Special Districts Bill Misjudged

In his column (“The County Doesn’t Need State’s ‘Help’ on Consolidations,” May 18), Supervisor Charles Smith correctly describes the role of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as “trying to right over 100 years of illogical city and special district boundaries in Orange County.”

I would further agree with Smith that the most important function of LAFCO in Orange County today is to encourage and promote the consolidation of special districts. Independent studies going back to the early 1980s have recommended reducing the number of independent special districts as a means of providing water and sanitation services in a more cost-efficient and accountable manner.

However, Smith’s characterization of my legislation, Assembly Bill 556, as an “attempt to dictate Orange County policy from Sacramento” is completely inaccurate. The proposed consolidations in AB 556 are based upon the recommendations of the 1994 Orange County Grand Jury report and the 1996 Service Delivery Systems and Governance Improvement Study. Both of these studies were locally generated, but their findings have not been locally implemented. Studies are only as good as those willing to follow through on their recommendations.

Smith’s comments in his column indicate that he either has not read, or does not understand, the terms of AB 556. He claims that AB 556 mandates certain mergers and consolidations of special districts without analysis showing savings to the public. In reality, however, AB 556 does not mandate any consolidation or merger. The bill simply requires LAFCO to initiate proceedings to move forward with consolidations that already have the support of preliminary studies. As a part of its proceedings, LAFCO is required to conduct a detailed analysis of any consolidation or merger proposal. AB 556 will not change this requirement. Furthermore, AB 556 does not require LAFCO to approve any consolidation that is not supported by LAFCO’s analysis.

Smith further claims AB 556 does not provide the same level of public input or scrutiny as the LAFCO process. To the contrary, my legislation provides for more public participation. Not only is LAFCO required to conduct the same analyses of any given consolidation proposal, subject to public input, as required under current law, the bill ensures that taxpayers will have the opportunity to vote directly on retail water district consolidations that are not voluntarily undertaken by special districts and cities.

Contrary to Smith’s characterization, I have authored AB 556 to promote more efficient and accountable service delivery to ratepayers. The reality in Orange County is that many special districts have acted to protect their parochial interests by opposing reasonable consolidation efforts for years. By the same token, LAFCO has failed to utilize its own authority to initiate any consolidations based upon prior independent studies.

AB 556 will break this stalemate by requiring LAFCO to initiate consolidation proceedings which both LAFCO and the special districts themselves have shown little inclination to initiate independently.

CURT PRINGLE

Assembly Republican Leader