Tehama County Grand Jury • 2022-2023 • Agency Response

Tehama County Local Agency Formation Commission*

Published: January 23, 2023 16 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 9 findings

F1
commission and regular members of alternates. This makes it difficult to have a cohesive, well-function Commission. Response to Finding: Tehama LAFCo agrees with the finding. Tehama LAFCo does not have an updated set of written PPS which include
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners and staff names should be listed and maintained on the Tehama LAFCo website to confirm Commission appointment.
F2
procedural requirements of the CKH Act. The absence of an up-to-date policy document to guide LAFCo activities may result in a failure to property execute responsibilities. Response to Finding: Tehama LAFCo agrees with the finding. Funding splits for the annual Tehama LAFCo budget is not secured from the
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners and staff should implement a regular meeting schedule, at least quarterly, to help all participants remain aware of current issues, updated legal responsibilities and Commission appointments.
F3
cities in Tehama County as required by the CKH Act, resulting in the full burden of Tehama LAFCo funding solely on the county Response to Finding: Partially disagree; there was a funding agreement reached through negotiation and discussion by LAFCo members in 2019 during an agenized meeting. Tehama County Local Agency Formation Commission
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners and staff should revisit and redraft their PPS document to ensure they comply with the mandates, requirements and timelines of the CKH Act. Tehama LAFCo should define timelines and include criteria for when review and updates of SOI's and creation of accompanying MSR's are required to be completed.
F4
Tehama LAFCo does not have a contract with county employees for LAFCo staffing as required by the CKH Act (GC§ 56380). The lack of a contract results in the inability for Tehama LAFCo to provide the appearance of autonomy from the County. Response to Finding: Disagree; a contract is optional as the commission may choose to contract with any public agency or private party for personnel and facilities, pursuant to CKH Act GC § 56380. CKH Act GC§ 56384 states "(a) The commission shall appoint an executive officer who shall conduct and perform the day-to-day business of the commission. If the executive officer is subject to a conflict of interest on a matter before the commission, the commission shall appoint an alternate executive officer. "The courts have already ruled on a Planning Director as LAFCo Executive Officer, finding no conflict of interest thereby allowing the dual role per CKH Act GC§ 56380 and CKH Act GC§ 56384; Case No. 6729SIERRA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, a California Limited 10 Liability Company and JOHN K. GULLIXSON, 14 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SIERRA 15 COUNTY AND SIERRA COUNTY. Furthermore, CKH Act GC§ 56375 Powers subsection (k) allows LAFCo the discretion to appoint or contract personnel as it states "To appoint and assign staff personnel and to employ or contract for professional or consulting services to carry out and effect the functions of the commission." LAFCo officially appointed the Tehama County Planning Director on January 14, 1987.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners should resume discussion to attempt to secure funding splits from the cities in Tehama County as required by the CKH Act.
F5
Tehama LAFCo has neither completed nor plans to complete at least one full round of SOI reviews and updates and accompanying MSR's (as called for by CHK Act GC§ 56425 and GC§ 56430 of the CKH Act) on all 33 special districts in Tehama County. Response to Finding: Disagree, The Grand Jury uses a term of "one full round of SOI review and updates and accompanying MSR's" as a way to measure Tehama LAFCo's performance. This is a fictional term. Rounds of SOI review and updates does not exist in the CKH Act Government Code and there is no basis as a requirement and/or standard in the CKH Act Government Code to complete a full round of SOI reviews, updates, or anything else. TC LAFCo follows the Government code as specifically adopted in the CH. Policies should not be confused for binding regulations, especially when they are almost 20 years old even if they did appear in Office of Planning and Research Publications and/or CALAFCo (501(c)3 non-profit), which is what is referenced in the Grand Jury Report. These forms of information are subject to interpretation and local application based on CKH Gov. Code Section 56301 "Among the purposes of a commission are discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, efficiently providing government services, and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances." In fact, rather than referencing 2003 and 2006 policy publications, a more recent publication from 2013 " 50 years of LAFCo's: a guide to LAFCo's California Local Agency Formation Third Editions published by the Senate government and Finance Committee (signed by Lois wolk Chair)" indicates on section "13- What's a "municipal service review? Before LAFCo's adopt or update a sphere of influences, they conduct municipal service reviews." Since 2000, LAFCo's must conduct a MSR, which is a study prepared before LAFCo updates a city or special district's sphere of influence. In a MSR, LAFCo can review all of the agencies that provide the Tehama County Local Agency Formation Commission public services within the study area. MSR's raise questions and important issues getting people talking. The CKH act requires LAFCo's to update, as necessary, the local government's spheres of influence every 5 years. Logically, LAFCO's must also update MSR's before revising a SOI. See Attachment A. The state legislature never intended for LAFCo's to be constrained by time limits for its MSR and SOI updates as indicated in its CHK Gov. Code section 56301, which is noted above and specifically gives local LAFCo's the right to conduct their business based on Local conditions and circumstances, which is why the State Legislature crafted the language adding/using the term "as Necessary" after the third reading of the Law. In the original law, there was no flexibility and the term "as Necessary" was not present. Please see Attachment B-First reading of the Law and the Third reading of the Law. Furthermore, as indicated in the Grand Jury's report, this term "as Necessary" removes any requirement to update spheres of influence on a specific time frame after 2008 thereby in the Grand Jury's opinion (Section 2, Grand Jury Report) necessitating a "definition for when MSR or SOI reviews or updates are required or considered "necessary" (CKH Act GC§ 56425 and CKH Act GC§ 56430). If the CHK Law and Stature was clear, a definition would not be required. In fact, the Legislation, while crafting and adopting CHK laws, stated at a May 4, 2005 hearing that "as statutes go into effect, local officials often discover problems or inconsistencies in the language of the law", please see Attachment C. Staff will accept and process any application for a Sphere of Influence update pursuant to CKH Gov. Code 56017.2(b) Application means any of the following-(b) states-A request for a sphere of influence amendment or update pursuant to section CKH Act GC§ 56425, please see Attachment D. No information on special districts in Tehama County can be found through the
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners should develop contracts annually with the County or others for Tehama LAFCo staffing consistent with GC § 56380, such as the example provided in Appendix C.
F6
Tehama LAFCo website resulting in members of the public having no consolidated electronic access to information on special districts in the County. Response to Finding: Tehama LAFCo agrees with the finding. Having no formal LAFCo training, Tehama LAFCo Commissioners are not
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo should develop annual work plans that outline schedules for the proactive reviews and updates of SOI's and production of MSR's, consistent with the CKH Act, as well as any other expected work in the given fiscal years. These work plans should put an emphasis on the completion of MSR's and SOI review and updates for special districts. Tehama County Local Agency Formation Commission
F7
adequately prepared to fully implement the requirements of the CKH Act. Response to Finding: partially agree, City Councils, Board of Supervisors, Committee, Commission members of large and small organizations retain qualified staff to recommend actions regarding a broad range of topics and issues encountered during a jurisdiction's operation; acouple days of workshops and/or trainings will never compare to staff experience and training gained on a daily basis over many years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo should annually develop a budget and seek adequate funding to allow accomplishment of annual work plans called for in Recommendations 6. MSR's and SOI's should be scheduled and budgeted over time to reduce the burden of costs,
F8
Tehama LAFCo does not hold regularly scheduled meetings resulting in lack of continuity of LAFCo business, LAFCo business being superseded by other responsibilities and general loss of tracking of Commission Commissioner appointments. Response to Finding: Partially disagree, LAFCo has calendared a schedule of regular meetings on the second Wednesday of every month at 2 p.m. for 2023, In the Tehama Tehama County Local Agency Formation Commission County Board Chambers. LAFCo agrees that it should not go two to three years without holding a meeting.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo should have updated information on their webpage which provides a complete inventory (i.e. special district name, service9s) provided, contract information. Etc.) of all the special districts in the County, as well as links to all the updated SOI's and MSR's that have been completed and should reference the CKH Act.
F9
Some Tehama LAFCo Commissioners seem unaware of their legal requirement to cooperate with Tehama County Grand Jurors, resulting in unnecessary delays to grand Jury timelines for completing interviews and writing reports. Response to Finding: Disagree, this statement is subjective, and not measurable. According to CKH Act GC§ 56331.4. "While serving on the commission, all commission members shall exercise their independent judgment on behalf of the interests of residents, property owners, and the public as a whole in furthering the purposes of this division. Any member appointed on behalf of local governments shall represent the interests of the public as a whole and not solely the interests of the appointing authority." This section does not require the abstention of any member on any matter, nor does it create a right of action in any person.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners should be required to have Grand Jury training and have subsequent refresher training at some interval to be determined.

Comments 2

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.