📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Plumas County Grand Jury
• 2007-2008
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 4 findings
F1
Page 36
- Plumas LAFCo Cost Structure The current operational costs of Plumas LAFCo substantially exceed the funding provided by Plumas County and the City of Portola. The fee schedule developed to fund the resulting gap is substantially higher than that of other county LAFCos surveyed. Application fees for LAFCo proceedings are to some degree a function of county growth rates and real estate activity. If that source of fee revenue declines, Plumas LAFCo will increasingly rely on fees charged to special districts for Municipal Service Reviews and Sphere of Influence studies to meet its budget deficit. These fee payments come from special district general funds. This places an undue financial burden on special districts.
F2
Page 36
- Plumas LAFCo - Relationships with Constituent Agencies Grand Jury interviews and observations indicate that the current Executive Officer, in over six years on the job, has failed to establish a positive liaison and rapport with officials of the City of Portola and many of the special districts within Plumas County. The establishment of a positive relationship with the county, city and special district personnel is a critical part of the intent of the LAFCO legislation and is a key component of the Executive Officer’s employment contract. 36
F3
Page 37
- Plumas LAFCo - Financial Audit LAFCO legislation contains no requirement for annual financial statements of actual operating results to be submitted to State or County authorities. This lack of a mandated financial oversight potentially exposes the taxpayers, the Commission and the LAFCo staff to unnecessary concerns and risk.
F4
Page 37
- Special Districts and Plumas LAFCo Each year, the Executive Officer of Plumas LAFCo, as required by the CKH legislation, has provided, to each special district board in the county, a copy of the proposed preliminary and final proposed budget for Plumas LAFCo for the coming fiscal year. This provides an opportunity for the special districts to make their concerns and comments known. On May 12, 2008, the regular publicly noticed meeting of the Commission was held to consider adoption of the 2008-9 Plumas LAFCo budget. The public attendance at that meeting included just one board member from one of the approximately 55 special districts in the county. 37
Recommendations 4
-
R1Page 36- Plumas LAFCo Cost Structure It is recommended that the Commission, independent of the Executive Officer, review alternative approaches to the operation of Plumas LAFCo to reduce the operating costs to a level that can be funded without significant reliance on application and other fees. Government Code Section 56380 states that, “the commission may choose to contract with any public agency or private party for personnel and facilities.” Since the problem of properly funding LAFCo is not limited to Plumas County, it is suggested that the Commission take the initiative to contact other rural counties to determine the feasibility of jointly contracting with a provider to operate several county LAFCos in a geographically manageable area.
-
R2Page 37- Plumas LAFCo - Relationships with Constituent Agencies The Commissioners should immediately establish a schedule to meet with officials of the City of Portola and with board members of a representative cross-section of the special services districts in Plumas County, without the presence of the Executive Officer, to listen to candid feedback regarding their relationship with Plumas LAFCo and the Executive Officer. Based upon this feedback, the Commissioners should determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the relationship between Plumas LAFCo and its constituents can be satisfactorily mended under the present Executive Officer. If so, a specific plan of action to resolve the matter should be undertaken and should become a key part of the Executive Officer’s performance evaluation going forward. If not, the Commission should take appropriate action to resolve the issue.
-
R3Page 37-Plumas LAFCo Financial Audit It is recommended that the Commissioners publish a Request for Proposal to be sent to Certified Public Accounting firms in Northern California to initiate steps to obtain an independent financial audit.
-
R4Page 38Special Districts and Plumas LAFCo While it is recognized that the board members of the special districts are primarily volunteers and have numerous commitments for their time, it is imperative that the various districts, perhaps through the Plumas Special Districts Association, make the effort to better understand the purposes, powers, limitations and mission of Plumas LAFCo as they affect the ability of the districts to effectively and efficiently deliver services to their constituents. The Plumas County Special Districts Association and the Boards of the individual Special Districts in Plumas County need to become much more pro-active with Plumas LAFCo, whether, or not, they decide to join and appoint 2 Commissioners.