Turf Squabble Stirred on Expanding LAFCO

A turf battle among government agencies will come to a head next week when a vote will be held on a proposal to expand the agency, which rules on annexations and cityhood.

Fast-growing South Orange County is particularly interested in the struggle because several of its communities are seeking cityhood.

“I think it would become harder for communities to become cities” under the proposed change, Dana Point Mayor Eileen Krause said. “And I can tell you it’s already hard enough.”

At issue is the proposed expansion of the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) from five to seven members. The added two would represent independent agencies, such as water and sanitation districts.

Most California counties have LAFCOs, agencies that are generally little known to the public but wield considerable power. They have the authority to approve or block votes on cityhood and control proposed municipal boundaries. The agencies also have authority over annexations and formation or dissolution of special districts.

The existing LAFCO is made up of two county supervisors, representing the county; two city members, representing urban areas, and one member of the public at large.

“We think independent agencies ought to be represented on LAFCO because it would be equitable and logical,” said Ray Woodside, general manager of the Tri-Cities Municipal Water District in South Orange County.

Woodside, however, conceded that the expansion proposal has an uphill fight. “These things can be pretty political,” he said.

Orange County cities are lining up in opposition, saying their power on LAFCO would be eroded.

LAFCO’s staff has recommended the expansion, and 29 of the 38 independent agencies in the county are strongly pushing for representation. Most of the agencies in the county forced LAFCO with petitions to schedule a vote on the question, which is scheduled for Wednesday at 2 p.m.

Special districts need representation, Woodside said. The new members would be “neutral,” according to Woodside, and would not be anti-urban, as some county cities have predicted.

But 13 of the county’s 28 cities disagree with Woodside’s argument. Thirteen cities have passed resolutions opposing the expansion. Garden Grove is in favor, and Irvine took a neutral position.

Such solid municipal opposition leaves Wednesday’s vote very much in doubt.

“I think the special districts will have an uphill fight trying to get their two representatives,” said Evelyn R. Hart, a Newport Beach councilwoman who is chairwoman of LAFCO.

“I see this opposition from the cities, including the League of Cities, and it certainly tells me a message about how I should vote as one of the two representatives of the cities on LAFCO,” Hart said.

She is not persuaded by the independent districts’ claim that they need representation on the LAFCO board. “The special districts are already represented because many city councilmen, myself included, also serve on special districts,” Hart said.

The LAFCO staff, in recommending expansion, said in a report that such new members could bring in “a new and unique perspective that could be valuable to the commission’s deliberations.”

But Phillip R. Schwartze, president of the county division of the League of Cities, said he sees no reason to expand LAFCO. Schwartze is a San Juan Capistrano City Council member and a former member and chairman of LAFCO.

“It takes no mathematical genius to see that cities wouldn’t have as much representation if LAFCO is expanded from five to seven members,” he said. “We see no reason for special districts needing to be on the board.”

LAFCO EXPANSION

Special Districts favoring representation on LAFCO:

Buena Park Library District; Capistrano Bay Community Services District; Capistrano Bay Park & Recreation District; Capistrano Beach County Water District; Capistrano Beach Sanitary District; Carpenter Irrigation District; Coastal Municipal Water District; Costa Mesa Sanitary District; Dana Point Sanitary District; El Toro Water District; Garden Grove Sanitary District; Laguna Beach County Water District; Laguna Niguel Community Services District; Los Alamitos County Water District; Los Alisos Water District; Mesa Consolidated Water District; Midway City Sanitary District; Moulton Niguel Water District; Municipal Water District of Orange County; Placentia Library District; Rossmoor Community Services District; Santa Margarita Water District; Serrano Irrigation District; Sunset Beach Sanitary District; Surfside Colony Community Services District; Surfside Colony Storm Water Protection District; Trabuco Canyon Water District; Tri-Cities Municipal Water District, and Yorba Linda Water District.

Cities opposing LAFCO expansion:

Anaheim, Brea, Fountain Valley, Dana Point, La Habra, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, San Juan Capistrano, Seal Beach and Westminster.

Cities supporting LAFCO expansion:

Garden Grove.

Cities neutral on LAFCO expansion:

Irvine.

Source: LAFCO, individual cities