Monday, February 25, 2013

Santa Cruz County Grand Jury and LAFCO At Odds

The Santa Cruz 2012 Grand Jury is disputing the Local Agency Formation Commissions responses to their report. The Grand Jury has called LAFCO out that district reviews are not being handled in a timely fashion as per government code.

In the 2012 Grand Jury report, one of the findings was that LAFCO was in efficient in reviews that would allow for early problem detection within special districts such as water districts. The LAFCO Executive Director responded to the Grand Jury that in the last 5 years since the recession, LAFCO has focused primarily on its core duties of reviewing applications, has secondarily prepared municipal service reviews and sphere of influence updates as necessary, and has chosen not to expand its work program and budget to prepare municipal service reviews with emphasis on early problem detection in independent special districts. LAFCO believes it is preparing service reviews in a timely and effective manner, as required by law.

The Grand Jury released a report today responding to LAFCO and contends that LAFCO is not performing reviews adequately under the Hertzberg Act. According to that law, LAFCO initially determines a special district's sphere of influence and "shall as necessaryreview and update each sphere of influence," but at minimum this must occur every five years. In conjunction with its sphere of influence update, LAFCO must also perform a "service review" of the district's "municipal services provided in the county." Following such a review, LAFCO "shall prepare a written statement of its determinations" of six specified items. Two of these items are "Financial ability of agencies to provide services" and "Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy."

So..the Grand Jury believes LAFCO is legally obligated to perform a service review of a special district in two instances: once every five years and "as necessary". The Grand Jury believes the major problems of the Lompico County Water District (LCWD) would have been discovered and possibly prevented if LAFCO had proceeded in accordance with its duties. As the legal entity with oversight of the county's special districts, the Grand Jury believes that LAFCO was surely aware of LCWD's problems such that an "as necessary" service review was indicated. But LAFCO did not act.

The County Board of Supervisors recognizes LAFCO as a separate board and they don't get involved in LAFCO as regard matters of the functioning administration of the board.

No comments: