G E N E R A L    M A N A G E R ' S    R E P O R T

August 26, 2005

 

                  TO:            Board of Directors, PBCSD

 

           FROM:            Richard Andrews, General Manager

 

                                SUBJECT:            PBCSD Information and Comments for

                                                               LAFCO Municipal Services Review

_________________________________________________________________________

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

·        Review and consider the enclosed report to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County (“LAFCO”) that responds to the Commission’s request for information and comments from the District, which will be incorporated into the LAFCO’s review and analysis of PBCSD’s services, organization and financing.

 

·        Approve the District’s proposed LAFCO Municipal Services Review response, after providing whatever additional comments and/or instructions, if any, you believe may be appropriate.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

 

Assembly Bill 2838 which became effective in 2001 requires LAFCOs in each of California’s 58 counties to adopt and/or update the sphere of influence (i.e. ultimate service area) of every special district and city within the county by 2006.  The legislation also requires that before LAFCO adopts or modifies spheres of influence it must conduct “municipal service reviews” of all special districts and the cities in each county.  According to the LAFCO of Monterey County, a municipal service review is a means of identifying and addressing the relationships between regional issues, goals and objectives and the various service options available.  LAFCO further indicates that although municipal service reviews may not directly change how services are provided, they will furnish affected agencies, the public, and LAFCO with a tool to understand public service conditions. 

 

In the opinion of many special district managers and directors AB-2838 provides a new governmental services planning mandate to LAFCOs, and it places on the Commission a responsibility to make qualitative judgments about how effective each jurisdiction is in organizing and managing its allocated resources.  In particular, as LAFCO reviews the enclosed information about PBCSD the Commission will be required to make General determinations about the District with regard to the following:

 

1.      Infrastructure needs or deficiencies;

2.      Growth and population projections for the area served by the District ;

3.      Financing constraints and opportunities;

4.      Cost avoidance opportunities;

5.      Opportunities for rate restructuring;

6.      Opportunities for shared facilities;

7.      Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers;

8.      Evaluation of management efficiencies; and

9.      Local accountability and governance.

 

As a practical matter, what impact may LAFCO’s actions have on PBCSD’s plans and operations?  On the one hand, this District’s potential future interaction with the LAFCO is limited because PBCSD has no plans, and it appears unlikely residents would ask the District to reorganize as a different local government entity or to modify its service boundaries.  On the other hand, PBCSD does have many latent powers that, under AB 2838, may only be activated with approval of LAFCO.  Therefore, considered from the perspective described in the nine points listed above, it is very important that the information and comments provided to LAFCO by PBCSD be thorough and that they accurately reflect the state of the District and its policies.  Moreover, the Board is urged to closely examine the enclosed response to the LAFCO municipal service review questionnaire that has been prepared by District staff and to provide whatever additional comments, if any, you believe may be appropriate. 

 

Potentially, the new legislation could have significant impacts on PBCSD and on the organization of local government throughout the County.  LAFCOs now have a new planning mandate to allocate or strongly influence the allocation of public services as well as the types of governmental organizations that are created and their operational spheres.

 

BACKGROUND DISCUSSION

 

Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg’s Assembly Bill 2838 adopted in the 2000 session of the Legislature implements the recommendations of the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, which had earlier recommended that the Legislature strengthen the powers of the Local Agency Formation Commission in California counties.  The bill included major revisions to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985.  It broadened standards and procedures for operations of LAFCOs in matters relating to formation, annexations, detachments and dissolution of

cities, counties and special districts and the allocation of public services authority within special districts.  Under the new legislation, LAFCOs became independent of county government financing and staffing.  Following approval of a majority of independently governed special districts within Monterey County; in 2001 two additional commissioner seats allocated to independent special districts were added to the LAFCO of Monterey County.  Thus, the current membership includes two city representatives, two representatives of the Board of Supervisors, two elected directors from independent special districts and one non-affiliated member representing the public at large. 

 

Potentially, the new legislation could have significant impacts on PBCSD and on the organization of local government throughout the County.  LAFCOs will have a new planning mandate in terms of the allocation of public services as well as the types of governmental organizations that are created and their operational spheres.  Over time, it is also expected that LAFCO planning policies will be influenced by an increased role of the State through the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”).  This is because the new law provides that OPR assist LAFCOs in the establishment of standards for inventorying local government services and establishing appropriate spheres of influence for these agencies.  In the opinion of some experts, the OPR “guideline” role is beginning to resemble a legislated process that may get changed gradually, but incrementally over time to a “mandate” as OPR asserts its role and the legislature adopts related legislation.  The attached questionnaire from LAFCO was developed pursuant to OPR “guidelines”.

 

The Board is familiar with most, if not all, of the 26 appendices that will be sent to LAFCO along with the completed questionnaire.  Therefore, they are not enclosed with this report.  However, please advise me if you wish to have a copy of any of the appendices.   

 

 

 

 

RA

 

Enclosures: LAFCO Municipal Services Review Questionnaire

 

                                                                                                            Agenda no.  15