MSRGuidelines

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW GUIDELINES
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
AUGUST 2003
FINAL
Tal Finney
INTERIM DIRECTOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Gray Davis
GOVERNOR

August 2003
Message from the Director
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research is proud to announce the publication
of the first Municipal Service Review Guidelines for Local Agency Formation
Commissions (LAFCOs). These advisory Guidelines provide LAFCOs with an additional
tool to fulfill their statutory responsibilities of promoting orderly growth and
development, preserving the state's finite open space and agricultural land resources,
and working to ensure that high quality public services are provided to all Californians
in the most efficient and effective manner.
The requirement for LAFCOs to conduct reviews of local municipal services was
established with the passage of AB 2838, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local
Government Reorganization Act of 2000. In accordance with Government Code
Section 56430, OPR developed these Guidelines through an extensive public
participation process involving numerous interested parties and the public. I trust
that these Guidelines will be valuable to LAFCOs in developing their processes for
conducting municipal service reviews and addressing all of the substantive issues
required by the law. I also hope that the Guidelines will be of value to Californians as
a tool to participate more fully in local government decision making.
In all of its work, OPR attempts to encourage more collaborative and comprehensive
land use planning at the local, regional, and statewide levels to achieve sustainable
development goals of protecting the environment, maintaining a healthy economy,
and ensuring equitable treatment of all people. The Municipal Service Review
Guidelines joins a family of technical assistance and policy documents published by
OPR that further these goals. OPR's General Plan Guidelines encourages
comprehensive long-range planning for sustainable development at the city and
county level. The Municipal Service Review Guidelines addresses the delivery of
municipal services at a regional level, in a manner that informs other LAFCO
boundary-setting decisions. Finally, the Environmental Goals and Policy Report,
currently under preparation, will be a statewide plan that guides infrastructure
investment decisions of state government in a manner consistent with new state land
use planning priorities and sustainable development goals.
I encourage LAFCOs to take their rightful place as regional leaders in the public
debate on growth and development, and to collaborate with local and state planning
agencies to implement a sustainable future for California.
Tal Finney
Interim Director

LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
GUIDELINES
FINAL
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA. 95812-3044, 916-322-2318, www.opr.ca.gov
TAL FINNEY, INTERIM DIRECTOR
Project Staff:
Toni Symonds - Project Manager and Director of the Community
Vitalization Unit
Terry Roberts - Project Manager and Director of the State
Clearinghouse
Kathryn Winter - Task Force Chairperson and Senior Policy Advisor with
the Community Revitalization Unit
Brian Grattidge - Senior Planner with the State Clearinghouse
Doreen Updike - Administrative Assistant with the Community
Vitalization Unit

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) would like to acknowledge and
thank the members of the Municipal Service Review Task Force for their invaluable
assistance in identifying key issues and for providing input into the development of
the LAFCO Municipal Service Review Guidelines.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW GUIDELINES TASK FORCE
• Chairperson, Kathryn Winter, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Planning and
Research (OPR)
• Gary T. Arant, General Manager, Association of California Water Agencies, Valley
Center Municipal Water District
• DeAnn Baker, Legislative Representative, California State Association of Counties
• Robert Braitman, Santa Barbara LAFCO Executive Officer and Braitman &
Associates
• Roger Campbell, Mayor, City of Fillmore and Campbell Public Affairs
• Christopher Carlisle, Counsel and Legislative Director, Speaker Emeritus Robert
Hertzberg
• Roseanne Chamberlain, League of Women Voters, Sacramento and Executive
Officer, El Dorado County
• Harry Ehrlich, Board of Directors, California Special Districts Association and
Deputy General Manager, Olivenhain Municipal Water District.
• Stephen Hall, Executive Director, Association of California Water Districts
• Scott Harvey, Executive Director, California Association of Local Agency Formation
Commissions (CALAFCO) and Scott Harvey and Associates
• Peter Herzog, Council Member, City of Lake Forest and League of California Cities
• Jim Hill, Fire Districts Association of California
• Ted James, California Planning Association and Kern County Director of Planning
• S.R. Jones, Executive Officer, California Association of Local Agency Formations
Commissions (CALAFCO) and Nevada County LAFCO Executive Officer
• Don McCormack, Executive Board Member, California Association of Local Agency
Formation Commissions
• Dawn Mittleman, Vice President, Fire District Association of California and
Director, Valley of the Moon Fire Protection District
• Michael Ott, San Diego LAFCO Executive Officer
• Bob Reeb, State Legislative Director, Association of California Water Districts
• Terry Roberts, Project Manager and Director of the State Clearinghouse, Office of
Planning and Research, OPR
• Daniel Schwarz, Napa County LAFCO Executive Officer
• Rusty Selix, Executive Director, California Association of Councils of Government
• Rob Sherry, California State Association of Counties, Sacramento County Planning
Department

• Brian Smith, California Chapter of the American Planning Association, City of Tracy
• Catherine Smith, California Special Districts Association
• Dana Smith, Orange County LAFCO Executive Officer
• Toni Symonds, Project Manager and Director, California Rural Policy Task Force
• Rita Valesquez, General Manager, Elk Grove Community Services District
• Jolena Voorhis, California State Association of Counties
• Ron Wootton, Chair, California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions
and San Diego County LAFCO Commissioner
OPR would also like to acknowledge and thank Barbara Graichen, Graichen Consulting,
and her excellent consultant team which assisted OPR in the development and
implementation of the extensive public outreach and stakeholder consultation process
and the writing of the preliminary draft of the guidelines. Without Ms. Graichen and
her team many of the specific examples of suggested documents and “real life”
examples from California LAFCOs could not have been included in the guidelines. Her
team included:
• Heidi and Ron Kolbe, The Kolbe Company
• Sabrina Okamura-Johnson, Okamura Johnson Associates
• Ivan Gennis, Gennis & Associates, Engineers
• Michael Okamura, Okamura International

LAFCO Municipal Service Review Guidelines TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................. 1
PART I - PREPARING TO UNDERTAKE A MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW.... 3
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 3
A. STATUTORY BACKGROUND ON MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW GUIDELINES....................... 3
B. DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES ............................................................... 4
C. INTEGRATED PLANNING GUIDANCE ........................................................... 5
D. HOW TO USE THE GUIDELINES ............................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2. BASIC ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................ 6
A. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW: ROLE OF LAFCO.............................................. 6
B. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW: ROLE OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER............................... 8
C. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW: ROLE OF THE PUBLIC .......................................... 8
CHAPTER 3. DEVELOPING A SCHEDULE OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS........... 9
A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHEDULE: LAFCO PREPARATION.................................... 9
B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHEDULE: SERVICE PROVIDER PREPARATION........................12
C. PREPARING THE SCHEDULE..................................................................14
D. PUBLISHING THE SCHEDULE .................................................................16
CHAPTER 4. DEVELOPING A WORK PLAN FOR INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEWS ........................................................................ 16
A. DEVELOPING A STRATEGY FOR PREPARATION OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW REPORT ...16
B. WRITING THE WORK PLAN..................................................................17
C. REVIEWING EARLIER SCHEDULING DECISIONS ................................................18
CHAPTER 5. IDENTIFYING THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW STUDY BOUNDARY . 18
A. METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING AN APPROPRIATE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW BOUNDARY .......19
B. EXAMPLES OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW BOUNDARY DETERMINATIONS .....................19
PART II - THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW PROCESS ......................22
CHAPTER 6. INTEGRATING MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS WITH OTHER LAFCO
ACTIONS ........................................................................ 22
A. INTEGRATING MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS WITH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ACTIONS ...........22
B. INTEGRATING MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS WITH OTHER PROPOSALS ........................23
C. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS IN THE REGIONAL CONTEXT ...................................24
CHAPTER 7. INTEGRATING MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ............................................ 25
A. APPLICABILITY OF CEQA ...................................................................25
B. CEQA DETERMINATIONS....................................................................26
i

LAFCO Municipal Service Review Guidelines TABLE OF CONTENTS
C. EXEMPTIONS................................................................................27
D. INITIAL STUDY ..............................................................................28
E. NEGATIVE DECLARATION....................................................................28
F. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ...........................................................28
CHAPTER 8. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS IN MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEWS ........................................................................ 29
A. FEDERAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................30
B. STATE FRAMEWORK.........................................................................31
C. FORMS OF INEQUITY ........................................................................31
D. INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS ................................................................32
E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .....................................................................33
CHAPTER 9. DEVELOPING WRITTEN DETERMINATIONS ................................ 34
1. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES .................................................35
2. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE AFFECTED AREA .........................36
3. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES ..............................................36
4. COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES ..........................................................37
5. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE RESTRUCTURING .................................................37
6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES ....................................................38
7. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS.........................................................38
8. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES ................................................41
9. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................42
PART III - TAKING ACTION ON THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW ........43
CHAPTER 10. PREPARING THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW REPORT ................ 43
A. DRAFT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW REPORT ................................................43
B. WRITTEN DETERMINATIONS .................................................................43
C. DISTRIBUTION AND COMMENT PERIOD .......................................................44
D. FINALIZING THE REPORT TO THE COMMISSION ...............................................44
CHAPTER 11. ADOPTING THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW REPORT ................. 45
A. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................45
B. PUBLIC NOTICE FOR A MEETING OR A HEARING..............................................45
C. ACTIONS AT MEETINGS AND HEARINGS ......................................................46
D. RECONSIDERATION ..........................................................................46
ii

LAFCO Municipal Service Review Guidelines APPENDICES
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A WHAT IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND POLICY
REPORT (EGPR)?
A. THE GOVERNOR'S STATE ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND POLICY REPORT IS:
B. THE EGPR MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH:
C. THE EGPR WILL DO THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX B DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX C ACRONYMS
APPENDIX D BACKGROUND ON MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
A. BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT
B. STATUTORY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
C. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
D. IMPLEMENTATION
APPENDIX E EXAMPLE OF OPR RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW PROCESS
APPENDIX F DATA COLLECTION
I. GENERAL INFORMATION COLLECTION STRATEGIES
II. SPECIFIC INFORMATION SOURCES
A. GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
B. THE STATE CONTROLLER’S OFFICE
C. THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
D. THE REGIONAL COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENTS
E. THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
F. LAFCO INFORMATION RESOURCES
G. CITY AND COUNTY PLANS, AND REVIEWS
H. MASTER SERVICES AND RESOURCE ACQUISITION PLANS, CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND SERVICE RELATED MAPS
I. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING PLANS AND MECHANISMS
III. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
A. OTHER STATE OR FEDERAL MANDATED PLANS AND PERMITS
B. OBTAINING COMPARABLE INFORMATION
IV. SUMMARY
i

LAFCO Municipal Service Review Guidelines APPENDICES
APPENDIX G USE OF CONSULTANTS
APPENDIX H FUNDING OPTIONS
APPENDIX I EXAMPLE - COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PROFILE
APPENDIX J EXAMPLE - CITY PROFILE
APPENDIX K EXAMPLE - SPECIAL DISTRICT POWERS COMPARISON
CHART
APPENDIX L EXAMPLE - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STATUS LOG
APPENDIX M MULTI-COUNTY LAFCO REVIEW
A. DEVELOPMENT OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW BOUNDARIES CAN TRIGGER
MULTI-LAFCO REVIEWS
B. COORDINATION OF MULTIPLE-LAFCO REVIEWS
C. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS
D. DETERMINING THE LEAD LAFCO
E. STEPS FOR CONDUCTING A JOINT REVIEW
F. EXHIBIT: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE CONDUCT OF MUNICIPAL
SERVICE REVIEWS TEMPLATE
ii

LAFCO Municipal Service Review Guidelines
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2003, OPR is issuing three sets of guidance documents which address how growth
and development occur in California: The General Plan Guidelines, the LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Guidelines and the Environmental Goals and Policy Report.
Each of these guidance documents primarily targets a single level of government:
local, regional and state. However, each document promotes better integration of
planning and development as a means for continual improvement of California
communities.
These Guidelines are the result of legislation (Chapter 761, Statutes of 2000) signed
by Governor Gray Davis relating to powers and authorities of a Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO).
Development of the legislation resulted from the recommendations of the Commission
on Local Governance for the 21st Century. The Commission on Local Governance for
the 21st Century published its recommendations in a final report, Growth Within
Bounds, issued on January 20, 2000.
GUIDELINES v. REGULATIONS
Existing law requires OPR to prepare
guidelines, not regulations. This
document should therefore be
considered advisory and not
regulatory.
The report recommended and the legislation enacted a new process for LAFCO to
review municipal services on a regular basis. As
part of its review of municipal services, LAFCO is
required to prepare a written statement of its
determination with respect to each of the
following:
1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies;
2. Growth and population projections for the affected area;
3. Financing constraints and opportunities;
4. Cost avoidance opportunities;
5. Opportunities for rate restructuring;
6. Opportunities for shared facilities;
7. Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of
consolidation or reorganization of service providers;
8. Evaluation of management efficiencies; and
9. Local accountability and governance.
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is directed by statute to
prepare these Guidelines to assist LAFCO in complying with the new requirements for
1

municipal service reviews. The Guidelines were developed through five public
workshops; numerous meetings of an OPR appointed
stakeholder task force, and three public review
periods.
Throughout the Guidelines, OPR has identified those
actions which are required by law and those where
OPR recommends a particular process or policy when
undertaking the municipal service review. The
Guidelines are divided into three parts: Part I –
Preparing to Undertake a Municipal Service Review, Part II – The Municipal Service
Review Process, and Part III - Taking Action on the Municipal Service Review.
LOCAL CONDITIONS
This document provides general
guidance. LAFCOs may need to
modify these recommendations
to reflect local conditions,
circumstances and types of
services which are being
reviewed.
Part I describes the statutory framework and requirements of the municipal service
review. This Part also provides guidance on how LAFCO, service providers and the
public can prepare to most effectively engage in the municipal service review process
including, but not limited to:
• Development of a long-term schedule of all municipal service reviews required
to be undertaken by LAFCO during the five-year review cycle for Spheres of
Influence (SOI).
• Development of a work plan for an individual municipal service review.
• Gathering of data and information related to undertaking a municipal service
review.
• Identifying the boundary of the municipal service review study area.
• Development of a strategy for preparing a municipal service review report.
Part II includes guidance on the individual municipal service review process including
integrating municipal service reviews with other LAFCO actions, application of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and federal and state anti-discrimination
statutes, and the development of the nine determinations.
Part III contains information on how to draft the final individual municipal service
review report, recommendations on how to ensure adequate public participation
opportunities and the requirements for the meeting at which the report is accepted.
In developing the Guidelines, it is OPR’s intent to provide a structure to assist LAFCOs
in fulfilling their statutory responsibility of promoting orderly growth and
development, preserving the state’s finite open space and agricultural land resources,
and working to ensure that high quality public services are provided to all California
residents in the most cost effective and efficient manner.
2

PART I - PREPARING TO UNDERTAKE A MUNICIPAL
SERVICE REVIEW
The municipal service review provides a current, formal, and comprehensive look at
the provision of services within a county. Effective implementation of these reviews
will depend, in a large part, on the preparations made by LAFCO prior to initiation of
the individual municipal service review.
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
This Chapter provides background on the development of the Municipal Service
Review Guidelines, an explanation of their purposes and information on the overall
structure and use of this document.
A. STATUTORY BACKGROUND ON MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW GUIDELINES
On September 26, 2000, Governor Gray Davis signed into law AB 2838 (Chapter 761,
Statutes of 2000), authored by Assembly Speaker Robert M. Hertzberg. This
legislation, titled the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act
of 2000 (CKH Act) and codified as California Government Code (GC) §56000 et seq,
marked the most significant reform to local government reorganization law since the
1963 statute that created a LAFCO in each county.
Development of the legislation resulted from the recommendations of the Commission
on Local Governance for the 21st Century. The Commission on Local Governance for
the 21st Century, established through statute in 1997, published its recommendations
in a final report, Growth Within Bounds, issued on January 20, 2000.
Pursuant to GC §56430, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is
required to prepare guidelines for LAFCO to conduct reviews of local municipal
services.
Prior to the 2000 amendments, existing law authorized LAFCOs to conduct municipal
service review studies. These LAFCO service studies generally provided evaluation
tools to support future LAFCO actions or were part of a reorganization committee
effort.
Existing law (GC §56430), now states that in order to prepare and update a Sphere of
Influence (SOI), LAFCOs are required to first conduct a municipal service review of the
municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate designated area.
The term “municipal services” generally refers to the full range of services that a
public agency provides or is authorized to provide. The definition is somewhat
3

modified under the CKH Act, however, because LAFCO is only required to review
services provided by agencies with SOIs. Therefore, general county government
services, such as courts and social services, are not required to be reviewed.
As part of its review of municipal services, LAFCO is required to prepare a written
statement of its determination with respect to each of the following:
1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies;
2. Growth and population projections for the affected area;
3. Financing constraints and opportunities;
4. Cost avoidance opportunities;
5. Opportunities for rate restructuring;
6. Opportunities for shared facilities;
consolidation or reorganization of service providers;
8. Evaluation of management efficiencies; and
These Guidelines have been developed to assist LAFCOs through the process of making
these determinations.
B. DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES
Pursuant to the requirements of the CKH Act, the Municipal Service Review Guidelines
have been developed in consultation with the California Association of Local Agency
Formation Commissions and numerous other organizations representing service
providers and the public. Participating organizations include the California Special
Districts Association, the League of California Cities, the California State Association
of Counties, the Association of California Water Agencies, the League of Women
Voters, the Fire Districts Association of California, housing and environmental groups
and dozens of representatives from cities, counties, special districts and interested
parties.
Consultations and collaboration occurred during facilitated public workshops in
Sacramento, Fresno, Santa Ana, Red Bluff and San Diego; five working group sessions
with representatives from affected local government entities; and interviews and
meetings with interested constituents.
An issues paper and draft outline of the Municipal Service Review Guidelines1
was
1
Prepared under contract with Graichen Consulting
4

published in May 2001 and subjected to a 21-day public review period. The
Preliminary Draft2
LAFCO Municipal Service Review Guidelines was issued for a 21-day
review in August 2001 and comments were reviewed and incorporated into the Final
Draft Municipal Service Review Guidelines as appropriate.
A 21-day public review of the Final Draft Guidelines was provided in October of 2002
with appropriate comments incorporated into the Final Municipal Service Review
Guidelines.
California LAFCOs have been especially generous with their contributions of service
studies, procedures, and other technical products. Special districts and cities have
provided samples of model service practices. OPR wishes to recognize the
contributions of the Napa County LAFCO in preparing Chapter 9 of this document.
Every attempt has been made to incorporate successful procedures, processes and
templates created by numerous public agencies.
C. INTEGRATED PLANNING GUIDANCE
In 2003, OPR is issuing three sets of guidance documents which address how growth
and development occur in California: The General Plan Guidelines, the LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Guidelines and the Environmental Goals and Policy Report.
Appendix A includes a description of the Environmental Goals and Policy Report
Collectively, these guidance documents reflect best practices at the local, regional
and state levels related to good governance, equitable allocation of public resources
and the continuing improvement in the quality of life for all Californians.
No single government entity has exclusive authority or responsibility over growth and
development. Through statute, regulations, guidelines and common practice
California has developed a complex and sometimes cumbersome process for approving
and managing growth.
It is OPR’s belief that through better integration of planning practices, increased
transparency of decision making processes, early and more meaningful consultation
with the public, stakeholders and other levels of government that government entities
can better meet their missions and serve the people of California.
D. HOW TO USE THE GUIDELINES
The Guidelines are organized into three parts: preparations for undertaking a
municipal service review, the process of developing the municipal service review, and
taking final actions on the municipal service reviews.
2
Prepared under contract with Graichen Consulting
5

Part I – Preparing to Undertake a Municipal Service Review includes five chapters.
Chapter 1 includes introductory comments and background on the guidelines.
Chapter 2 contains a description of the basic roles and responsibilities of LAFCO,
service providers and the public in the municipal service review process. Chapter 3
includes a strategy for developing an overall schedule for municipal service reviews.
Chapter 4 contains information on developing a work plan for individual municipal
service reviews. Chapter 5 provides guidance on determining the study area
boundaries for a municipal service review.
Part II – The Municipal Service Review Process includes four chapters. Chapter 6
provides guidance on integrating a municipal service review with other LAFCO actions,
as appropriate. Chapter 7 includes information on compliance with CEQA. Chapter 8
describes the relationship between municipal service reviews and environmental
justice. Chapter 9 includes guidance on the development of the nine required written
determinations.
Part III – Taking Action on the Municipal Service Review includes two chapters.
Chapter 10 provides guidance on preparing the draft and final municipal service
review report for the Commission's consideration. Chapter 11 describes the public
hearing process.
CHAPTER 2. BASIC ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
IMPACT OF 2000 AMENDMENTS
The requirement to undertake municipal service
reviews and make specified determinations is one
of the most significant modifications to the role
and responsibilities of LAFCO in the enacting
legislation since the 1960’s. OPR recommends
that each LAFCO, service provider and public
advocacy group take time to review and
understand their roles in this new statutory
environment.
Beginning in January of 2001, LAFCOs became responsible for undertaking municipal
service reviews prior to or in
conjunction with the establishment of
an entity’s SOI. This chapter outlines
the basic roles and responsibilities of
LAFCO, the service provider and the
public in implementing this
requirement. Refer to Appendix C for
general background information on the
requirement for LAFCO to perform
municipal service reviews.
A. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW: ROLE OF LAFCO
In order to ensure that deliberations by LAFCO on municipal service reviews are
consistent, OPR recommends that LAFCO include in its written policies and procedures
information on the process by which it will conduct service reviews.
6

WHAT SERVICES ARE COVERED?
Existing law requires that a service review be
completed in preparation of the adoption and/or
update of a SOI. Therefore, any municipal service
which has a service area defined by LAFCO
through a SOI will need to have a municipal
service review. LAFCO may include one or more
s in the review and the study area may be
the whole county, multiple counties or any
appropriate sub-area, as determined by L
Not all municipal services are required to be reviewed – only those services for which
a SOI has been adopted by LAFCO. In reviewing services, LAFCO should attempt to
include public and private service providers. Only the public service providers are
required to share information;
however, LAFCO should make the
same requests of all providers in order
to demonstrate that the review was as
comprehensive as possible.
service
As part of the municipal service review
process, LAFCO should convene
stakeholders as appropriate and
facilitate collaborative efforts to
address issues and challenges.
Stakeholders may include affected and interested LAFCOs and other government
agencies, other interested parties and members of the public.
AFCO
(GC §56430).
Cooperatively developed municipal service reviews enable LAFCO and service
providers to more effectively accomplish mutual public service objectives. To the
extent possible, stakeholders should work together to evaluate existing and future
service needs and determine what structures are needed to support healthy growth
while preserving important agricultural and open space resources. Although LAFCO
does not have direct land use authority and is not enabled to manage or operate a
service provider agency, LAFCO can serve as an intermediary for the State in
addressing specific growth challenges.
An effective municipal service review process should include early consultation with
stakeholders, an inclusive municipal service review design, public review of municipal
service review work plans and municipal service review report, and an overall
collaborative process (see the process flow chart in Appendix D).
WHY COLLABORATE?
Through collaboration, LAFCO and interested parties can:
• Identify common goals and objectives and diffuse issues that foster competition rather than
cooperation;
• Share expertise and help lower costs by assisting LAFCOs in determining what types of
information need to be gathered and in what form;
• Identify information that is already available to streamline data collection;
• Develop strategies for augmenting LAFCO’s technical capabilities by funding or loaning technical
staff to work under LAFCO’s direction;
• Develop strategies for constructively addressing overlapping service boundaries;
• Develop plans to implement recommendations developed as a result of a municipal service
review.
7

B. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW: ROLE OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER
JOIN THE COMMISSION
The California Special Districts
Association (CSDA) encourages
independent special districts to serve on
AFCOs and participate in special district
mmittees. With LAFCOs’ increased role
in determining public service delivery
systems through municipal service
reviews, special districts cannot afford
to be absent from the process.
L
co
Service providers play an important role in the collaborative process for conducting a
municipal service review. The cooperation of service providers is important to ensure
that LAFCO has access to all necessary
information in a timely manner, and to assist
LAFCO in interpreting that information. The
service provider should view the municipal
service review process as an opportunity to
share accurate and current data,
accomplishments and information that will
allow LAFCO to make sound conclusions and
determinations with respect to services.
LAFCOs will use the information provided by
service providers to review proposals for
changes in services, including SOI updates, incorporations and other boundary
decisions.
C. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW: ROLE OF THE PUBLIC
LAFCOs should encourage and provide multiple public participation opportunities in
the municipal service review process. To this end, LAFCOs should develop and
maintain a list of interested parties to whom such outreach can be extended. Service
providers can assist in involving the public by including municipal service review
information in newsletters or billing statements. Public comments should be
considered and incorporated into the municipal service review process and reports
where appropriate and feasible.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A major goal of the CKH Act amendments
was to increase public participation in
public service planning and delivery.
Consistent with that goal, public notice
requirements for all LAFCO processes were
strengthened or augmented. LAFCOs were
also required to adopt service review
determinations in a public forum.
The municipal service review process chart (Appendix D) recommends that LAFCO
provide several opportunities for the public
to provide input in the process. These
opportunities can include stakeholder
meetings, public hearings or workshops to
initiate municipal service reviews, a public
review period of the draft municipal service
review report, and a public hearing to
consider adoption of written
determinations.
8

CHAPTER 3. DEVELOPING A SCHEDULE OF MUNICIPAL
SERVICE REVIEWS
REVIEW DEADLINES
The CKH Act’s most recent amendments
took effect on January 1, 2001. Although
§56430 does not directly provide a specific
date when all service reviews must be
completed, a deadline can be inferred from
§56425, which states, “Upon determination
of a sphere, the commission shall adopt that
sphere, and shall review and update, as
necessary, the adopted sphere not less than
every five years.”
This Chapter provides information on the development of the overall schedule of
municipal reviews including the gathering and organizing of information and key
decisions that LAFCO needs to make in
scheduling the individual reviews.
LAFCO should develop a schedule for
undertaking municipal service reviews
reflective of the individual needs of their
county and as a workload management tool.
Key internal and external considerations in
the development of a schedule for municipal
service reviews include:
• To what extent are your SOIs current?
• Are there any pending proposals involving changes to SOIs that may trigger the
need for a municipal service review?
• What is the relative complexity of the service(s) being reviewed? (Appendix E
includes information on data collection that may assist LAFCO to determine
level of complexity.)
• What is the capacity of LAFCO to undertake municipal service reviews?
(Appendix F includes information about the use of consultants for municipal
service reviews and Appendix G includes examples of funding options.)
• What are the general operating practices of LAFCO? (i.e., frequency of
meetings, length of meetings, number of items typically on the agenda)
OPR recommends that LAFCO take the time to establish a schedule and process for
undertaking municipal service reviews which reflects agreement of the commission
members, service providers, the public, the executive officer and LAFCO staff.
A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHEDULE: LAFCO PREPARATION
Since existing law requires SOIs to be reviewed and updated, if necessary, every five
years, and municipal service reviews must be completed for SOI updates, municipal
service reviews should be updated at least every five years. LAFCOs have flexibility in
scheduling these reviews including identifying which services will be reviewed,
whether similar services will be reviewed at the same time, and what service
areas/geographic regions will be reviewed within an individual municipal service
review.
9

OPR recommends that LAFCOs develop a five-year schedule of reviews in order to
ensure that all required municipal service reviews are completed in a timely manner.
In developing any schedule of reviews, LAFCO should include policies and procedures
on how it will handle reviews which occur due to changes in local circumstances such
as proposals that may require changes to the SOI, proposed annexations, SOI
amendments and incorporations.
LAFCO should also provide opportunities for service providers to be involved in the
establishment of the schedule, development of the work plan for an individual
municipal service review, the design of the review and consultation on the final
municipal service review report for the Commission. Below are some tools to assist
LAFCO in developing a schedule for individual municipal service reviews including
service provider profiles, SOI status logs, maps, and matrices.
GETTING PREPARED
• Notify Service Providers.
• Review service provider profiles.
• Review SOI status log.
• Obtain service provider maps.
• Create service provider matrices.
• Create five-year schedule.
Review Service Provider Profiles: Many LAFCOs have developed service provider
directories, profiles or inventories, which can be used as a resource. Service provider
profiles vary from county to county but most
include basic information such as service provider
names, district maps, telephone numbers, key
staff, size, population served, services provided,
appropriate enabling legislation, authorized and
latent powers, date of formation and some budget
information.
Some directories only include information on
service providers with SOIs. Others include data on
most providers including private purveyors and districts that are not subject to SOI or
other requirements.
TECHNICAL INPUT
LAFCO municipal service review
procedures should include a specific
process for service providers and the
public to identify unique challenges to
providing services to a particular area.
When available, directories can also be used by cities and counties when updating
plans, conducting CEQA reviews, and reviewing
development projects, and by the public when
seeking basic information about services in their
communities.
LAFCOs that have not compiled agency profiles
should consider using information obtained
during municipal service reviews and SOI examples of service provider profiles for a
Community Service District (CSD), city and special district.3
Review SOI Status Logs: Some LAFCOs maintain a status log for all SOIs under their
jurisdiction (See Appendix K for an example of a SOI status log). These logs identify
10
3
Appendices referenced in this Chapter are provided as examples. The exact content and style are not
specifically endorsed.

past actions of LAFCO relative to changes in the SOI of specific service providers.
LAFCOs that have not kept status logs should consider keeping these logs and/or
otherwise memorializing the information gained from the municipal service review.
Organize Your Data: Once LAFCO has assembled basic information about applicable
services and service providers, it may want to use one or more of the following
methods for organizing the information. Some suggestions include maps, matrices
and timelines.
ADVANTAGES OF ORGANIZING
INFORMATION ON SPREADSHEETS
Data organized using a spreadsheet format
or other flexible software, allows each
column to be sorted individually. One
service provider may provide several
services which may or may not be reviewed
at the same time. Also, the information can
be resorted by area or region.
1. Maps: Countywide, regional and service area maps can be useful in identifying
what geographic areas should be
reviewed. Some of these maps may
be obtained from existing sources
such as service provider profiles.
Some providers may also have GIS
maps. Before creating new maps,
LAFCO should check with local
planning agencies to determine if
they have prepared such maps as part
of development reviews, EIRs or
General Plan preparation. Useful maps include countywide, regional and
service area maps. (Appendix E provides more information on how maps can
assist in data collection.)
2. Matrices: LAFCOs may find it useful to prepare a matrix listing all service
providers by the services that they provide or are authorized to provide. (See
Table 1 below, sample template.) It may also be useful to identify latent
powers either on a separate or the same matrix. (Appendix E includes more
information on data collection.)
3. Timeline: LAFCO may use the data compiled to develop a draft five-year
timeline for initiating and completing all municipal service reviews. (Appendix
E includes more information on data collection.)
TABLE 1 – SERVICE PROVIDER MATRIX TEMPLATE4
Provider
Area or
Region
Fire
(FI)
Sanitation
(SA)
Water
(WA)
Flood
Control
(FC)
Solid
Waste
(SW)
Recreation
and Parks
(R&P)
Other
ARFPD FI∗
ARFCD FC
Arcade R&P R&P
11
4
Example only

Provider
Area or
Region
Fire
(FI)
Sanitation
(SA)
Water
(WA)
Flood
Control
(FC)
Solid
Waste
(SW)
Recreation
and Parks
(R&P)
Other
Arcade Water WA
AM R&P R&P
Brannan-Andrus
LMD
FC
Citizens Utilities WA
CH ID WA
Clay Water WA
RD 369 FC
Cordova R&P R&P
CSA9 SA
CSD #1 SA
∗
Using letters facilitates sorts.
B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHEDULE: SERVICE PROVIDER PREPARATION
DESIGNATE STAFF CONTACT FOR MSR
OPR recommends that service providers
designate a staff contact for municipal
service reviews and notify LAFCO of the
relevant contact information. By
streamlining its own organization, a service
provider will have a better opportunity to
effectively interact with LAFCO.
Service providers can help shape municipal service reviews by getting involved early
in the process, continuing to be available for questions and dialogue during the
preparation and completion of the
municipal service review report and
assisting in the establishment of the overall
schedule, development of the individual
service review work plan, and collection of
data/information.
A municipal service review is only as good
as the data on which it is based. LAFCO
will need specific information on the services being provided in the region and will
probably need to request this information from the service providers. The types of
information will vary from agency to agency and by the type of service being
reviewed.
Below is a list of the types of information a service provider may wish to gather to
expedite the municipal service review process. It is not necessary to collect all types
of data listed below. Select only those items that are relevant to the type of services
under review.
12

1. A list of relevant statutory and regulatory obligations.
2. A copy of the most recent master services plan.
3. A metes and bounds legal description of the agency's boundary.
4. Service Area Maps (to the extent already prepared) including (1) A service
boundary map; (2) A map indicating parcel boundaries (GIS maps may be
available from the land use jurisdiction); (3) A vicinity or regional map with
provider’s boundary, major landmarks, freeways or highways, and adjacent or
overlapping service provider boundaries (note: more than one map may need to
be prepared to show all data); and (4) Maps indicating existing land uses within
city or district boundaries and on adjacent properties.
5. Applicable excerpts from regional transportation, water, air quality, fair share
housing allocation, airport land use, open space or agricultural plans or
policies, or other environmental polices or programs.
6. Copies of regulatory and operating permits.
7. Number of acres or square miles included within the service area.
8. Type of sphere or sphere boundaries.
9. Assessed valuation.
10. Estimate of population within district boundaries.
11. As appropriate, the number of people, households, parcels or units currently
receiving service, or the number of service connections.
12. Projected growth in service demand or planned new service demand/capacity.
13. Special communities of interest or neighborhoods affected by service.
14. Capital improvement plans.
15. Current service capacity.
16. Call volume.
17. Response time.
18. Annual operating budget.
Don’t Reinvent the Wheel
Service providers may regularly submit reports to a regulatory or financing agency
which contain the information LAFCO needs to complete the municipal service review.
Use the information in these reports to respond to information requests by LAFCO.
Early consultation with LAFCO and meaningful input by the service provider can
reduce the time and cost to both parties.
13

Share Best Practices and Unique Challenges
Service providers should take the opportunity to let LAFCOs know about best practices
and other accomplishments of the agency when service information is requested.
In addition, service providers should inform LAFCO about challenges that exist in
providing services to a particular area so that this may be considered by LAFCO during
the municipal service review.
C. PREPARING THE SCHEDULE
Existing law does not provide for any specific schedule or order for completing
reviews. It does however, require that a review be completed and available at the
time that LAFCO reviews the SOI for potential revision which must occur not later
than every five years.
MENTORING LAFCOS
OPR recommends that experienced LAFCO’s
volunteer as “Mentor LAFCOs” to advise other
LAFCOs in processing complex municipal
service reviews. Completed reviews should
also be shared to ensure that best practices
can easily be modeled. The CALAFCO
website, http://www.calafco.org/, contains
a list of LAFCOs with contact information and
a “Resource Page” which includes a list of
completed municipal service reviews and
other relevant documents.
The schedule can be as simple as a list of reviews by year, indicating the services to
be reviewed, providers affected and anticipated study area boundaries. OPR
recommends that LAFCO develop a multi-
year schedule to provide adequate notice
to service providers and the public as well
as ensuring that all municipal service
reviews are available when they are
needed by LAFCO to review SOIs.
Key Decision Points
In developing a multi-year schedule,
LAFCO should begin with the list of
services and providers. Chapter 3 includes
recommendations on information gathering and organizing. Table 1 in Chapter 3
provides a sample of a chart which may be used for organizing basic information on
services and providers. The LAFCO should review this information and any other
information that has been collected including maps, service provider profiles, SOI
status logs and published reports.
Scheduling for many of the municipal reviews will be obvious due to pending actions
before LAFCO or lack of currency of the SOI review. After scheduling these reviews,
LAFCO may choose to consider the following:
• Growth and Service Patterns - Determine whether there are particular
patterns of development or services which need to be addressed in a more
timely fashion in order to ensure that LAFCO is meeting its mission for
14

supporting orderly development, preservation of agricultural lands and open
space and/or supporting housing for all Californians (GC §56000).
• Single Service or Bundled Services - Decide whether to study individual or
clustered services. Services do not necessarily need to be related in order to
be bundled. There may be other relevant considerations including multiple
services are provided by the same provider(s) or there are unique geographic
challenges to the area which all service providers share.
• Extent of the Consultation Process – Decide, in general terms, which services
are ready to be reviewed based on existing relationships between LAFCO,
regional planning staff, city and county planning staff, service providers,
stakeholder groups and the public. Some reviews may need to be scheduled
later to allow time for a more effective relationship to be developed between
all affected parties.
• Multi-County Review - Decide whether the municipal service reviews affects or
overlaps adjacent LAFCOs. (See Appendix L.) Besides a full joint multi-county
review, LAFCO may consider the effectiveness of coordinating data collection
on similar geographic regions or services being provided.
• Data Assessment – Determine to what extent existing sources of information
can be used and/or augmented. (Appendix E includes information on data
collection.)
• Impact of Pending Proposals – Determine if coordinating the municipal service
review with other LAFCO actions would provide for a better and/or more
efficient review. OPR recommends that LAFCO meet with proponents of the
proposal to identify issues, funding options, timeframes, and the potential for
coordination of the municipal service review with the pending proposal and any
required SOI update.
• LAFCO Capacity – Determine LAFCO’s capacity to undertake the municipal
service review. Identify potential funding, staffing, mentoring or consultant
arrangements or options. Simple municipal service reviews may be undertaken
within LAFCO’s existing budget with current staff. Other reviews may need
supplemental funding from service providers or applicants for LAFCO actions
that require a municipal service review. Appendix F includes a discussion on
the use of consultants.
• Funding Shares/Cost Sharing – Determine how municipal service reviews will
be funded. Some LAFCOs have adopted written policies including fee
arrangements while other have set annual contributions to the LAFCO budget
sufficient to cover all previously scheduled municipal service reviews.
Appendix G includes several examples of funding sources for municipal service
reviews.
15

D. PUBLISHING THE SCHEDULE
Once LAFCO has determined the schedule, OPR recommends that the schedule be
posted on the LAFCO web site, distributed to individuals and organizations on its
“interested parties mailing list” and to all affected service providers.
After the schedule is prepared and distributed, circumstances may arise that require
it to be modified, especially if the schedule covers multiple years. OPR recommends
that LAFCO review the schedule regularly and have policies which facilitate necessary
modifications.
CHAPTER 4. DEVELOPING A WORK PLAN FOR INDIVIDUAL
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
This Chapter includes guidance on developing a work plan for undertaking an
individual municipal service review. Existing law does not require that a work plan be
developed as part of the municipal service review process; however, OPR
recommends that a plan be developed to ensure compliance with existing laws,
consistency in the review process and applicability to local conditions and
circumstances.
A. DEVELOPING A STRATEGY FOR PREPARATION OF THE MUNICIPAL
SERVICE REVIEW REPORT
As part of its review of municipal services, LAFCO must prepare a written statement
of its determinations with respect to each of the following (GC §56430):
1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies.
2. Growth and population projections for the affected area.
3. Financing constraints and opportunities.
4. Cost avoidance opportunities.
5. Opportunities for rate restructuring.
6. Opportunities for shared facilities.
consolidation or reorganization of service providers.
8. Evaluation of management efficiencies.
16

LAFCO will need to decide what information and level of analysis is necessary to
support sound and defensible determinations. Because the Commission is responsible
for making these determinations based on staff research, analysis and
recommendations, it is important that the municipal service review report contain
sufficiently detailed information that supports and justifies the recommended
determinations. To this end, the LAFCO staff should consider how the general format
will be structured to meet the content requirements of the municipal service review
report.
The amount of information and analysis necessary to complete a municipal service
review report will vary depending upon the particular service being reviewed, local
circumstances, and any additional actions that might need to be taken based on the
municipal service review. To the extent that LAFCO is aware of other proposals or
pending actions that will be related to or dependent upon a particular municipal
service review, LAFCO may wish to address other issues in the municipal service
review report or require supplemental information and analysis in the municipal
service review.
B. WRITING THE WORK PLAN
OPR recommends that each municipal service review be undertaken pursuant to a
formalized work plan. This work plan does not necessarily have to be approved by the
Commission, but should be developed by staff with the Commission's knowledge and
input.
OPR recommends LAFCO develop a consistent format for the work plan to streamline
its preparation and encourage standardization of the process for conducting municipal
service reviews. Consistency should be a primary goal in LAFCO’s review of municipal
services, not only for the benefit of LAFCO and its staff, but also for other
stakeholders who will routinely be involved in the municipal service review process.
The work plan should minimally include the following elements:
• List of Service(s) to be reviewed.
• Service Providers that will be affected/involved.
• Study Area Boundaries for the municipal service review. (Chapter 5 includes
more information on how to establish study area boundaries.)
• Data Collection process. (Chapter 3 and Appendix E includes a discussion of
data collection.)
• Public Participation process. (Chapter 2 provides additional information on the
role of public participation in the review of municipal services.)
17

• Public hearing process. (Chapter 11 contains more information on the hearing
process. Appendix D, the process flow chart, illustrates how the hearing
process may work if LAFCO chooses to integrate the municipal service review
into other LAFCO actions.)
C. REVIEWING EARLIER SCHEDULING DECISIONS
If LAFCO has previously developed a multi-year schedule of reviews based on a
comprehensive and data-driven process (refer to Chapter 3), the development of the
work plan will primarily consist of reviewing these early decisions to be sure that
conditions have not changed as to necessitate alternative choices.
Potential changes which may have occurred include, but are not limited to:
• There are new service providers in the study area or in the county, in general.
• Due to recent events, there is now a need for inter-county coordination.
(Appendix L includes a discussion of inter-agency coordination.)
• Due to recently proposed pending projects there is a need to integrate the
municipal service review into another LAFCO action(s). (Chapter 6 includes a
discussion of this issue.)
• Funding which had been proposed to be budgeted is not currently available,
requiring an alternative funding process. (Appendix G includes additional
information on funding options.)
• Permit violations, bankruptcy of affected local agencies, or service provider
consolidations have occurred.
CHAPTER 5. IDENTIFYING THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
STUDY BOUNDARY
LAFCO TO LAFCO CONSULTATION
LAFCOs should determine if consultation with other
LAFCOs is appropriate when analyzing information for
the establishment of the study boundary of a proposed
municipal service review. This is especially important
for municipal service reviews that may lead to the
consideration of proposals that have the potential to
cause significant environmental, fiscal or economic
impacts on another county.
The statutory requirement to perform a municipal service review instructs LAFCO to
comprehensively review all of the agencies that provide services within a designated
geographic area (GC §56430). This
Chapter includes guidance on how
to determine the study boundary
area. Some LAFCOs may choose to
identify boundaries as part of
developing the schedule of
individual municipal service
reviews. Other LAFCOs may choose
to determine boundaries as each
review is undertaken.
18

GC §56430 states, “the commission shall include in the area designated for municipal
service review the county, the region, the sub-region, or such other geographic area
as is appropriate for an analysis of the service or services to be reviewed.”
A. METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING AN APPROPRIATE MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW BOUNDARY
TAILOR BOUNDARIES TO SERVICES AND LOCAL AREA
LAFCO should have a clear methodology for establishing
boundaries based on these and other factors.
• Study boundaries should reflect local conditions and
the specific service under review.
• There are widely varying local conditions including
numerous types of geologic, topographical and climate
zones. Some counties have isolated rural and
mountain communities. Other counties are densely
populated.
• Some counties have an agriculture based economy;
others have urban or urban/suburban economies.
• There are large and small drainage basins, and
counties with mountains or large lakes. Some districts
cross county boundaries, provide regional services, or
serve a single isolated town.
There is no single method for identifying an appropriate municipal service review
boundary. Within the State, there are numerous combinations of services, and types
of service regions and
community service areas within
counties.
Each LAFCO will need to work
with affected and interested
agencies and planning
jurisdictions, if different, to
define logical municipal service
review study boundaries that
respond to local conditions,
geography and circumstances.
This work includes:
• Selecting a service or
group of services for
review;
• Determining who provides, uses and is affected by that service (those services);
• Determining what topographic features, tax zones, joint powers agreements,
shared facilities, resources and infrastructure, among other factors, link a
service to a particular location or locations that could be studied; and
• Mapping or otherwise identifying the area for study.
B. EXAMPLES OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW BOUNDARY
DETERMINATIONS
The following are examples of municipal service review study areas based on
hypothetical conditions and circumstances.
Example 1 – Using Geographic and Growth Boundaries: County A is a rural county
generally bisected by a mountain range. The County’s western slope contains two
adjacent rapidly urbanizing communities with mainly large lot residential housing.
Each of two community service districts provides parks and recreation, street lighting
19

and landscaping, and road maintenance services to one of the communities. Only one
district provides fire protection and emergency services. There are five fire districts
that surround the potential study area and are planning to serve areas that are
approved for urbanization, some of which are within CSD boundaries.
All fire districts are planning to construct new facilities near or in the two
communities. There are definable areas where there is little relationship between
the fire service providers’ boundaries and first response fire protection and
emergency service responsibilities. All of the districts have substantial territory
within a State Responsibility Area, and, therefore, receive fire-fighting assistance
from the California Department of Forestry (CDF). The CDF provides fire protection
services by contract to one of the community services district. The County provides
overlapping park and open space services in the area.
Analysis: OPR suggests that this study area’s boundary include the western slope of
the mountain ridge with the urban limit line forming a possible southern boundary.
To maximize efficiency, this municipal service review should probably include
multiple services.
Example 2 – Using Geographic Boundaries: Nine sanitation service districts serve
territory contained in a well-defined drainage basin. District A owns and operates a
wastewater treatment plant in the basin. All districts are parties to a joint powers
agreement to use the facility and share maintenance and operation costs. Other
major service providers’ boundaries are based on the location of urban areas and have
little relationship to drainage basin boundaries.
Analysis: OPR suggests that this study area’s boundaries be generally coterminous
with drainage basin boundaries. Only wastewater service should be studied, although
LAFCO could determine whether a similar structure exists for water providers and
consider the potential for a combined water/sanitation municipal service review.
Example 3 – Using Existing Planning Areas: Two small cities are located in the
southern portion of a rural county. Each city provides most of its own municipal
services with the exception of water, sanitation, and mosquito abatement/vector
control. Three regional districts provide those services.
Analysis: OPR suggests that this study area’s boundary include the planning areas of
both cities. Services to be studied would be limited to those provided by the two
cities although an overview of the three regional districts could also be included.
LAFCO could streamline the process by conducting joint SOI updates concurrent with
the municipal service review, and a single CEQA review.
Example 4 – Using the Geo-political Boundaries: County A is a large county with
substantial rural, suburban and urban areas. During the past eleven years, the
number of fire districts in County A has decreased from 25 to 16 due to service
20

provider initiated consolidation proposals. Several fire districts are considering
initiating consolidation proposals when their fire chiefs retire. Four of the service
providers serve isolated rural areas. One urban/rural provider provides emergency
services to smaller, adjacent rural districts. None have overlapping boundaries. All
participate in mutual aid agreements. Developers on the east side of the county have
been approaching fire service providers in an adjacent county for the purpose of
obtaining fire service for proposed isolated senior citizen communities.
Analysis: OPR suggests that this study area’s boundary include the entire county and
include all fire protection service providers. The fire protection service providers
from adjacent counties should be asked to participate in stakeholder meetings,
and/or provide other input into the study. Providers could be clustered by geographic
location, or urban/rural characteristics.
Example 5 - Using Multi-County Study Areas: One hundred thirty-five (135) flood
control, drainage, land reclamation or levee maintenance service providers serve a
100 square mile drainage area with deteriorating or insufficient infrastructure.
Property values in the area are depressed. Many share insurance, capital facilities,
attorneys or staff. Several have no paid staff. There is significant variation in
assessed service rates, which, in many cases, bears a direct relationship to levels of
service. There are few overlapping boundaries. The districts are located in four
counties.
Analysis: OPR suggests that study area’s boundary include the entire 100 square mile
area. The affected LAFCOs could develop a joint powers agreement and conduct a
joint municipal service review study for flood control, drainage and levee
maintenance.
21

PART II - THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW PROCESSPART II - THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW PROCESS
The Municipal Service Review Process offers an opportunity for integration with other
LAFCO actions including SOI creation or updates, CEQA evaluations and consideration
of civil rights impacts. The early identification of potential partners, issues,
recommendations and impacts of LAFCO actions on the environment and underserved
communities will contribute to the successful collection of comprehensive information
to enable LAFCO to make effective determinations based on the nine categories.
The Municipal Service Review Process offers an opportunity for integration with other
LAFCO actions including SOI creation or updates, CEQA evaluations and consideration
of civil rights impacts. The early identification of potential partners, issues,
recommendations and impacts of LAFCO actions on the environment and underserved
communities will contribute to the successful collection of comprehensive information
to enable LAFCO to make effective determinations based on the nine categories.
CHAPTER 6. INTEGRATING MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS WITH
OTHER LAFCO ACTIONS
OTHER LAFCO ACTIONS
WHEN TO DO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
The CKH Act’s most recent amendments took
effect on January 1, 2001. Although GC
§56430 does not directly provide a specific
date when all service reviews must be
completed, a deadline can be inferred from
GC §56425, which states, “Upon
determination of a sphere, the commission
shall adopt that sphere, and shall review and
update, as necessary, the adopted sphere
not less than every five years.e years.””
This Chapter provides guidance on how to integrate municipal service reviews with
other LAFCO actions. LAFCOs are not
required to review a SOI at the same time
that it performs a municipal service
review. Some LAFCOs may find, however,
that integrating municipal service reviews
with other LAFCO business proves a better
context in which to review the information
and streamlines both the municipal service
review and SOI processes. Appendix D
provides a flow chart, which illustrates
how an integrated municipal service
review may be undertaken.
This Chapter provides guidance on how to integrate municipal service reviews with
other LAFCO actions. LAFCOs are not
required to review a SOI at the same time
that it performs a municipal service
review. Some LAFCOs may find, however,
that integrating municipal service reviews
with other LAFCO business proves a better
context in which to review the information
and streamlines both the municipal service
review and SOI processes. Appendix D
provides a flow chart, which illustrates
how an integrated municipal service
review may be undertaken.
A. INTEGRATING MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS WITH SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE ACTIONS
A. INTEGRATING MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS WITH SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE ACTIONS
The information, recommendations and determinations, contained in a municipal
service review, are intended to guide and inform SOI decisions. This includes actions
to create or update an SOI. GC §56430(c)
The information, recommendations and determinations, contained in a municipal
service review, are intended to guide and inform SOI decisions. This includes actions
to create or update an SOI. GC §56430(c) states,
"The commission shall conduct a municipal service review before, or in
conjunction with, but no later than the time it is considering an action to
establish a SOI in accordance with GC §56425 or §56426.5 or to update a SOI
pursuant to §56425."
Any SOI adopted prior to December 31, 2000 must be reviewed and updated, as
necessary, but at least by January 1, 2006. Some updates may simply involve an
22

INTEGRATE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
WITH OTHER ACTIONS
Some LAFCOs may find that integrating
service reviews with other LAFCO business
proves a better context in which to review
the information and streamlines both the
service and SOI processes. Appendix D
provides a flow chart which illustrates how
an integrated service review may be
undertaken.
affirmation of the existing SOI boundaries or some modifications to the SOI to achieve
consistency with the CKH Act. GC §56430 states that municipal service reviews must
be conducted prior to, or concurrent with,
those updates. Therefore all municipal
service reviews must be completed by
January 1, 2006.
A LAFCO may have several reasons for
prioritizing a specific municipal service
review. Perhaps there is a pending proposal
to create, update or substantially amend an
SOI; a pending health and safety issue; or the
SOI is many years old. Whatever the reason,
LAFCO should consider whether it is feasible and more efficient to combine municipal
service reviews and related SOI processes. Reasons for combining municipal service
reviews with SOI reviews include:
• SOI actions, staff reports, planning documents and public hearings may be
consolidated to maximize the time of commission members, stakeholders, and
the general public.
• Prudent clustering of SOI actions and related municipal service reviews may
reduce processing costs, and enable costs to be spread among more affected or
interested parties.
• CEQA encourages the consideration of multiple related actions where
appropriate. It may be possible to evaluate a municipal service review and its
associated SOI action(s) in a single CEQA review.
• Service review determinations and SOIs actions may be viewed from a more
inclusive or regional perspective.
B. INTEGRATING MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS WITH OTHER PROPOSALS
During the conduct of a municipal service review, LAFCO may determine that study
conclusions will strongly support specific government organization or reorganization
proposals or actions. In those cases, LAFCO, or affected service providers, may desire
to initiate recommended actions concurrent with the municipal service review. With
concurrent processing, the municipal service review report could be drafted to fully
discuss the proposed recommendations or follow-up actions. This expanded report
format could save LAFCO time and money by eliminating or reducing the need for
future hearings. The public may benefit by having a more complete understanding of
the municipal service review analysis and potential outcomes.
23

C. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS IN THE REGIONAL CONTEXT
While LAFCO does not have any direct land use authority, the CHK Act assigns LAFCOs
a prominent role in regional planning issues by charging it to consider a wide range of
land use and growth factors when it acts on matters under its jurisdiction. LAFCO has
broad statutory responsibility to consider planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban
development which may assist in preserving agricultural lands and achieving a share
of the region's housing needs. (GC §56001)
LAFCOs can have a powerful influence on local land use planning decisions through
participation in city and county general plan processes5
. GC §65352(a) of state
planning law requires cities and counties to refer their general plans to LAFCO before
adopting or amending their general plans. This is an example of many opportunities
that LAFCO has to influence local and regional land use decisions in ways that are
consistent with LAFCO's charge. On one hand, LAFCO must consider consistency with
local general plans when it makes boundary decisions, but LAFCO also has the ability
to influence the nature of those local general plans through active participation in
their development.
Regional planning initiatives are another opportunity for LAFCO to collaborate with
planning agencies and encourage development of coordinated goals and policies.
Examples of regional initiatives include habitat conservation plans, regional
transportation plans, regional housing needs allocation and watershed management
plans, to mention a few.
Service reviews occur in the larger context of county and regional planning efforts
that are not always in harmony. LAFCO should use every opportunity to engage in
these other planning efforts to ensure that LAFCO's concerns are reflected in land use
planning decisions.
LAFCO should also take advantage of the opportunity to use its municipal service
review process as a means of encouraging collaboration with planning agencies on
important policy issues. By both participating in these other planning efforts and
using information gained from these activities LAFCO can help improve the quality
and consistency of data. Service reviews should help put into context the relationship
between service options and regional issues, goals and policies.
Refer to GCs §56377, §56378, §56386, §56430, §56668, and §56668.5 for specific
requirements for LAFCOs to consider regional issues or coordination with regional
planning agencies.
5
General Plan Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2003, www.opr.ca.gov
24

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Public Resources Code §21000 et seq, also known as the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), requires public agencies to evaluate the potential environmental
effects of their actions. Only discretionary actions that are defined as projects are
subject to CEQA. A project is the whole of an action, which has the potential for
resulting in either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15378).
In order for CEQA to apply to a municipal service review, it must be considered a
project under CEQA. Several court cases have addressed the issue of CEQA
applicability to LAFCO actions, including annexation, deannexation, adoption of a SOI,
and adoption of SOI guidelines, all of which were interpreted to be projects under
CEQA.6
While there is no case law related to municipal service reviews, existing case
law establishes that certain LAFCO decisions are clearly subject to CEQA when those
decisions constitute a project. The main question that LAFCO must consider is
whether its action may have a potential to cause significant environmental impacts,
either directly of indirectly. Adoption of municipal service reviews may meet this
test if the action could influence future growth patterns or otherwise affect land use
in a way that impacts the environment.
A. APPLICABILITY OF CEQA
Service reviews are intended to support SOI updates, which may include expansions or
reductions in SOI boundaries, the creation of new SOIs, or SOIs amendments that
trigger a need to update the pertinent SOI. The language of GC §56430 of the CKH
Act requires that LAFCO will:
• Consider municipal service reviews, and municipal service review
recommendations, during noticed public hearings;
• Render determinations regarding a number of issues including various
government options, the advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation
6
Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission
(1975) 13 Cal.3d 263 [118 Cal.Rptr. 249]
City of Agoura Hills v. Local Agency Formation Commission
(2d. Dist. 1998) 198 Cal.App.3d 482 [243 Cal.Rptr. 740]
City of Livermore v. Local Agency Formation Commission
(1st
Dist. 1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 681 [228 Cal.Rptr. 384]
People ex rel. Younger v. Local Agency Formation Commission
(4 Dist. 1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 464 [146 Cal.Rptr. 400]th
25

and reorganization of service providers, and the identification of infrastructure
needs; and
• Use the reviews when rendering future decisions to create, update or amend an
SOI, or approve or disapprove government organization or reorganization
proposals.
In some cases, a municipal service review, and its required determinations, will
provide policy guidance for future LAFCO decisions that may direct or affect the
location and pattern of growth. Because of the nature of the analysis required,
municipal service reviews may be perceived or interpreted by some as the first step in
creating, updating or amending SOIs or initiating other government organizations or
reorganizations. In other cases, municipal service reviews may actually be an integral
part of a larger project. Service reviews may frequently be triggered by pending
applications to LAFCO for SOI amendments, or for annexations that cannot proceed
without an SOI update.
To ensure compliance with CEQA, and avoid unnecessary legal challenges, OPR
recommends that LAFCOs consider municipal service reviews as projects subject to
CEQA. The LAFCO would be the "lead agency" responsible for complying with CEQA
because it is the entity with the principal responsibility for approving or carrying out
the municipal service review (i.e., the project) (Public Resources Code §21067). As
the CEQA lead agency, LAFCO must ensure that all required elements of the CEQA
review process are conducted consistent with the requirements of CEQA and LAFCOs’
own adopted CEQA procedures.
B. CEQA DETERMINATIONS
CEQA requires a lead agency to make one of three basic environmental
determinations with respect to the potential environmental effects of a project. The
project may qualify for an exemption, which requires no further analysis. If the
project is not exempt and there are no potentially significant environmental effects,
the lead agency may prepare a Negative Declaration (ND). If the project is not
exempt and there is the potential for one or more significant environmental effects,
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared.
No two municipal service reviews will be exactly alike and each needs to be evaluated
on its specific merits and characteristics. Each LAFCO should ensure that its own
locally adopted CEQA procedures and guidelines are updated to account for
environmental determinations on municipal service review activities.
26

C. EXEMPTIONS
Each lead agency must first review a project to determine if it is exempt from CEQA
review. There are three types of exemptions that LAFCO could review for
applicability to a specific municipal service review: statutory, categorical and
"general rule" exemptions. The lead agency should support its reliance on an
exemption with substantial evidence in the record.
A municipal service review may potentially qualify for a statutory exemption as a
Feasibility and Planning Study:
"A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future
actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or
funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or negative declaration but
does require consideration of environmental factors. This Chapter does not
apply to the adoption of a plan that will have a legally binding effect on later
activities." (CEQA Guidelines §15262).
There are two categorical exemptions that might apply to a municipal service review.
These are Class 6 and Class 20 categorical exemptions. Categorical exemptions may
not be used if there are special circumstances that would raise the potential for the
project to have a significant environmental effect (CEQA Guidelines §15300.2).
"Class 6 consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management,
and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major
disturbance to an environmental resource. These may be strictly for
information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which
a public agency has not yet approved, adopted or funded." (CEQA Guidelines
§15306)
"Class 20 consists of changes in the organization or reorganization of local
government agencies where the changes do not change the geographical area
in which previous existing powers are exercised. Examples include but are not
limited to: (a) Establishment of a subsidiary district; (b) Consolidation of two or
more districts having identical powers; and (c) Merger with a city of a district
lying entirely within the boundaries of the city." (CEQA Guidelines §15320)
A general rule exemption may apply to a project, where it can be seen with certainty
that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant adverse
environmental effect (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)). LAFCOs are advised to use this
exemption with particular caution because legal challenges to the use of this
exemption may be more difficult to defend.
If LAFCO determines that an exemption is appropriate, it is recommended that LAFCO
prepare and file a Notice of Exemption (NOE) as described in §15062 of the CEQA
27

Guidelines. If an NOE is not filed, the statute of limitations is 180 days from the date
of the lead agency’s decision to approve the project, as opposed to 35 days if an NOE
is filed.
D. INITIAL STUDY
If LAFCO determines that a municipal service review project is not exempt, then an
Initial Study must be prepared to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an EIR
is the appropriate level of review under CEQA. LAFCO is required to consult with
responsible and trustee agencies prior to its determination of the appropriate
environmental document to prepare (see CEQA Guidelines §15063.)
E. NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A Negative Declaration may be prepared by LAFCO for a project when the Initial Study
shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15070-§15075).
The Negative Declaration must be made available to the public and others who have
expressed an interest in the project, not less than 20 days before the project is heard
by LAFCO. Prior to approval of the project, the Commission must consider any
comments received on the Negative Declaration.
If LAFCO determines to carry out or approve the project, a Notice of Determination
(NOD) must be filed with the County Clerk within five working days. The County Clerk
must post the NOD within 24 hours of receipt. The posting of the NOD starts a 30-day
statute of limitations for challenges under CEQA. If a NOD is not filed, the statute of
limitations is 180 days from the date of the lead agency’s decision to approve the
project.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
If a municipal service review is subject to an EIR process because of potentially
significant effects, LAFCO should rely upon §15080-§15097 of the CEQA Guidelines for
guidance on the preparation of an EIR. An EIR may be required where the municipal
service review is closely tied to a larger action, such as an SOI update, that may have
a significant effect on the environment.
An EIR may require up to a year to complete, and associated costs can reach $50,000
or more. Where LAFCO resources to prepare an EIR are limited, it is recommended
that LAFCO consider using the services of a consultant.
28

CHAPTER 8. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS IN
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
In undertaking municipal service reviews and making the nine determinations, LAFCO
commissioners should consider their responsibilities under federal and state civil
rights and environmental justice laws. This chapter describes the framework for
developing an effective municipal review process which reflects the laws and policies
related to civil rights and environmental justice.
LAFCOs AND EJ
As the primary agency with
responsibility for approving changes
in boundaries, LAFCOs play an
important role in coordinating growth
and ensuring that proposed changes
are consistent with environmental
justice obliga
The purpose of the municipal service review is to undertake the comprehensive
review of existing municipal services prior to the review of the sphere of influence of
an individual service provider. In order for civil
rights and environmental justice to be properly
considered, OPR recommends that relevant
information be collected at the municipal service
review stage and considered when developing the
nine determinations.
tions. In general, federal and state civil rights laws
prohibit actions by public entities which
disproportionately affect one category of individuals including, but not limited to,
race, creed, ethnicity, disability, family status, sexual orientation and income.
Environmental justice is defined in state law as the fair treatment of people of all
races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies
(GC §65040.12(e)).
Environmental justice has particular implications for municipal service reviews, as the
nine determinations relate to the provision of services to whole communities
including those that may have been historically
underserved and/or environmentally overburdened.
In addition, the information gained in the municipal
review process will be used to analyze future
proposals before LAFCO. A LAFCO decision to
approve an extension of a service area or a change in
city boundaries could have a significant
environmental justice impact especially if it results in
the siting of a major industrial, residential or public works project. The 2000
amendments to CKH Act also recognize the potential impact of LAFCO decisions on
environmental justice. (GC §56001):
Staff and Board Training
OPR recommends that LAFCOs
provide for ongoing training of
staff and board members relative
to the application of federal and
state civil rights statutes which
apply to local government
entities.
“Encourage orderly growth and development which are essential to the social, fiscal, and
economic well-being of the state…..The Legislature also recognizes that providing housing for
29

persons and families of all incomes is an important factor in promoting orderly development.
Therefore, the Legislature further finds and declares that this policy should be effected by the
logical formation and modification of the boundaries of local agencies, with a preference
granted to accommodating additional growth within, or through the expansion of, the
boundaries of those local agencies which can best accommodate and provide necessary
governmental services and housing for persons and families of all incomes in the most efficient
manner feasible. “
Chapter 9 provides guidance on specific issues that LAFCO may wish to consider in
developing the nine determinations related to municipal service reviews, including
environmental justice and civil rights issues and factors.
A. FEDERAL FRAMEWORK
The Constitutional basis for environmental justice lies in the Equal Protection Clause
of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly provides that the
states may not “deny to any person within
[their] jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws” (U.S. Constitution, amend. XIV, §1).
On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, titled “Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations.” The executive order followed a
1992 report by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) indicating that
“racial minority and low-income populations experience higher than average
exposures to selected air pollutants, hazardous waste facilities, and other forms of
environmental pollution.” E.O. 12898 directed federal agencies to incorporate
environmental justice into their missions.
LAFCO EJ PROGRAMS
In response to these recent federal
actions, many state and local agencies
that receive federal funding have
initiated environmental justice programs
of their own. OPR recommends that
LAFCOs consider whether it would be
useful to implement their own
environmental justice program in order
to further their responsibilities under
CKH Act.
In a memorandum accompanying E.O. 12898, President Clinton underscored existing
federal laws that could be used to further environment justice. These laws include
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), among others. Title VI prohibits any recipient (state or local entity, or public
or private agency) of federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of
race, color, or national origin in their programs or activities (42 USC §2000d to
§2000d-7).
State and local agencies that receive federal funding must comply with Title VI.
Under the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, this requirement is not limited to the
programs and activities that receive direct federal funding, but applies to all agency
activities.
30

B. STATE FRAMEWORK
Anti-discrimination laws existed in California prior to the passage of the first
environmental justice legislation in 1999. The California Constitution prohibits
discrimination in the operation of public employment, public education, or public
contracting (Article I, §31). State law further prohibits discrimination under any
program or activity that is funded or administered by the state (§11135).
The Planning and Zoning Law prohibits any local entity from denying any individual or
group of the enjoyment of residence,
landownership, tenancy, or any other land
use in California due to the race, sex,
color, religion, ethnicity, national origin,
ancestry, lawful occupation, or age of the
individual or group of individuals (GC
§65008).
The Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA) specifically prohibits housing
discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital
status, national origin, ancestry, familial
status, disability, or source of income (§12900, et seq)
GUIDANCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
OPR has been statutorily directed to be the
coordinating body for state agencies on
environmental justice issues (§65040.12).
Further, OPR is required to provide guidance
to cities and counties for integrating
environmental justice into their general plans
(§65040.12(c)).
LAFCOs may also consult with OPR on issues
related to environmental justice and the
approval of SOIs and annexation which may
have environmental justice implementations.
In 1999, Governor Davis signed SB 115 (Solis, Chapter 690, Statutes of 1999), that
defines environmental justice in statute and establishes OPR as the coordinating
agency for state environmental justice programs (GC §65040.12).
As the primary agency with responsibility for approving changes in boundaries, LAFCO
play an important role in coordinating growth and ensuring that proposed changes are
consistent with environmental justice obligations.
C. FORMS OF INEQUITY
Problems of environmental justice can be broken down into two categories:
procedural inequity and geographic inequity. In other words, unfair treatment can
manifest itself in terms of process or in terms of results.
Procedural inequity occurs when the planning process is not applied uniformly.
Examples of procedural inequity include:
• “Stacking” commissions or committees with certain interests while ignoring the
interests of other segments of the community, such as minority and low-income
residents.
31

• Holding meetings at times or locations that minimize public participation by
certain groups or individuals.
• Using English-only written or verbal communication when a non-English
speaking population will be affected by a planning decision.
• Requiring lower levels of mitigation for projects affecting low-income or
minority populations.
• Unevenly enforcing environmental rules.
Geographic inequity describes a situation in which the burdens of undesirable land
uses are concentrated in certain areas of the county while the benefits are received
elsewhere. Municipal service reviews can play a key role in identifying these
inequities. Examples of geographic inequity include:
• Certain areas of the county have a disproportionate share of industrial facilities
that handle or produce hazardous waste, while the economic benefits are
distributed to other areas (in the form of jobs and tax revenue).
• Certain areas have a disproportionate share of waste disposal facilities, while
the benefits of such facilities are received by the community or region as a
whole.
• Certain areas experience more of the environmental benefits associated with
community centers, parks, and open space, while other neighborhoods have
fewer such amenities.
D. INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
As discussed throughout these guidelines, informed decisions regarding the municipal
service reviews requires good information. Strategies for data collection are
discussed in Chapter 3 and Appendix E. A clear identification of the lands,
population and facilities (existing and proposed) is essential in analyzing the
information for the nine determinations. When evaluating the issues identified in this
chapter that relate to environmental justice, LAFCO may wish to consider the
following data layers:
• Base map of the study area
• General plan designations of land use (existing and proposed)
• Current demographic data: Population (location and density); Income
(distribution of very-low, low, moderate and above moderate income groups);
Ethnicity (distribution of minority populations); Age (distribution of seniors and
children throughout the community)
• Location of public facilities that enhance community quality of life, including
open space, water quality, and fire protection.
32

• Location of industrial facilities with its existing and projected service needs
and other uses that contain or produce materials that, because of their
quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, pose a
significant hazard to human health and safety
• Location of existing and proposed schools
• Location and density of existing and proposed residential development
Preventing and reversing historical problems of procedural and geographic inequity
requires accurate information in order to develop policies and prioritize
implementation measures.
EJ INFORMATION HAS MANY USES
Data obtained in the municipal service review process can be used by LAFCO and other public
agencies for:
• Improving the community participation process
• Identifying low-income/minority neighborhoods under-served by public facilities and services
that enhance quality of life
• Considering the equitable distribution of public facilities and services
• Considering infrastructure and housing needs
• Identifying low-income/minority neighborhoods where facilities and uses that pose a significant
hazard to human health and safety may be over-concentrated
• Screening of issues for potential environmental justice implications
E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
These guidelines include a number of recommendations which encourage broad public
participation and municipal service review analysis which would affirmatively support
the civil rights and environmental justice responsibilities of LAFCO including:
• Educate the public on the role of LAFCOs and the importance of municipal
service reviews.
• Adopt general policies and procedures relative to the undertaking of the
municipal service review. This will avoid any appearance of an unequal review
of some services.
• Develop and publish a five-year schedule for municipal service reviews to
maximize the ability of the public to participate in the process.
• Convene stakeholders and facilitate collaborative efforts to address issues and
challenges that are identified during the municipal service review process.
• Undertake municipal service reviews across county lines if that would more
appropriately address the community of interest.
33

• Adopt the work plan for the individual municipal service review at a public
meeting.
• Incorporate the municipal service review with other LAFCO actions (such as a
SOI update) for the purpose of demonstrating the context in which the
information gained in the municipal service review will be used.
• Publish the Draft Municipal Service Review Report and provide for a 21-day
public review period before scheduling the report to be considered by LAFCO.
• Hold meetings and public documents in language other than English, where
affected populations are reasonably expected to be non-English speakers.
• Sponsor public workshops prior to the hearing at which the Final Municipal
Service Review Report will be adopted.
CHAPTER 9. DEVELOPING WRITTEN DETERMINATIONS
This Chapter provides guidance for evaluating each of the nine categories for which
written determinations must be rendered pursuant to GC §56430.
WORK TOGETHER TO TAILOR ISSUE LISTS
The lists of issues in this Chapter are very
general and were designed to encompass a
variety of services provided in all parts of the
state.
LAFCOs and service providers are encouraged
to work together to develop regionally
appropriate and service specific lists of issues.
The individual LAFCO can then work from these
more focused lists and further tailor lists to
reflect the services being studied in a specific
area.
The tables contained in this Chapter were developed to illustrate the factors or issues
LAFCO may wish to consider when making the nine mandatory municipal service
review determinations pursuant to GC
§56430. Each LAFCO should use the
issues identified in the tables to the
extent that they are appropriate to the
service being reviewed and local
conditions.
For example, the review of a cemetery
service will not include the complex
evaluation of items applicable to an
infrastructure-intensive provider such as
a sanitation district. A cemetery
municipal service review discussion for
water supply would at most pertain to on-site drinking or irrigation water needs, not
the complex water rights and water supply negotiations affecting major urban water
service providers. The level of evaluation and discussion should be driven by the
specific service or issues relating to that service.
The nine municipal service review determinations are interdependent. Therefore,
some of the issues related to each of the nine determinations may overlap, and
information about one determination may substantially affect other determinations.
For example, Subsection 7, Government Structure Options, includes issues which may
be pertinent to all other subsections because those categories provide input into an
34

evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of various government structure
options.
1. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
In identifying an agency’s infrastructure needs and deficiencies, LAFCO may wish to
address the following factors in its review:
FACTOR / ISSUE
1.
Government restructure options to enhance and/or eliminate identified infrastructure
needs and/or deficiencies.
2. Expansion of services to eliminate duplicate infrastructure construction by other agencies.
3.
Condition of infrastructure and the availability of financial resources to make necessary
changes.
4.
Level of service and condition of infrastructure in light of revenue and operating
constraints.
5.
Infrastructure capabilities to accommodate future development with flexible contingency
plans.
6.
Reserve capacity for properties not served within current boundaries and estimate of
properties within current boundaries not eligible for service.
7.
Provisions for adequate service for properties not currently being served within current
boundaries.
8. Location of existing and/or planned facilities.
9. Location of existing and/or planned facilities in relation to area demographics.
10.
Location of existing and/or planned infrastructure in relation to affordable housing
programs.
11. Compliance with environmental and safety standards.
12. Income levels of existing households and earnings of businesses within the study area.
13. Current placement of infrastructure in the county as a whole and in the study area.
14. Applicable permit status (i.e. CEQA, etc.).
15.
Consistency with service and/or capital improvement plans and local and regional land use
plans/policies.
35

2. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE AFFECTED AREA
In identifying an agency’s growth and population projections, LAFCO may wish to
FACTOR / ISSUE
1. Projected growth and demographic changes in and around the agency’s service areas.
2. Historic and expected land use absorption trends.
3. Estimate of future service needs.
4. Impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands.
5.
Impact of service plans and policies on growth and/or land use patterns for adjacent areas,
on mutual or regional social and economic interests, and on the local governmental structure
of the county.
6.
Relationship between an agency’s boundary and SOI with the projected growth in the study
area.
7. Compatibility of service plan(s) with other local agency land use/development plans.
8. Projected household size of new and existing residential dwellings.
9.
Compatibility between agency service plans, regional growth projections and efficient urban
development.
3. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In identifying an agency’s financing constraints and opportunities, LAFCO may wish to
FACTOR / ISSUE
1. Implementation of appropriate financing/funding practices.
2. Potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications.
3. Combination of enterprise and/or non-enterprise financing functions.
4. Comparative analysis of financing rates among other agencies in study area.
5. Bond rating(s).
6. Ability to obtain financing.
7. Existing and/or proposed assessment district(s).
8. Debt-to-services ratio by area and subarea incomes.
9.
Opportunities for additional revenue streams, including joint agency grant applications,
untapped resources, or alternative government structures.
10. Methods to pay down existing debt(s), including using excess revenues.
36

4. COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES
In identifying an agency’s cost avoidance opportunities, LAFCO may wish to address
the following factors in its review:
FACTOR / ISSUE
1. Opportunity for joint agency practices, including shared insurance coverage opportunities.
2.
Availability of outsourcing for financial and administrative duties, and cost-benefits of
outsourcing versus in-house management.
3. Duplication of services.
4.
Impact of service practices and/or facilities in relation to land: available for infill; where
excess capacity exists; planned for growth; easiest to serve; with the fewest topographic and
geographic constraints; and in a manner that supports affordable housing objectives.
5. Impact of service practices and/or facilities in relation to benefit/detriment of service cost.
6.
Impact of growth inducement measures on construction costs and near-term infrastructure
deficiencies.
7.
Policies and/or plans to extend services to an area proposed for annexation or new
development, particularly with respect to the impact of extending services on existing
customers.
8. Impact of service practices and/or facilities on affordable housing objectives.
9.
Impact of additional services/capacity on agency’s fiscal viability, including cost and
adequacy of services in existing or proposed service areas and/or areas served by other
special districts, cites, or the county.
10. Relationship between current level of service and customer needs and preferences.
11.
Opportunities for savings or augmentation in overhead, including employee salary or
benefits, elected official compensation or benefits, equipment purchases, planning, etc.
12. Pro-rata service costs for customer/ratepayer and/or taxpayer.
13. Application and/or bid process for contractor assistance, including comparison of rates.
5. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE RESTRUCTURING
In identifying an agency’s opportunities for rate restructuring, LAFCO may wish to
FACTOR / ISSUE
1. Agency’s methodology for determining rates.
2. Availability of revenue enhancement opportunities to lessen and/or stabilize rates.
3. Relationship between rate differences among service providers and levels of service.
4. Rate comparison between service providers with similar service conditions.
5. Cost of services versus fees.
37

FACTOR / ISSUE
6. Rate comparison between sub-regions based on demographic information.
7.
The services that ratepayers and/or assessed properties are receiving for which they are
paying.
8.
Financial impacts on existing customers caused by the funding of infrastructure needed to
support new development.
9.
Impacts of standby rates (charges assessed to under-or-undeveloped land used for rural,
agricultural or open space uses) on open space and affordable housing plans.
10.
Relationship between rate and service polices and the provision of decent and affordable
housing.
11. Availability of reasonable emergency reserves.
12. Use of annual savings.
6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
In identifying an agency’s opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may wish to
FACTOR / ISSUE
1. Current shared activities with other service providers, including shared facilities and staff.
2. Suggested existing and/or future shared facility opportunities by the agency.
3.
Opportunities for conjunctive and/or joint use projects, such as groundwater storage/parks,
schools/parks, or flood detention/parks.
4. Duplication of existing and/or planned facilities of other service providers.
5. Availability of excess capacity to serve customers of other agencies.
7. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS
In identifying an agency’s government structure options, LAFCO may wish to address
the following factors in its review:
FACTOR / ISSUE
1.
Available government options to provide more logical service boundaries to the benefit of
customers and regional planning goals and objectives.
2. Recommendations by a service provider and/or an interested party for government options.
3. Anticipated proposals to LAFCO that will affect the service provider.
4. Prior proposals or attempts by the agency to consolidate and/or reorganize.
5.
Availability of government options that improve public participation, local accountability,
and governance.
6. Impacts of government structures on the potential for displacement of current residents.
38

FACTOR / ISSUE
7.
Opportunities to create definite and certain boundaries that conform to lines of assessment
or ownership and/or eliminate islands, corridors of unincorporated territory, and other
difficult or illogical service areas.
8. Existing boundary disputes.
9.
Elimination of overlapping boundaries that confuse the public, cause service inefficiencies,
unnecessarily increase in the cost of infrastructure, exacerbate rates and/or undermine good
planning practices.
10.
Reevaluation of boundaries, including downsizing SOI boundaries and/or approving other
boundary modifications that remove important open space and agricultural lands from urban
services areas.
11.
Availability of government options that stabilize, steady and/or clarify the government
process in order to reduce costs or increase customer satisfaction.
12.
Availability of government options that may produce economies of scale and improve buying
power in order to reduce service and housing costs.
13.
Availability of government options that allow appropriate facilities to be shared and avoid
the construction of extra and/or unnecessary infrastructure.
14.
Making excess capacity available to other service users in order to eliminate duplicate
infrastructure construction by multiple agencies and reduce costs to customers.
15.
Opportunities to improve the availability of water rights and/or supplies (surface, reclaimed
or groundwater) to a larger customer base through a change in government organization.
16.
Availability of government options that could facilitate construction, financing and/or
eliminate the need for new facility construction.
17.
Cost-benefit of restructuring current governing body and/or administration to any proposed
alternative.
18.
Cost-benefit of restructuring overhead, including staff, capital outlays, allocation of reserves
or savings, loaded administrative charges for grant administration, accounting, and other
contracted services.
19.
Cost-benefit of restructuring the direct distribution of costs or debts from shared facilities to
a larger user population.
20.
Opportunities for the sale of surplus properties through a change in government
organization.
21.
Availability of excess reserves for service improvements and/or rate reductions through a
change in government organization.
22.
Opportunities to enhance capital improvement plans and programs through a change in
government structure.
23.
Opportunities to streamline services through the reorganization of service providers that no
longer provide services for which they were formed.
24.
Opportunities for early debt repayment and related savings through a change in government
structure.
25. Elimination of rate structures that impose growth pressures on open space resources.
39

FACTOR / ISSUE
26. Identification of illogical boundaries and their effect on rates.
27. Impact of government structure options on an agency’s financial stability.
28.
Rationale for an agency’s emergency and/or undesignated reserves (fund equity or balance),
particularly in relation to their gross annual revenue.
29.
Changes and/or modifications in boundaries in order to promote planned, orderly, and
efficient patterns of urban development.
30.
Changes and/or modifications in boundaries in order to avoid premature inducement,
facilitation, or conversion of existing open space lands, including: the direction of growth
away from prime agricultural and important open space lands towards infill areas or areas
containing nonprime agricultural land; the development of vacant land adjacent to existing
urban areas and within existing spheres of influence.
31.
Boundary adjustments in order to minimize the amount of land needed to accommodate
growth in the next 5-10 years within the spheres of influence of special districts and cities.
32.
Prevention of extensions of urban services to important agriculture and open space areas not
planned for growth or within the boundaries of the city or special district.
33.
Impact of a change in government structure on the implementation of regional
transportation, water quality, air quality, fair share housing allocation, environmental
justice, airport land use, open space, agricultural, and other environmental polices or
programs.
34. Impacts of government structures on fair housing programs.
35.
Available government options that improve the ability to provide and explain budget and
financial data.
36.
Opportunities for improvement in the quality and/or levels of service through changes in
government structure.
37. Impact of investment policies on service levels and quality.
38. Evaluation of bond rates, ability to borrow or obtain grants, budget practices and other aid.
39.
Ability to gain environmental benefits (wetland restoration, water conservation, and other
conservation policies) through government structure options.
40. Opportunities to integrate services without excessive cost.
41.
Cost-benefit analysis of potential changes in government structure through merging staff,
staff reduction by attrition, phasing out of elected or appointed positions, and management
staff.
42.
Opportunities for improved service delivery and/or an increase in system standards by
system integration through changes in government structure.
43.
Identify prohibitions in the affected Principal Acts that would affect government structure
options, including pending litigation, court judgments, other legal issues, restricted assets,
financial or other constraints.
44. Integration of debts and obligations analyses.
45. Potential successor agencies.
40

FACTOR / ISSUE
46. Impact on existing systems (upgrades) due to government structure changes.
47. Impact on operating cost (short and long term) due to government structure changes.
48.
Evaluation of long term savings through government structure changes versus related
transition costs.
49. Evaluation of permit status upon integration.
8. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES
In evaluating an agency’s management efficiencies, LAFCO may wish to address the
following factors in its review:
FACTOR / ISSUE
1.
Evaluation of agency’s capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by other
agencies.
2. Evaluation of agency’s spending on mandatory programs.
3.
Comparison of agency’s mission statement and published customer service goals and
objectives.
4. Availability of master service plan(s).
5. Contingency plans for accommodating existing and planned growth.
6. Evaluation of publicized activities.
7.
Implementation of continuous improvement plans and strategies for budgeting, managing
costs, training and utilizing personnel, and customer service and involvement.
8. Evaluation of personnel policies.
9.
Availability of resources (fiscal, manpower, equipment, adopted service or work plans) to
provide adequate service.
10. Available technology to conduct an efficient business.
11.
Collection and maintenance of pertinent data necessary to comply with state laws and
provide adequate services.
12.
Opportunities for joint powers agreements, Joint Powers Authorities, and/or regional
planning opportunities.
13. Evaluation of agency’s system of performance measures.
14. Capital improvement projects as they pertain to GC §65401 and §65103c.
15. Evaluation of accounting practices.
16. Evaluation of maintenance of contingency reserves.
17. Written polices regarding the accumulation and use of reserves and investment practices.
18.
Impact of agency’s policies and practices on environmental objectives and affordable
housing.
41

FACTOR / ISSUE
19. Review of environmental and safety compliance measures.
20. Current litigation and/or grand jury inquiry involving the service under LAFCO review.
9. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
In evaluating an agency’s local accountability and governance structure, LAFCO may
wish to address the following factors in its review:
FACTOR / ISSUE
1. Compliance with state disclosure laws and the Brown Act.
2.
Level of public participation (i.e. open meetings, accessible staff and elected officials, an
accessible office open to the public, a phone and/or message center, a web site, customer
complaint and suggestion opportunities).
3. Agency representatives (i.e., board members, employees, and staff).
4. Public outreach efforts (i.e. newsletters, bill inserts, TV, web site).
5.
Media involvement (i.e. meetings publicized, evening board meetings, evening or weekend
public planning sessions).
6.
Accessibility of meetings (i.e. meetings publicized, evening board meetings, evening or
weekend public planning sessions and translations for non-English speakers and the hearing
impaired).
7. Election process.
8. Participation of service users in elections (i.e. elections publicized, day and evening voting).
9. Public access to adopted budgets.
10. Budget reports’ compatibility with state law.
11. Audits.
12. Access to program progress reports.
13. Current provision of service(s).
42

PART III - TAKING ACTION ON THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW
CHAPTER 10. PREPARING THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
REPORT
After collecting and evaluating municipal service review information, the LAFCO
Executive Officer should prepare a written report to document the analysis and
determinations.
A. DRAFT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW REPORT
OPR recommends that the report include the following:
• An Executive Summary.
• Review of baseline data and information related to the service or services
being reviewed.
• A description of the public participation process.
• An analysis of services, service providers and other issues consistent with the
intent of the CKH Act (GCs §56001, §56300, §56301), and including, but not
limited to, factors to be considered (§56668), areas of required determination
(§56430), SOI concerns (§56425, §56425.5) and environmental justice issues, if
any.
• Draft Determinations. (see Section B below for more information).
• Follow-up recommendations, if any.
• Appropriate maps that identify service areas, and clearly delineate overlapping
areas using GIS generated maps, if available, to ensure consistency among
agencies.
B. WRITTEN DETERMINATIONS
The nine determinations that are required to be made by the Commission are critical
because they represent the culmination of the municipal service review process. The
CKH Act does not identify a particular format for the nine required determinations nor
does it dictate the substance of these determinations.
OPR provides the following recommendations for preparation of written
determinations, and recommends that each LAFCO establish its own policy or
procedure for using a consistent method of preparing written determinations.
43

A determination is one or more declaratory statements that make a conclusion, based
on all the information and evidence presented to the Commission (i.e., the
administrative record), with respect to the nine factors enumerated in GC §56430.
These determinations must be supported by information placed in the record of the
municipal service review process, including all of the information collected, LAFCO’s
analysis and interpretation of the information, verbal and written information
presented by the public, and verbal and written testimony given at public meetings or
hearings.
Each of the nine determinations must be adequate to bridge the gap between raw
data and the final conclusion about the status or condition of the municipal service
under review. OPR recommends that the determinations be written in qualitative and
quantitative terms, as appropriate, and refer to specific information or examples
relative to the municipal service under review and the particular factor
(determination) being considered.
While the Commission is ultimately responsible for making these determinations, OPR
recommends that the LAFCO staff report include proposed determinations for the
Commission to consider.
C. DISTRIBUTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
OPR recommends that LAFCO provide a formal public review period on the draft
municipal service review report and hold at least one public meeting and/or workshop
prior to the report being considered by LAFCO. It may be helpful to conduct a
stakeholder meeting during the review period to obtain constructive input from those
who helped shape the municipal service review.
D. FINALIZING THE REPORT TO THE COMMISSION
Comments received during the public review period should be considered and
incorporated in the final report as appropriate. Any person or entity that submits
comments should receive a copy of the final municipal service review report and a
mailed notice of the public meeting or hearing at which the municipal service review
determinations will be considered by the Commission.
The determinations will still be draft until they are accepted/adopted by the
Commission. OPR recommends that the Final Municipal Service Review Report, at a
minimum, be issued 21-days in advance of the hearing or public meeting at which the
determinations will be adopted/accepted. If the determinations will be adopted at a
hearing, the issuance of the final report should be concurrent with the 21-day hearing
notice.
44

OPR recommends that the Final Municipal Service Review Report be made available to
affected and interested agencies for use as a resource document. Further, copies of
the Final Municipal Service Review Report, including draft determinations, should be
made available on LAFCO’s web site and mailed to affected and interested agencies.
CHAPTER 11. ADOPTING THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
REPORT
A. INTRODUCTION
After a Final Municipal Service Review Report is issued, the Commission will need to
take steps to complete its municipal service review responsibilities. LAFCO will need
to minimally conduct a meeting to consider and accept the municipal service review
report that will include the draft determinations.
OPR recommends, based on the long-term application and significance of the
municipal service review determinations, that the determinations be made at a fully
noticed public hearing.
Well-crafted determinations, plus their supporting documentation are an information
and planning resource for LAFCOs, cities, counties, special districts and regional
planning agencies.
B. PUBLIC NOTICE FOR A MEETING OR A HEARING
PUBLIC MEETING v. PUBLIC HEARING
Meetings and hearings have different
requirements under existing law. In general,
the public notice requirements for hearings
are longer (21 days v. 5 days) and are more
extensive (letters to interested parties v.
postings in newspapers). At hearings, the
Commission can take actions like adopting
resolutions. At a public meeting the
Commission accepts the written
determinations.
The Final Municipal Service Review Report is required to be considered by the
Commission at a noticed public meeting. GC §56150-§56160 include public notice
provisions. GC §56154 and §56156 require that published and mailed notice be
provided at least 21 days prior to the public hearing. All affected and interested
agencies, and persons and entities
requesting notice, should receive a mailed
notice.
The notice should include a description of
the municipal service review and any
actions that may be taken by the
Commission at the hearing. Those actions
may include approval of the report,
adoption of the draft determinations and
any other actions recommended by staff.
45

C. ACTIONS AT MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
The meeting or hearing should be conducted consistent with LAFCO’s adopted written
procedures. If LAFCO chooses to make its determinations at a hearing, here are some
additional actions that the Commission could take:
• Adoption of Resolution of Written Determinations
Service review determinations should be adopted by Resolution.
• Adoption of Municipal Service Review Recommendations
The Commission may adopt staff recommendations and direct staff to take
follow up actions as appropriate.
• Adoption of City or District SOI Updates or Amendments
If the municipal service review supports a particular action such as an SOI
update or amendment, and LAFCO has complied with required processes, those
actions could be approved at the same hearing.
• Initiation or Adoption of Other Proposals
REMINDER
If LAFCO has initiated other proposals
that are being processed concurrent
with a service review, LAFCO must
also comply with processing steps for
those other actions before acting
upon them.
If the municipal service review supports a particular action such as an initiation
or adoption of an organization or reorganization proposal, and LAFCO has
complied with required processes, those
actions could be approved or initiated at
the same hearing.
If the Commission accepts the determinations at
a public meeting, then existing law does not
require a reconsideration process. This lack of a
reconsideration process and its potential for
correcting and/or modifying the determinations, is one reason OPR recommends that
the determinations be formally adopted at a public hearing.
D. RECONSIDERATION
The CKH Act includes a process for interested persons and entities to request the
Commission to reconsider its adopted determinations. Pursuant to GC §56895, when
the Commission has adopted a resolution making determinations at a public hearing,
any person or affected agency may file a written request with the LAFCO Executive
Officer requesting amendments to or reconsideration of the resolution. The request
must include the recommended modification and state what new or different facts or
applicable new law, that could not have been known previously, warrant this
reconsideration.
46

47
The request for reconsideration must be filed within 30 days of the Commission's
action. The reconsideration action should be scheduled for the next Commission
hearing for which adequate notice can be given. Oral and written testimony may be
received at the reconsideration hearing. The Commission may continue the hearing
from time to time but not longer than 70 days from the date of the first hearing (GC
§56895).
FOR MORE INFORMATION
This guidance document was prepared by OPR to assist the public,
LAFCOs and service providers to effectively engage in the service
review process. Additional information on LAFCO may be found on
the OPR website at www.opr.ca.gov.

MSRGuidelines

More Related Content

What's hot (12)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to MSRGuidelines (9)

MSRGuidelines