County Counsel

Mono LAFCO’s failure to adhere to California statutory law has resulted in the inability to make informed decisions about local Special District organization. Response to F1: The Commission disagrees in part and agree in part with finding F1. First, The Commission disagrees that there has been an inability to make informed decisions about special district organizations. While Mono LAFCO certainly has delayed updating Service Review and Sphere of Influence documents, these documents are not relied on by the Commission when making decisions about special district organization. When an organizational change is proposed, such as an annexation, very detailed reports are developed by staff and presented to the Commission prior to decision making that go far beyond the information found in Service Review documents. Government Code Section 56668 details the 17 factors to be considered in review of a proposal for an annexation, the most consequential of which is a detailed plan for the provision of services. In the approximately 10 years that the current Executive Officer has worked with Mono LAFCO (2010-2016 & 2023-Present), the Commission has made two decisions regarding special district organization and both included extremely detailed and informative reports addressing the 17 statutory factors. Additionally, in that timeframe, several applications for district organization were submitted to Mono LAFCO, but were ultimately withdrawn as the applicants were unable to deliver the level of detail required by Mono LAFCO staff to bring the applications to the Commission for a decision. The Commission further disagrees that Mono LAFCO fails to adhere to California statutory law. The Grand Jury report states as one of the introductory key issues and uses as the basis for much of the report’s findings, the assertion that the Sphere of Influence Reports and prerequisite Service Reviews are required to be updated every five years. This is not true. Government Code Section 56425 reads: “On or before January 1, 2008, and every five years thereafter, the commission shall, as necessary, review and update each sphere of influence” (emphasis added). When claiming there is a failure to adhere to law, the actual text of the law must be carefully interpreted and in this case the words “as necessary” carry some significant weight. While The Commission agrees that there may be some value in conducting more frequent Sphere of Influence Updates and Service Reviews, the statute itself only requires them when deemed necessary by the Commission. The inclusion of “as necessary” makes this section of state law a rare legislative instance that seems to recognize that not all of California is the same, and Mono County is, if anything, a bit unique. Further, Service Reviews, while potentially useful for Special District organizational decisions, are not intended for that purpose. Service Reviews are intended to inform the establishment and update of a Sphere of Influence. Many of the Spheres of Influence that have been adopted by Mono LAFCO will likely never change in our lifetimes. In Mono County, rather than acting as incremental limits to the extent of services, our Spheres, with a few exceptions, were originally adopted to include all of the private land with development potential that may require services in the future. Spheres were required to be established for all districts by 1985. Decisions on district organization, like annexations, must be consistent with the adopted Spheres. LAFCOs have three objectives, to prevent urban sprawl, preserve agriculture and open space and ensure orderly development of local agencies. Mono LAFCO tends to only need to focus on that last objective, and our existing adopted Spheres do so quite effectively. Thanks to the foresight of Mono LAFCO in the 1980s, our Spheres very rarely need to be updated and effectively prevent the inefficient proliferation of new special districts when new development does occur. Service Reviews were first required in 2008 for all established Spheres, and are required when establishing a new Sphere or updating an existing Sphere. Mono LAFCO completed Service Reviews for all districts around 2009. The Grand Jury Report refers to Service Reviews as “prerequisite to” Spheres, but the requirement for Service Reviews did not exist until 23 years after the requirement to establish Spheres. Since completion of the Service Reviews in 2009, there have been no new Spheres established in Mono County, and only one Sphere has been updated: the Birchim CSD Sphere in 2023. This Sphere required an update as land previously thought to be unlikely to develop when the original Sphere was adopted (owned by LADWP) had been sold to the Long Valley FPD for the development of a fire station. Mono LAFCO staff conducted a Service Review of the district before Mono LAFCO approved a Sphere Amendment and an Annexation of the property. This is to the Commission’s knowledge, the only instance of a required “prerequisite” Service Review in the history of Mono LAFCO. Despite the “as needed” language in Government Code Section 56425(g), the Commision agrees that Mono LAFCO should be reviewing the Spheres every five years, as we did last in 2015. We currently are conducting a comprehensive Sphere review and more details of that process are included in the following responses to the Findings and

Mono LAFCO’s failure to assess Special District performance results in the inability to fully understand if the Special District’s service delivery is meeting the needs of the community they serve. Response to F2: The Commission disagrees with finding F2. It is not the responsibility of Mono LAFCO to routinely assess Special District performance results. Some assessment of performance is certainly part of a Service Review, however, as stated in the response to finding F1, Service Reviews are intended to inform the establishment and update of a Sphere of Influence and are only required when establishing or updating a Sphere. Also as stated in the response to F1, when organizational decisions are brought to Mono LAFCO, very detailed reports including analysis of the ability to provide services are developed for the Commission, but beyond these scenarios, Mono LAFCO does not routinely assess Special District performance. Further, the Report indicates that Mono LAFCO is the organization to reach out to when Special District performance issues are encountered, such as a malfunctioning website. This is not true. Mono LAFCO has no regulatory authority over the daily operations of Special Districts. Implementation of F2: None. Implementation Timeline for F2: Not applicable.

Mono LAFCO’s failure to understand and efficiently exercise its authority has delayed organizational decisions needed to address performance issues. Response to F3: The Commission disagrees with finding F3. The Commission is not aware of any delayed organizational decisions under Mono LAFCOs authority and as stated in the response to finding F2, Mono LAFCO does not routinely assess Special District performance results and has no regulatory authority over day-to-day Special District operations. Mono LAFCO does indeed understand and exercise its authority appropriately. Implementation of F3: None. Implementation Timeline for F3: Not applicable.

Mono LAFCO's commissioners receive rudimentary training on their broad responsibilities and roles resulting in a lack of pro-active oversight and decision making. Response to F4: The Commission agrees in part and disagrees in part with finding F4. While The Commission agrees that training for Mono LAFCO Commissioners is introductory, The Commission disagrees that the level of training directly impacts the Commission’s overall operating philosophy. There is no requirement that the commission be “pro-active”. They certainly could become a more pro-active commission, and in recent years, some Commissioners have advocated for such a philosophy. But they could also decide to operate, as they historically have, as a mostly reactive Commission. There are complex pros and cons for both philosophies, and ultimately the operating philosophy of the Commission is entirely our decision to make. The Report states that without better training, it is unlikely that the Commission will “use their authority to aggressively implement recommendations outlined in service reviews.” As stated previously, the operating philosophy of the Commission is in our hands, but the current Executive Officer, has indicated that they will not be advocating for “aggressive” implementation of