YOLO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting AGENDA June 25, 2012 - 9:00 a.m. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHAMBERS 625 COURT STREET, ROOM 206 WOODLAND, CALIFORNIA 95695 COMMISSIONERS OLIN WOODS, CHAIR (PUBLIC MEMBER) MATT REXROAD, VICE CHAIR (COUNTY MEMBER) SKIP DAVIES (CITY MEMBER) DON SAYLOR (COUNTY MEMBER) BILL KRISTOFF (CITY MEMBER) ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS ROBERT RAMMING (PUBLIC MEMBER) JIM PROVENZA (COUNTY MEMBER) CECILIA AGUIAR-CURRY (CITY MEMBER) CHRISTINE CRAWFORD EXECUTIVE OFFICER ROBYN TRUITT DRIVON COMMISSION COUNSEL All persons are invited to testify and submit written comments to the Commission. If you challenge a LAFCo action in court, you may be limited to issues raised at the public hearing or submitted as written comments prior to the close of the public hearing. All written materials received by staff 72 hours before the hearing will be distributed to the Commission. If you wish to submit written material at the hearing, please supply 10 copies. All participants on a matter to be heard by the Commission that have made campaign contributions totaling $250 or more to any Commissioner in the past 12 months must disclose this fact, either orally or in writing, for the official record as required by Government Code Section 84308. Any person, or combination of persons, who make expenditures for political purposes of $1,000 or more in support of, or in opposition to, a matter heard by the Commission must disclose this fact in accordance with the Political Reform Act. CALL TO ORDER 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comment : Opportunity for members of the public to address the Yolo County Local
Transcript
YOLO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
Regular MeetingAGENDA
June 25, 2012 - 9:00 a.m.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHAMBERS 625 COURT STREET, ROOM 206 WOODLAND, CALIFORNIA 95695
COMMISSIONERS OLIN WOODS, CHAIR (PUBLIC MEMBER)
MATT REXROAD, VICE CHAIR (COUNTY MEMBER)SKIP DAVIES (CITY MEMBER)
DON SAYLOR (COUNTY MEMBER)BILL KRISTOFF (CITY MEMBER)
JIM PROVENZA (COUNTY MEMBER)CECILIA AGUIAR-CURRY (CITY MEMBER)
CHRISTINE CRAWFORDEXECUTIVE OFFICER
ROBYN TRUITT DRIVONCOMMISSION COUNSEL
All persons are invited to testify and submit written comments to the Commission. If you challenge aLAFCo action in court, you may be limited to issues raised at the public hearing or submitted as writtencomments prior to the close of the public hearing. All written materials received by staff 72 hours beforethe hearing will be distributed to the Commission. If you wish to submit written material at the hearing,please supply 10 copies.
All participants on a matter to be heard by the Commission that have made campaign contributionstotaling $250 or more to any Commissioner in the past 12 months must disclose this fact, either orally orin writing, for the official record as required by Government Code Section 84308.
Any person, or combination of persons, who make expenditures for political purposes of $1,000 or morein support of, or in opposition to, a matter heard by the Commission must disclose this fact in accordancewith the Political Reform Act.
CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Public Comment : Opportunity for members of the public to address the Yolo County Local
3. Public Comment : Opportunity for members of the public to address the Yolo County LocalAgency Formation Commission (LAFCo) on subjects not otherwise on the agenda relating toLAFCo business. The Commission reserves the right to impose a reasonable limit on timeafforded to any topic or to any individual speaker.
CONSENT AGENDA
4. Approve LAFCo Meeting Minutes of May 14, 2012
5. Receive and File C & L Spring 2012 Newsletter by Colantuono & Levin, a ProfessionalCorporation
6. Receive Executive Officer Transition Plan, reporting from May 8 through June 30, 2012
8. Consider 2013 CALAFCO Board of Directors Nominations
9. Review the CALAFCO Legislative Update and consider establishing a legislativesubcommittee to review CALAFCO requests for letters regarding proposed legislation
EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT
10. A report by the Executive Officer on recent events relevant to the Commision and an updateof Yolo LAFCo staff activity for the month. The Commission or any individual Commissionermay request that action be taken on any item listed.
Shared Services UpdateLAFCo Sub-Committee Update on Integration of Shared Services GroupsDavis Cemetery District MSR/SOI
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
11. Opportunity for any Commissioner to comment on issues not listed on the agenda. No actionwill be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law.
CLOSED SESSION
12. Public Employee Performance EvaluationGovernment Code §54957Position Title: Executive Officer
Public report of action taken in Closed Session (GC§54957.1)
ADJOURNMENT
13. Adjournment
Next meeting scheduled for: July 26, 2012
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda was posted June 20, 2012 by 5:00 p.m. atthe following places:
On the bulletin board at the east entrance of the Erwin W. Meier Administration Building, 625Court Street, Woodland, California; and
On the bulletin board outside the Board of Supervisors Chambers, Room 206 in the Erwin W.Meier Administration Building, 625 Court Street, Woodland, California.
On the LAFCo website at: www.yololafco.org.
Terri Tuck, ClerkYolo County LAFCo
NOTICEIf requested, this agenda can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with adisability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the FederalRules and Regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Persons seeking an alternative formatshould contact the Commission Clerk for further information. In addition, a person with a disability whorequires a modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participatein a public meeting should telephone or otherwise contact the Commission Clerk as soon as possibleand at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. The Commission Clerk may be reached at (530) 666-8048or at the following address:
Yolo County LAFCo625 Court Street, Room 203
Woodland, CA 95695
Note: Audio for LAFCo meetings will be available directly following conclusion of the meeting atwww.yololafco.org.
Form ReviewForm Started By: Terri Tuck Started On: 06/20/2012 08:18 AMFinal Approval Date: 06/20/2012
Consent 4.
LAFCOMeeting Date: 06/25/2012
InformationSUBJECTApprove LAFCo Meeting Minutes of May 14, 2012
AttachmentsItem 4
Form ReviewForm Started By: Terri Tuck Started On: 06/20/2012 07:54 AMFinal Approval Date: 06/20/2012
Consent 5.
LAFCOMeeting Date: 06/25/2012
InformationSUBJECTReceive and File C & L Spring 2012 Newsletter by Colantuono & Levin, a Professional Corporation
AttachmentsItem 5
Form ReviewForm Started By: Terri Tuck Started On: 06/20/2012 07:58 AMFinal Approval Date: 06/20/2012
Update on Public Law
Ballot Labels: A Rose By Any Name?
Colantuono & Levin, PC
Spring 2012
A recent decision by the Court of Appeal in San Jose provides
a cautionary tale to those drafting ballot titles and labels — i.e., the question printed on the ballot. On April 10, 2012, the Court determined the ballot title and question for San Jose’s pension reform measure were not impartial, and rewrote them. The case is McDonaugh v. Superior Court.
At issue was a City Council-sponsored measure to amend the city’s charter to establish a more limited retirement plan for future employees. The Council titled the measure “Pension Reform.” The ballot question also used the term “reform” and stated that the measure’s purpose was “to protect essential services, including neighborhood police patrols, fire stations, libraries, community cen-ters, streets and parks.”
A group of former and current city employees sought a writ to amend the title and question, arguing they were partial and violated the Elections Code. The trial court approved a stipulation between the parties to amend some of the challenged language, but denied the balance of the petition because petitioners failed to establish by clear and convincing proof that the challenged language was false, misleading or amounted to an argument for or
C&L Newsletter
♦ ♦ ♦
For more information on this topic, contact Holly at 213/542-5704 or
By Holly O. Whatley against the measure, i.e., were “partial.”
In a rare case of timely appellate review of a case involving ballot materials, the Court of Appeal reversed. It noted that the standard for partiality is whether the measure’s language encourages a “yes” or a “no” vote or “casts a favorable light on one side of the [issue] while disparaging the opposing view.” The Court found the word “reform” connotes the removal of a defect. Use of that word “implicitly” characterized the existing pension system as defective or susceptible to abuse. Thus, the title and ballot question encouraged a “yes” vote. Accordingly, the Court replaced the term “reform” with “modification.”
The Court also found that the introductory phrase regarding the protection of public services imper-missibly promoted the measure by implying that if voters did not approve the pension reform, the public would lose basic public safety and fire pro-tection. Notably, the Court did not find the introductory statement was false, but rather that it amounted to advocacy. It acknowledged that such compelling reasons to vote for the measure were more properly included in the arguments than in the ballot question. It ordered that phrase struck from the ballot question.
Los Angeles ● Nevada County
Finally, of additional note was the Court’s willingness to intervene on an expedited basis given the short deadline to print ballot materials. Despite a stated deadline from the Registrar of Voters of April 6 to submit ballot materials to the printer, the Court of Appeal issued an April 5th order that the challenged materi-als not be printed until the Court issued a further order. The Court then took only five days from the appeal of the trial court’s April 4th ruling to issue its opinion, allowing the real parties just one day to submit a brief.
Thus, while public lawyers have commonly recommended that ballot titles and labels comply with the standard for impartial analyses (i.e., that they not be false, misleading or amount to an argument for or against), we now have a public appellate case making clear that this is the law. In reviewing ballot titles and questions, public lawyers should be mindful that even accurate state-ments in a ballot question and title are subject to challenge if the text taken as a whole constitutes advocacy. And if a challenge is filed, fasten your seatbelts for the necessarily fast-paced litigation that will follow!
S ince October of last year, when the Governor signed SB 244 (Wolk,
D-Davis), California’s cities have been required to count their DUCks—i.e., disadvantaged unincorporated commu-nities. Although the goals of SB 244 are laudable, cities and LAFCos have expressed concern about the impacts of SB 244. Efforts currently underway in the Legislature seek to clarify SB 244 to provide cities more flexibility to achieve its goals, but attempts at more comprehensive reform have stalled.
SB 244 requires cities to review and update the land use elements of their general plans to map and analyze the service needs of unincorporated com-munities within or adjacent to their spheres of influence. Although SB 244 is intended to help DUCs, it mandates land use element analysis of all nearby unincorporated communities, not just low-income areas. SB 244 also limits a city’s ability to annex territory because it prohibits LAFCos from approving annexations of territory contiguous to a DUC unless an application to annex the DUC is also filed. Many cities argue this dual annexation requirement dis-courages all annexations, not just those of DUCs.
In March, Sen. Bill Emmerson (R-Riverside) introduced SB 1498 to repeal the dual annexation requirement. It also proposed allowing LAFCos to approve the extension of services beyond a city or district’s sphere of influence to support existing or planned uses of public or pri-vate properties. However, despite the support of the League of California Cities, SB 1498 failed in committee.
As a compromise, Sen. Lois Wolk re-cently introduced language in the Local Government Omnibus Act of 2012, SB 1090, to address some local government concerns about SB 244. Although it makes no change to the dual annexation
Page 2 Spring 2012 C&L Newsletter
Planning Disadvantaged Communities By David J. Ruderman requirement, the amendment would
make the following changes:
Under the proposed language, a city would no longer be required to update its land use element to map and analyze service needs for unincorporated island or fringe communities. Instead, a city would have discretion to update one or more other elements of its general plan based on data from, for instance, a LAFCo municipal services review.
It would fix the anomaly in SB 244 that mandated analysis of all island and fringe communities in the land use ele-ment, even if the communities were not low-income. SB 1090 would require cit-ies to identify and plan for only island and fringe communities that are DUCs.
The Assembly Local Government Committee plans to hear this and other amendments to SB 1090 on June 27. Stayed tuned for further information on this bill as it proceeds through the Leg-islature.
♦ ♦ ♦
For more information on this topic, contact David at 530/798-2417 or
L ocal Agency Formation Commis-sions (LAFCos) determine when
cities may annex unincorporated terri-tory, and may approve annexations after protest proceedings give landown-ers and voters opportunity to stop a proposal or require an election. Gov-ernment Code §56375.3 streamlines the process for annexations of “islands” of unincorporated territory of 150 acres or less — in these cases no protests are permitted. “Island” is not defined.
The Attorney General issued a recent opinion clarifying this rule. She con-
cluded: “For purposes of Government Code section 56375.3, an ‘island’ is an area of unincorporated territory that is (1) completely surrounded, or substan-tially surrounded—that is, surrounded to a large degree, or in the main—either by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean, or (2) completely surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities. An ‘island’ may not be a part of another island that is sur-rounded or substantially surrounded in this same manner.”
LAFCo can determine in light of the record before it whether an area is an “island.” The Attorney General ex-pressly declined to impose a mathemat-ical formula for what constitutes an island (as the Legislature had also re-fused to do), but cited a case identify-ing an “island” only 68% surrounded by incorporated territory.
The Attorney General took the analysis further. She also concluded that the statutory requirement that a city annex an “entire” island means that the LAFCo may not allow annexations that “split up an unincorporated island that exceeds 150 acres into smaller seg-ments to utilize the streamlined ‘island annexation’ procedures.”
Although opinions of the Attorney General are not legally binding prece-dent, courts typically grant the deci-sions great weight, especially opinions on public law questions that are rarely litigated. As a result of this opinion, LAFCos may be less willing to approve island annexations in reliance on the streamlined annexation procedures where it is not clear the island rule ap-plies.
Page 3 C&L Newsletter
All’s Fair in Taxes and Assessments?
Spring 2012
same conclusion, most recently in a case upholding Proposition 65’s in-come tax on millionaires to fund men-tal heath services.
In Armour, the Court found a rational basis in the city’s desire to avoid the administrative burden of tracking a few small assessment payments for decades after abandoning the assessment pro-gram. The Court analogized for-giveness of the assessment to amnesty for traffic tickets or unpaid taxes. The strongest argument for the decision, however, may be concern that finding an Equal Protection violation would encourage litigants to convert every dispute under state law into a federal suit, distorting the relationship of state and federal law. Indiana law requires assessments to be “uniform” and the forgiveness program raised questions under that law.
Three Justices dissented, arguing that while few tax cases are so unfair as to violate Equal Protection, this case ought to join the West Virginia coal mine case as a very occasional remind-er to legislators that some minimal de-gree of fairness is required in tax laws.
We draw two lessons from the case: First, distinctions made by local tax, assessment and fee ordinances must have some rationale and not turn on suspect classifications like race and religion. Second, courts generally apply this rule very deferentially. Thus, most tax policy questions are governed by state and local laws and by the polit-ical process rather than the federal courts.
Under California’s demanding initia-tive requirements, however, judges impose more exacting review. Accord-ingly, it will be a rare public finance case in our state that involves a serious Equal Protection question.
M unicipal revenues are largely governed by California law —
much of it a series of initiatives: Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 62 (1986), Proposition 218 (1996) and Proposition 26 (2010). However, federal law occasionally requires attention. Most occasional of all are the cases applying the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War in 1868. That clause re-quires distinctions between taxpayers to be supported by a non-discriminatory rationale.
Cases applying Equal Protection to municipal revenues are few. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court found a West Virginia county violated the Equal Pro-tection rights of an out-of-state owner of a coal mine: Allegheny Pittsburg Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster County. Although the county claimed a consistent practice of assessing proper-ty when it was sold, the evidence sug-gested this “welcome, stranger” assess-ment mechanism, which imposes high-er property taxes on new buyers, was not consistently applied and that the county discriminated against the coal company as an out-of-towner.
This raised the question whether Prop-osition 13’s use of the “welcome, stranger” assessment method also vio-lated Equal Protection. In 1992, the Court decided otherwise in Nordlinger v. Hahn because Proposition 13’s “welcome, stranger” assessment rule was consistently applied.
June 4, 2012 brought the Court’s latest Equal Protection finance decision in Armour v. Indianapolis. The City in-stalled sewers in neighborhoods on septic systems. Like California, Indiana law allows assessment financing of such improvements. Also like Califor-nia, Indiana law allows property own-ers to pay the assessment up front or over time with interest. In 2003, the
♦ ♦ ♦
For more information on this subject, contact Michael at 530/432-7359 or
By Michael G. Colantuono City assessed 180 properties in the Brisbane / Manning Sanitary Sewer Project $9,279 each and property own-ers who did not pay up front could pay $77 / mo. for 10 years, $39 / mo. for 20 years or $26 / mo. for 30 years. The next year, the City ended its practice of assessment financing of sewers, opting instead to use city funds to help low-income property owners. It cancelled outstanding assessments, including those imposed a year earlier in the Brisbane / Manning district. However, the City refunded nothing to 38 property owners who paid the $9,279 up front. They sued, arguing the City’s policy was irrational and therefore violated Equal Protection.
Indiana trial and intermediate appellate courts ruled for the plaintiffs, but a divided Indiana Supreme Court re-versed. The plaintiffs petitioned for review by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court ruled for the City in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Breyer.
This seems profoundly unfair. Why punish those who do not take ad-vantage of low-interest government loans and reward those who do? How-ever, the question can be framed the other way — how is one harmed by a government grant to a neighbor?
The Court did not rely on subjective perceptions of fairness. Instead, it re-minds us that Equal Protection review of economic and social policy is very deferential to the political branches, citing Carolene Products, a New Deal- era case taught in every law school. Distinctions not involving fundamental rights (like the rights to vote and trav-el) or suspect classifications (like race and religion) “cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if there is a ra-tional relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate public purpose.” Moreover, “[l]egislatures have especially wide latitude in creating classifications and distinctions in tax statutes.” California courts reached the
Colantuono & Levin, PC 300 S Grand Avenue, Ste 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3137
Are you on our list? To subscribe to our newsletter or to update your information, complete the form below and fax it to 213/542-5710. You can also call Marina Song at 213/542-5715 or subscribe via our Web site at WWW.CLLAW.US.
Our newsletter is available as a printed document sent by US Mail and as a PDF file sent by e-mail. Please let us know how you would like to receive your copy.
Mail E-Mail Both
The contents of this newsletter do not constitute legal advice. You should seek the opinion of qualified counsel regarding your specific situation before acting on the information provided here.
InformationSUBJECTReceive Executive Officer Transition Plan, reporting from May 8 through June 30, 2012
AttachmentsItem 6 MemoItem 6 ATT
Form ReviewForm Started By: Terri Tuck Started On: 06/20/2012 08:01 AMFinal Approval Date: 06/20/2012
LAFCo Executive Officer Transition PlanStatus as of June 8, 2012
Date Event Completed?04/26/12 Meet and Greet – Roseanne Chamberlain, Amador LAFCo √05/09/12 Shared Services – West Sacramento (Carol Richardson &
Katy Jacobson) √05/11/12 CSAC Institute – Local Government in California √05/17/12 CALAFCO Conference Program Committee Meeting √05/18/12 LAFCo/Shared Services – Attend “YM2” Yolo Managers
Meeting √05/22/12 Shared Services – Winters Interchange Study for Food Hub √05/24/12 Shared Services – Yolo Economic Development Meeting √05/24/12 Shared Services – Agency Training (Gary Engel-HR) √05/30/12 Shared Services – Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Tour (Betsy
Marchand) √06/01/12 CSAC Institute – Negotiations and Collaboration in Complex
Environments √06/05/12 LAFCo/Shared Services – Meeting with Davis Cemetery
District staff √06/05/12 LAFCo/Shared Services – Meeting with Don Saylor √06/07/12 LAFCo – Meeting w/Chair re LAFCo Agenda √06/20/12 Attend Yolo Leaders Group √06/21/12 LAFCo – CALAFCO Conference Program Committee
Monthly Meeting06/29/12 Shared Services – Yolo Study Presentation to Yolo
Managers (Animal Protection League)Yolo County Tour – David Morrison, County PlanningRead Growth Within Bounds: Report on Local Government for the 21st Century √Read A Primer on City Finance √Read Understanding the Basics of County and City Revenues √Read Cal Facts: California’s Economy and Budget in Perspective – State and Local Finances √
Form ReviewForm Started By: Terri Tuck Started On: 06/20/2012 10:56 AMFinal Approval Date: 06/20/2012
California
Association of
Local Agency
Formation
Commissions
2012 Board of Directors
Chair JERRY GLADBACH Los Angeles LAFCo
Vice Chair THEODORE NOVELLI
Amador LAFCo
Secretary MARY JANE GRIEGO
Yuba LAFCo
Treasurer JOHN LEOPOLD Santa Cruz LAFCo
JULIE ALLEN Tulare LAFCo
PAT BATES Orange LAFCo
LOUIS CUNNINGHAM Ventura LAFCo
LARRY R. DUNCAN Butte LAFCo
KAY HOSMER Colusa LAFCo
JULIANA INMAN Napa LAFCo
GAY JONES Sacramento LAFCo
MICHAEL R. MCGILL Contra Costa LAFCo
EUGENE MONTANEZ Riverside LAFCo
STEPHEN SOUZA Yolo LAFCo
JOSH SUSMAN Nevada LAFCo
ANDY VANDERLAAN San Diego LAFCo
Staff
WILLIAM S. CHIAT Executive Director
LOU ANN TEXEIRA Executive Officer
CLARK ALSOP Legal Counsel
JUNE SAVALA Deputy Executive Officer
MARJORIE BLOM Deputy Executive Officer
STEPHEN LUCAS Deputy Executive Officer
JAMIE SZUTOWICZ Executive Assistant
1215 K Street, Suite 1650 Sacramento, CA 95814
Voice 916-442-6536 Fax 916-442-6535
www.calafco.org
Date: 31 May 2012 To: LAFCo Commissioners and Staff CALAFCO Members Other Interested Organizations From: Ted Novelli, Chair CALAFCO Achievement Awards Committee RE: 2012 CALAFCO Achievement Award Nominations Each year at the annual conference, CALAFCO recognizes outstanding achievements by dedicated and committed individuals from throughout the state to LAFCo, CALAFCO and LAFCo principles through the annual Achievement Awards.
Recognizing individual and organizational achievements is an important responsibility. It provides visible recognition and support to those who go above and beyond in their work to advance the principles and goals of Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg and LAFCo. I invite you to use this opportunity to nominate the people and agencies you feel deserve this important recognition.
To make a nomination, please use the following procedure:
1. Nominations may be made by an individual, a LAFCo, a CALAFCO Associate Member, or any other organization. There is no limit to the number of nominations.
2. Please use a separate form (attached) for each nomination. Nominations must be submitted with a completed nomination form. The form is your opportunity to summarize the most important points of your nomination.
3. All nomination materials must be submitted at one time and must be received by the deadline. Electronic submittals are encouraged.
4. All supporting information (e.g. reports, news articles, etc.) must be submitted with the nomination. Endorsement letters from third parties are not necessary.
5. Nominations and supporting materials must be received no later than 5:00 p.m., Friday, August 17th 2012. Send nominations via e-mail, fax, or U.S. mail to:
Roseanne Chamberlain Amador LAFCo Post Office Box 22-1292 Sacramento, CA 95822-1292 Fax (916) 454-5028 E-mail: [email protected]
Please contact Roseanne with any questions at (209) 418-9377. A list of the previous Achievement Award recipients is attached to this announcement.
2012 Achievement Award Nominations
Nomination Form NOMINEE Person or Agency Being Nominated:
Name Organization Address Phone/E-mail
NOMINATION CATEGORY (check one – see category detail on attached sheet)
Outstanding CALAFCO Member
Distinguished Service Award
Most Effective Commission
Outstanding Commissioner
Outstanding LAFCo Professional
Outstanding LAFCo Clerk
Project of the Year
Government Leadership Award
Legislator of the Year
Mike Gotch Courage and Innovation in Local Government Award
NOMINATION SUBMITTED BY:
Name: Address: Phone: E-mail:
ACHIEVEMENTS Please indicate the reasons why this person or agency deserves to be recognized (Use additional sheets as needed):
2012 Achievement Award Nominations
CALAFCO ACHIEVEMENT AWARD CATEGORIES CALAFCO recognizes excellence within the LAFCo community by presenting the Achievement Awards at the CALAFCO Annual Conference. Nominations are being accepted until August 17th 2012 in the following categories: Outstanding CALAFCO Recognizes a CALAFCO Board Member or staff Member person who has provided exemplary service during
the past year. Distinguished Service Award Given to a member of the LAFCo community to
recognize long-term service by an individual. Most Effective Commission Presented to an individual Commission to recognize innovation, streamlining, and/or initiative in
implementing LAFCo programs; may also be presented to multiple Commissions for joint efforts.
Outstanding Commissioner Presented to an individual Commissioner for extraordinary service to his or her Commission. Outstanding LAFCo Recognizes an Executive Officer, Staff Analyst, or Professional Legal Counsel for exemplary service during the past year. Outstanding LAFCo Clerk Presented to a LAFCo Clerk for service above and beyond the call of duty. Project of the Year Recognition for a project-specific program that
involved complex staff analysis, community involvement, or an outstanding solution.
Government Leadership Presented to a decision-making body at the Award city, county, special district, regional or state level
which has furthered good government efforts in California.
Legislator of the Year Presented to a member of the California State Senate
or Assembly in recognition of leadership and valued contributions in support of LAFCo goals. Selected by CALAFCO Board.
Mike Gotch Courage and Innovation Presented to an individual who has taken extraordinary in Local Government Award steps to improve and innovate local government. This
award is named for Mike Gotch: former Assembly Member, LAFCo Executive Officer and CALAFCO Executive Director responsible for much of the foundations of LAFCo law and CALAFCO. He is remembered as a source of great inspiration for staff and legislators from throughout the state.
2012 Achievement Award Nominations
CALAFCO ACHIEVEMENT AWARD RECIPIENTS 2011
Mike Gotch Courage & Innovation in Martin Tuttle, Deputy Director for Planning, Caltrans Local Government Leadership Award Mike McKeever, Executive Director, SACOG Distinguished Service Award Carl Leverenz, Commissioner and Chair, Butte LAFCo Most Effective Commission San Bernardino LAFCo Outstanding CALAFCO Member Keene Simonds, Executive Officer, Napa LAFCo Outstanding Commissioner Louis R. Calcagno, Monterey LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Professional June Savala, Deputy Executive Officer, Los Angeles LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Clerk Debbie Shubert, Ventura LAFCo Project of the Year Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Definitions Revision Bob Braitman, Scott Browne, Clark Alsop, Carole Cooper, and
George Spiliotis Government Leadership Award Contra Costa Sanitary District Elsinore Water District and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District 2010
Mike Gotch Courage & Innovation in Helen Thompson, Commissioner, Yolo LAFCo Local Government Leadership Award Distinguished Service Award Kathleen Rollings-McDonald, Executive Officer, San
Bernardino LAFCo Bob Braitman, Executive Officer, Santa Barbara LAFCo Most Effective Commission Tulare LAFCo Outstanding CALAFCO Member Roger Anderson, Ph.D., CALAFCO Chair, Santa Cruz LAFCo Outstanding Commissioner George Lange, Ventura LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Professional Harry Ehrlich, Government Consultant, San Diego LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Clerk Candie Fleming, Fresno LAFCo Project of the Year Butte LAFCo Sewer Commission - Oroville Region Municipal Service Review Government Leadership Award Nipomo Community Services District and the County of
San Luis Obispo Special Achievement Chris Tooker, Sacramento LAFCo and CALAFCO Board of
Directors
2009
Mike Gotch Courage & Innovation in Paul Hood, Executive Officer, San Luis Obispo LAFCo Local Government Leadership Award Distinguished Service Award William Zumwalt, Executive Officer, Kings LAFCo Most Effective Commission Napa LAFCo Outstanding CALAFCO Member Susan Vicklund Wilson, CALAFCO Vice Chair Jerry Gladbach, CALAFCO Treasurer Outstanding Commissioner Larry M. Fortune, Fresno LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Professional Pat McCormick, Santa Cruz LAFCo Executive Officer Outstanding LAFCo Clerk Emmanuel Abello, Santa Clara LAFCo Project of the Year Orange LAFCo Boundary Report
2012 Achievement Award Nominations
Government Leadership Award Cities of Amador City, Jackson, Ione, Plymouth & Sutter Creek; Amador County; Amador Water Agency; Pine Grove CSD – Countywide MSR Project
Legislator of the Year Award Assembly Member Jim Silva
2008
Distinguished Service Award Peter M. Detwiler, Senate Local Government Committee Chief Consultant
Most Effective Commission Yuba LAFCo Outstanding Commissioner Dennis Hansberger, San Bernardino LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Professional Michael Ott, San Diego LAFCo Executive Officer Martha Poyatos, San Mateo Executive Officer Outstanding LAFCo Clerk Wilda Turner, Los Angeles LAFCo Project of the Year Kings LAFCo City and Community District MSR and SOI Update Government Leadership Award San Bernardino Board of Supervisors Legislator of the Year Award Assembly Member Anna M. Caballero 2007
Outstanding CALAFCO Member Kathy Long, Board Chair, Ventura LAFCo Distinguished Service Award William D. Smith, San Diego Legal Counsel Most Effective Commission Santa Clara LAFCo Outstanding Commissioner Gayle Uilkema, Contra Costa LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Professional Joyce Crosthwaite, Orange LAFCo Executive Officer Outstanding LAFCo Clerk Debby Chamberlin, San Bernardino LAFCo Project of the Year San Bernardino LAFCo and City of Fontana Islands Annexation Program Government Leadership Award City of Fontana Islands Annexation Program Lifetime Achievement John T. “Jack” Knox 2006
Outstanding CALAFCO Member Everett Millais, CALAFCO Executive Officer and Executive Officer of Ventura LAFCo
Distinguished Service Award Clark Alsop, CALAFCO Legal Counsel Most Effective Commission Award Alameda LAFCo Outstanding Commissioner Award Ted Grandsen, Ventura LAFCo Chris Tooker, Sacramento LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Professional Award Larry Calemine, Los Angeles LAFCo Executive Officer Outstanding LAFCo Clerk Award Janice Bryson, San Diego LAFCo Marilyn Flemmer, Sacramento LAFCo Project of the Year Award Sacramento Municipal Utility District Sphere of Influence
Amendment and Annexation; Sacramento LAFCo Outstanding Government Leadership Award Cities of Porterville, Tulare, and Visalia and Tulare LAFCo
Island Annexation Program Legislator of the Year Award Senator Christine Kehoe
2012 Achievement Award Nominations
2005
Outstanding CALAFCO Member Peter Herzog, CALAFCO Board, Orange LAFCo Distinguished Service Award Elizabeth Castro Kemper, Yolo LAFCo Most Effective Commission Award Ventura LAFCo Outstanding Commissioner Award Art Aseltine, Yuba LAFCo Henri Pellissier, Los Angeles LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Professional Award Bruce Baracco, San Joaquin LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Clerk Award Danielle Ball, Orange LAFCo Project of the Year Award San Diego LAFCo MSR of Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Outstanding Government Leadership Award Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2004
Outstanding CALAFCO Member Scott Harvey, CALAFCO Executive Director Distinguished Service Award Julie Howard, Shasta LAFCo Most Effective Commission Award San Diego LAFCo Outstanding Commissioner Award Edith Johnsen, Monterey LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Professional Award David Kindig, Santa Cruz LAFCo Project of the Year Award San Luis Obispo LAFCo Nipomo CSD SOI Update, MSR, and EIR 2003
Outstanding CALAFCO Member Michael P. Ryan, CALAFCO Board Member Distinguished Service Award Henri F. Pellissier, Los Angeles LAFCo Most Effective Commission Award San Luis Obispo LAFCo Outstanding Commissioner Award Bob Salazar, El Dorado LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Professional Award Shirley Anderson, San Diego LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Clerk Award Lori Fleck, Siskiyou LAFCo Project of the Year Award Napa LAFCo Comprehensive Water Service Study Special Achievement Award James M. Roddy 2002
Outstanding CALAFCO Member Ken Lee, CALAFCo Legislative Committee Chair Most Effective Commission Award San Diego LAFCo Outstanding Commissioner Award Ed Snively, Imperial LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Professional Award Paul Hood, San Luis Obispo LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Clerk Award Danielle Ball, Orange LAFCo Project of the Year Award San Luis Obispo LAFCo Outstanding Government Leadership Award Napa LAFCo, Napa County Farm Bureau, Napa Valley
Vintners Association, Napa Valley Housing Authority, Napa County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, Napa County Counsel Office, and Assembly Member Patricia Wiggins
2012 Achievement Award Nominations
2001
Outstanding CALAFCO Member SR Jones, CALAFCO Executive Officer Distinguished Service Award David Martin, Tax Area Services Section, State Board of
Equalization Outstanding Commissioner Award H. Peter Faye, Yolo LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Professional Award Ingrid Hansen, San Diego LAFCo Project of the Year Award Santa Barbara LAFCo Outstanding Government Leadership Award Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Livermore City
Council, Pleasanton City Council Legislator of the Year Award Senator Jack O’Connell 2000
Outstanding CALAFCO Member Ron Wootton, CALAFCO Board Chair Distinguished Service Award Ben Williams, Commission on Local Governance for the
21st Century Most Effective Commission Award Yolo LAFC Outstanding Commissioner Rich Gordon, San Mateo LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Professional Award Annamaria Perrella, Contra Costa LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Clerk Award Susan Stahmann, El Dorado LAFCo Project of the Year Award San Diego LAFCo Legislator of the Year Award Robert Hertzberg, Assembly Member 1999
Distinguished Service Award Marilyn Ann Flemmer-Rodgers, Sacramento LAFCo Most Effective Commission Award Orange LAFCo Outstanding Executive Officer Award Don Graff, Alameda LAFCo Outstanding LAFCo Clerk Award Dory Adams, Marin LAFCo Most Creative Solution to a Multi- San Diego LAFCo Jurisdictional Problem Outstanding Government Leadership Award Assembly Member John Longville Legislator of the Year Award Assembly Member Robert Hertzberg 1998
Outstanding CALAFCO Member Dana Smith, Orange LAFCo Distinguished Service Award Marvin Panter, Fresno LAFCo Most Effective Commission Award San Diego LAFCo Outstanding Executive Officer Award George Spiliotis, Riverside LAFCo Outstanding Staff Analysis Joe Convery, San Diego LAFCo Joyce Crosthwaite, Orange LAFCo Outstanding Government Leadership Award Santa Clara County Planning Department
2012 Achievement Award Nominations
1997
Most Effective Commission Award Orange LAFCo Outstanding Executive Officer Award George Finney, Tulare LAFCo Outstanding Staff Analysis Annamaria Perrella, Contra Costa LAFCo Outstanding Government Leadership Award South County Issues Discussion Group Most Creative Solution to a Multi- Alameda LAFCo and Contra Costa LAFCo Jurisdictional Problem Legislator of the Year Award Assembly Member Tom Torlakson
Regular 8.
LAFCOMeeting Date: 06/25/2012
InformationSUBJECTConsider 2013 CALAFCO Board of Directors Nominations
AttachmentsItem 8 MemoItem 8 ATT
Form ReviewForm Started By: Terri Tuck Started On: 06/20/2012 10:59 AMFinal Approval Date: 06/20/2012
Regular 9.
LAFCOMeeting Date: 06/25/2012
InformationSUBJECTReview the CALAFCO Legislative Update and consider establishing a legislative subcommittee to reviewCALAFCO requests for letters regarding proposed legislation
AttachmentsItem 9 Memo
Form ReviewForm Started By: Terri Tuck Started On: 06/20/2012 11:00 AMFinal Approval Date: 06/20/2012
