The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4 LAFCO Multy County Sphere of Influance Agenda Item # Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Peter Holzmeister Date: November 1, 2002 Subject: LAFCo adoption of multi-county sphere of influence You will recall that Sandra Harmon attended our last meeting and spoke during public input. She recommended that we support the idea that the principal county LAFCo should determine the sphere of influence for multi-county districts, including that portion of the sphere of influence in the adjacent county. Attached for your review is the draft resolution that she suggested we adopt. I have not yet consulted with SR Jones or with Ron Sweet to learn their positions on this matter. I will do so before Wednesday and report it to you at that time. SANDRA HARMON P.O. Box 95 Norden, CA 95724 (530) 426-9323 email: summit@summithouse.com To: Placer and Nevada Special Districts From: Sandra Harmon, Director Donner Summit PUD Subject: MULTIPLE COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS SPHERE STUDIES As you may be aware Placer LAFCO terminated the Joint Powers agreement with Nevada LAFCo because of several issues but at present the main concern is over who does the sphere studies for multiple county districts. Placer's position is that each LAFCo should do a sphere for only those areas of the district within their county. Nevada's position is that the Principal LAFCo should be responsible for the entire sphere regardless of in which county the area lies. As a Director for a multi county special district, this disagreement obviously caused me some concern. A concern which spurred me into reviewing the issue as to how it will impact the special districts. It seems to me that because the purpose of the LAFCo Act is to encourage the efficient provision of governmental services, it would follow that the proposal which is the most efficient and least costly to the district and/or LAFCo is the position that should be encouraged. Therefore, to evaluate the efficiency of these positions I looked at what it takes to produce a sphere study for a district. It seemed to me that any sphere has certain fixed costs and the evaluation of those costs under each proposal should give an indication of the efficiency of that proposal. However, because each district is so different trying to pull out exact numbers which were realistic to multiple districts was impossible. So to give you an idea of the possible costs, I developed two exhibits where broad tasks are listed and examples of time expenditures are given. I've also given the approximate costs associated to these tasks for DSPUD but you can review the tasks and apply them to your own district as is appropriate. Exhibit 1 demonstrates the tasks and costs associated with the Nevada LAFCo position. Under this proposal each LAFCo would be responsible for the entire sphere of those districts for which it serves as the Principal LAFCo. o Placer County has at least 19 multi county special districts. Placer LAFCo is the principal county for only six. Leaving 13 multi county special districts who would have their spheres performed by other LAFCos. o Nevada County has 9 multi county special districts. Nevada LAFCo is the principal county for only six. Leaving 3 multi county special districts who would have their sphere performed by other LAFCos. o The multi county districts provide monetary support only to their principal LAFCo. Under this proposal only the special districts that contribute to that LAFCo will receive that LAFCo's services. Therefore all of the special districts will be paying a share of the LAFCo costs for these studies along with all of the other contributors to the LAFCo general fund. _--............ . MULTIPLE COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS PAGE 2 Exhibit 1: Nevada LAFCo Position District LAFCO Task: LAFCo or District will initiate a sphere study. Costs: District staff time or consultant cost to plan 80.00 for sphere study. Principal LAFCo staff time to plan for sphere study. 80.00 Task: District to develop a draft update or initial Sphere Document. Costs: District staff time or consultant cost. 20,000.00 Principal LAFCo staff time to review document, 900.00 assist district as needed. Task: LAFCo to initiate environmental review process. Costs: LAFCo staff time or consultant cost. 15,000.00 Principal LAFCo staff time to plan, initiate and 900.00 supervise process. Task: Public hearing before commission of principal LAFCo. Costs: District staff, District Board, and consultant cost. 200.00 Principal LAFCo staff time and commission time. 1,000.00 Task: Additional public hearings may be required but not routine. Costs: District staff time or consultant cost to revise document 200.00 based upon public hearing and commission input. Principal LAFCo staff time and commission time. 1,000.00 Estimated Cost: $20,480.00 $18,880.00 Total Estimated Cost: $39,360.00 MULTIPLE COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS PAGE 3 Exhibit 2: Placer LAFCo Position District LAFCOJ LAFCO2 Task: LAFCo or District will initiate a sphere. Costs: District staff time or consultant cost to 80.00 plan for sphere study. Principal LAFCo staff time to plan. 80.00 Non principal LAFCo staff time to plan. 80.00 Task: District to develop a draft initial or update sphere Document. Costs: District staff time or consultant cost. 30,000.00 Principal LAFCo staff time to review, 900.00 document, assist district as needed. Non principal LAFCo staff time. 900.00 Task: LAFCo to initiate environmental review process. Costs: Principal LAFCo staff time or consultant cost. 12,000.00 Principal LAFCo staff time to plan, initiate and supervise process. 900.00 Non Principal LAFCo staff time or consultant cost. 10,000.00 Non Principal LAFCo staff time to plan, initiate and supervise process. 900.00 Task: Public hearing before commission. Costs: District staff, District Board, and consultant cost. 200.00 Principal LAFCo staff time and commission time. 1,000.00 Non Principal LAFCo staff time and commission time. 1,000.00 Task: Additional public hearings may be required but not routine. Costs: District staff time or consultant cost to revise document based upon public 200.00 based upon public hearing and commission input. Principal LAFCo staff time and commission time. 1,000.00 Non Principal LAFCo staff time and commission time. 1,000.00 Estimated Cost: $30,480.00 $15,880.00 $13,880.00 Total Estimated Cost: $60,240.00 ESTIMATED COST CHANGE: $10,000.00 ($3,000.00) $13,880.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL INCREASED COST: $20,880.00 MULTIPLE COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS PAGE 4 Exhibit 2 demonstrates the tasks and costs associated with the Placer LAFCo position. Under this proposal each LAFCo would be responsible for the sphere for only those areas of the district within their county. This will require the duplication of the process in each county the special district provides service. DSPUD is a two county agency so I used a two county example however there are districts that are in more than two counties and would require costs for those counties also. As we have not performed a sphere like this I contacted consultants who have performed multi county spheres and they estimated that the Placer LAFCo position will increase the cost of a consultant to the district by at least 50%. However, this cost may be significantly increased over that if there is little coordination between the different LAFCos. If a sphere is developed in one LAFCo but the other LAFCo fails to complete their portion until several years later, much of the data used for the first LAFCo sphere will have to be redone doubling the consultant cost to the district. At the present time there are at least two districts which are facing just this type of situation. o The multi county districts provide monetary support only to their Principal LAFCo. Placer LAFCo would be responsible for completing a sphere on 19 multi county districts but only six would be contributing to the general fund of the Placer LAFCO. The additional cost which in the DSPUD example would be $13,800, would be born by the Placer County Cities, Placer County, and all the Placer County Special Districts except the 13 Non Principal County Special Districts. o Nevada LAFCo would be responsible for completing a sphere on 9 multi county districts but only six would be contributing to the general fund of the Nevada LAFCO. The additional cost would be born by the Nevada County Cities, Nevada County, and all the Nevada County Special Districts except the 3 Non Principal County Special Districts. It is totally inappropriate that an agency specifically designed to reduce the impact of special interests and the inefficiency of local government, moves forward with an action which results in just that. The LAFCo Act is quite clear that while serving on the LAFCo Commission, all commission members shall exercise their independent judgement on behalf of the interests of residents, property owners, and the public as a whole. The commissioners should represent the interests of the public as a whole and not solely the interests of their appointing authority. LAFCo, like these multi county special districts, should not be viewed as a specific county agency. Special Districts and the public they represent should not have to use their scarce funds just because Placer County has difficulty with this principal. However, I'm not naive enough to think that politics is not involved here. Which is why I'm presenting this to you today. In the best of all worlds I am asking for your support for the Principal LAFCo Position. You can do this by passing a resolution in support of this position and or by having your attorney file an amicus brief with the court. Given that this might not be possible, I am hoping you will at least appoint someone to work with me to establish recommendations for an orderly review of a district's sphere which will reduce these inappropriate cost as much as possible. DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT OF THE PRINCIPAL LAFCO HAVING THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE MULTI-COUNTY DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the Truckee Donner Public Utility District is a Multi-County District which provides services to the citizens in both Placer and Nevada County; and WHEREAS, the LAFCo Act requires each LAFCo to adopt a sphere of influence for each special district within the county; and WHEREAS, the LAFCo Act with respect to districts that are located in more than one county, provides that the LAFCo of the principal county has exclusive jurisdiction over the matters authorized by the act; and WHEREAS, the LAFCo Act requires that each LAFCo receives funding only from the multi- county districts for which it serves as the principal county; and WHEREAS, the LAFCo believes for multiple county districts that the LAFCo Act provides that each LAFCo should do a sphere of influence for only those areas of the district within their county; and WHEREAS, Nevada LAFCo believes for multiple county districts that the LAFCo Act provides that the Principal LAFCo should be responsible for the entire sphere regardless of in which county the area lies; and WHEREAS, the evaluation of the costs under each proposal demonstrates that the Nevada LAFCo position is more efficient and less costly proposal; and WHEREAS, the LAFCo Act provides that each LAFCo must encourage the efficient provision of governmental services, it would follow that the proposal which is the most efficient and least costly to the district and/or LAFCo, is the proposal that should be encouraged. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District that it supports the position of the principal LAFCo having the exclusive jurisdiction over the sphere of influence for the multi-county districts. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2002, at the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Nelson Van Gundy By: President of the Board of Directors