HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/08/10 Item 10a, b, cITEM TITLE:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 10a; b, c~
Meeting Date 8/10/82
Resolutions for League of California Cities Annual Conference
a.~o q ~ ~ -Endorsing Limitation of Territorial Expansion of Special Districts
b. i o y7 9 -Endorsing Establishment of Appeal Procedure for LAFCO Decisions
c. ~0 9 ~-~ - Urgirx~ the Development of Stronger Method for Enforcement of SB 90
to Require State to Pay All Expenses of Mandated Programs
SUBMITTEp BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: es No )
C~
The Lea ue of California Cities meets in San Diego October 17-20, 1982. Resolutions for the
conside ation of the assembled League membership must be in to the League office by 9/3/82.
Therefo e, it is my
RECOMMEf~DATION: That Council adopt attached resolutions.
BOARDS/ OMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N.A.
DISCUSS ON:
Resolution a, regarding the limitation of territorial expansion of Special Districts to
preclud the inclusion of any noncontiguous territories in Special Districts - The use
of the law that allows noncontiguous annexation to Special Districts has been misused.
We have many examples right here in our own area, primarily relating to sewer districts.
For ins ance, the Spring Valley Sanitation District has noncontiguous portions of its
distric up and down the Sweetwater Valley, the largest of which is the Lincoln Acres
area. hese areas logically should gain their sewer service from adjacent full-service
communi ies. The expansion of Special Districts, through their authority to include non-
tiguous territory, results in a frustration of the legitimate functioning of general purpose
governm nts. This practice should ae eliminated in urban areas where general purpose
governm nts are available to provide services to unincorporated pockets that need a
city se vice.
Resolut on b, regarding the endorsement of necessary amendments to the Government Code to
establi h an appeal procedure from the decisions of LAFCO - Currently the decisions of .
LAFCO a e final and conclusive and the only appeal to LAFCO decisions is through the Courts.
This, o course, is cumbersome and expensive and it would seem appropriate to have a
method f appealing LAFCO decisions to an appelate body on either statewide or broad
regiona level.
Resouti n c, urging the development of a stronger method for the enforcement of the intent
of SB 9 to require the State to pay all expenses of programs mandated for implementation
by citi s - At the 8/3/82 Council meeting, the Council received a report regarding State-
mandate requirements and costs, which indicated that our annual cost of State-mandated
program approaches $250,000, for which we receive no compensation from the State. Indeed,
such ca ricious acts of the State Legislature as the requirement to increase the time of
retenti n of Police-recorded tapes from 30 days to 100 days, disregarding the fact that
tapes a e seldom needed in Court, costs the City for additional tapes $4,800 (AB 1023).
The not e control act of 1973 requires the City to check all multi-family dwelling units
for min mum sound transmission at a cost of approximately $3,500 per year. These are just
two of he many requirements imposed upon the City for which there is no reimbursement. The
State L gislature must be made aware of the cost of its mandated programs, hopefully resulting
in more responsible legislation.
~.q
FINANCI L IMPACT: N.A. ^`~`~
LFC:mab ~~ /~y~~~i by the Ciiy C~~._~ ~.il :;f
Form A-113 (Rev. 11179) Cf;ul~ Vista, C-a?i(c~^ia