Finding Response Disagree Partially. It is unclear what should be considered “commonly

The Tuolumne County LAFCO website fails to provide be managed in the same or similar manner as other LAFCOs. The information that is commonly provided by other Tuolumne County LAFCO website does include all legally required county LAFCO websites, which includes the information. All of the additional information listed in the report is available following deficiencies: from the Commission Executive Officer, whose contact information is on No adopted budget summaries are available the LAFCO website. And while there are not direct links on the LAFCO No roster of LAFCO commissioners including some homepage for the items listed in the finding, this information, with the form of contact information and when current term exception of a roster, is available within the posted Agendas and expires accompanying Minutes on the LAFCO website. No identification of key support personnel including Executive Officer and Legal Counsel No approved Minutes documents available for review Larger LAFCOs have extensive staffing resources who can provide and No list, description, or map of special districts subject maintain information on a website. Currently there is not funding within the to LAFCO review and authority LAFCO budget to dedicate to additional staff to enhance or improve the website. The Commission will take into consideration any enhancements or improvements that may be made to the website within the current year’s budget. Disagree Partially. The LAFCO Clerk completes an onboarding process with each new Commissioner. This includes providing them information about the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government

Tuolumne County LAFCO commissioners are not Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH), the Tuolumne LAFCO policy given adequate preparation or orientation when handbook, and a roster. This year, materials from a “LAFCO 101” training assuming roles as commissioners. For example, that was provided by LAFCO Counsel was also included in the welcome Commissioners have served without being provided packet. with the Policy and Procedures Manual. Some did not know such a Manual existed or was statutorily Commissioners are also given access to the California Association of required. Local Agency Formation Commissions (CALAFCO), a statewide organization who assists member LAFCOs with educational, technical, and legislative resources. CALAFCO organizes an annual conference and trainings throughout the year for Commissioners and staff. Commissioners routinely attend the trainings and annual conference. Four Commissioners, the Executive Officer, and LAFCO Counsel are planning to attend the 2024 LAFCO conference in October 2024. From time to time, subject matter experts attend local LAFCO meetings to speak to the Commission about different responsibilities and procedures related to LAFCO. The Commission voted in 2023 to update the policy handbook. Revisions have been ongoing and were on the agendas at four recent meetings: April 8 and May 13, June 10, and August 12, 2024. Once the updates have been completed and approved, it will be redistributed to the members and posted on the LAFCO website.

LAFCO has no reserve fund as contributions for each Agree. LAFCO does not have a reserve fund. The Commission will fiscal year are based on actual expenditures with no consider whether to include this in the updated policy handbook. carryover for the next fiscal year. Disagree Partially. The Government Code states that the Commission shall, as necessary, review and update each Sphere of Influence (SOI) every 5 years1. In order to prepare and update SOIs, the Commission shall conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in the county or other

While Sphere of Influence maps and Municipal appropriate area designated by the Commission2. The timing of MSRs is Service Review updates were proposed in the 2019- not strictly mandated under the Government Code, and the Commission 2020 budget work plan, to catch-up to the standard 5- may determine whether a review is necessary. LAFCO law also provides year review cycle, most of the updates have not been that “any provisions in this division governing the time within which an completed. As such, there are a total of 35 districts official or the commission is to act shall in all instances, except for notice that have had no SOI or MSR updates in over 11 requirements and the requirements of subdivision (h) of Section 56658 years. [notice on an application] and subdivision (b) of Section 56895 [requests for amendments to or reconsideration of resolutions], be deemed directory, rather than mandatory3.” The Commission directs the timing of MSRs in an annual workplan. The Grand Jury report specifically mentions the proposed 2019-2020 1 CA Government Code Section 56425(g) 2 CA Government Code Section 56430 3 CA Government Code Section 56106 workplan, which was significantly curtailed due to limited staffing resources during the Covid pandemic and the resulting shutdowns that occurred. During the April 29, 2024, LAFCO meeting, the Commission approved a MSR Completion Schedule which will be used to create the annual workplan moving forward. The Commission also adopted a significantly increased budget in 2024-2025 in order to complete additional MSRs. The Commission is currently considering how to best staff LAFCO to complete multiple MSRs in a cost-effective manner. In summary, the Commission believes it has a duty to perform regular reviews and updates of boundaries or areas that government services are expected to cover, ensuring they remain accurate and up-to-date, and is committed to completing reviews and updates, as necessary, at least every five years. Disagree Wholly. The Grand Jury misinterprets the Government Code. LAFCO law allows the Commission to “appoint an executive officer4,” “appoint legal counsel to advise it5,” and “appoint staff as it deems appropriate6.” The Government Code also gives the Commission the power 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 commission7.”

LAFCO staff support can be provided by County staff; The Attorney General has addressed the designation of the Executive however, it must be under a contractual agreement. Officer, Legal Counsel and staff in past opinions8. The Attorney General There is no contract between Tuolumne County noted that “personnel to assist the Commissions may be obtained in two LAFCO and Tuolumne County, which is a violation of ways: (1) County officers or other employees may serve, and in doing so, state law requirements. do not lose their status as county employees; or (2) the Commission may employ or contract for professional or consulting services to carry out its functions, and may further appoint and assign staff personnel where the assistance rendered by the county boundary commission is insufficient. When the Commission fails to appoint an executive officer, the County Administrator or County Clerk so serves.” The distinction made by the Attorney General in the above quote is important, in that LAFCO can 4 CA Government Code Section 56384(a) 5 CA Government Code Section 56384(b) 6 CA Government Code Section 56384(c) 7 CA Government Code Section 56375(k) 8 45 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 82 and 51 Ops. Cal. Atty Gen. 235 either use County employees or appoint and assign their own staff from other sources. The Attorney General further notes that, where a LAFCO commission chooses to utilize county staff, the County Counsel would be available to represent and advise such commissions. As set forth in LAFCO’s Policy and Procedure Manual, the Commission has elected to utilize County staff to serve as Executive Officer, Assistant Executive Officer, Legal Counsel and Department Support Technician. The Community Development Department (“CDD”) Director fills the role of LAFCO Executive Officer, who then selects the appropriate support staff. The CDD Director is a County employee, appointed by the Board of Supervisors, and the duties of LAFCO EO are detailed in that job description. LAFCO does not have the legal authority to hire or fire the CDD Director. The same is true for LAFCO Counsel and supporting staff. The LAFCO Policy and Procedure Manual allows County Counsel to represent LAFCO. County Counsel is also a County employee appointed by the Board of Supervisors. County Counsel assigns its attorney staff to clients based on a combination of factors, including competency, knowledge and experience. Upon consultation, other County LAFCOs have advised that they typically enter contracts when they hire employees directly or when they hire independent contractors, but not when they use staff of another agency. Although a retention agreement between agencies is commonly used, it is not universal, nor is it legally required. If the Commission continued to use County staff to perform the functions of LAFCO, it could consider entering into a retention agreement with the County to clarify roles and responsibilities, but a retention agreement is not a requirement under the law. Disagree Wholly. For the reasons mentioned in Response F5, LAFCO has the right to designate Tuolumne County to fulfill their staffing

LAFCOs have the right to appoint and assign staff to requirements, but LAFCO cannot directly appoint the individuals who fill support their activities. However, Tuolumne County the County-provided roles. has made personnel assignments to LAFCO staff without consulting commissioners. These Pursuant to the Policy and Procedure Manual, LAFCO staffing is currently assignments have not always been in the interest in provided by Tuolumne County staff. The CDD Director operates as the maintaining continuity or accomplishing LAFCO goals. EO and utilizes the appropriate support staff within that department to fill the roles of Assistant Executive Officer and Department Support Technician. The County provides legal counsel through County Counsel’s office. No evidence has been presented to LAFCO that demonstrates how personnel assignments to LAFCO have “not always been in the interest in maintaining continuity or accomplishing LAFCO goals.” In fact, many of the issues addressed in the Grand Jury report are the result of budget and funding constraints, and not the result of personnel assignments. County staff have the competency, experience, and knowledge to assist LAFCO in accomplishing its goals, and also have access to resources and, when needed, subject matter experts. Staff attend regular CALAFCO trainings and also belong to statewide Executive Officer and Legal Counsel associations and listservs, and have an active shared staffing agreement with Marin, Santa Cruz, and San Benito LAFCOs who can provide assistance when necessary. Notwithstanding the above, on August 27, 2024, the County of Tuolumne provided notice to LAFCO that as of January 1, 2025, they would no longer provide any staffing or support to the Commission. As a result, the Commission will immediately begin the process of transitioning staff to a different model.

One of the special district seats on LAFCO is to be available to multiple different special districts who Agree. In reviewing the process of the election of the Special District provide funding for LAFCO and that seat is subject to Selection Committee, the Special District appointment made in 2023 was vote of the special districts every four years through a nonstandard. This decision was indirectly accepted by LAFCO as no Special District Selection Committee. A vote took formal action was taken by the Commission to seat the member. If the place that was not in compliance with the state special districts wish to revisit this action, the Government Code allows requirements and only a small number of eligible the Executive Officer to “call a noticed meeting of the Special District districts participated. However, that decision was Selection Committee upon receipt of a written request by one or more accepted by LAFCO, and that commissioner will have members of the selection committee representing districts having 10 that seat until 2026. The majority of eligible special percent or more of the assessed value of taxable property within the districts lost their opportunity to decide who county, as shown on the last equalized county assessment roll9.” represents them on LAFCO. CA Government Code Section 56632 Disagree Wholly. There is no evidence in the report to support this finding regarding expertise of Tuolumne County employees. The report concludes that meeting cancellations and MSRs not being completed more frequently is a result of inadequate staffing. However, the report acknowledges that the LAFCO budget will need to increase in order to update SOI maps and MSRs. The budget, not staff, directly dictates how many Commission meetings can be held, how many staff members can be assigned to LAFCO, and how many SOI maps and MSRs can be performed in a fiscal year. Staffing levels are directly tied to the LAFCO budget. The Commission may consider a future budget increase to support additional LAFCO staff. The report further notes that, because no one is currently assigned to the Assistant EO role for LAFCO, the EO currently provides all professional support to LAFCO, and at higher rates than an Assistant EO would, which is not cost-effective. The current LAFCO EO has over 25 years of

Present staffing levels and expertise of Tuolumne experience in community planning and LAFCO matters and projects. This County employees are inadequate to provide depth of experience permits LAFCO work to be completed efficiently and necessary and cost-effective support for LAFCO. cost-effectively, as those with less experience generally require additional time to complete the same task, which essentially eliminates any cost savings that might otherwise result. All staff assigned to LAFCO are competent and have the knowledge and experience in performing the work of LAFCO. As mentioned in Response

Annual assignments of Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors to the LAFCO commissioner and alternate commissioner roles have fluctuated among Disagree Wholly. In 2019, County Board of Supervisor appointments were different Supervisors every year and does not provide extended from one year to two years. LAFCO does not have the authority continuity based on experience in the role of to direct the appointments of County or City commissioners, including the commissioner. length of their appointments.