Where Do We Go From Here?

1
2006 Annual Conference, San Diego
Wednesday September 6, 2006 145 pm TO 300 pm
MSRs Spheres
Where Do We Go From Here?
2
Government Code Sections

• 56425 - Spheres, especially
• subsection (g)
• 56430 - Municipal Service Reviews

• Background about these sections of Cortese Knox
  Hertzberg (CKH)
• Overview of how LAFCos are meeting these
  requirements
• Results of a survey of Executive Officers about
  possible changes
• Your input about how the law might be changed

3
Government Code Sections

• 56425 - Spheres, especially
• subsection (g)
• 56430 - Municipal Service Reviews

• Both 56425(g) and 56430 were new mandates as a
  part of CKH, effective January 1, 2001

4
Government Code Sections

• 56425 - Spheres, especially
• subsection (g)
• 56430 - Municipal Service Reviews

• Where did these sections come from anyway?

5
(No Transcript)
6

• There are subtle, but important differences
  between the GWB recommendations and the current
  law.

• GWB recommended the review and update of spheres
  every 5 years what is now 56425(g) includes the
  words as necessary.

7

• GWB first discussed service reviews for any
  amendments to spheres of influence, but the
  recommended draft language and, subsequently, the
  law referenced service reviews as being required
  to update spheres of influence. The law does
  not define either a sphere of influence amendment
  or update.

8

• GWB recommendation was that LAFCos be required
  to periodically initiate service reviews, but
  the draft GWB language and subsequent law linked
  service reviews to the update of spheres of
  influence every 5 years as necessary.

9

• Neither GWB, nor the discussions leading to the
  law attempted to otherwise integrate service
  review and spheres of influence actions,
  determinations or timing.

10
Next up An Overview of Approaches
11
MSRs SOI Updates

• An Overview of Approaches
• MSRs have been done ..

12
1. By Individual Jurisdictione.g. A MSR for Each
City or Each Special District

• Examples include
• San Luis Obispo LAFCO for the City of Paso Robles
  
• Tulare LAFCO for the City of Visalia
• Monterey LAFCO for the Salinas Rural Fire
  Protection District

13
2. By Type of Special Districtse.g. A MSR for
All Fire Districts or All County Service Areas

• Examples include
• El Dorado LAFCO for all fire suppression and
  emergency services
• Yolo LAFCO for all county service areas
• Butte LAFCO for all recreation park districts

14
3. By Category of Servicee.g. A MSR for All
Jurisdictions Based on a BroadCategory of
Services

• Examples include
• Alameda LAFCO - completed all MSRs based on three
  categories
• Public safety
• Utility
• Community services
• Los Angeles LAFCO- categorized MSRs based on
• Essential services, receiving in-depth review,
  and
• Miscellaneous services, receiving a less in-depth
  review

15
4. On A Countywide Basise.g. A MSR for All
Jurisdictions orA MSR for Jurisdictions
ProvidingSimilar Types of Service

• Examples include
• El Dorado LAFCO for all fire suppression and
  emergency services
• Yolo LAFCO for all county service areas
• Butte LAFCO for all recreation park districts

16
5. On A Sub-area Basise.g. A MSR for All
jurisdictions countywide or, one countywide MSR
for all jurisdictions providing a similar type of
service in a defined geographic area

• Examples include
• Santa Barbara LAFCO - All jurisdictions in the
  Santa Barbara/Goleta Valley area
• Nevada LAFCO Eastern Co. Water Services
• Ventura LAFCO All water and wastewater service
  providers by watershedExamples include

17
Combined Approaches e.g. All fire districts
countywide or all fire districts in the southern
portion of a county.
A combination of MSR by jurisdiction and
category of service, and/or by type of district
and county-wide or sub-area, or some similar
combination of the previous approaches.
18
In Tandem with Sphere of Influence Updatese.g.
sphere of influence updates were combined with
MSR and adopted as a part of the same hearing
Separately from Sphere of Influence Updatese.g.
the MSR was fully completed first and sphere of
influence updates were acted on separately
sometime afterwards
19
Not at Alle.g. some LAFCos have first
determined whether or not a sphere of influence
update was necessary for a given
jurisdiction/agency and if no sphere of influence
update was deemed necessary, then no MSR was done
for that jurisdiction/agency
20
Conclusions

• Each LAFCO has used its discretion about how best
  to meet the MSR and SOI update mandates.
• Most MSRs are exempt from CEQA, some SOI updates
  require Negative Declarations or EIRs prior to
  approval.
• 3. The number of SOI updates necessary should be
  less in the future and thus the number of MSRs
  should be less in the future.
• 4. One size does NOT fit all.