1. Where Do We Go From Here? 2006 Annual Conference, San Diego MSRs & Spheres Wednesday September 6, 2006 1:45 pm TO 3:00 pm

2. Background about these sections of Cortese Knox Hertzberg (CKH) Overview of how LAFCos are meeting these requirements Results of a survey of Executive Officers about possible changes Your input about how the law might be changed Government Code Sections: 56425 - Spheres, especially subsection (g) 56430 - Municipal Service Reviews

3. Both 56425(g) and 56430 were new mandates as a part of CKH, effective January 1, 2001 Government Code Sections: 56425 - Spheres, especially subsection (g) 56430 - Municipal Service Reviews

4. Where did these sections come from anyway? Government Code Sections: 56425 - Spheres, especially subsection (g) 56430 - Municipal Service Reviews

6. GWB recommended the review and update of spheres every 5 years; what is now 56425(g) includes the words “as necessary.” There are subtle, but important differences between the GWB recommendations and the current law.

7. GWB first discussed service reviews for any “amendments to spheres of influence,” but the recommended draft language and, subsequently, the law referenced service reviews as being required to “update spheres of influence.” The law does not define either a sphere of influence amendment or update.

8. GWB recommendation was “that LAFCos be required to periodically initiate service reviews,” but the draft GWB language and subsequent law linked service reviews to the update of spheres of influence every 5 years as necessary.

9. Neither GWB, nor the discussions leading to the law attempted to otherwise integrate service review and spheres of influence actions, determinations or timing.

10. Next up… An Overview of Approaches

11. MSRs & SOI Updates An Overview of Approaches MSRs have been done …..

12. 1. By Individual Jurisdiction e.g. A MSR for Each City or Each Special District Examples include: San Luis Obispo LAFCO for the City of Paso Robles Tulare LAFCO for the City of Visalia Monterey LAFCO for the Salinas Rural Fire Protection District

13. 2. By Type of Special Districts e.g. A MSR for All Fire Districts or All County Service Areas Examples include: El Dorado LAFCO for all fire suppression and emergency services Yolo LAFCO for all county service areas Butte LAFCO for all recreation & park districts

14. 3. By Category of Service e.g. A MSR for All Jurisdictions Based on a Broad Category of Services Examples include: Alameda LAFCO - completed all MSRs based on three categories: – Public safety – Utility – Community services Los Angeles LAFCO- categorized MSRs based on : – Essential services, receiving in-depth review, and – Miscellaneous services, receiving a less in-depth review

15. 4. On A Countywide Basis e.g. A MSR for All Jurisdictions or A MSR for Jurisdictions Providing Similar Types of Service Examples include: El Dorado LAFCO for all fire suppression and emergency services Yolo LAFCO for all county service areas Butte LAFCO for all recreation & park districts

16. 5. On A Sub-area Basis e.g. A MSR for All jurisdictions countywide or, one countywide MSR for all jurisdictions providing a similar type of service in a defined geographic area Examples include: Santa Barbara LAFCO - All jurisdictions in the Santa Barbara/Goleta Valley area Nevada LAFCO – Eastern Co. Water Services Ventura LAFCO – All water and wastewater service providers by watershed Examples include:

17. Combined Approaches e.g. All fire districts countywide or all fire districts in the southern portion of a county. A combination of MSR by jurisdiction and category of service, and/or by type of district and county-wide or sub-area, or some similar combination of the previous approaches.

18. In Tandem with Sphere of Influence Updates e.g. sphere of influence updates were combined with MSR and adopted as a part of the same hearing Separately from Sphere of Influence Updates e.g. the MSR was fully completed first and sphere of influence updates were acted on separately sometime afterwards

19. Not at All e.g. some LAFCos have first determined whether or not a sphere of influence update was necessary for a given jurisdiction/agency and if no sphere of influence update was deemed necessary, then no MSR was done for that jurisdiction/agency

20. Conclusions: 1.Each LAFCO has used its discretion about how best to meet the MSR and SOI update mandates. 2.Most MSRs are exempt from CEQA, some SOI updates require Negative Declarations or EIRs prior to approval. 3.The number of SOI updates necessary should be less in the future and thus the number of MSRs should be less in the future. 4.One size does NOT fit all.