📋
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.

Lake County Grand Jury • 2012-2013

Planning and Public Works Committee  Oversights Code Enforcement

Published: October 01, 2012 12 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings and Recommendations 20 findings

F1 Page 73
According to the Director of the Community Development Department, the proposed program to consolidate the present codes to the current ICBO Uniform Building Code is “years out” from being started and implemented.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
Page 74
The County expedite the updating of ICBO Uniform Building Codes of 2012 and the Lake County Building Code. (F1)
R2
Page 74
The status of the Building Code revision project be clarified, funded and implemented. (F1)
F2 Page 73
Grading violations need to be addressed to ecologically improve Clear Lake. Grading in this instance is not road or highway grading; it basically means unauthorized and unapproved off- road grading (i.e. creek beds and hillsides).
No recommendations for this finding
F3 Page 73
Marijuana abatement and cleanup is an important environmental issue which should continue to be addressed and the Marijuana Task Force used more effectively to enforce cleanup. Additional inspectors are necessary to properly monitor the codes and violations so that the department can begin to be proactive instead of reactive to code violations.
No recommendations for this finding
F4 Page 73
Additional funding and staff are needed in the District Attorney’s office to prosecute environmental crimes. 2012-13 Recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 74
Increased funding be researched and allocated, if possible, to increase the number of inspectors in Code Enforcement. (F4)
F5 Page 79
The current City of Lakeport MSR is contentious and is an example of the need for facilitation between the City of Lakeport and the County of Lake. 2012-13 Recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 74
Conclude the development of the plan for the creation of a Marijuana/Environmental Law Prosecution and Recovery of Eradication Costs unit and begin implementation as soon as possible. (F5) Request for Responses:  Director of Community Development Department (90 days)  District Attorney (60 days)  Board of Supervisors (90 days) 2012-13 BLANK -13 Lake LAFCo Oversight Summary: Planning the growth of a community is necessary to ensure municipal services are adequate. These decisions are guided by the Lake County General Plan and other state and local agencies. This report is an overview of Lake County Local Agency Formation Commission (Lake LAFCo), one of the agencies mandated by the State of California to ensure orderly development. Background: Many factors must be taken into account when considering government reorganization and municipal needs. There are a variety of state and local laws which govern the process. According to the California State Legislature, the logical formation and determination of local agency boundaries is critical. A balancing act between development and competing state interests must be considered including determining the most efficient manner feasible to provide necessary government services while ensuring housing for persons and families of all income levels. The extension of government services must discourage urban sprawl while preserving open space and prime agricultural land. In order to adhere to the laws that apply to boundary changes, an oversight organization was created called California Local Agency Formation Commission (CALAFCo). Lake County created a Local Agency Formation Commission called Lake LAFCo. Lake LAFCo is comprised of an Executive Officer (EO) and up to 11 Commissioners including two individuals from the Lake County Board of Supervisors and one citizen representative. The remaining Commissioners are from Lakeport and Clearlake City Councils and the Special Districts. Lake LAFCo is tasked with researching and preparation of reports necessary to assist and recommend appropriate changes that will conform to the intricacies of reorganization and environmental laws. These reports are titled: Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Municipal Service Review (MSR). Procedure: During the fiscal year of 2012-2013 the Lake LAFCo EO met with the Planning and Public Works Committee in the Grand Jury meeting room. Two new combined SOI and MRS reports were received from the EO: Redbud Healthcare District MSR and SOI and the City of Lakeport MSR. The 2012-13 committee conducted a review of a past budget report and interviewed a citizen representative. Some questions were answered by the EO via email. Discussion and Facts: 1. Since 2002, Lake LAFCo has considered preparing MSR and SOI reports for a total of 101 entities; cities, county and special districts. The list includes the cities of Clearlake and Lakeport which have SOIs pending revisions. There are no other cities in Lake County. Clearlake Oaks County Water District is also pending revision. [Appendix A] 2. There have only been 70 reports completed since 2002 addressing county districts/cities. No report has been received for County of Lake. 3. The number of reports issued by Lake LAFCo, by year, is as follows: 2002 – 2 reports 2003 – 0 reports 2004 – 1 report 2005 – 3 reports 2006 – 2 reports 2007 – 18 reports 2008 – 9 reports 2009 – 25 reports 2010 – 7 reports 2011 – 2 reports 2012 – 3 reports 2013 – 1 report 4. Government Code Section 56425 (g) states “On or before January 1, 2008, and every five years thereafter, [Lake LAFCo] shall, as necessary, review and update each Sphere of Influence.” 5. The Lake LAFCo EO is tasked with issuing ten reports per year, five MSRs and five SOIs. The commission approves the work plan for the selected updates of SOIs needed for that year and approves the MSRs and SOIs. Each report can take over a year to complete. 6. Lake LAFCo’s role is limited to acting upon changes of organization of the agencies subject to its jurisdiction, and preparing SOI and MSR reports. By statute, Lake LAFCo makes determinations with respect to the factors in an MSR. There is no requirement to write a comprehensive analysis of each special district. 2012-13 7. Lake LAFCo submits its final budget to the Lake County Auditor and all parties specified in Government Code Section 56381. 8. In the event of non-payment of Lake LAFCo funds by any entity subject to Lake LAFCo’s apportionment, the commission requests and authorizes the Auditor to collect the funds from property tax revenues or any other revenue source and deposit the funds into the Lake LAFCo account. 9. Monies are expended for the EO, the commissioners, the required reports, meetings and conferences and legal and office assistants. 10. LAFCo's are required to prepare and update SOI's as necessary every five years. An MSR is required to update an SOI. Once updated some SOIs will not need to be revised for a period longer than five years depending on several factors: the economy and lack of change in a district are examples: i.e. a cemetery district does not change. It is customary to update both an MSR and an SOI at the same time to save money. 11. The MSR's and SOI's are posted on the Lake LAFCo website. Reports are distributed to the District, Lake LAFCo and are provided to anyone who asks for a copy. The website for Lake LAFCo is www.lakeLAFCo.org. 12. Lake LAFCo has no local office. The EO oversees six other county LAFCos and is available by email and telephone. The EO attends a variety of county public meetings when appropriate. 13. Reports are prioritized based on need, public safety and growth inducement with MSRs for fire, water and sewer being considered first. Any reports generated are based on need and fiscal constraints. 14. In the unincorporated areas of Lake County, districts are defined as either being independent or dependent. In Lake County there are 30 independent districts (each managed by an elected board) and 15 dependent districts (managed by the county). 15. The EO also facilitates certain agreements, most of which are between cities and counties. 16. According to the EO some agencies are not cooperative so it takes an extended period to obtain information upon which to base reports and agreements. 2012-13 17. The EO stated he relies on colleagues to prepare MSRs and SOIs. There is not enough activity with LAFCo in Lake County to justify the expenditures of hiring an assistant EO. 18. Three reports are pending revisions: Clearlake Oaks County Water District, City of Lakeport and City of Clearlake. 19. Lake LAFCo has an annual budget that services a large and complex area surrounding the lake. 20. The EO acknowledges that it is not uncommon to find counties and cities at odds with each other and unable to arrive at agreements for action. Findings:
F6 Page 77
Lake LAFCo’s role is limited to acting upon changes of organization of the agencies subject to its jurisdiction, and preparing SOI and MSR reports. By statute, Lake LAFCo makes determinations with respect to the factors in an MSR. There is no requirement to write a comprehensive analysis of each special district. 2012-13
No recommendations for this finding
F7 Page 78
Lake LAFCo submits its final budget to the Lake County Auditor and all parties specified in Government Code Section 56381.
No recommendations for this finding
F8 Page 78
In the event of non-payment of Lake LAFCo funds by any entity subject to Lake LAFCo’s apportionment, the commission requests and authorizes the Auditor to collect the funds from property tax revenues or any other revenue source and deposit the funds into the Lake LAFCo account.
No recommendations for this finding
F9 Page 78
Monies are expended for the EO, the commissioners, the required reports, meetings and conferences and legal and office assistants.
No recommendations for this finding
F10 Page 78
LAFCo's are required to prepare and update SOI's as necessary every five years. An MSR is required to update an SOI. Once updated some SOIs will not need to be revised for a period longer than five years depending on several factors: the economy and lack of change in a district are examples: i.e. a cemetery district does not change. It is customary to update both an MSR and an SOI at the same time to save money.
No recommendations for this finding
F11 Page 78
The MSR's and SOI's are posted on the Lake LAFCo website. Reports are distributed to the District, Lake LAFCo and are provided to anyone who asks for a copy. The website for Lake LAFCo is www.lakeLAFCo.org.
No recommendations for this finding
F12 Page 78
Lake LAFCo has no local office. The EO oversees six other county LAFCos and is available by email and telephone. The EO attends a variety of county public meetings when appropriate.
No recommendations for this finding
F13 Page 78
Reports are prioritized based on need, public safety and growth inducement with MSRs for fire, water and sewer being considered first. Any reports generated are based on need and fiscal constraints.
No recommendations for this finding
F14 Page 78
In the unincorporated areas of Lake County, districts are defined as either being independent or dependent. In Lake County there are 30 independent districts (each managed by an elected board) and 15 dependent districts (managed by the county).
No recommendations for this finding
F15 Page 78
The EO also facilitates certain agreements, most of which are between cities and counties.
No recommendations for this finding
F16 Page 78
According to the EO some agencies are not cooperative so it takes an extended period to obtain information upon which to base reports and agreements. 2012-13
No recommendations for this finding
F17 Page 79
The EO stated he relies on colleagues to prepare MSRs and SOIs. There is not enough activity with LAFCo in Lake County to justify the expenditures of hiring an assistant EO.
No recommendations for this finding
F18 Page 79
Three reports are pending revisions: Clearlake Oaks County Water District, City of Lakeport and City of Clearlake.
No recommendations for this finding
F19 Page 79
Lake LAFCo has an annual budget that services a large and complex area surrounding the lake.
No recommendations for this finding
F20 Page 79
The EO acknowledges that it is not uncommon to find counties and cities at odds with each other and unable to arrive at agreements for action. Findings: F 1. Since 2002 a total of 73 MSRs and SOIs have been completed, an average of six per year. Twelve are pending or not completed for various reasons. If those twelve reports are received in 2013, Lake LAFCo’s average rises to seven reports per year. [See Appendix A] F 2. Based on an analysis of Appendix A, three reports are pending revisions: Clearlake Oaks County Water District, City of Lakeport and City of Clearlake. F 3. A total of nine county entities, although listed, show no completions of MSR and SOI reports, some of which are pending resources and revisions. Those include: Adams Springs Water District, West Lake Resource Conservation District (RCD), Hidden Valley Lake CSD, Lake County Vector Control, East Lake RCD, Reclamation District #2070, Reclamation District #695, Villa Blue Estates Water District, and Lake County Water ShedProtection District. This results in 18 incomplete reports. Of those, six are pending for resources. [See Appendix A] F 4. While helping to integrate services to benefit the community, the EO’s role is crucial in determining priorities and facilitating agreements that will benefit the common good. F 5. The current City of Lakeport MSR is contentious and is an example of the need for facilitation between the City of Lakeport and the County of Lake. 2012-13
No recommendations for this finding