1. District City County

2. CHANGING HATS AN INTRODUCTION TO LAFCO CALAFCO ANNUAL CONFERENCE MONTEREY SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 DAN SCHWARZ, EXECUTIVE OFFICER LAFCO of NAPA COUNTY

3. OVERVIEW HISTORY NUTS AND BOLTS MISSION AND POLICIES POWERS AND TYPES OF DECISIONS THE PUBLIC PROCESS CALAFCO TEAMWORK

4. Welcome to the Year 42 A.L. In the dark ages, before LAFCO… Different actsDifferent acts Discretion in Board of Supervisors or Annexing AgencyDiscretion in Board of Supervisors or Annexing Agency (2005)

6. Problems

7. Nightmare

8. Jigsaw

9. Chaos

10. Unity

11. 1960

12. LEGISLATIVE COMPROMISE No State Commission No State Commission Local Control Local Control A LAFCO in every county (except San Francisco) A LAFCO in every county (except San Francisco)

13. Evolution of Laws Until 1985 three acts governed annexations and other LAFCO reviews Until 1985 three acts governed annexations and other LAFCO reviews Knox-Nisbet Act (LAFCO law) Knox-Nisbet Act (LAFCO law) Municipal Organization Act (cities) Municipal Organization Act (cities) District Reorganization Act (districts) District Reorganization Act (districts) Cortese-Knox Act combined the three in 1985 Cortese-Knox Act combined the three in 1985

15. Population Growth

16. Issues Reform of Local Governmental Reorganization Law Reform of Local Governmental Reorganization Law Orderly Growth and Resource Protection Orderly Growth and Resource Protection Local Fiscal Reform Local Fiscal Reform Guiding Future Growth Guiding Future Growth Local Government Efficiency Local Government Efficiency Public Interest in Government Public Interest in Government

17. Issues 1960 2000 Lack of Organization of Local Governments Lack of Organization of Local Governments Traffic congestion, air pollution and strained water resources Traffic congestion, air pollution and strained water resources Uneconomic Use of Regional Resources Uneconomic Use of Regional Resources Numerous uncoordinated local governments make government expensive Numerous uncoordinated local governments make government expensive Lack of public interest in local government and regional growth Lack of public interest in local government and regional growth Reform of Local Governmental Reorganization Law Reform of Local Governmental Reorganization Law Orderly Growth and Resource Protection Orderly Growth and Resource Protection Local Fiscal Reform Local Fiscal Reform Local Government Efficiency Local Government Efficiency Guiding Future Growth Guiding Future Growth Public Interest in Government Public Interest in Government

18. Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 Known as Local Government Reorganization Act Known as Local Government Reorganization Act Funding Formula Changed 1/3-1/3-1/3 Funding Formula Changed 1/3-1/3-1/3 LAFCO now conducts protest hearings LAFCO now conducts protest hearings Municipal Service Reviews Reviews (aka MSRs and Service Reviews) required by 1/1/2006 Municipal Service Reviews Reviews (aka MSRs and Service Reviews) required by 1/1/2006

19. What Didn’t Change The acronym The acronym Most things about the annexation process and the institution of LAFCO Most things about the annexation process and the institution of LAFCO

20. Ha ?

21.  There is a LAFCO in each of California’s 58 counties.  The standard composition is 5 or 7 members. Nut and Bolts

22. LAFCOs reflect the body politic of the county: All LAFCOs have members from the Board of Supervisors. All have at-large representatives of the general public. Nearly all have members from city councils. Many LAFCOs have members appointed by the independent special districts in the county.

23. Alternate Commissioners Each authority that appoints members to LAFCO also appoints one alternate. Alternates may attend and participate in LAFCO meetings, but may only vote when a member appointed by the same authority is absent. Most LAFCOs allow alternates to participate in closed session deliberations, though some bar alternates per an Attorney General opinion.

24. Independence “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” The Legislature calls upon all commissioners to take off their county, city, or special district hats and sit as members of LAFCO. District City County

25. Independence The CKH Act of 2000 mandated that all LAFCOs become independent of the county. G.C. §56381 was added in 2000 and creates a “pay to play” system for LAFCO. All agencies that are eligible to seat members on LAFCO must contribute to the LAFCO budget: In counties where the Board of Supervisors, cities, and special districts are seated on LAFCO, the county pays one-third, the cities pay one-third, and the special districts pay one-third. In counties where only the Board of Supervisors and cities are represented, or where only the Board of Supervisors and special districts are represented, each pays one-half of the LAFCO budget.

26. Independence Each LAFCO must appoint an Executive Officer and a Legal Counsel. These individuals can be employees of LAFCO, employees of another agency assigned to LAFCO through an agreement, or independent consultants. Each LAFCO must adopt policies and procedures. Each LAFCO may (and should) adopt a fee schedule.

27. Staff Reports The Executive Officer is required by G.C. §56665 to prepare and issue a staff report for each complete application filed with LAFCO. The staff report must contain recommendations concerning the application.

28. Websites The Commission on Local Governance for the the 21 st Century called upon all LAFCOs to operate websites. G.C. §56661 requires that public notices be published to LAFCO websites. ?

29. MISSION To encourage the orderly formation of local governmental agencies. To discourage urban sprawl. To preserve agricultural lands.

30. MISSION To encourage the orderly formation of local governmental agencies. Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District: 417 square mile fire district in Sacramento and Placer counties is comprised of territory that once fell within the boundaries of 18 different fire districts. Mission Viejo: The city was preceded by a community services district. Service Review and Sphere of Influence Review Programs

31. MISSION To discourage urban sprawl. Ventura Greenbelt Agreements: LAFCO recognizes greenbelt agreements entered into by county and cities. Santa Clara Urban Service Areas (USA) policies: LAFCO has developed a special planning boundary for urban services for each of its cities. Recognition of urban growth boundaries within general plans.

32. MISSION To preserve agricultural lands. Yolo LAFCO Agricultural Conservation Policy – extensive policies providing details and definitions of protected lands. Calls for mitigation of annexation of agricultural lands by requiring preservation of similar lands in a 1:1 ratio. Santa Clara Policy on Gilroy Agricultural Lands – LAFCO policy to recognize an interjurisdictional effort to protect agricultural lands. ?

33. The Art of LAFCO Using Determinations to Add Local Context and Further the LAFCO Mission

34. The Art of LAFCO LAFCO law does not ask the Commission to make findings – deductions of fact. Rather, the Commission makes determinations, drawing inference and making statements of its judgment and decisions.

35. The Art of LAFCO Examples: There are no public agencies within reasonable proximity to the Circle Oaks County Water District capable of assuming its service responsibilities. The City of St. Helena requires improvements to its distribution system to account for the significant disparity between recent water production and actual water demand within its service area.

36. Does a California statute granting voting rights in incorporation elections only to residents within the proposed city boundaries violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

37. POWERS AND TYPES OF DECISIONS

38. Service Reviews Get away from agency perspective and turf battles typical of sphere studies Customer perspective Look for opportunities for more efficient public services Need to complete by 1/1/2006 or earlier for sphere of influence adoption or update!

39. Service Review Subjects Financing constraints and opportunities Cost avoidance opportunities Opportunities for rate restructuring Opportunities for shared facilities Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers Evaluation of management efficiencies Local accountability and governance.

40. Spheres of Influence Plan for the probable future boundaries of a city or district Resolution, determination, map, optional policies Carry out mission based upon local circumstances Coordinate services and plans Resolve turf issues

41. LAFCO must prepare for each agency and update at least every five years LAFCO must make determinations LAFCO must have service review done Annexations must be consistent Spheres of Influence

42. Sphere Determinations 1.The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. 2.The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. 3.The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to provide. 4.The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency.

43. Fenwick

44. Sphere Maps— “Normal”

45. Other Sphere Types Status Quo (no change from current boundaries) Zero (eventually go out of existence)

46. Boundary Change Process

47. Annexation Factors – G.C. 56668 Existing land use Population and growth Conformity to general plans Regional housing needs Adequacy of services and future service needs Ability to finance and provide service Alternatives and effects on adjacent area Conformity to LAFCO policies Consistent with spheres of all affected agencies Effect on agricultural lands Logical boundaries Availability of water Landowner and local agency comments

48. Detachments  Term in law for “deannexation”  Process similar to annexation

49. Reorganization  More than one area –Annex Riverview Acres to Water District –Detach Mountain Reserve from Water District  More than one agency boundary being changed –Annex to City A –Detach from Resource Conservation District –Detach from Rural Fire Protection District –Detach from County Service Area

50. Miscellaneous Changes  Consolidations  Mergers  Subsidiary Districts  Only changes that LAFCO may initiate—all other changes require voter, property owner, or affected agency to initiate

51. Municipal Island Annexations  Legislature wants to encourage elimination of unincorporated islands  LAFCO has to approve if criteria are met  Controversial because of absence of protest process

52. City Incorporations and Disincorporations Important LAFCO function San Fernando Valley

53. District Formations and Dissolutions LAFCO terms and conditions include :  effective date,  functions,  revenue structure, and  process for board selection for formation.  successor agency for dissolution.

54. Outside Agency Service aka Extraterritorial Service  A few agencies were avoiding LAFCO review and providing service outside boundaries

55. Districts Providing New Services  aka latent powers  Hearing at LAFCO ?

56. Calvin Hobbes

57. PUBLIC PROCESS HEARINGS –LAFCO HEARING (DISCRETIONARY) –PROTEST HEARING = CONDUCTING AUTHORITY PROCEEDINGS (MINISTERIAL)

58. LAFCO Hearing

60. Brown Act Same rules as local boards Decisions in open meetings Agenda fixed in advanced Special meetings get special notices

61. Economic Disclosures Personnel conflict of interest as applies to other local boards LAFCO disclosure may be longer

62. Campaign Contributions Political Reform Act Tougher for appointed boards (LAFCO) than for elected boards (city council, etc.) $250 contribution before or after LAFCO decision Contributor and Commissioner must disclose on LAFCO record Commissioner must not participate in LAFCO decision

63. Expenses Supporting and Opposing Proposals Optional Adopted by local LAFCO policy From San Fernando Valley secession Government Code 56100.1 http://santacruzlafco.org/pages/disclosure.html

64. Lobbying Disclosure Optional Adopted by local LAFCO policy “Ex parte” communications between members of the public and LAFCO commissioners outside the hearing OK, but must be disclosed on the record

65. CEQA LAFCO actions are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act Lead or responsible agency When LAFCO is a responsible agency, it should participate in lead agency’s CEQA review (e.g., comment on notice of preparation and draft EIR for any major project)

66. Other Public Communications Website required by law Notices must be posted on website— in addition to “traditional” noticing Press availability Op/ed articles for newspapers Speak to civic groups ?

67. TEAMWORK

68. Milkin

69. Commissioners Helping Staff Advance notice that commissioner will ask major question during meetingAdvance notice that commissioner will ask major question during meeting Commission as a whole directs staffCommission as a whole directs staff Support trainingSupport training

70. Piler

71. Staff Helping Commissioners Orient new commissionersOrient new commissioners Staff reports complete with mapsStaff reports complete with maps Major issues summarized in reportMajor issues summarized in report Clear conditions and amendmentsClear conditions and amendments Major players informed and presentMajor players informed and present Oral staff reports that are of appropriate length.Oral staff reports that are of appropriate length. Maintain alternatives — don ’ t limit Commissioners ’ actions by staff reportMaintain alternatives — don ’ t limit Commissioners ’ actions by staff report?

73. CALAFCO 56 member LAFCOs plus associate members. 56 member LAFCOs plus associate members. Non-profit 501(c)(3). Non-profit 501(c)(3). Focus on member support through conferences and workshops, legislative services, and general education. Focus on member support through conferences and workshops, legislative services, and general education.

74. Board of Directors (15 Members) Legal Counsel Clark Alsop Executive Director Bill Chiat Executive Officer Bruce Baracco Deputy Exec. Officer Dan Schwarz Deputy Exec. Officer Everett Millais 2004-05 CALAFCO Administrative Structure

75. Board of Directors (15 Members) Legal Counsel Clark Alsop Executive Director Bill Chiat Executive Officer Everett Millais Deputy Exec. Officer Paul Hood Deputy Exec. Officer Joyce Crosthwaite 2005-06 CALAFCO Administrative Structure

76. CALAFCO.ORG

77. @CALAFCO.ORG CALAFCO List-serv Program calafco@calafco.org eo@calafco.org clerks@calafco.org counsel@calafco.org

78. Board of Directors (15 Members) Executive Director Bill Chiat Legislative Chair Dan Schwarz Legislative Committee Legislative Subcommittees Legislative Vice- Chair Vacant Legal Counsel Clark Alsop Legislative Advisory Committee (5-7 Directors) CALAFCO Legislative Structure

79. Legislation CALAFCO serves as an educational resource for legislators and statewide officials. CALAFCO Legislative Committee drafts bills and reviews proposed legislation. Board of Directors adopts positions for the Association. Legislative Chair and Executive Director represent CALAFCO in Sacramento.

80. Legislation Legislative Focus: Annual omnibus legislation to improve LAFCO law. Participation in stakeholder groups to draft laws affecting local government. Sponsorship of bills that create significant changes in LAFCO law. Position letters and testimony on bills that affect member LAFCOs.

81. More Help CALAFCO Website—www.calafco.orgwww.calafco.org It’s Time to Draw the Line—Senate Local Government Committee Guide to Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000— Assembly Local Government Committee LAFCO Procedures Guide produced by San Diego LAFCO OPR Website—www.opr.ca.gov/planning/www.opr.ca.gov/planning/ LAFCO Reform.html ?

82. END

83. Fig

84. Frying Pan

86. It’s real nice living here With the raccoons and deer But someone is giving us a pitch We’re all going to be rich He also warns that “the big boys” the developers have weapons that give me a pain. They don’t need to play fair They just have to declare Sphere of influence or eminent domain. Cowboy Poet Jim Lott of Leona Valley (near Palmdale) 1992

87. Annexation of prime agricultural lands shall not be approved unless one of the following mitigations has been instituted, at not less than a 1:1 replacement ratio: The acquisition and dedication of farmland, development rights, and agricultural conservation easements to permanently protect adjacent and other agricultural lands within the County, or in lieu payments to responsible, recognized government and non- profit organizations for such purposes. Any such measures must preserve prime agricultural property of reasonably equivalent quality and character that would otherwise be threatened, in the reasonably foreseeable future, by development and/or other urban uses. YOLO LAFCO AGRICULTURAL POLICY

89. Annexations/Factors a. Population, population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years. b. Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas. c. The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests and on the local governmental structure of the county.

90. d. The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated effects with both the adopted commission policies on providing planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban development. e. The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands. f. The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. g. Consistency with appropriate city or county general and specific plans. h. The sphere of influence of any local agency which may be applicable to the proposal being reviewed. i. The comments of any affected local agency. j. The ability of the newly formed or receiving entity to provide the services which are the subject of the application to the area, including the sufficiency of revenues for those services following the proposed boundary change. k. Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs. l. The extent to which the proposal will assist the receiving entity in achieving its fair share of the regional housing needs as determined by the appropriate council of governments. m. Any information or comments from the landowner or owners. n. Any information relating to existing land use designations.(Government Code Section 56668).

91. j. The ability of the newly formed or receiving entity to provide the services which are the subject of the application to the area, including the sufficiency of revenues for those services following the proposed boundary change. k. Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs. l. The extent to which the proposal will assist the receiving entity in achieving its fair share of the regional housing needs as determined by the appropriate council of governments. m. Any information or comments from the landowner or owners. n. Any information relating to existing land use designations. (Government Code Section 56668).