine attorneys, and to have such a close legal community. It makes practicing law much more enjoyable.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under San Bernardino County, Small Business Law Tagged with San Bernardino County Bar Association

Garage Sales and Yard Sales (and permits) in the Cities of Highland, Colton, Rialto, San Bernardino, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Redlands, Yucaipa and unincorporated San Bernardino County

October 17, 2012 Leave a comment

People want to know how to get yard sale and garage sale permits in the East Valley, and they find this site because of this article about the City of San Bernardino’s yard sale ordinance. Therefore, here is a chart to give a basic (but not complete) understanding of the rules and regulations regarding yard sales in the East Valley, here defined as the Cities of Colton, Rialto, San Bernardino, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Highland, Redlands, Yucaipa and unincorporated San Bernardino County such as Muscoy, Mentone, Oak Glen, Devore, Arrowhead Suburban Farms, Devore Heights, and Del Rosa. Per the City Clerk of Loma Linda, there is no yard sale ordinance in the City of Loma Linda as of 10/17/2012. Note also that homeowners associations (HOAs) probably have additional restrictions (particularly East Highlands Ranch) which you should look into.

City/Unincorporated	Permit Required	Permit Cost	Where?	Duration
Colton	Yes	$2, except charity, nonprofit, religious	Finance Department	3 d, 8am-8pm
Grand Terrace	Yes (Except Exemptions)	$5	Finance Department	3 d, 8am-8pm
Highland	Yes	$7	Finance Department	3 d, 8am-8pm
Loma Linda	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Redlands	Yes	$2.50	Treasurer	3 d or 2d each over consecutive weekends; 8 am-8pm
Rialto	Yes (Except Exemptions)	$5.40	Finance Department	3d, daylight
San Bernardino	No (anomoly regarding Estate Sales)	N/A	N/A	3d, daylight
Yucaipa	After 1st sale	$2.50 (sales 2-4)	Front Desk, City Hall	3d, 8am-8 pm
Unincorporated San Bernardino County	No (See SBCC section 84.25.030(e) unless exceed standards of 84.10.	N/A	N/A	3d, 8am-5 pm

City/Unincorporated	Frequency	Display	Signage	Exemptions	Ordinance	Codified At	Violation
Colton	1/quarter	Not in PROW	During, onsite	Court sales	Ord 1483 (1975); 0-3-1989 (1989)	Colton Municipal Code Chapter 5.45	Misdemeanor
Grand Terrace	2/yr	Not in PROW	2 onsite, unlit, 4ft area, 5 day limit, not on PROW, trees, fences, utility poles, removed at end	Court sales, charitable, nonprofit, religious	Ord 35 (1980)	Grand Terrace Municipal Code Chapter 5.40	Infraction
Highland	3/12 mo	Safety	1 onsite doublesided, 6 ft area, 5′ tall, 24 hours before until end.	Court sales	Ord 239 (1998)	Highland Municipal Code section 5.04.370	Infraction
Loma Linda	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	None	N/A	N/A
Redlands	3/12 mo	Not in PROW, safety, only during sale		Court sales	Prior Code secs 24001-10; Ord 2684 (2007), 2779 (2012),	Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 5.68	Infraction
Rialto	4/calendar yr only first weekend in March, June, September and December	Not in PROW, front or side yards	2 onsite, 4ft area, 4directional signs, prohibited in PROW, >864 sq in., with permission of property owner.	Nonprofits,	Ord 1416 (2008)	Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 5.69	Infraction; misdemeanor for <3/yr
San Bernardino	12/yr only on 3rd weekend of mo	Not in PROW, safety, only during sale	3 onsite unlit 24 hr prior until end; 4 Directional 2 sq ft on private property w/consent	Estate sales as to frequency nonprofits as to frequency	Ord MC-1344 (2011)	San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 8.14	Infraction/misdemanor (woblette)
Yucaipa	4/12 mo	Not in PROW	1 onsite, not in PROW	Court sales	Ord 102 (1992)	Yucaipa Municipal Code Chapter 5.22	Infraction
Unincorporated San Bernardino County	4/yr	Not in PROW	2 onsite, 4ft area, 4 directional signs, prohibited in PROW, 864 sq in., w/permission of property owner.	None	Ord. 411 (2007)	San Bernardino County Code Chapter 84.10	Infraction; misdemeanor for >3/yr

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Administrative Citations, Amboy, Angelus Oaks, Arrowhead Suburban Farms, Baker, Baldwin Lake, Big Bear City, Big River, Bloomington, Bluewater, Cadiz, Cedar Glen, China Lake, City Clerk, City of Colton, City of Highland, City of Loma Linda, City of Redlands, City of Rialto, City of San Bernardino, City of Yucaipa, Code Enforcement, County of San Bernardino, Crafton, Crestline, Criminal Code Enforcement, Criminal Law, Daggett, Del Rosa, Del Rosa, Devore, Devore Heights, Earp, Forest Falls, Fort Irwin, Garage Sale / Yard Sale, Goffs, Helendale, Hinkley, Hodge, Johnson Valley, Joshua Tree, Kingston, Kramer Junction, Lake Arrowhead, Land Use, Land Use Law, Landers, Lenwood, Lucerne Valley, Lytle Creek, Mentone, Morongo Valley, Mount Baldy Village, Municipal Code, Municipal Law, Muscoy, Nebo Center, Newberry Springs, Nipton, Oak Glen, Oak Hills, Ordinance, Oro Grande, Phelan, Pinon Hills, Red Mountain, Rice, Rimforest, Running Springs, San Antonio Heights, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, Searles Valley, Skyforest, Sugarloaf, Trona, Twentynine Palms Base, Twin Peaks, Valley of Enchantment, Wonder Valley, Wrightwood, Yermo Tagged with Code Enforcement, estate sale, garage sale, infraction, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, misdemeanor, property sale, wobblette, yard sale

Friday Aside: A History of In-N-Out Burger in San Bernardino and environs

October 12, 2012 Leave a comment

I’ve written about In-N-Out Burger a few times, particularly in relation to trade dress. Someone reached my blog by asking “when did in n out open first in san bernardino ca.” If the searcher was seeking when the Fifth Street location (795 W. Fifth Street, San Bernardino) was built, that location was built in 2011, and opened at the end of 2011 (December 8, 2011). It replaced the Second Street location (the address was technically 190 Bungalow Court), which closed on December 7, 2011. The Second Street location was demolished after the State of California took possession on January 1, 2012. The State of California acquired the parcel through eminent domain for the Interstate 215 widening project. See Resolution CDC/2011-50 of the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino.

The Bungalow Court location was there as long as I can remember, and consisted of a double drive through and no inside eating area. The location in south San Bernardino,was moved slightly to the north to 1065 E. Harriman Place during the creation of the HUB Project. There was an Owner Participation Agreement between In-N-Out and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino, acknowledged by Resolution 2001-317, approved by Mayor Valles on October 3, 2001. The old In-N-Out in North Loma Linda was also a double drive through. According to a letter dated January 23, 1997 from then-attorney (and now Judge) Cynthia Ludvigsen, the old In-N-Out was on the northwest corner of Rosewood Drive and Tippecanoe. The Highland store (28009 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346) opened in 2012.
So, when did In-N-Out Burger open in San Bernardino? The area near Central City Mall was redeveloped in the 1970s. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino put out a photo survey of the downtown area before redevelopment, and if I recall correctly, the area on 2nd Street had houses in the early 1970s.

The In-N-Out website’s history section gives clues, but no answers. Obviously, the first one opened in 1948 in Baldwin Park, the same year that McDonald’s converted to a quick serve restaurant from a barbecue restaurant in San Bernardino. By 1958, there were five locations in the San Gabriel Valley. By 1973, In-N-Out had 13 locations, all in Los Angeles County, and all with two drive through lanes and no inside eating. In 1979, the first In-N-Out with a dining room opened in Ontario as restaurant number 21. The website adds that only 13 more no dining room locations were built after that. By 1988, In-N-Out had 50 stores in total, and in each of the core Southern California counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura.I have In-N-Out Santa glasses from 1982 that I know we bought from the 190 Bungalow Court location, so that probably means that the original downtown San Bernardino In-N-Out Burger was built between 1973 and 1982. [Update: October 17, 2012. I couldn’t stand it any longer. According to In-N-Out’s customer service line, the store was opened on February 11, 1982].

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under City of Highland, City of Redlands, City of San Bernardino, Eminent Domain, Food, Friday Aside, Inland Empire, Land Use, Land Use, Land Use Law, Municipal Law, Real Property Law, Redevelopment, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, Small Business Law Tagged with highland, In-N-Out, Loma Linda, San Bernardino

How the Measures Are Assigned Letters in the San Bernardino County Election November 6, 2012

October 9, 2012 Leave a comment

If you ever wondered the legal basis for measures being assigned letters, here is a release from the Registrar of Voters showing both the measures, and their assigned letters for November 6, 2012:

In accordance with California Election [sic] Code §13116(b), the San Bernardino County
Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters has designated the measures below with the
letters N through V. To determine what letter was assigned to each measure, a random
drawing was held at 10:00 a.m. on August 13, 2012.
School Districts
County
Letter Jurisdiction Measure Description
Q San Bernardino Proposed Charter Amendment by the Board of Supervisors to
enact a permanent cap on compensation and mandatory
transparency for members of the Board of Supervisors
R San Bernardino Proposed Charter Amendment by SEBA to enact
compensation limits and budget reductions for members of
the Board of Supervisors
City
Letter Jurisdiction Measure Description
S Needles Proposed Marijuana Business Tax
T Needles Proposed Utility User Tax
U Yucca Valley Proposed 1 cent sales tax for 30 years
V Rialto Proposed business tax on items related to petroleum
products
Letter Jurisdiction Measure Description
N San Bernardino City Unified Proposed Bond Measure to promote student safety and
school repairs
O Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified Proposed Bond Measure to repair and upgrade local schools
P Chaffey Joint Union High School Proposed Bond Measure to improve neighborhood schools

What does California Elections Code section 13116 say?:

(a) In an election at which state, county, city, or other local measures are submitted to a vote of the voters, all state measures shall be numbered in numerical order, as provided in this chapter or division. All county, city, or other local measures shall be designated by a letter, instead of a figure, printed on the left margin of the square containing the description of the measure, commencing with the letter “A” and continuing in alphabetical order, one letter for each of these measures appearing on the ballot.

(b) An elections official may commence designating local measures with any letter of the alphabet following the letter “A,” and continuing in alphabetical order, in order to avoid voter confusion that might result from different local measures carrying the same letter designation in successive elections.

(c) Where two or more counties or cities submitting measures to the voters are in close proximity, the elections officials of those counties or cities may mutually agree to use letter designation for ballot measures that will not conflict or confuse the voter.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under City of Needles, City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, Elections, General Law, Municipal Law, San Bernardino, San Bernardino City Unified School District, San Bernardino County, Town of Yucca Valley Tagged with California California Elections Code section 13116(b)

Measure R Proposed San Bernardino County Charter Amendment Initiative November 6, 2012

October 4, 2012 Leave a comment

Voters in the County of San Bernardino are voting on two competing charter amendments. The first, alphabetically is Measure Q, which I wrote about yesterday.

Measure R is a voter-submitted Charter Amendment, but unlike Measure Q, amends more than just Article VI, Section 1 of the San Bernardino County Charter:

County Counsel, as required by the Government Code, created a summary of the charter initiative:

COMPENSATION LIMITS AND BUDGET REDUCTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. INITIATIVE CHARTER AMENDMENT.
Changes the elected office of County Supervisor to a part-time position. Establishes the
maximum monthly compensation for the office of County Supervisor to a total amount of
$5,000 plus a cost of living adjustment not to exceed 5% annually. Cost to the County
of all County Supervisor benefits, including but not limited to, salary, health insurance,
life insurance, leave, retirement, memberships, portable communication devices, and
vehicle allowances shall be included in the $5,000. Establishes a maximum total annual
budget for each Member of the Board of Supervisors at an amount not to exceed five
(5) times the annual compensation amount for each Member. Limits retirement benefits
for the position of County Supervisor to that of regular, non-sworn-peace officer, County
employees. Eliminates the participation by any County Supervisor in the County’s
401(k), 401(a), or 457(b) Plan.

Article I, Section 1 of the San Bernardino County Charter would be amended to read:

SECTION 1. The Board of Supervisors shall consist of five members, one from
each supervisorial district. The Supervisors shall be nominated and elected at the time
and in the manner provided by general laws, except that provided that each supervisor
shall be elected by the electors of such district and not by the electors of the County at
large.

The position of County Supervisor shall be considered a part-time position.
“Part-time” is defined as attending a minimum of two regular board meetings per
month. Members may hold full-time employment and must comply with economic
disclosure requirements as set forth in the County Code and the California Government
Code. as required.

Article VI, Section 1 would be replaced and Section 2 would be added:

SECTION I. The total compensation of each member of the Board of Supervisors shall be five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per month, which amount shall include the
actual cost to the County of all benefits of whatever kind or nature including but not
limited to salary, allowances, credit cards, health insurance, life insurance, leave,
retirement, memberships, portable communication devices, and vehicle allowances. This
compensation amount shall be in full compensation for all services by the respective
member of the Board of Supervisors.
Annually, the compensation of Supervisors shall be increased by the percentage
of increase in the cost of living, to be determined by the County Auditor-Controller as of
November I st of each year as shown in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price
Index for the Los Angeles Region, not to exceed five percent (5%) per year, provided that
such adjustments shall be rounded to the nearest $100. Any amount of increase in the
cost of living in excess of five percent (5%) may be accumulated and applied to increase
in salary in future years.

The foregoing compensation provisions shall not be changed except by a vote of
the people at the time of a general election.

SECTION 2. The compensation amount provided in Article VI. Section 1 shall
not include amounts deemed to be mandatory employer contributions and/or payments
under state or federal law, including, but not limited to, contributions for social security,
workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, Public Employee Retirement System,
and reimbursement for actual expenses.

Measure R would add Article I, Section 10:

ARTICLE I. SECTION 10: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET
The total annual budget for each Member of the Board of Supervisors, including.
but not limited to, all office operations, and including staff member salaries, office
equipment, rent, vehicle allowances, credit cards. health insurance, life insurance, leave,
retirement, memberships, and portable communication devices shall not exceed five (5)
times the annual compensation amount for each Member as provided in Article VI.
Section I of this Charter. Compensation for each member of the Board of Supervisors
shall be separate and apart from the foregoing amount.
At no time shall any County resources be directed to supplant this provision
through any other county department or division including the County Administrative
Office.
The foregoing compensation provisions shall not be changed except by a vote of
the people at the time of a general election.

The Measure continues with the addition of Article VI, Section 6 to the Charter of the County of San Bernardino:

ARTICLE VI. SECTION 6: RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SECTION 6. Upon the commencement of the next regular individual respective
term of each member of the Board of Supervisors, each member of the Board of
Supervisors shall thereafter be limited to annual retirement pension benefits of regular,
non-sworn- peace officer, County employees. Any supplemental retirement allowance
and/or contribution on behalf of the respective Supervisors is hereby eliminated,
including, but not limited to, participation in the County’s 401(k) and 401(a) retirement
plans; participation in the County’s 457(b) plan is eliminated; and any matching
payment(s) on behalf of any or all of the Supervisors by the County.
For each member of the Board of Supervisors who is a participant in the County
retirement system and/or any successor retirement system (“retirement system”), the
earnable compensation amount used to calculate the relevant pension formula shall
consist of wages derived from the respective Supervisor’s hourly rate equivalent. All
other forms of compensation, including, but not limited to, automobile allowance, health
benefits, insurance, portable communication device allowance, and leave accrual cash-outs
shall be excluded.
The Board of Supervisors shall not take any action, by ordinance, resolution, or
otherwise, which increases the retirement benefits of members of the Board of
Supervisors, with the exception of statutorily-established cost of living adjustments,
without first obtaining the approval of a majority of those qualified electors voting on the
matter.
Prior to placement of any proposed increased benefits on the ballot, the retirement
system shall prepare, or have prepared on its behalf, an actuarial study of the cost and the
funded and unfunded actuarial accrued liability attributable to the retirement benefit
changes proposed by the amendment. Such actuarial study shall be available to the
public and a summary of the actuarial study shall be published in the ballot pamphlet.

The effective date is the next term of each Supervisor. Measure Q, Section 5.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Charter, County of San Bernardino, Elections, Municipal Law, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County Tagged with County Charter, election-2012, Measure Q, Measure R

San Bernardino County Measure Q November 6, 2012

October 3, 2012 1 Comment

Voters in the County of San Bernardino are voting on two competing charter amendments. The first, alphabetically is Measure Q, found below:

Measure Q amends Article VI, Section of 1 of the County of San Bernardino’s Charter, which currently reads:

SECTION 1. The annual salaries of elected County Officials, excepting that of Superintendent of County Schools and other than members of the Board of Supervisors, shall be set by, but shall never exceed, the average of the salaries paid corresponding officials in the following California Counties: Riverside, Kern, San Diego, Orange and Ventura. The salaries shall be computed each year on December 1 as follows: On December 1, 1985, 70% of the average, on December 1, 1986, 80% of the average, on December 1, 1987, 90% of the average, and on December 1, 1988, and thereafter, 100% of the average; provided, however, that on December 1, 1989, and each December 1 thereafter, regardless of the amount of increase in the average salaries from the other counties, no increase shall exceed 4% of the annual salary of the elected official unless submitted to and approved by the voters of the county at a county-wide election. Where no comparable offices exist in a majority of named counties, the salary of the office shall be adjusted by the average of the percentage adjustments of the other county officials governed by this section. No provision of this amendment shall provide retroactive benefits. No salary adjustment shall be made on December 1, 1985, for any elected official whose salary has been adjusted since November 7, 1978, but such salaries shall be adjusted thereafter in accordance with this section.

The annual salaries of members of the Board of Supervisors shall be set by, but shall never exceed, the average of the salaries paid members of the Board of Supervisors in the following California Counties: Riverside, Orange, San Diego and Los Angeles. Commencing December 1, 2006, the salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors shall be 90% of the average of the representative Counties. On December 1, 2007, the salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors shall be 95% of the average of the representative Counties. On December 1, 2008, and thereafter, salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors shall be 100% of the average of the representative Counties. The salaries shall be adjusted at such times as the representative Counties are adjusted. Commencing January 1, 2007, the Chair of the Board of Supervisors shall be paid a differential equal to 7.5% of the salary of a Board member in recognition of the additional duties of that office.

Here is a legislative version that I have created, taking the new text and the old text and making a strike-out version:

As you can see, this referendum takes the existing paragraph 2 of the Charter and makes it paragraph one, and makes changes to the existing language without making modifications to the original paragraph 1, now paragraph 2.

The changes to paragraph 1 are changing the term salary to compensation (and including salary and benefits), adding the word comparison before California Counties, and deleting Los Angeles as a comparison county. It removes the language referring to the increases starting December 1, 206, and defines “compensation” to mean “all salary paid, and the amount of all benefits payable to the Board member or payable on behalf of the Board member, but compensation shall not include amounts a county is otherwise legally obligated to pay to third parties, including but not limited to employer contributions to a defined benefit retirement system, Medicare, workers compensation or Social Security, and reimbursement for reasonable and necessary business expenses.” It then gives a new method of recalculating compensation starting December 1, 2013, and states on that date that the maximum salary and benefits must be posted on the County website.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County Tagged with County Charter, election-2012, Measure Q

Why the Impending City of San Bernardino Bankruptcy Matters

July 11, 2012 Leave a comment

The news that the Mayor and Common Council voted 4-2-1 to authorize the City Attorney to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code is important from a legal perspective. We appear to be moving into a new era where bankruptcy is not something to be feared, but is embraced as a solution for municipalities. San Bernardino is the third municipality in California to move towards bankruptcy this year, and no doubt is not the last.

According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,

The purpose of chapter 9 is to provide a financially-distressed municipality protection from its creditors while it develops and negotiates a plan for adjusting its debts. Reorganization of the debts of a municipality is typically accomplished either by extending debt maturities, reducing the amount of principal or interest, or refinancing the debt by obtaining a new loan.

Although similar to other chapters in some respects, chapter 9 is significantly different in that there is no provision in the law for liquidation of the assets of the municipality and distribution of the proceeds to creditors. Such a liquidation or dissolution would undoubtedly violate the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and the reservation to the states of sovereignty over their internal affairs. Indeed, due to the severe limitations placed upon the power of the bankruptcy court in chapter 9 cases (required by the Tenth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decisions in cases upholding municipal bankruptcy legislation), the bankruptcy court generally is not as active in managing a municipal bankruptcy case as it is in corporate reorganizations under chapter 11. The functions of the bankruptcy court in chapter 9 cases are generally limited to approving the petition (if the debtor is eligible), confirming a plan of debt adjustment, and ensuring implementation of the plan. As a practical matter, however, the municipality may consent to have the court exercise jurisdiction in many of the traditional areas of court oversight in bankruptcy, in order to obtain the protection of court orders and eliminate the need for multiple forums to decide issues.

What this means is that the City will be able to renegotiate its debt, change certain contractual terms, including agreements with its employees, and possibly reduce or eliminate debts. The City will not give up control to a trustee in the same way seen in corporate bankruptcy. There will be no effect on code enforcement prosecutions, and the City will not have any special way to raise money through taxes outside of California law.

What about AB 506, the law codified at Government Code section 53760 et seq.?

That section reads:

A local public entity in this state may file a petition and exercise powers pursuant to applicable federal bankruptcy law if either of the following apply: (a) The local public entity has participated in a neutral evaluation process pursuant to Section 53760.3. (b) The local public entity declares a fiscal emergency and adopts a resolution by a majority vote of the governing board pursuant to Section 53760.5.

There has been no mention of AB 506 in the coverage so far, and the agenda for yesterday’s meeting does not have any mention of such a resolution, but presumably, the City of San Bernardino will take the (b) path.

Posted on our sister site is an analysis of the political implications of such a move.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Bankruptcy, City Attorney, City of San Bernardino, Code Enforcement, Municipal Law, San Bernardino, San Bernardino City Attorney's Office, San Bernardino County Tagged with AB 506, Bankruptcy, City of San Bernardino

Fireworks in the City of San Bernardino, California (2012 Update)

July 3, 2012 Leave a comment

Happy Independence Day!

“Safe and Sane” fireworks are legally sold in the City of San Bernardino. All fireworks are generally prohibited above the 210 Freeway in San Bernardino and near Perris Hill. The City of San Bernardino Fire Department has a map and information about fireworks in this brochure. Of course, all fireworks not approved by the State Fire Marshal are illegal in California. Misusing legal fireworks (for example, making bottle rockets) is illegal in San Bernardino.

The San Bernardino Fire Department, particularly the Fire Prevention, is out in force during the Fourth of July. They have a variety of San Bernardino Municipal Code and California laws to enforce. Even if you are not afraid of prosecution, fireworks are a leading cause of injury and property damage.

The San Bernardino City Fire Blog has some tips about fireworks.

A version of this post was published in 2011.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708