WIXLIB

1.0 INTRODUCTIONLAFCO regulates, through approval, denial, conditions, and modification, boundary changesproposed by public agencies or individuals. It also regulates the extension of public services bycities and special districts outside their boundaries. LAFCO is empowered to initiate updates tothe SOIs and proposals involving the dissolution or consolidation of special districts, mergers,establishment of subsidiary districts, and any reorganization including such actions. Otherwise,LAFCO actions must originate as petitions or resolutions from affected registered voters,landowners, cities, or districts.Butte LAFCO consists of seven regular members: two members from the Butte County Board ofSupervisors, two city council members, two special district members, and one public memberwho is appointed by the other members of the commission. There is an alternate in eachcategory. All commissioners are appointed to four-year terms.TABLE 1.0-1BUTTE LAFCO COMMISSIONAPPOINTING AGENCYMEMBERSALTERNATE MEMBERSTwo members from the Board of Supervisors appointedby the Board of Supervisors.Two members representing the cities in the county.Must be a city officer and appointed by the CitySelection Committee.Two members representing the special districts in thecounty, selected by a majority vote of independentspecial districts.One member from the general public appointed by theother six commissioners.Bill ConnellySteve LambertLarry WahlLinda DahlmeierScott LotterJohn BuschTom LandoLarry DuncanAl McGreehanCarl LeverenzGreg SteelMUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW ORIGINSThe MSR requirement was enacted by the state legislature months after the release of twostudies recommending that LAFCOs conduct reviews of local agencies. The “Little HooverCommission” focused on the need for oversight and consolidation of special districts, whereasthe “Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century” focused on the need for regionalplanning to ensure adequate and efficient local governmental services as the Californiapopulation grows.Little Hoover CommissionIn May 2000, the Little Hoover Commission released a report entitled Special Districts: Relics ofthe Past or Resources for the Future? This report focused on governance and financialchallenges among independent special districts, and the barriers to LAFCO’s pursuit of districtconsolidation and dissolution. The report raised the concern that “the underlying patchwork ofspecial district governments has become unnecessarily redundant, inefficient andunaccountable” (Little Hoover Commission 2000).In particular, the report raised concern about a lack of visibility and accountability among someindependent special districts. The report indicated that many special districts hold excessivereserve funds and some receive questionable property tax revenue. The report expressedconcern about the lack of financial oversight of the districts. It asserted that financial reportingby special districts is inadequate and that districts are not required to submit financialinformation to local elected officials, and concluded that district financial information is “largelyCity of BiggsPage 1.0-2Final Municipal Service ReviewAdopted December 3, 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTIONmeaningless as a tool to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of services provided bydistricts, or to make comparisons with neighboring districts or services provided through a city orcounty” (Little Hoover Commission 2000).The report questioned the accountability and relevance of certain special districts withuncontested elections and without adequate notice of public meetings. In addition to concernsabout the accountability and visibility of special districts, the report raised concerns aboutspecial districts with outdated boundaries and outdated missions. The report questioned thepublic benefit provided by health care districts that have sold, leased, or closed their hospitals,and asserted that LAFCOs consistently fail to examine whether they should be eliminated. Thereport pointed to service improvements and cost reductions associated with special districtconsolidations, but asserted that LAFCOs have generally failed to pursue special districtreorganizations.The report called on the legislature to increase the oversight of special districts by mandatingthat LAFCOs identify service duplications and study reorganization alternatives when serviceduplications are identified, when a district appears insolvent, when district reserves areexcessive, when rate inequities surface, when a district’s mission changes, when a new cityincorporates, and/or when service levels are unsatisfactory. To accomplish this, the reportrecommended that the state strengthen the independence and funding of LAFCOs, requiredistricts to report to their respective LAFCO, and require LAFCOs to study service duplications.Commission on Local Governance for the 21st CenturyThe California legislature formed the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century (21stCentury Commission) in 1997 to review statutes on the policies, criteria, procedures, andprecedents for city, county, and special district boundary changes. 1 After conducting extensiveresearch and holding 25 days of public hearings throughout the state, the 21st CenturyCommission released its final report, Growth Within Bounds: Planning California Governance forthe 21st Century, in January 2000. The report examined the way that government is organizedand operates and establishes a vision of how the state will grow by “making better use of theoften invisible LAFCOs in each county.”The report pointed to the expectation that California’s population will double over the first fourdecades of the 21st century, and raised concern that our government institutions were designedwhen the population was much smaller and society was less complex. The report warned thatwithout a strategy, open spaces will be swallowed up, expensive freeway extensions will beneeded, and job centers will become farther removed from housing, all of which will lead tolonger commutes, increased pollution, and more stressful lives. Growth Within Boundsacknowledged that local governments face unprecedented challenges in their ability tofinance service delivery since voters cut property tax revenues in 1978 and the legislature shiftedproperty tax revenues from local government to schools in 1993. The report asserted that thesefinancial strains have created governmental entrepreneurism with cities, counties, and districtscompeting for sales tax revenue and market share.The 21st Century Commission recommended that effective, efficient, and easily understandablegovernment be encouraged. In accomplishing this, the 21st Century Commission recommendedconsolidation of small, inefficient, or overlapping providers, transparency of municipal servicedelivery to the people, and accountability of municipal service providers. The sheer number ofspecial districts, the report asserted, “has provoked controversy, including several legislative1TheCommission on Local Governance for the 21st Century ceased to exist on July 1, 2000, pursuant to a statutory sunsetprovision.Final Municipal Service ReviewAdopted December 3, 2015City of BiggsPage 1.0-3

1.0 INTRODUCTIONattempts to initiate district consolidations,” but cautioned LAFCOs that decisions to consolidatedistricts should focus on the adequacy of services, not on the number of districts (Commission onLocal Governance for the 21st Century 2000).Growth Within Bounds stated that LAFCOs cannot achieve their fundamental purposes without acomprehensive knowledge of the services available within its county, the current efficiency ofproviding service within various areas of the county, future needs for each service, andexpansion capacity of each service provider. Comprehensive knowledge of water and sanitaryproviders, the report argued, would promote consolidations of water and sanitary districts,reduce water costs, and promote a more comprehensive approach to the use of waterresources. The report also asserted that many LAFCOs lack such knowledge and should berequired to conduct such a review to ensure that municipal services are logically extended tomeet California’s future growth and development.MSRs would require LAFCOs to look broadly at all agencies within a geographic region thatprovide a particular municipal service and to examine consolidation or reorganization of serviceproviders. The 21st Century Commission recommended that the review include water,wastewater, garbage, and other municipal services that LAFCOs judge to be important to futuregrowth. The commission also recommended that the MSR be followed by consolidation studiesand be performed in conjunction with updates of SOIs. The recommendation indicated thatservice reviews be designed to make nine determinations, each of which was incorporatedverbatim in the subsequently adopted legislation.MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW LEGISLATIONThe MSR process is a comprehensive assessment of the ability of government agencies toeffectively and efficiently provide services to residents and users. The form and content of theMSR is governed by requirements of the CKH Act and the state of California’s LAFCO MSRGuidelines (Guidelines), published in August 2003. The CKH Act requires the LAFCO, in this caseButte LAFCO, to prepare service reviews for all cities and special districts within its area prior to orin conjunction with the establishment or update of an SOI. An SOI is a planning boundary withinwhich a city or district may expand through the annexation process.The CKH Act of 2000 requires that LAFCO review and update SOIs not less than every five yearsand to review municipal services before updating SOIs. The purpose of an SOI is to encouragelogical and orderly development and coordination of local government agencies so as toadvantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities.MSRs are intended to provide LAFCO with a comprehensive analysis of service provision by eachof the special districts and other service providers within the legislative authority of the LAFCO.Effective January 1, 2001, Government Code Section 56430 requires LAFCO to conduct a reviewof municipal services provided in the county by region, subregion, or other designatedgeographic area, as appropriate, for the service or services to be reviewed, and prepare awritten statement of determination with respect to each of the following topics:1) Growth and population projections for the City.2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communitieswithin or contiguous to the sphere of influence.3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services,including infrastructure needs or deficiencies.City of BiggsPage 1.0-4Final Municipal Service ReviewAdopted December 3, 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTION4) Financial ability to provide services.5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities.6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure andoperational efficiencies.In addition the LAFCO can consider any other matter related to effective or efficient servicedelivery, as required by local policy.1.0-2 PURPOSE OF THE MSRThis analysis focuses on service providers in the City of Biggs and makes determinations in eacharea of evaluation, providing the basis for the Butte LAFCO to review proposed amendments tothe City’s SOI.As stated previously, an SOI is a planning tool used to identify potential future boundaries of acity or service district. The establishment of an SOI, or inclusion of territory within an SOI of anexisting governmental entity, does not automatically mean that the area is being proposed forannexation and development. Consistency of other planning efforts with the adopted SOI iscritical, and changes to the SOI require careful review.The City of Biggs has requested Butte LAFCO to update its SOI in accordance with the City’s2008-2028 General Plan. The City’s 2008 MSR must be updated to reflect the current capabilitiesof the City of Biggs to provide municipal services to parcels within its

Final Municipal Service Review City of Biggs Adopted December 3, 2015 Page 1.0-1 1.0-1 INTRODUCTION This report is prepared pursuant to legislation enacted in 2000 that requires Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO) to conduct a comprehensive review of municipal service delivery and update the spheres of influence (SOIs) of all agencies .