Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2012-2013 • Agency Response
Response to: Supplemental Information

Response to Grand Jury Report Form Report Title: Forming and Reforming a Community Report Date: May 1, 2013 Response*

Published: May 01, 2013 5 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings

F1
Cortese-Knox-Hertsberg Act of 2000. Response: Partially Disagree. Mendocino LAFCo has met the requirements of the C-K-H Act, except for the required review and update of SOIs for all cities and special districts in the County as required by Government Code Section 56425(g). A majority of MSRs (as a prerequisite to the SOI Updates) have also not been prepared. To date, MSRs have been prepared for two of the four cities, and 14 of the 51 Independent Special Districts. The Commission has adopted a completion schedule to complete the MSR program by June 30, 2014. The Commission will then undertake the review and updating of SOIs during the 2014-15 Fiscal Year. The new contract with Baracco Associates as EO of Mendocino County
No recommendations for this finding
F2
LAFCo has focused the LAFCo board on meeting their responsibilities. Response: Partially Disagree. The contract with Baracco and Associates reflects the Commission's renewed commitment to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, but is not the cause of that commitment. The Commission's renewed commitment includes an adopted work plan and schedule for completion of the SOIs and MSRs, enhanced outreach to cities and districts, the setting of priorities, developing Commission cohesion, undertaking Commission training, and consideration of the Commission's policies and procedures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
[Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.] Recommendations numbered will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. [Attach an explanation.] Signed: Duce Granul Date: July 2, 2013 Number of pages attached 4 RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM Response Introduction The Mendocino Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) has five primary missions: 1) Planning for the present and future needs of the community; 2) Overseeing the logical formation and development of cities and special districts: Coordinating the efficient and rational expansion of municipal services; 4) Preserving agricultural and open space resources; and 5) Discouraging urban sprawl. The Commission consists of seven regular members and four alternate members. Two regular members and one alternate member are members of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Two regular members and one alternate member are City Council Members appointed by the City Selection Committee consisting of the Mayors from the four cities. Two regular members and one alternate member are Special District Board Members appointed by the Special District Selection Committee consisting of Presidents or Chairpersons from the 51 Independent Special Districts in the County. The Public Member and the Public Alternate Member are appointed by the two regular County members, the two regular City Members, and the two Regular Special District Members. Commissioners serve without pay and are reimbursed for out-of-county travel, lodging, meals, and registration fees. LAFCo operates under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Sections 56000 et seq. and 57000 et seq.). Under Government Code Section 56425(g), LAFCo is required to review and update each City and Special District Sphere of Influence (SOI) every five years, as necessary. Under Government Code Section 56430, in order to prepare and to update SOIs, the Commission is required to conduct Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) for all appropriate areas designated by the Commission. The following written determinations are required for each MSR: 1) Growth and population projections for the affected area; 2) Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs); 3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services (including DUCs within or contiguous to the SOI); 4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services; 5) Status and opportunity for shared facilities; and 6) Accountability for community service needs, including governance options and operational efficiencies. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM Responses to Findings The Mendocino County LAFCo has not met the requirements of the
F3
The significant areas of concern for LAFCo to address are the problems of water and sewer service in the valley. Response: Partially Disagree. Water and sewer service problems in the Ukiah Valley are just one area of concern to which LAFCo needs to direct its attention. The viability of service providers, whether it be water, sewer, fire protection, or cemetery services is an important consideration for LAFCo. Through the MSR completion program, efforts are being made to identify governance and service-related issues that affect all cities and special districts. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
require further analysis.
F4
There is a proliferation of Special Districts in the Coastal and Valley areas of Mendocino County. Response: Disagree. All of the Special Districts within Mendocino County are long-standing, and were established to provide a necessary service to a particular geographic area. While it is true that there are a number of water and wastewater service providers in close proximity to each other within the Ukiah Valley area, those service providers have been in existence for a number of years. The most recent service provider is Redwood Valley County Water District which was established in 1964. In the Coastal Area, service providers are located in proximity to population centers, although many are small single-purpose districts that provide water or wastewater or fire protection. Most of these districts are isolated from each other owing to the linear nature of development along the Coast. A majority of the Special Districts along the Coast were established in the 1980's, with Elk Community Services District (Fire Protection) the newest district, established in 1990.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
have not yet been implemented, Recommendations numbered R1 but will be implemented in the future. [Attach a timeframe for the implementation.] Recommendations numbered
F5
LAFCo is making significant improvements in establishing a schedule and goal for developing MSRs for all local agencies under its purview by the end of calendar year 2014. Response: Agree. With the clarification that the MSR program is scheduled to be complete by the end of the 2013-14 Fiscal Year (June 30, 2014). There is a need for more proactive outreach and coordination with the local
No recommendations for this finding
F6
F5 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1 F2 F3 F4 [Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed; include an explanation of the reasons therefor.]
No recommendations for this finding

* 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.