Our County's Future Ma County*

R1

The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO initiate the necessary MSR update to reflect changes brought about by the economic downturn and its effects on public agency budgets. Response: A Municipal Service Review (MSR) is conducted when a substantial change in an agency's sphere of influence is contemplated. "Sphere of influence" is defined in state law as "a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the commission." State law directs LAFCOs as follows: "On or before January 1, 2008, and every five years thereafter, the commission shall, as necessary, review and update each sphere of influence." If no change to an agency's sphere of influence is proposed, unless other factors or circumstances are present to cause the Commission to order completion of a MSR, the Commission has determined that further review by LAFCO is not necessary and is unlikely to be undertaken. Typically, the Commission would confirm an agency's sphere of influence, as is, after a noticed public hearing. In October 2008, the Commission approved a schedule for conducting Municipal Service Reviews for local agencies for the following five-year period. Included were reviews for cities and special districts. The Commission directed staff to limit reviews for cities to those for which spheres of influence do not align with a city's voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary and/or its "urban service area" boundary as designated in the Sonoma County General Plan or those which might be considering changes to their spheres; in addition the Commission directed staff to conduct MSRs for those districts that provide municipal services. Although Sonoma LAFCO's actions comply with the state law, the Grand Jury correctly points out that Municipal Service Reviews have a limited life. Reliance on outdated service reviews can provide inaccurate analyses. However, the Commission cautions that current economic conditions may or may not reflect a long-term trend, and analysis needs to take a long-term perspective. The Commission has developed the following policy and schedule for completing Municipal Service Reviews: Policy In updating spheres of influence, the Commission's general policies are as follows: 1. The Commission will review all spheres of influences every five years for each governmental agency providing municipal services. Municipal services include cities and jurisdictions providing police, fire protection, waste disposal, or water services. 2 2. Sphere of influence changes initiated by any agency providing a municipal service shall require either an updated or new service review. 3. Spheres of Influence of districts not providing municipal services including, but not limited to, ambulance, recreation, hospital, resource conservation, cemetery, and pest control shall updated as necessary. This policy does not preclude the Commission undertaking special studies or service reviews when requested by an agency or initiated by the Commission. To implement the policy, the Commission has adopted the sphere of influence update time schedule as follows: DATE OF NEXT SPECIAL DISTRICT LATEST SCHEDULED AND CITIES SERVICES PROVIDED UPDATE UPDATE NOTES Fire Protection Preliminary Fire Protection 2006 2012-13 Districts review Fire Protection, Cazadero Community Lighting and 2006 2014 Services District Recreation Occidental Fire Protection, Community Services Lighting and 2006 2014 District Recreation Water and Sanitation Water and Sanitation 2006 2012-13 Districts Cloverdale Municipal 2007 2011-12 In progress After General Cotati Municipal 2007 2013 Plan is updated Subject to Healdsburg Municipal 2007 2012 confirmation Petaluma Municipal 2011 2016 Subject to Rohnert Park Municipal 2007 2012 confirmation Santa Rosa Municipal 2008 2012 In progress Subject to Sebastopol Municipal 2007 2012 confirmation 3 DATE OF NEXT SPECIAL DISTRICT LATEST SCHEDULED AND CITIES SERVICES PROVIDED UPDATE UPDATE NOTES Subject to Sonoma Municipal 2007 2012 confirmation Subject to Windsor Municipal 2007 2012 confirmation

R2

The Grand Jury recommends LAFCO update and keep its website current on all issues, which should include additional information about what it does and how it functions. Response: Although Sonoma LAFCO's current website complies with the requirements of state law, the Commission agrees with the Grand Jury's recommendation. Prior to the Grand Jury review and report, LAFCO staff had developed a new website design that is more current, informative, and user friendly. The Commission authorized funds in its Fiscal Year 2011-12 budget to implement the website update, and staff has begun working with the website group of Sonoma County Information Systems Department (ISD) on the project. Staff anticipates the new website will be completed and uploaded by fall of 2011. Subsequently, LAFCO staff will work with Sonoma County ISD to maintain the Commission's website.

R3

LAFCO's policies on such things as property tax revenue loss and fire district mergers should be clearly spelled out so that all parties to the LAFCO action(s) will be well-informed and can see they are being treated equally. We recommend LAFCO policies be written and made readily accessible on the website. Response: The Commission and its Policy Committee have been working diligently on policy review and development for the past several years. A goal of the Commission is to memorialize Commission practices into written policies. As the Commission approves additional policies, they will be included on the Commission's updated website. Although the Commission does not have specific written policy regarding property tax revenue loss or district consolidations, these issues will be addressed in future policy development. In its report, the Grand Jury stated: "In our review, we became aware of a recent project that had come before the commission involving an annexation request from the City of Rohnert Park, referred to as the "Southeast Specific Plan...The Grand Jury elected to look at the role LAFCo played in the negotiations between the City of Rohnert Park ("City") and Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District ("RAFPD") regarding tax allocations." The Grand Jury report also indicated that it found "no evidence that LAFCO had previously considered, or taken a position on, consolidation of fire service agencies or the transfer of primary fire protection responsibility as part of its review of an annexation proposal." 4 The issue of the impacts of the detachment of territory from fire protection districts as the result of an annexation to a city has been a concern of the Commission for many years. The impetus for LAFCO's involvement in the discussions between the City and RAFPD came from several sources: the Commission's previous direction to staff to engage agencies in a discussion of the fiscal impacts of annexations on fire districts; the RAFPD's formal request for a public hearing to discuss the fiscal impacts of proposed and future annexations on the District; and a review by LAFCO staff of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the Rohnert Park Northeast Specific Plan. The DEIR raised concerns as to the City's ability to provide adequate public safety personnel to serve the proposed annexation area. At its December 2006 meeting, the Commission considered a proposal to annex the "University District" area to the City of Rohnert Park. At that time, the RAFPD Fire Chief and a board member addressed the Commission regarding fiscal impacts on the District of detachment of this territory. The Commission, upon written request from the District, continued its consideration of the project to allow the District to appeal to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to act on the District's behalf in negotiations with the City. Ultimately, the Board chose to abide by the existing master property tax exchange agreement and not open discussions with the City. At its August 2, 2009, meeting, after review and consideration of another proposed annexation to the City of Rohnert Park, the Commission Chair acknowledged the December 2006 discussion and directed staff, on behalf of the Commission, to review and analyze the financial impacts of annexations on various fire districts. The Commission further directed staff to actively engage the districts in discussions as to possible measures to mitigate these impacts in the future. In the case of the Southeast Specific Plan annexation, Commission staff strongly encouraged the City and the District to come to a mutually agreeable solution prior to the Commission's consideration of the project. The City and District did reach agreement prior to the Commission's first hearing on the project. The Commission believes that this agreement can be viewed as a starting point for further review and analysis of the impact of city annexations on various affected agencies. This is particularly true in light of current conditions as cities are reviewing options to reduce costs and streamline the provision of services. One option considered by cities is the contracting out of public safety to the County or to an independent special district serving the areas surrounding a city. Regarding fire district consolidations, the 2004 LAFCO Municipal Service Review of Fire Services described "on the ground" realities for districts and cities that provide fire services. Sharing of facilities, personnel, and training opportunities was encouraged, and "next steps" regarding furtherance of such initiatives were outlined. At that time, the County was initiating a study of County Service Area No. 40 (Fire Services) ("CSA No. 40") and its associated volunteer fire companies. The County wanted to take the lead in developing a plan for the future of fire protection in the County. Unfortunately, 5 subsequent to completion of the CSA No. 40 fire study in 2010, no further efforts have been pursued. LAFCO staff have been involved in discussions with a number of agencies looking to become more efficient and cost-effective in providing fire services. In 2009, LAFCO staff participated in discussions among the Bodega Bay Fire Protection District, the Monte Rio Fire Protection District, and Russian River Fire Protection District regarding consolidation of these districts. The districts chose not to initiate consolidation proceedings at that time. Subsequently, staff have actively supported the Joint Powers Agreements between the City of Sonoma and Valley of the Moon Fire Department, operating as the Valley of the Moon Fire and Rescue Authority; the Monte Rio Fire Protection District and the Russian River Fire Protection District; and the Rincon Valley Fire Protection District and the Windsor Fire Protection District, soon to be operating as the Central Fire Authority of Sonoma County. Any consolidations would need the cooperation of the service delivery parties, and the Commission sees the joint powers agreements as a logical first step. At the Commission's direction, LAFCO staff continue to act as a resource for agencies seeking options to meet the economic realities of providing service and are currently in discussions with several agencies considering consolidation; additional discussions are likely to take place in the near future.