MINUTES
Regular Meeting – November 5, 2009
(These minutes are not intended to be a verbatim transcription of the proceedings and discussion associated with the business on the Commission’s agenda; rather, what follows is a summary of the order of business and general nature of testimony, Commission deliberation, and action taken.)

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/INTRODUCTIONS
Chairman Gover called the meeting to order at 9:00 am at the City of Redding Council Chambers, 777 Cypress Ave, Redding, CA. Commissioners Baugh, Dickerson, Farr, Fust, Gover, Haynes & Kehoe were present. Executive Officer Mickelson, Counsel Johnson and Clerk Smith were present as staff.
 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Kehoe led the Pledge of Allegiance.
 

PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment submitted.
 

CHANGES OF ORGANIZATION AND/OR REORGANIZATION
LAFCO File #09-2, CSA #6 – Jones Valley (Elk Trail) Reorganization
Ms. Mickelson presented the Commission with LAFCO File #09-02, CSA #6 – Jones Valley (Elk Trail) Reorganization. Shasta County submitted an application to LAFCO requesting initiation of proceedings for reorganization, seeking to annex 194 parcels (approximately 1,742 acres) into CSA #6 and concurrently detaching a portion of the proposal area from the Bella Vista Water District Sphere of Influence. The proposed reorganization was presented as a conditional proposal, pending subsequent Proposition 218 proceedings to fund necessary water system upgrades. The proposal area is generally located three miles north of Highway 299 on Dry Creek Road in the Bella Vista area. The project encompasses the Elk Trail East and West neighborhoods.The annexation was proposed because a majority of the existing private wells in the project area fail to yield sufficient or quality potable water. This was an inhabited, non‐100% consent application with some affected agencies. Comments received from Bella Vista Water Distrit(consenting to their Sphere amendment) and from the Shasta County Fire Department (supporting the proposal) were attached and incorporated herein. Several comments from affected property owners and residents were attached as well.

Commissioner Dickerson asked if there had been any opposition from any affected agencies. Ms. Mickelson responded that there had been no stated agency opposition, only support.

Commissioner Kehoe requested a presentation from Pat Minturn, Director of Public Works of Shasta County.

Mr. Minturn explained that this project has been a long time coming and County staff has been diligently working to get this project moving forward and at the place that it is today. There were two landowner straw polls conducted in the past three years, both which were supported by over 80% of landowners. The project is projected to cost 10 million dollars.

Approximately 3.5 ‐ 6.5 million dollars is expected to be granted by various State and Federal funding sources. The State has committed to loan the remaining funds at 0% interest for 30 years. It is projected that with a best‐case funding scenario, the total cost per parcel will be around $20,000, which is approximately $60 a month.

After, Mr. Minturn’s presentation, Commissioner Farr asked upon what grounds a Commissioner would be able to vote no on the proposed project. Counsel Johnson stated that it has to do with the factors set forth in the Government Code in light of the evidence before the Commission today. If the majority of the factors are met by this proposal, then the Commission should approve the project. If not, then the Commission would need to deny the project, based on the factors provided.

Executive Officer Mickelson stated that those factors are delineated in the staff report per Government Code §56668. Ms. Mickelson then read the factors as mandated by Government Code §56668 at Commissioner Kehoe’s request.

Commissioner Haynes asked when the process for Proposition 218 would begin and where the nine month time period comes from; as found on the page 4, section 14, of the application submitted to LAFCO.

Mr. Minturn stated that as of right now it is known when the process would begin. The nine month time period is needed to select & hire an engineer; as well as allowing time for the selected engineer to gather necessary information and prepare their report.

At 9:46 am, the Public Comment period was opened.

Ms. Kathy Jalquin opposed the project and did not agree with the studies that were done on the wells in the Elk Trail area.

At 9:53 am, the Public Comment period was closed.

By motion made and seconded (Kehoe/Haynes), the Commission unanimously approved the CSA #6

Jones Valley (Elk Trail) Reorganization, LAFCO file# 09‐02, conditioned upon subsequent Proposition 218 proceedings, as recommended by staff.
 

OPERATIONS & ADMINISTRATION
Consider Secondary Responses to Legal Request for Proposal
At the October 1, 2009 LAFCO meeting, the Commission requested clarification on a few items regarding the provision for legal services proposed from John Kenney and Elizabeth Johnson. Specifically the issues of availability during Commission meetings and how that availability would be billed were at interest. The Commission reviewed the responses provided by both Mr. Kenney and Ms. Johnson. Discussion followed.

By motion made and seconded (Fust/Farr), the Commission approved contracting with Elizabeth Johnson for legal services. A contract will be negotiated and brought back to the Commission for approval.

Report on Shasta LAFCO Budget Notification Procedures
Ms. Mickelson reported that during the 2009 Budget process, there was some confusion, and ultimately some mistakes made by LAFCO staff in regard to noticing the Draft & Final Budget. Staff has apologized publically for those issues and has offered assurance to the Commission that the errors will not be repeated. The Commission accepted that assurance and staff has implemented some changes to support that assurance.

At the October 1, 2009 LAFCO meeting, some members of special districts asked that those assurances be shared publically and therefore, the Commission asked that the item be placed on a future agenda.

Ms. Mickelson shared the changes that had been made to remedy the situation. (1) A goal to add every special district to our email agendas listing by the end of 2009. This increases the disbursement of our agendas which contain pertinent information, such as the budget schedule. (2) The addition of the task of noticing special hearings and budget processes will be added to the Analyst’s job description at her upcoming review and will be listed as a specific goal for attainment. (3) Perhaps, most importantly, a reminder system via Microsoft Outlook, that schedules the notifications via appointments.

Commissioner Haynes stated that she felt the situation had been sufficiently addressed.

Commissioner Farr disclosed that he had met with Phil Browning of Centerville CSD and David Coxey of Bella Vista Water District regarding this situation. He asked staff if LAFCO was required to mail the Draft & Final Budget and who receives agenda notices as well as full packets.

Ms. Mickelson stated that we are obligated to mail the Draft & Final Budget to the County, Cities and Special Districts. She stated that the agenda is sent to agencies who have requested such. Approximately 88% of the Special Districts receive LAFCO agendas either via e‐mail or USPS. A lesser number of Special Districts receive full packets. The Draft and Final Budgets are also noticed in the Record Searchlight and the agenda is available on the LAFCO website.

Commissioner Baugh stated that mistakes happen, staff has acknowledged that & will work diligently follow policy & procedures.

Mr. Browning of Clear Creek CSD again stated that he did not receive a copy of the Draft Budget. He asked the Commission if they had received a copy of a letter addressed to Chairman Gover that he had dropped off at the LAFCO office two days prior to the August 6, 2009 meeting. The Commission assured Mr. Browning that they indeed did see a copy of the letter immediately after the August 6, 2009 meeting.

Commissioner Dickerson asked Special Districts give more consideration in regard to timing when submitting correspondence.

Mr. Coxey of Bella Vista Water District stated the he was concerned about the increase of LAFCO contributions over the years for BVWD. The staff report was received and filed. 

COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Farr reported on the CALAFCO conference that he recently attended in place of Ms. Mickelson. Commissioner Farr stated that that idea of a CALAFCO regional structure had not been acted upon at the conference.

Commissioner Haynes thanked the Alternate Commissioners for attending the LAFCO meetings.

STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next Special LAFCO Meeting will be held on Thursday, December 10, 2009 at the City of Redding.

CLOSED SESSION
None

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
None

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Gover adjourned the meeting at 10:43 am.

Respectfully submitted,

Jessica Smith Date
Clerk to the Commission

MINUTES

Regular Meeting – October 1, 2009

(These minutes are not intended to be a verbatim transcription of the proceedings and discussion associated with the business on the Commission’s agenda; rather, what follows is a summary of the order of business and general nature of testimony, Commission deliberation, and action taken.)

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/INTRODUCTIONS
Chairman Gover called the meeting to order at 9:00 am at the Shasta Board of Supervisors Chambers, 1450 Court Street, Suite 263, Redding, CA. Commissioners Baugh, Dickerson, Farr, Gover, Haynes, Kehoe, and Morgan were present. Commissioner Fust was absent. Executive Officer Mickelson and Clerk Smith were present as staff.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Haynes led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Johanna Trenerry, a Clear Creek CSD board member, addressed the Commission about the draft budget notification and asked if the letter generated by Clear Creek CSD regarding this had been circulated. Commissioner Gover stated that it had. She then stated that in respect to the August 6, 2009 minutes, page 3, last paragraph, Commissioner Kehoe did not say the letter should be placed on a later agenda if necessary, rather that it needed to be placed on the next agenda.

Char Workman‐Flowers of Clear Creek CSD requested to know what steps were taken to remedy the draft budget notification process and requested that this item be put on the next agenda. David Coxey of Bella Vista Water District (BVWD) stated that in 2004 BVWD’s contributions to LAFCO was $11,000 and it is now over $20,000. Mr. Coxey stated that BVWD is facing its own financial struggles and suggested LAFCo charge fees based on a fee service type approach. Ms. Kathy Jalquin stated residents in the Elk Trail area have come to her home and told her that they voted yes on the straw poll since it was not binding but would vote no on the ballot. Ms. Jalquin then requested copies of e‐mails to and from Commissioner Haynes, Clerk Smith and Executive Officer Mickelson. Phil Browning of Centerville CSD requested that the minutes be changed to reflect the fact that the draft budget wasn’t circulated to special districts.

MINUTES
The minutes of August 6, 2009, August 24, 2009 and September 3, 2009 were presented. By motion made and seconded (Baugh, Haynes) the Commission approved the August 6, 2009, August 24, 2009 and September 3, 2009 minutes. Commissioner Baugh abstained from the August 6, 2009 minutes.

BUDGET & FISCAL AFFAIRS
Fiscal Year 2008-09 June Transaction Register
The FY 2008‐09 June Transaction Register was presented for review and adoption. By motion made and seconded (Haynes, Farr) the Commission approved the FY 2008‐09 June Transaction Register.

Fiscal Year 2009‐10 1st Quarter Transaction Register
The 1st Quarter Transaction Register was presented for review and adoption. By motion made and seconded (Baugh, Kehoe) the Commission approved the 1st Quarter Transaction Register.

Consideration of Checking Account Statements
Ms. Mickelson presented the following bank statements: US Bank: two statements dated July 31, 2009 and August 31, 2009; Tri Counties Bank: two statements dated July 17, 2009 and August 19, 2009; and LAIF: two statements dated July 2009 and August 2009. Commissioner Baugh asked if the small amount at being held at Tri Counties Bank indicated that that account would soon be closed. Executive Office Mickelson stated that this item will be discussed at the next meeting. By motion made and seconded (Baugh, Kehoe) the Commission approved the bank statements as presented.

SPECIAL STUDIES AND REPORTS
Anderson Fire Protection District: Proposed Final Municipal Services Review
Ms. Mickelson reminded the Commission that the Anderson FPD Draft MSR was adopted in 2007. She proposed to the Commission that they adopt the Proposed Final MSR and bring it back in six months with determinations. Commissioner Haynes had some grammatical corrections for the MSR. Commissioner Baugh asked about the responses from Shasta County Fire and Cottonwood FPD. Ms. Mickelson stated that all the items have been addressed as much as they possibly can be at this time. She again recommended bringing back the item in six months with determinations after the newly appointed board has had a chance to review the document. Commissioner Kehoe expressed his persuasion to hold off on adopting the MSR when considering the letter received from Shasta County Fire. Commissioner Dickerson asked why it would be helpful for the District to adopt the MSR if there are still some questions unanswered.

Ms. Mickelson reminded the Commission that they previously had decided that they would not allow any type of jurisdictional boundary changes until an MSR is complete. By not having an adopted MSR for Anderson FPD it would but the District in a grievous position should another agency move forward with an application that could potentially affect the District’s boundary. She also acknowledged that while the District will have a new board in December, the main portion of the MSR content would not change. Chief Andy Nichols addressed the Commission and expressed his desire for the Commission to adopt the proposed MSR. He did not feel that the new board would make any changes that would dramatically affect the MSR. By motion made and seconded (Baugh, Dickerson) the Commission adopted the Anderson Fire Protection District Proposed Final Municipal Services Review, with the grammatical changes proposed by Commissioner Haynes and the condition to review the MSR in six months. Commissioner Kehoe dissented.

Municipal Services Review: Status Report
Ms. Mickelson provided the Commission with the current MSR update. This was an information item only. No action was taken.

CHANGES OF ORGANIZATION AND/OR REORGANIZATION
Cottonwood Fire Protection District: Proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment
Executive Officer Mickelson presented the proposal to add territory to the Cottonwood Fire Protection District’s Sphere of Influence. The Cottonwood Fire Protection District (the District) submitted an application to LAFCO requesting initiation of proceedings for a Sphere Amendment, proposing to add just over 25,000 acres to the current Sphere (approximately 24,000 acres), which presently shares the same boundary as the District.

The District defines the purpose of the proposed Sphere expansion to “help the District define and narrow the area to begin proper planning for future fire protection service. This would clarify which agency will likely be responsible for ensuring adequate emergency response for this underserved area … this would allow the District to focus its efforts on ensuring future fire protection services for an area that can be considered likely to be within the District’s future service area.” This was an inhabited, non‐100% consent application with many affected agencies. Comments received from affected agencies are attached and incorporated herein. This proposal was made by the District, with contractors and District staff working to prepare the application at the bequest of the FPD Board. This was not a collaborative proposal made with LAFCO Staff. No alternatives to the proposal were indicated by the District.

Although the Cottonwood Fire Protection District should be commended for their goals of future planning, this application process was limited in scope due to the lack of discussion and cooperation with other fire protection agencies, including those which currently provide services to the affected areas. Only the proposed Sphere Amendment was considered by the Cottonwood Fire Protection District as a feasible alternative. Given the conservative annexation history of the District (three annexations within the past thirty years), an addition of over 100% of territory to the Sphere seems to be unnecessary or premature at best. LAFCO staff welcomes this proposal as a starting place for a discussion regarding future growth projections and likely service providers, but feels strongly that approving such an expansive alteration to future service provision without the collaborative effort of other and current service providers (Cal Fire) in the affected area does not meet the mandates of the LAFCO mission.

Ms. Mickelson recommended a continuance of this proposal until a regional discussion can be held regarding fire protection in the Southern County. Staff recommends hosting a series of meetings and workshops, with the inclusion of GIS services to provide modeling and feasibility of options, and for LAFCO staff to act in a facilitating role to best serve the process of regional collaboration. It is the recommendation of staff that Anderson Fire Protection District, Cal Fire, Cottonwood Fire Protection District, Happy Valley Fire Protection District, Millville Fire Protection District and County representatives meet to discuss regional impacts and work together to propose Spheres and fire protection boundary modifications that will best serve and protect Southern County residents.

Commissioner Baugh asked if LAFCO Commissioners should be included in these discussions and expressed his concern about the potential cost of these meetings. Ms. Mickelson stated that LAFCO would absorb the cost incurred; however there are some monies budgeted for GIS for this type of situation. By motion made and seconded (Dickerson, Haynes) the Commission moved for a continuance of the Cottonwood Sphere Amendment proposal until a regional discussion can be held regarding fire protection in the Southern County.

Rodney Chadbon with the Cottonwood Fire Protection District apologized to the Commission for not collaborating with the agencies previously mentioned and that they were willing to do so. Mr. Chadbon explained that the District hired a consultant to give them direction on the proposal and was disappointed how things have worked out. John Stokes with the City of Anderson stated that since there is a slight overlap between the Anderson FPD and Cottonwood FPD he feels it’s imperative to engage in conversations regarding this proposal. Mike Chuchel asked that Cal Fire be included in discussions submitted to Shasta County Fire. He stated that he supported the Executive Officer’s recommendation of a continuance of this proposal until a regional discussion can be held regarding fire protection in the Southern County.

The motion for continuance was passed via voice vote. Commissioner Baugh expressed his desire to participate as a LAFCO representative during these discussions. Commissioner Dickerson made a motion for Commissioner Baugh to be a LAFCo representative. Being that the item was not agendized Commissioner Dickerson withdrew the motion.

Report on Upcoming or Potential Proposals
The Executive Officer provided a brief summary to the Commissioners regarding upcoming and expected proposals. Discussion followed. No action was taken.

OPERATIONS & ADMINISTRATION
Consider Responses to Legal Request for Proposals
Commissioner Dickerson questioned whether or not LAFCO should have an attorney present at every meeting. Commission Baugh explained that not having an attorney at every meeting came from the direction of the Commission during the budget process. This was due to limited funds and the Commissions desire to keep expenses down. Discussion followed about what capacity the attorneys would be available and any charges that would be billed to LAFCO for being on‐call. By motion made and seconded (Kehoe, Baugh) the Commission directed staff to prepare a letter to the Law Offices of Wilkins & Johnson and Kenny, Snowden & Norine for specific costs and availability for on-call legal services. Commissioner Haynes dissented.

Ms. Mickelson asked if the Commission would like the firms to address the Commission’s questions at the meeting or if a letter would suffice. The Commission agreed that a letter would be sufficient.

Consider CALAFCO Regional Structure
Commissioner Haynes asked to hear from staff about this matter. Ms. Mickelson stated that the goal of this Regional Structure would be to allow structure member LAFCOs in geographic regions to encourage communication among LAFCo commissioners and staff, increase involvement in Association activities and policies, collaborate on inter‐LAFCo policies and issues, share resources, and provide regional input to the Board on legislative issues and regional policy issues. The Commission had concerns about any potential costs associated with this. Discussion followed. By motion made and seconded (Kehoe, Baugh) the Commission directed staff to listen to the discussion at the upcoming CALAFCO conference regarding this matter, take into consideration the Commission’s thoughts from today’s meeting and vote accordingly.

COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no Commissioner Announcements given.

STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next special LAFCO meeting will be at 9:00 am on November 5, 2009 at the City of Redding Council Chambers.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Gover adjourned the meeting at 10:40 am.

Respectfully submitted,

Jessica Smith
Clerk to the Commission

MINUTES 
Special Meeting – September 3, 2009 
(These  minutes  are  not  intended  to  be  a  verbatim  transcription  of  the  proceedings  and  discussion  associated  with  the business  on  the  Commission’s  agenda;  rather,  what  follows  is  a  summary  of  the  order  of  business  and  general  nature  of testimony, Commission deliberation, and action taken.) 
 

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/INTRODUCTIONS 
Chairman Gover called the meeting to order at 9:05 am at the McConnell Foundation Lema Ranch Guest House, 800 Julian Street, Redding, CA.  Commissioners Baugh, Fust, Gover, Haynes, Kehoe, Mathena and Morgan  were  present.  Commissioners  Farr  and  Dickerson  were  absent.  Executive  Officer  Mickelson  and Clerk Smith were present as staff. 
 
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  
Commissioner Baugh led the Pledge of Allegiance. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
There was no public comment submitted. 
 
2009-2010 COMMISSIONER WORKSHOP 
Ms.  Mickelson  reviewed  with  the  Commission  information  regarding  LAFCO  laws,  pertinent  legislation, conflict of interest and Brown Act requirements.   
 
ADJOURNMENT 
There being no further business, Chairman Gover adjourned the meeting at 10:15 am.  
 
Respectfully submitted, 

Jessica Smith
Clerk to the Commission 

MINUTES 
Special Meeting – August 24, 2009 
(These  minutes  are  not  intended  to  be  a  verbatim  transcription  of  the  proceedings  and  discussion  associated  with  the business  on  the  Commission’s  agenda;  rather,  what  follows  is  a  summary  of  the  order  of  business  and  general  nature  of testimony, Commission deliberation, and action taken.) 

 
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/INTRODUCTIONS 
Chairman  Gover  called  the  meeting  to  order  at  8:15  am  at  the  City  of  Redding  Council  Chambers,  777 Cypress  Ave,  Redding,  CA.  Commissioners  Dickerson,  Farr,  Fust,  Gover,  Haynes  &  Kehoe  were  present. Commissioner  Baugh  was  absent.  Executive  Officer  Mickelson,  Counsel  Johnson  and  Clerk  Smith  were present as staff. 
 
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 
Commissioner Kehoe led the Pledge of Allegiance. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
There was no public comment submitted. 
 
At this time Commissioner Baugh arrived. 
 
CLOSED SESSION 
The  Commission  convened  to  Closed  Session  at  8:18  am  to  confer  with  Legal  Counsel  –  Anticipated Litigation §54956.9(b)(3)(D) 
 
CLOSED SESSION REPORT 
At 8:49 a.m., the Commission reconvened to open session. No action was taken. 
 
ADJOURNMENT 
There being no further business, Chairman Gover adjourned the meeting at 8:50 am.  
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
Jessica Smith
Clerk to the Commission 

MINUTES
Regular Meeting – August 6, 2009
(These minutes are not intended to be a verbatim transcription of the proceedings and discussion associated with the business on the Commission’s agenda; rather, what follows is a summary of the order of business and general nature of testimony, Commission deliberation, and action taken.)

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/INTRODUCTIONS
Chairman Gover called the meeting to order at 9:00 am at the City of Redding Council Chambers, 777 Cypress Ave, Redding, CA. Commissioners Farr, Fust, Gover, Haynes & Kehoe were present. Commissioner Baugh & Dickerson were absent. Executive Officer Mickelson and Clerk Smith were present as staff.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Fust led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. Kathy Jalquin addressed the Commission. She stated that the three things couldn’t be hidden for long: the sun, the moon and the truth. She went on to say that if Commissioner Haynes continued doing what she was doing, that she (Ms. Jalquin) would sue LAFCO.

MINUTES
The minutes of June 11, 2009 were presented. By motion made and seconded (Kehoe, Farr) the Commission approved the June 11, 2009 minutes as amended. Amendments included; changing Commission to Commissioner on page 3 paragraphs 9 and 10.

BUDGET & FISCAL AFFAIRS
Fiscal Year 2009-10 1st Quarter Transaction Register to Date Commissioner Haynes asked about seeing a transaction register that included June expenditures. Ms. Mickelson stated that she would transmit the year-end detail to the Commissioners.
The 1st Quarter Transaction Register was presented for review and adoption. By motion made and seconded (Haynes, Kehoe) the Commission approved the 1st Quarter Transaction Register.

Consideration of Checking Account Statements
Adopted August 6, 2009

Ms. Mickelson presented the following bank statements: US Bank: two statements dated May 31, 2009 and June 30, 2009; Tri Counties Bank: two statements dated June 17, 2009 and July 19, 2009; and LAIF:
two statements dated May 2009 and June 2009. By motion made and seconded (Haynes,Fust) the Commission approved the bank statements as presented.

SPECIAL STUDIES AND REPORTS
Municipal Services Review: Status Report
Commissioner Fust asked Ms. Mickelson if the Commission had decided how to handle districts that had
yet to respond to LAFCO in regard to an MSR. Ms. Mickelson stated that the Commission had decided in
the past that they would not allow any type of jurisdictional boundary changes until an MSR is complete.
Commissioner Farr wanted to know what would happen should a district apply to expand their
boundaries into another district that hasn’t yet completed a MSR.
Ms. Mickelson stated that it would be a Commission decision and done on a case by case basis.
Ms. Mickelson provided the Commission with the current MSR update. This was an information item
only. No action was taken.
Countywide Spheres of influence Review: Status Report
Ms. Mickelson provided the Commission with the current Countywide Spheres of Influence Report. She
noted that changes to the proposed schedule would be likely, given that some Districts would be
bringing applications forward on their own as well. This was an information item only. No action was
taken.

CHANGES OF ORGANIZATION AND/OR REORGANIZATION
Report on Upcoming or Potential Proposals
The Executive Officer provided a brief summary to the Commissioners regarding upcoming and expected
proposals. Discussion followed. No action was taken.

OPERATIONS & ADMINISTRATION
Consider Responses to Legal Request for Proposals and Determine Scope of Legal Counsel Needs
Commissioner Kehoe was asked to update the full Commission as to the Executive Committee’s findings.
Commissioner Kehoe stated that the Executive Committee looked into LAFCO needing full time legal
counsel verses an on-call legal counsel. The Executive Committee recommended amending the current
Adopted August 6, 2009

RFP for Legal Counsel to include an on-call or ad hoc type of service. This would give other firms an
opportunity to submit a proposal to LAFCO.
Chair Gover added that the current RFP that was sent out excluded some firms, including LAFCO’s
current legal counsel, due to the current proposal.
Commissioner Farr asked if we could renegotiate with current legal counsel and not send out a new RFP.
Ms. Mickelson stated that legal counsel recommended sending out a new RFP.
Discussion followed.
By motion made and seconded (Kehoe, Haynes) the Commission directed staff to recirculate a modified
FRP to the legal community.
Discussion: Commissioner Farr expressed that he did not feel it was necessary to recirculate but would
support the Executive Committee. He did want to know if the same legal counsel who contracts with the
City of Shasta Lake were to contract with LAFCO, would he have to recuse himself?
Ms. Mickelson stated that in general, he would not need to recuse himself due to the attorney
representing both agencies.
SDRMA Board of Director Elections
Ms. Mickelson presented the Commission with potential candidates for Directors of the SDRMA Board.
The Commission took no action.
Designation of CALAFCO Voting Delegate
By motion made and seconded (Farr,Fust) the Commission designated Ms. Mickelson for the CALAFCO
Voting Delegate.

COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Gover addressed a letter that was received in regards to the budget process. Since the letter was
addressed to the Chair and Vice Chair the Commission had not yet seen the letter Chair Gover was
referring to.
Commissioner Kehoe suggested the letters be circulated to the full Commission, placed on a later
agenda if necessary, as well as policy considered on how to circulate communication addressed only to
certain members of the Commission.
Adopted August 6, 2009

STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next regular LAFCO meeting (Commissioner Workshop) will be at 9:00 am on September 3, 2009 at
the McConnell Foundation Guest House. It was noted that although the Workshop will be focused
toward Commissioner Education, that members of the public would be able to attend as well.
Commissioner Kehoe asked that specific directions to the Guest House be distributed with the agenda as
well.

CLOSED SESSION
None

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
None

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Gover adjourned the meeting at 9:55 am.

Respectfully submitted,

Jessica Smith Date
Clerk to the Commission

MINUTES
Regular Meeting – June, 11, 2009
(These minutes are not intended to be a verbatim transcription of the proceedings and discussion associated with the business on the Commission’s agenda; rather, what follows is a summary of the order of business and general nature of testimony, Commission deliberation, and action taken.)

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/INTRODUCTIONS
Chairman Gover called the meeting to order at 9:00 am at the City of Anderson Council Chambers, 1887 Howard Street, Anderson, CA. Commissioners Baugh, Farr, Fust, Gover, Haynes, Kehoe & Webster were present. Commissioner Dickerson was absent. Executive Officer Mickelson, Counsel Johnson and Clerk Smith were present as staff.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Fust led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment submitted.

MINUTES
The minutes of April 2, 2009 were presented. By motion made and seconded (Baugh, Haynes) the Commission approved the April 2, 2009 minutes as amended. Commissioner Webster abstained.

BUDGET & FISCAL AFFAIRS
Fiscal Year 2008-09 4th Quarter Transaction Register to Date
The 4th Quarter Transaction Register was presented for review and adoption. By motion made and seconded (Baugh, Fust) the Commission approved the Transaction Register.

Consideration of Checking Account Statements
Ms. Mickelson presented the following bank statements: US Bank: two statements dated March 31, 2009 and April 30, 2009; Tri Counties Bank: two statements dated April 19, 2009 and May 17, 2009; and LAIF: two statements dated March 2009 and April 2009. By motion made and seconded (Baugh, Haynes) the Commission approved the bank statements as presented.

Consideration of Continuation of Annual Independent Audit Practice
Ms. Mickelson reminded the Commission that Shasta LAFCO went out for an audit RFP almost one year ago. At the time, the RFP specified that the audit may be an annual or biennial process. Our current CPA firm responded that a biennial audit wouldn’t save LAFCO much money because they would have to audit back to the previous audit anyway. An audit was then completed for the 2007-08 Fiscal Year and no decision was made as to the frequency of the audits performed.

Commissioner Fust noted that the cost is almost the same to do either an annual or biennial audit. Commissioner Baugh added that he felt that the cost seemed high to him considering that LAFCO is a small agency. Ms. Mickelson stated that LAFCO could generate and circulate another RFP.

Commissioner Kehoe asked if the Shasta County Auditor’s office could perform an audit and if would be cost effective for LAFCO. Ms. Mickelson stated that when she had previously discussed that option with the Auditor’s office, they had declined to perform such a service.

Commissioner Baugh brought up the idea of looking for some possible alternatives, such as employing an accountant that could perform the audit.

By motion made and seconded (Baugh, Kehoe) the Commission directed staff to re-circulate an audit RFP as well as explore other options and report back findings to the Commission.

Public Hearing: Consideration and Adoption of 2009-10 Final Budget as Required by Government Code Section 56381 (c)
Ms. Mickelson presented the Commission the 2009-10 Final Budget. She noted that the requested Final Budget was $9,000 less than the adopted draft budget (a 3% decrease).

Commissioner Kehoe questioned why LAFCO was requesting an increase of fees when other public entities are taking cuts. Commissioner Baugh added that he too did not feel comfortable increasing rates during these current economic conditions. While he acknowledged that in the very near future LAFCO is going to face some very steep increases he would like to hold of any type of increases for as long as possible since we are dealing with economic conditions that are not typical.

Discussion followed as to what items in the budget could be cut to keep contributions the same as last fiscal year.

At 9:47 a.m. public comment on the 2009-10 Proposed Final Budget was opened.

Alternate Public Member Mathena suggested appointing an Audit Committee to replace the Annual Audit, as well as considering the potential cost of legal counsel since LAFCO’s current legal counsel submitted a termination of services letter.

Ms. Char Workman-Flowers of Clear Creek CSD stated that they had to cut back on employees and they have had reduced fees of 22%.

At 9:55 a.m. the public comment period was closed.

The Commission again began discussion as to which line items could be reduced or cut.

Commissioner Kehoe asked how the contribution amounts were calculated. Ms. Mickelson stated that it’s based on Government Section Code 56381. The revenue figures are based on revenue that is reported to the State Controller and that the report runs about 2-3 year years behind. Each independent special district’s share is then apportioned in proportion to each district’s total revenues. This is all calculated by the Auditor’s office, as per Government Code Section 56381(a).

The Commission asked Ms. Mickelson if staff would be able to rework the numbers, thereby reducing expenses and keeping contributions the same as last fiscal year.

Ms. Mickelson responded that if the Commission would take a ten minute recess, staff should be able to collaborate and make adjustments to the presented Final Budget.

At 10:07 the Commission took a ten minute recess.

At 10:17 the meeting resumed with Ms. Mickelson presenting four suggested changes to the budget: (1) decreasing the Accrued Benefits line item by $8350, (2) decreasing the Audit line item by $3500, (3) decreasing the Travel & Conferences by $3000 which would preclude any of the Commissioners from attending the annual conference and (4) thus since the Contingency line item is based on total expenditures this item would decrease by $741. All four changes to the budget would decrease total expenditures by $18,091, which would allow contribution rates to remain the same as last fiscal year.

Commissioner Baugh asked Ms. Mickelson if staff recommends adopting the budget with the changes proposed. Ms. Mickelson stated that the Final Budget she originally presented to the Commission is what staff recommends, however, she would certainly support the Commission’s decision. Ms. Mickelson again noted that the Commission had been living on a carry-over budget for years and that marked increases would be soon-coming in the following years.

Commissioner Baugh suggested looking at LAFCO’s fee schedule as a way to increase revenues in the future. Commissioner Haynes asked if it was necessary to pay for legal counsel to attend LAFCO Commission Meetings. Commissioners Baugh and Kehoe concurred with Commissioner Haynes and suggested that it be brought back as an agenda item.

By motion made and seconded (Baugh,Fust) the Commission adopted the 2009-10 Final Budget, with amendments, as required by Government Code Section 56381 (c). The amendments noted were: 1) Decreasing the Accrued Benefits line item by $8,350. 2) Decreasing the Audit line item by $3,500. 3) Decreasing the Travel & Conferences by $3,000 4) Decreasing the Contingency line item by $700. Commission Farr dissented. When asked by another Commissioner, Commissioner Farr explained that he supported the staff recommendation, specifically the Final Budget that was presented to the Commission.

SPECIAL STUDIES AND REPORTS
Municipal Services Review: Final City of Shasta Lake
By motion made and seconded (Farr, Baugh) the Commission approved the City of Shasta Lake Final Municipal Services Review as presented.

Commissioner Farr thanked staff for all the time and effort that went into preparing the City of Shasta Lake MSR.

Commissioner Fust appreciated the document and thought it was well done.

Report/Opinion from Counsel, re: Principal County Status
Counsel Johnson presented her findings to the Commission regarding Principal County Status. Commissioner Fust asked that if an annexation were to take place, would a tax exchange agreement have to take place. Counsel Johnson stated that yes there would have to be an agreement set in place.

By motion made and seconded (Farr, Fust) the Commission accepted the Report/Opinion from Counsel, re: Principal County Status.

CHANGES OF ORGANIZATION AND/OR REORGANIZATION
Report on Upcoming or Potential Proposals
The Executive Officer provided a brief summary to the Commissioners regarding upcoming and expected proposals. Discussion followed. No action was taken.

OPERATIONS & ADMINISTRATION
Consider PTO Accrual Limit and Administrative Leave Cash-out Policy and Contract Amendment
Ms. Mickelson presented the Commission with Contract and Policy changes drafted by legal counsel.

By motion made and seconded (Kehoe, Fust) the Commission adopted the Draft Contract and Policy Changes, which includes the Executive Officer accruing no more than 300 hours of PTO and to receive payment of up to a maximum of 48 hours per year of unused Administrative Leave.

Discussion: Commissioner Farr asked if under paragraph 7, line 5, it should say in lieu of Administrative Leave and not PTO. Counsel Johnson agreed that it should say Administrative Leave and would make the change.

COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS
None

STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next regular LAFCO meeting will be at 9:00 am on August 6, 2009 at the City of Redding.

CLOSED SESSION
None

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
None

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Gover adjourned the meeting at 11:30 am.

Respectfully submitted,

Jessica Smith
Clerk to the Commission