Main LACFO pageWednesday, July 28,1999 9:00 A.M. Agenda Posted: July 21,1999 [ Postmarked 7-22-99 and received 7-23-99]
1 Request from the City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission that LAFCO adopt a Financial Reporting Policy regarding special reorganization support organizations. (Staff report)
2. CEQA Environmental Assessment Initial Study - San Fernando Valley Special Reorganization. (Staff report)
3. San Fernando Valley Special Reorganization. (Staff report)
4. Approve minutes for the July 14, 1999 meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission.
5. Public comment: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission on items of interest that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission.
6. Commissioners discussion: Matters not on Posted Agenda (To be Discussed and upon commission approval place on the Agenda for Action at a Future Meeting).
7. Settings for the August 11, 1999 Agenda.
City of Los Angeles Ethic Commission Request that LAFCO Adopt a Financial Reporting Policy Regarding Special Reorganization Support Organizations
Background:
In written correspondence, dated July 8, 1999, the City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission urged LAFCO to adopt rules to require public disclosure of lobbying efforts aimed at influencing the LAFCO special reorganization process. This request is specifically aimed at having support groups, such as Valley Vote, Valley Study Foundation, Harbor Vote and the Harbor Study Foundation disclose the source and amount of all funds they receive.
Discussion:
In Paragraph 3 of the City Ethics Commission letter, they make the point that disclosure of lobbying compensation and expenditures is required by the City of Los Angeles, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of California.
You will note that all of the agencies cited, referred to in Paragraph 3 of the City Ethics Commission letter, are all governmental agencies that have the power to adopt lobbying ordinances and not commissions that are formed by those governmental agencies. County Counsel will comment on LAFCO's authority to legally adopt and enforce rules to require public disclosure and financial reporting.
Historically, LAFCO has relied on the sworn testimony of both advocates and opponents that they have not contributed more than $300.00, during, the last twelve months, to any member of the commission, and if they have made a contribution in excess of $300.00 they are then obligated to identify said commissioner. That commissioner would in turn recuse themselves from participating in the agenda item under consideration. Further, LAFCO has relied upon the lobbying and financial reporting requirements imposed by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and the County of Los Angeles. Support groups are formed throughout the State for incorporation efforts, for annexation efforts and any number of other efforts in addition to special reorganizations in the City of Los Angeles. It would appear that this request, by the City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission, should be addressed to the State Legislature which may wish to consider the request in a Statewide context. It does not appear to be appropriate to have LAFCO take action to address a local city concern.
Staff Recommendation:
That the Commission take no action on this request other than to thank the City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission for its interest in the subject and suggest it pursue the issue through the State Legislature. (top)
Background:
LAFCO, as the lead agency, is required to conduct a CEQA Environmental Assessment of the application for Special Reorganization of the San Fernando Valley. The LAFCO Commission, on November 25, 1999, authorized staff to engage a CEQA consulting firm to conduct an Initial Study of the environmental procedure required of LAFCO.
Staff has prepared a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct said Initial Study and forwarded the same to county counsel for review.
It has been suggested that staff reconsider issuing an RFP at this time as the environmental impacts of the Project, as defined under CEQA, will not be fully known until such time as the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis is complete.
Discussion:
Delaying the preparation of the Initial Study until the completion of a final Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis would appear appropriate for the reason given. However, if the result of the Initial Study is a determination that a full blown Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Focused EIR is required it would add a minimum of nine to twelve months to the back end of the time line of processing the application.
On the other hand, Preparation of the Initial Study as soon as possible will result in the identification of the appropriate environmental document that must be prepared for the proposal.
In the event the Initial Study determines that a full blown or focused EIR is required the Initial Study will also identify the areas, such as waste water, traffic, utility service etc., that need to be addressed. This in turn will not only provide the consultant with specific issues to address in the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis but will also permit the EIR to be prepared concurrently with the preparation of the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, and in doing so, not add any additional time requirement to the process.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the commission instruct staff to proceed in either of the following:
1. Delay contracting for the Initial Study until completion of the Comprehensive
Fiscal Analysis or to some later date selected by the Commission. Or
2. Reconfirm the commission's instruction of November 25, 1999, and direct staff to proceed with the hiring of an environmental consultant at this time. (top)
Chronology. On December 9, 1998, the Chief Petitioners filed approximately 202,000 petition signatures with LAFCO for verification of sufficiency. LAFCO in turn forwarded said petitions to the County Registrar-Recorder for a 3% random sample verification. Said 3% random sample indicated there was a shortage in the required number of valid signatures.
On March 15, 1999, following a 100% signature verification count by the County Registrar/Recorder, LAFCO certified the petition to be sufficient as said petition contained more than the 131,771 valid registered voter signatures required for a sufficiency.
On April 14, 1999, three chief petitioners, along with Jeff Brain and the Valley Study Foundation, filed an application with LAFCO for Special Reorganization of the San Fernando Valley.
On May 13, 1999, LAFCO issued a Certificate of Filing stating that: (i) the application has been accepted for filing pursuant to Government Code Section 56828(g) and (11) a public hearing has been set before the LAFCO Commission on July 28, 1999, pursuant to Government Code Section 56828(i) to consider the subject proposal.
On May 26, 1999, LAFCO adopted the Seven-Step Plan recommended by the LAFCO subcommittee on Special Reorganization. Said plan will be used as a guide in processing applications for Special Reorganization.
On June 2, 1999, the applicants submitted Applicants' Initial Identification of Needs for Data Collection in response to Step I of the Seven-Step Plan.
On June 29, 1999, Governor Davis signed the State Budget Bill which appropriated $1,800,000.00 to fund 80% of LAFCO's estimated cost of preparing a comprehensive fiscal analysis for the San Fernando Valley proposal. While not conditioned upon, said funding anticipates the County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles will each fund 10% of the total cost.
On June 30, 1999, the City of Los Angeles responded to Applicants' Initial Identification of Needs for Data Collection.
On July 9, 1999, LAFCO formally requested funding of the $1,800,000.00 from the State Controllers Office.
On July 13, 1999, upon a motion by Supervisor Yaroslavsky, the County Board of Supervisors authorized the funding of $225,000.00 as the County's 10% share of LAFCO's estimated cost of preparing a comprehensive fiscal analysis for the San Fernando Valley proposal.
On July 16, 1999, Los Angeles City Councilman and LAFCO Commissioner, Hal Bernson entered a motion before the Los Angeles City Council, which motion if adopted by the City Council and signed by the Mayor, would authorize the City of Los Angeles to fund 10% share of LAFCO's estimated cost of preparing a comprehensive fiscal analysis for the San Fernando Valley proposal. Said motion was forwarded to the city council committee on special reorganization.
Status:
Prior to the Commission rendering a decision on this proposal the executive officer is required, by Section 56833.1 of the Government Code, to prepare or cause to be prepared by contract, a comprehensive fiscal analysis. The commission has determined, from a previously prepared scoping study, that the comprehensive fiscal analysis required for this proposal should be prepared by a qualified independent consultant under the direction of the executive officer.
A draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA) is currently in preparation by staff and county counsel. A copy of the draft RFP will be forwarded to the commission for its review and comment prior to the August 11, 1999 Commission meeting. It is anticipated that the time required for bidders' conference, review of proposals, interview of finalists, contract negotiations, and commission action may take as long as 90 days. Staff has prepared a list of consultants that have: (1) directly requested they be placed on the list, or (ii) consultants that have been recommended to staff.
In addition, staff has, at the direction of the Commission, assembled a comprehensive list of newspaper publications, radio stations and TV stations which will, in addition to applicants, chief petitioners and individuals who have requested notification, be notified of all hearings on the proposal scheduled before your commission.
Request for Data:
Staff has reviewed the Applicants' Initial Identification of Needs for Data Collection and the City of Los Angeles' June 30, 1999, response thereto. Both documents detail a great number of items that will be addressed in the comprehensive fiscal analysis. While there is agreement between the applicant and the city on a number of these items, there is disagreement on others. Staff is also concerned with items that have not been addressed by either party. It is with this background that staff recommends LAFCO delay submitting a formal request for data to the City of Los Angeles, until such time as the independent consultant has been hired. Together, staff and the independent consultant will assemble the request for data and submit same to LAFCO for review and comment.
Discussion:
This hearing before your commission is scheduled as mandated by Section 56828(1) of the Government Code. Given the number of steps remaining, in the processing of this application, a Commission decision can not be rendered until such time as the comprehensive fiscal analysis is prepared, the executive officer's report submitted, and public hearings are held. With this in mind, the commission has previously directed staff to schedule hearings on this matter on the fourth Wednesday of each month, commencing with today's hearing. In the event action is required in advance of the scheduled hearing, then in that event those items can be acted upon at the regularly scheduled commission meetings held on the second Wednesday of the month.
Both prior to the Commission opening up this hearing to public comment and after public comment is concluded staff will be available to answer any questions or concerns the commission may address.
Recommended Commission Action:
That the LAFCO commission adopt a motion to:
3. Open the hearing on this application, and
4. That following public comment the matter be continued to the August 25, 1999 commission hearing date.(top)