Letter to the Governor
We encourage the use of the following key points in all correspondence to the Governor.
Dear Governor Brown,
(I/we) are writing to you today on a matter of the utmost urgency for our brand new city. The City
of Jurupa Valley incorporated on July 1, 2011, after voter approval in March 2011. The
incorporation process was carefully and methodically pursued over 4 years taking into account all
local economic factors, and availability of all local government funding from legislated and
constitutional sources. The incorporation fiscal feasibility was also predicated (based) on an
expectation of continued receipt of our proportionate share of Motor Vehicle License Fee (MVLF)
revenue under then current law.
However, as part of the 2011 state budget process, Senate Bill 89 was signed into law two days
prior to Jurupa Valley’s effective date of incorporation, sweeping away all of our MVLF revenue.
An unintended consequence of SB 89 was that it did not take into consideration the negative
financial impact the MVLF revenue diversion would have on the newly incorporated cities of
Jurupa Valley, Eastvale, Menifee and Wildomar, and the numerous cities that completed
inhabited area annexations since 2004. As a result, Jurupa Valley faces the very real
possibility of disincorporation.
How could this happen? How could the state take away our hard earned effort to become a city
to better our local services and create a better environment for our children and their future? How
could the state sweep away the ability of our community to bring more responsive government
and local accountability to the people of our community? How could the state negate what we
have already experienced as significant service increase to our residents above anything ever
provided by the county, a level of government service never seen in the history of our
community? How could the state cause the destruction of its newest City in California by
removing our revenues?
Prior to enactment of SB 89, the city was in full compliance with the laws, rules and regulations
established by the state. We followed the rules and the state changed them. As a result, the
new cities and those newly annexed inhabited areas, are not being allocated their “fair share” of
revenue in proportion to other cities that receive the Property Tax in lieu of MVLF which was
unaffected by SB 89.
When the 2004 Prop 1A MVLF “swap” was enacted, allowing for existing cities to be “backfilled”
with Property Tax in lieu of MVLF, cities not yet in existence (and future inhabited area
annexations to existing cities) were left out of the funding “swap” formula. In 2006, Assembly Bill
1602 was signed into law correcting the problem. However, instead of being placed in the
Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF backfill scenario as all other cities, the legislation devised a formula
to allocate that proportional amount directly out of the remaining MVLF account. Thus, all cities
and all annexations to existing cities that occurred after 2004 are now treated differently than all
other cities in the state.
Since the passage of AB 1602, the residents of Jurupa Valley, Wildomar, Eastvale and Menifee
voted to become cities. Likewise the cities of Fontana, Santa Clarita, San Ramon and 141 other
cities statewide annexed inhabited areas, many of which are disadvantaged communities. All of
these cities relied on the assumptive provisions of AB 1602 that this revenue would be available
in place of the Property Tax revenue that other cities were receiving.
While we very much appreciate SB 89’s intent to protect public safety, given the disproportionate
impact it has had on new incorporations, we are now facing decimating the funding for public
safety, and are even considering disincorporation. SB 89 has seriously compromised our city’s
ability to provide public services, and all cost saving measures already implemented, other than
draconian cuts to public safety services, will not be enough to counteract the lost revenue.
For Jurupa Valley, significant disadvantaged community constituents are now subjected to an
environmental justice issue due to loss of this revenue. Jurupa Valley is comprised of a large
segment of economically disadvantaged communities that by virtue of our incorporation have
already enjoyed some significant service increase over what the county was providing and that is
now threatened. As the whole purpose of SB 89 was to re-direct revenue to public safety
programs, we find it ironic that in our case, and the other three new cities mentioned previously,
this is having a reverse affect. All four cities have either cut their law enforcement service down to
dangerous levels, or are contemplating that for the next fiscal year. The bottom line is that we
should not be treated any differently than the other 476 cities in the state.
We do not expect or intend for the state to undo SB 89 in its entirety. We only ask that we be
allocated our “fair share” of revenue in proportion to all other cities that receive Property Tax in
lieu of MVLF which was unaffected by SB 89, and which we do not receive.
SB 1566, bi-partisan legislation authored by Senators Gloria Negrete McLeod and Bill Emmerson,
and co-authored by Senator Kevin de Leon, will restore this proportionate revenue and bring
fairness and parity to our city. They recognize the injustice that was done by SB 89 to these
unique cities, and have garnered significant support to “make it right”. However, after sailing
through two Senate policy committees, SB 1566 has stalled in the Senate Appropriations
We cannot believe that the state would purposely decimate these new cities, including Jurupa
Valley, by allowing such a disproportionate (unreasonable and unequal) taking of this revenue
when all other cities in the state did not have a similar taking of their Property Tax revenue. Is it
the state’s intention that our new city and the other new cities should be treated differently than all
the other cities in the state? (Are there no environmental justice considerations in decimating the
services to the disadvantaged communities being served by these new cities and many of the
inhabited annexation areas in many other cities also affected? Is it the State’s intention to destroy
its newest cities? We think not.
We believe that this proportionate loss of revenue was an unintended consequence of SB 89. We
believe as Governor you recognize that all residents of this state should be treated equally and
fairly, and that services provided by cities should be based on all cities being treated equally. At
the moment, this is not the case for our city.
For the reasons cited, we respectfully request that you restore the proportionate MVLF funding for
these cities and annexations as has been proposed by SB 1566.
Please use any or all of these points as you see fit. This is your letter to stand up for Jurupa
Valley. My suggestion would also be to personalize your letter to reflect how long you have lived
here, why you like/love our Community, why you feel that becoming and staying a City is so
important. Even if you voted against incorporation and now see the benefits, please share those
feelings. Make this personal and heartfelt. We are proud to be the newest city in California!
Mayor Laura Roughton