Meeting Highlights
March 19, 2024 - Leadership Meeting with Supervisor Magsig
The following information was gained from questions asked of Nathan Magsig (Fresno County Supervisor and LAFCO member) and his responses:
1. Update concerning the Tax Sharing Agreement between the City and the CountyThere is currently no tax sharing agreement. In two weeks Brian Pacheco and Buddy Mendez will be meeting with the City about the tax sharing agreement which will be the first meeting in over a year. Currently, the agreement is 62% for the county with 38% for the city. The agreement is based on property taxes. Since the city is compensated for social services which is not taken into account in the agreement, Nathan does not want to change the distribution percentage as he does not want to subsidize the City. The biggest hurdle in this 9000 acre annexation is the Tax Sharing Agreement.
2. Responses from the questions concerning the annexation process. a. The LAFCO board members are made up of 2 Fresno County supervisors, 2 city council members or mayors (Fowler and Kerman) and 1 person from the public.b. The process cannot go forward until the EIR is complete. c. The City does not have the funding for water and sewer capabilities in the area to be annexed. The city cannot go forward unless sewer and water are planned for and budgeted.d. Typically, the outside borders next to the Fresno City limits of the projected area would be annexed first.e. The 9000 acres would not be annexed all at one time. Instead, the annexation would be "piece mealed." f. The property owners that surround the annexation can protest but cannot cast a vote.g. SEDA cannot move forward unless the EIR is certified, the infrastructure is in place, and the CEQA guidelines followed. If processes aren't followed, then lawsuits will develop.h. If the opposition is strong enough, the City will need to look elsewhere for development. The 9,000 acres, however, will remain in the sphere of influence. LAFCO can reduce the Sphere of Influence if the City and County agree. i. The City cannot take property and give it to developers but can do imminent domain.
3. Nathan's suggestions:a. Try to shrink the area of influence. (His recollection of the largest City annexation was 460 acres at Harris Ranch.)b. Meet routinely and regularly update those interested with the latest information.c. Continue to gain support within the 9000 acres. Door to door is the most effective method.d. Request the number of registered voters in the area from the elections office. e. Research the names of the property owners by the parcel numbers through the assessor's office.f. Encourage your neighbors not to sell their property to developers.g. Send a list by email of about ten questions that remain unanswered from which he will follow up to help find answers.
1. Update concerning the Tax Sharing Agreement between the City and the CountyThere is currently no tax sharing agreement. In two weeks Brian Pacheco and Buddy Mendez will be meeting with the City about the tax sharing agreement which will be the first meeting in over a year. Currently, the agreement is 62% for the county with 38% for the city. The agreement is based on property taxes. Since the city is compensated for social services which is not taken into account in the agreement, Nathan does not want to change the distribution percentage as he does not want to subsidize the City. The biggest hurdle in this 9000 acre annexation is the Tax Sharing Agreement.
2. Responses from the questions concerning the annexation process. a. The LAFCO board members are made up of 2 Fresno County supervisors, 2 city council members or mayors (Fowler and Kerman) and 1 person from the public.b. The process cannot go forward until the EIR is complete. c. The City does not have the funding for water and sewer capabilities in the area to be annexed. The city cannot go forward unless sewer and water are planned for and budgeted.d. Typically, the outside borders next to the Fresno City limits of the projected area would be annexed first.e. The 9000 acres would not be annexed all at one time. Instead, the annexation would be "piece mealed." f. The property owners that surround the annexation can protest but cannot cast a vote.g. SEDA cannot move forward unless the EIR is certified, the infrastructure is in place, and the CEQA guidelines followed. If processes aren't followed, then lawsuits will develop.h. If the opposition is strong enough, the City will need to look elsewhere for development. The 9,000 acres, however, will remain in the sphere of influence. LAFCO can reduce the Sphere of Influence if the City and County agree. i. The City cannot take property and give it to developers but can do imminent domain.
3. Nathan's suggestions:a. Try to shrink the area of influence. (His recollection of the largest City annexation was 460 acres at Harris Ranch.)b. Meet routinely and regularly update those interested with the latest information.c. Continue to gain support within the 9000 acres. Door to door is the most effective method.d. Request the number of registered voters in the area from the elections office. e. Research the names of the property owners by the parcel numbers through the assessor's office.f. Encourage your neighbors not to sell their property to developers.g. Send a list by email of about ten questions that remain unanswered from which he will follow up to help find answers.
March 12, 2024 - Leadership Meeting
One of our members met a second time with LAFCO to clarify some areas of concern. Besides the information in our February email, the following information is also of interest:1. The City is not going to annex 9000 acres at one time. The annexation would occur one section at a time. Therefore, registered voters in that area would vote on their area and the majority of 50% + 1 would determine the outcome.2. The annexation cannot occur in a leap frog style. In other words, the annexation would have to connect to property that is already annexed into the city.3. We are "on hold" and cannot do anything until the city does something. 4. The City currently has no money to fund the SEDA project.
We are trying to be pro-active in watching what the City is doing. We are interested in connecting with groups that would alert us to any action we may not be aware of.
Several members in our group met with the Fresno Irrigation District. The following information may be of interest:1. Mike presented a number of questions, most of which concerned trails. There is not a great deal of clarity as decisions will be on a case by case basis with the size of the area and the location being major factors. There is no good answer concerning the best way to stop the trails on our properties.2. According to FID's involvement, the City must provide financing for any improvements to the FID system that SEDA would require.3. Water situation update - The City is allocated 29% of FID water. The City is not using the entire amount allocated, and they have 2% in reserve. They are accomplishing this by rationing water. They are maintaining adequate water supplies with the current population.
We will be meeting with Nathan Magsig next week, asking questions and addressing our concerns.
Suggestions for future action:1. We cannot let our guard down. We need to stay on watch.2. A website called "citizenportal.ai" has been founded by the person who started "ancestry.com". It has been established in order to help inform citizens of what has been said by officials at every level of government. We hope this information will be of benefit.
We are trying to be pro-active in watching what the City is doing. We are interested in connecting with groups that would alert us to any action we may not be aware of.
Several members in our group met with the Fresno Irrigation District. The following information may be of interest:1. Mike presented a number of questions, most of which concerned trails. There is not a great deal of clarity as decisions will be on a case by case basis with the size of the area and the location being major factors. There is no good answer concerning the best way to stop the trails on our properties.2. According to FID's involvement, the City must provide financing for any improvements to the FID system that SEDA would require.3. Water situation update - The City is allocated 29% of FID water. The City is not using the entire amount allocated, and they have 2% in reserve. They are accomplishing this by rationing water. They are maintaining adequate water supplies with the current population.
We will be meeting with Nathan Magsig next week, asking questions and addressing our concerns.
Suggestions for future action:1. We cannot let our guard down. We need to stay on watch.2. A website called "citizenportal.ai" has been founded by the person who started "ancestry.com". It has been established in order to help inform citizens of what has been said by officials at every level of government. We hope this information will be of benefit.
February 13, 2024 - Leadership Meeting
LAFCO Report - meeting attended on Feb. 7 by five of our members Highlights1. The City has to comply with a number of things before LAFCO can pass anything. The City cannot do anything until the County and City come to an agreement in these areas. So far, the City has not complied to accomplishing any of them.2. There is not much of a possibility of getting out of the Sphere of Influence, however requests can be made to be removed. LAFCO is putting a packet together for our group concerning this information.3. Funding is needed to get out of the Sphere of Influence. Fresno would fund 50% with the extra coming from small towns. LAFCO does not want to put that burden on small cities as funding is not available. This would be a big project as there would need to be an investigation concerning why the 9000 acres should be removed from the Sphere of Influence. 4. LAFCO currently cannot keep up with the work load as they are understaffed. Normally the Sphere of Influence is reviewed every 5 years. The last review was 2016.
Steps involved for annexation1. When the Planning Commission considers and accepts the SEDA Plan after the EIR comments are addressed, then they will recommend the Plan to the Fresno City Council. (This is when large numbers of people in opposition to the Plan need to show up at the Planning Commission meeting at City Hall for this presentation).2. The City Council votes on the SEDA Project - basically a vote of political influence. (Once again, this is when large numbers of people in opposition to the Plan need to show up at City Hall.)3. If the City Council approves the SEDA Plan, the County Board of Supervisors and the City have to come to agreement in all contested areas (such as a Tax Sharing Agreement) before it goes to LAFCO.4. LAFCO makes the final decision. (The vote is a counted vote - not political as registered voters in the annexation area can vote for or against it.)
Rebuttal letter in reply to Developer, Michael Prandini, President of the Building Association A rebuttal letter was written in opposition to the article published on Feb. 2, 2024, written by Developer Michael Prandini, President of the Building Association. The letter is posted on our Social Media. We highly recommend your taking time out to read it.
Since there is not much we can do until the Fresno City Planning Commission considers the SEDA Plan and then presents it to the Fresno City Council for approval, we will not be meeting weekly. We will be communicating with you with updates after each meeting. So watch for our emails as we update information as well as post the times when we will need to meet at City Hall for the Planning Commission meeting as well as the City Council meeting.
Steps involved for annexation1. When the Planning Commission considers and accepts the SEDA Plan after the EIR comments are addressed, then they will recommend the Plan to the Fresno City Council. (This is when large numbers of people in opposition to the Plan need to show up at the Planning Commission meeting at City Hall for this presentation).2. The City Council votes on the SEDA Project - basically a vote of political influence. (Once again, this is when large numbers of people in opposition to the Plan need to show up at City Hall.)3. If the City Council approves the SEDA Plan, the County Board of Supervisors and the City have to come to agreement in all contested areas (such as a Tax Sharing Agreement) before it goes to LAFCO.4. LAFCO makes the final decision. (The vote is a counted vote - not political as registered voters in the annexation area can vote for or against it.)
Rebuttal letter in reply to Developer, Michael Prandini, President of the Building Association A rebuttal letter was written in opposition to the article published on Feb. 2, 2024, written by Developer Michael Prandini, President of the Building Association. The letter is posted on our Social Media. We highly recommend your taking time out to read it.
Since there is not much we can do until the Fresno City Planning Commission considers the SEDA Plan and then presents it to the Fresno City Council for approval, we will not be meeting weekly. We will be communicating with you with updates after each meeting. So watch for our emails as we update information as well as post the times when we will need to meet at City Hall for the Planning Commission meeting as well as the City Council meeting.
February 6, 2024 - Leadership Meeting
We were able to make contact with the Fresno Planning Staff. They will not verify that the information is true concerning various published articles stating that the SEDA project is on "hold" or "shelved". The only response given was "We are analyzing the comments" (referring to the EIR).
A letter of rebuttal will be posted to counter the article written by Michael Prandini on 2/2/24 on behalf of the developers urging the Mayor and City Council to move forward in a prompt manner adopting the SEDA plan and working out financial details later.
Six of our members will be meeting with LAFCO this week in order to get information and ideas on how we can move forward. We strongly feel the SEDA project is not on "hold" according to our understanding of the word "hold". We also feel there is a lot going on "behind the scenes" that we are not aware of. In fact, one article by Gregory Weaver states the city's planning staff is working on a so-called "refresh" of the 2014 general plan.
We will be making appointments to meet with Nathan Magsig and the Buddy Mendez of the County Board of Supervisors again.
A letter of rebuttal will be posted to counter the article written by Michael Prandini on 2/2/24 on behalf of the developers urging the Mayor and City Council to move forward in a prompt manner adopting the SEDA plan and working out financial details later.
Six of our members will be meeting with LAFCO this week in order to get information and ideas on how we can move forward. We strongly feel the SEDA project is not on "hold" according to our understanding of the word "hold". We also feel there is a lot going on "behind the scenes" that we are not aware of. In fact, one article by Gregory Weaver states the city's planning staff is working on a so-called "refresh" of the 2014 general plan.
We will be making appointments to meet with Nathan Magsig and the Buddy Mendez of the County Board of Supervisors again.
January 30, 2024 - Leadership Meeting
It has been noted in articles written by GV Wire as well as Fresnoland, that the Mayor has halted the efforts of annexing the 9,000 acres in Southeast Fresno. It is our understanding that the project is on hold but this is not verified by the City. As far as we are concerned, nothing is concrete yet. Even if this is true, we need to not let our guard down as there still are concerns.
One of our members has been trying to contact the Fresno Planning Staff to verify this as well as to have some of our questions answered concerning the status of the EIR. We are also interested in knowing what it means that the project is being "shelved" and if response to the EIR comments are continued if the project is on hold. To date, the City has not responded to phone calls or emails. We will continue to try to connect.
Our current plan is to try to connect with LAFCO and Supervisor Nathan Magsig to obtain information concerning the future of SEDA.
We would like to add a note of importance from the group. Our goal is to have better communication with our members at large to keep them informed of our efforts. We do want to emphasize that we will do our best to try to get the information to you as soon as we can after our meetings. However, we would like to stress that this group has been operating as a volunteer group for over 1 1/2 years. All the work done is on a volunteer basis so the group is doing the best they can with the personal time available for them. So please be patient if we have some "lag" time on occasion. Thanking you in advance.
One of our members has been trying to contact the Fresno Planning Staff to verify this as well as to have some of our questions answered concerning the status of the EIR. We are also interested in knowing what it means that the project is being "shelved" and if response to the EIR comments are continued if the project is on hold. To date, the City has not responded to phone calls or emails. We will continue to try to connect.
Our current plan is to try to connect with LAFCO and Supervisor Nathan Magsig to obtain information concerning the future of SEDA.
We would like to add a note of importance from the group. Our goal is to have better communication with our members at large to keep them informed of our efforts. We do want to emphasize that we will do our best to try to get the information to you as soon as we can after our meetings. However, we would like to stress that this group has been operating as a volunteer group for over 1 1/2 years. All the work done is on a volunteer basis so the group is doing the best they can with the personal time available for them. So please be patient if we have some "lag" time on occasion. Thanking you in advance.
January 16, 2024 - General Meeting
- Recap of the meeting with Mayor Dyer: the Mayor stated that he intends to get the EIR passed, despite the state's projections for minimal growth in the area. SEPO efforts will go unchanged. The leadership has sent a follow up letter to the Mayor outlining our unchanged concerns, the need for more clarity and request for a follow up meeting. The letter and Closing Statements from the meeting can be accessed on our News Page.
- Recap of community meeting hosted by the Clergy Coalition: SEPO is united in opposition with this community group but we have different reasons for opposing the plan. The group shares our interest in informing the general public on what the city is not disclosing and appearing before the city council to rally in opposition. The presenter reviewed the economic impact of SEDA (and gave it an F grade), related water and air quality issues, population growth and infill. She projected the cost for SEDA to be between $2 and $3 billion as opposed to the city's former estimate of $1 billion.
- SEPO members expressed a lack of informative communication and the need for more updates from the leadership group. Future SEPO meeting highlights will be posted on the SEPO website on the About Us page. An overview and highlights will also be emailed directly to the members at large after each meeting.
- The SEPO leadership group will be meeting less regularly as we have not received any new information about the city's next steps.
January 9, 2024 - Leadership Meeting
Leadership group prepared for the upcoming General meeting on January 16th. An outline was created to include a recap of the meeting hosted by Clergy Coalition and Greenfield Coalition and a recap of the meeting with Mayor Dyer. P.O. Box was renewed for 6 months.