SAN DIEGO COUNTY MAY WAIVE PERMIT FEES TO HELP EVENTS INDUSTRY

Businesses hit hard by pandemic in need of relief, leaders say

San Diego County could waive permit fees this year to aid hundreds of events businesses that have been unable to operate since last year because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The county Board of Supervisors on April 6 will consider a proposal to waive events fees — which normally go to the county’s departments of health, parks and recreation, fire authority and Sheriff’s Department — for all of fiscal year 2021-2022.

If approved, it would reduce revenue by a total of $1.7 million for those departments. However Nathan Fletcher, chair of the Board of Supervisors, hopes to use funding from the American Rescue Plan Act to make up for the lost revenue.

“The event industry was dealt a tremendous econo

tain wires, poles, power lines and underground gas and electric lines within the city limits of a given municipality.

The current agreement between the city of San Diego and SDG&E has been in existence since 1970 but is set to expire June 1.

An earlier invitation to bid initiated by former Mayor

Kevin Faulconer resulted in responses from just one bidder — SDG&E.

Upon taking office, Gloria announced that the bidding process would start over, and on March 19 the new mayor announced terms to attract potential energy companies.

The invitation’s items included a proposed agreement lasting 10 years, with an automatic 10-year renewal if the city deems that the partner has complied with all terms and conditions. It also called for a minimum bid of $80 million — $70 million for the electric franchise agreement and $10 million for the gas franchise agreement.

In a change from Faulconer’s plan, once the bids are unsealed, the city and the Gloria administration will continue negotiating with the energy company that turns in the best offer.

Gloria said the length of the agreement is long enough to generate “interest and actually have bidders come forward, but not so long as to lock us into any particular position.”

But with the very real possibility that SDG&E may again turn in the only bid, a number of environmental and political groups criticized the terms as too lenient toward the incumbent utility. Craig Rose of

the Citizens Franchise Alliance called the proposal “a stunning giveaway of billions of dollars.”

As for the lawsuit, it is part of a larger complaint against the city and SDG&E on behalf of San Diego resident John Stump regarding the Pure Water San Diego Project.

The project is designed to reduce ocean pollution and increase the city’s water supply. The dispute centers on existing SDG&E equipment that is obstructing a portion of the project.

The city says SDG&E should pick up the tab for moving the infrastructure, but the utility has refused, saying it is unfair that some of the costs of the project should be shouldered by customers living in communities outside of San Diego who would not benefit from the program.

To move the project along, the city — under protest — paid SDG&E $35.6 million under what is called a “Reservation of Rights Agreement” to have the utility design and relocate existing gas and electric utilities along the project’s right of way.

In January 2020, City Attorney Mara Elliott filed a 94-page lawsuit in Superior Court to compel SDG&E to reimburse the $35.6 million.

The Stump lawsuit — a separate legal action — says the money the city paid to the utility violates the California Code of Civil Procedure. The suit cites a specific section of a franchise agreement that states SDG&E is required to pay the city for any and all relocation costs.

Severson said the the city should have barred SDG&E from taking part in the invitation to bid because the utility has not paid the relocation costs in the Pure Water project.

No potential trial date in the Stump lawsuit has been set.