LAFCO

City Final

Local Agency Formation Commissions · ventura-msr-2007-2007-cityfinal · Msr · 2007-03-21

Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗

MMUUNNIICCIIPPAALL SSEERRVVIICCEE RREEVVIIEEWW NNiinnee VVeennttuurraa CCoouunnttyy CCiittiieess CCiittiieess ooff:: CAMARILLO FILLMORE MOORPARK OJAI OXNARD SAN BUENAVENTURA SANTA PAULA SIMI VALLEY THOUSAND OAKS Prepared By VVeennttuurraa LLooccaall AAggeennccyy FFoorrmmaattiioonn CCoommmmiissssiioonn 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, California 93009-1850 Accepted by Ventura LAFCO March 21, 2007 This Page Intentionally Left Blank MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Table of Contents TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................1 II. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................3 III. CITY PROFILES.........................................................................................................5 A...City of Camarillo – Profile.....................................................................................................5 B...City of Fillmore - Profile.........................................................................................................9 C...City of Moorpark - Profile....................................................................................................11 D...City of Ojai - Profile..............................................................................................................16 E...City of Oxnard - Profile........................................................................................................21 F...City of San Buenaventura (Ventura) - Profile....................................................................24 G...City of Santa Paula - Profile.................................................................................................28 H...City of Simi Valley - Profile..................................................................................................32 I....City of Thousand Oaks - Profile...........................................................................................36 IV. SERVICES................................................................................................................41 A. Overview................................................................................................................................41 B. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies.................................................................................43 C. Growth and Population.........................................................................................................45 D. Financing Constraints and Opportunities...........................................................................48 E. Cost Avoidance Opportunities.............................................................................................50 F. Rate Restructuring Opportunities.......................................................................................51 G. Opportunities for Shared Facilities.....................................................................................52 H. Government Structure Options...........................................................................................53 I. Evaluation of Management Efficiencies..............................................................................55 MSR - Nine Cities i Final Table of Contents MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities J. Local Accountability and Governance................................................................................57 V. DETERMINATIONS..................................................................................................61 City of Camarillo – Determinations...........................................................................................61 City of Fillmore – Determinations.............................................................................................65 City of Moorpark – Determinations..........................................................................................69 City of Ojai – Determinations....................................................................................................73 City of Oxnard – Determinations...............................................................................................77 City of San Buenaventura (Ventura) – Determinations...........................................................83 City of Santa Paula – Determinations.......................................................................................87 City of Simi Valley – Determinations........................................................................................91 City of Thousand Oaks – Determinations.................................................................................95 VI. SPHERES OF INFLUENCE .....................................................................................99 City of Camarillo – Sphere Review Discussion.......................................................................101 City of Fillmore – Sphere Review Discussion.........................................................................103 City of Moorpark – Sphere Review Discussion......................................................................105 City of Ojai – Sphere Review Discussion................................................................................107 City of Oxnard – Sphere Review Discussion...........................................................................108 City of San Buenaventura – Sphere Review Discussion........................................................111 City of Santa Paula – Sphere Review Discussion....................................................................115 City of Simi Valley – Sphere Review Discussion....................................................................117 City of Thousand Oaks – Sphere Review Discussion.............................................................119 Final ii MSR - Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Table of Contents LIST OF MAPS MMaapp 11.. CCiittyy ooff CCaammaarriilllloo................................................................................................................................................................................................................................77 MMaapp 22.. CCiittyy ooff FFiillllmmoorree................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1111 MMaapp 33.. CCiittyy ooff MMoooorrppaarrkk............................................................................................................................................................................................................................1155 MMaapp 44 CCiittyy ooff OOjjaaii…………………………………………………………................................................................................................................................................................1199 MMaapp 55.. CCiittyy ooff OOxxnnaarrdd..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2233 MMaapp 66.. CCiittyy ooff SSaann BBuueennaavveennttuurraa............................................................................................................................................................................................2277 MMaapp 77.. CCiittyy ooff SSaannttaa PPaauullaa....................................................................................................................................................................................................................3311 MMaapp 88.. CCiittyy ooff SSiimmii VVaalllleeyy......................................................................................................................................................................................................................3355 MMaapp 99.. CCiittyy ooff TThhoouussaanndd OOaakkss......................................................................................................................................................................................................3399 MMaapp 1100.. CCiittyy ooff CCaammaarriilllloo SSOOII//CCUURRBB................................................................................................................................................................................110022 MMaapp 1111.. CCiittyy ooff FFiillllmmoorree SSOOII//CCUURRBB......................................................................................................................................................................................110044 MMaapp 1122.. CCiittyy ooff MMoooorrppaarrkk SSOOII//CCUURRBB................................................................................................................................................................................110066 MMaapp 1133.. CCiittyy ooff OOjjaaii SSOOII............................................................................................................................................................................................................................110088 MMaapp 1144.. CCiittyy ooff OOxxnnaarrdd SSOOII//CCUURRBB........................................................................................................................................................................................111100 MMaapp 1155.. CCiittyy ooff SSaann BBuueennaavveennttuurraa SSOOII//SSOOAARR ((11 ooff 22))........................................................................................................................111122 MMaapp 1166.. CCiittyy ooff SSaann BBuueennaavveennttuurraa SSOOII//SSOOAARR ((22 ooff 22))........................................................................................................................111133 MMaapp 1177.. CCiittyy ooff SSaannttaa PPaauullaa SSOOII//CCUURRBB........................................................................................................................................................................111166 MMaapp 1188.. CCiittyy ooff SSiimmii VVaalllleeyy SSOOII//CCUURRBB............................................................................................................................................................................111188 MMaapp 1199.. CCiittyy ooff TThhoouussaanndd OOaakkss SSOOII//CCUURRBB............................................................................................................................................................112200 LIST OF TABLES TTaabbllee 11 OOvveerrvviieeww ooff SSeerrvviicceess && PPeerr CCaappiittaa SSeerrvviiccee CCoosstt................................................................................................................4422 TTaabbllee 22 CCIIPP IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn aass ooff 22000055........................................................................................................................................................................................4444 TTaabbllee 33 CCiittyy PPooppuullaattiioonn:: 22000000,, 22000055,, 22002255..................................................................................................................................................................4466 TTaabbllee 44 BBoonndd RRaattiinngg aass ooff 22000055....................................................................................................................................................................................................5500 MSR - Nine Cities iii Final Table of Contents MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities AAppppeennddiicceess AAppppeennddiixx 11 -- FFiinnaanncciiaall TTaabblleess.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 112233 AAppppeennddiixx 22 –– SSttaaffffiinngg............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 114455 AAppppeennddiixx 33 –– CCoommppeennssaattiioonn...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 114477 AAppppeennddiixx 44 –– GGuuiiddeelliinneess ffoorr OOrrddeerrllyy DDeevveellooppmmeenntt............................................................................................................................................ 114499 AAppppeennddiixx 55 –– CCoommppaarriissoonn ooff VVeennttuurraa CCoouunnttyy SSooaarr aanndd RReellaatteedd OOrrddiinnaanncceess...................................................... 115533 Final iv MSR - Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities I. Executive Summary II.. EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY In creating Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCos) the state legislature recognized, “…that the logical formation and determination of local agency boundaries is an important factor in promoting orderly development and in balancing that development with sometimes competing state interests of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, and efficiently extending governmental services.”1 One of the statutory requirements for each LAFCo is to establish spheres of influence for cities and special districts. A sphere of influence may be separate from an agency’s boundary and is defined as a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by LAFCo. Notwithstanding this definition the legislature has now required the LAFCo in each county in the state to, as necessary, review and update each sphere of influence on or before January 1, 2008 and every five years thereafter. In order to prepare and to update a sphere of influence, however, LAFCo must conduct a service review of the municipal services provided and prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: 1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies. 2. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 3. Financing constraints and opportunities. 4. Cost avoidance opportunities. 5. Opportunities for rate restructuring. 6. Opportunities for shared facilities. 7. Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers. 8. Evaluation of management efficiencies. 9. Local accountability and governance. Cities in California, as single multipurpose governmental agencies, are generally considered as the preferred providers of local community services. There are ten cities in Ventura County. The City of San Buenaventura2 was formally incorporated in 1886 while the newest city, Moorpark, was incorporated in 1983. Each city was formed for the purpose of providing local governance and a variety of services, but no two cities provide all the same services. Cities, like people, have their own history, reason for being and in many ways their own personalities. The City of Oxnard, for example, boasts on its web site that it is the only “full service” city in the County while the City of Thousand Oaks web site proudly states that Thousand Oaks provides services “which other communities only dream about.” The common thread, however, is that cities, unlike special districts, provide a multitude of services and control land use and development within their boundaries. This municipal service review (MSR) is for nine of the ten cities in Ventura County. The Ventura LAFCo determined that no sphere of influence update was necessary for the City of Port Hueneme and, therefore, no comprehensive service review needed to be conducted. The water and wastewater services provided by the City of Port Hueneme were, however, part of the overall water and wastewater service review finalized in 2004 and the appendices to this MSR contain information about the City of Port Hueneme for comparative purposes. 1 CA Government Code §56000, et seq, known as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, is the primary law governing LAFCos. All references to LAFCo law and mandates refer to this statute. 2 San Buenaventura is the legal name for the City of Ventura. As such, San Buenaventura is used throughout this MSR. MSR – Nine Cities 1 Final I. Executive Summary MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities To gather information necessary to conduct this service review the Ventura LAFCo developed a comprehensive questionnaire. Each city completed the questionnaire based primarily on information as of 2005, but some cities did not reply to some questions and the level of detail provided about financial and budget information varied considerably. Thus, while the LAFCo questionnaire is the basic source of information for this MSR, information was also obtained from other public sources including the internet and, for all financial data, the Cities Annual Report published annually by the State Controller. Given the diversity of information sources, the date and timeliness of the information varies. Municipal service reviews should be considered as studies, not investigative reports. LAFCos have no investigative authority. In reviewing this study, the reader is encouraged to focus on the recommended determinations contained in Section V for each of the nine cities. These recommended determinations will be the basis for separate resolutions that will be adopted by the Ventura LAFCo for each of the nine cities. Even though LAFCo has only very limited authority to follow-up about any of the written determinations that are the result of the service review process, the adopted determinations will be considered as a part of a subsequent review and, as necessary, update of each city’s sphere of influence and future boundary change proposals. The recommended determinations reflect that each of the nine cities is in compliance with all major legal requirements relating to operations and financial affairs. As a result of this service review no significant problems were found in any of the cities, but each city does have financial and other operational constraints that do affect service delivery. While citizens may take issue with how a city prioritizes service responsibilities, sets rates and fees or otherwise conducts business, the fact is that cities are the most scrutinized units of local government. Due to legal mandates, press coverage and citizen involvement they are also perhaps the most accountable. If errors or lack of compliance with legal requirements do occur there are a variety of ways citizens can and do seek remedies, including elections and the courts. Nothing in this service review identified any issues that have not already been widely reported and reviewed. This MSR also contains a discussion about each city’s sphere of influence in relation to LAFCo policies and existing service areas (section VI). This discussion is preliminary and for the purpose of providing a starting point for the subsequent sphere of influence reviews and updates that will occur very shortly after final action on the individual resolutions to adopt written determinations for each of the nine mandatory factors for each city. This discussion reflects that the sphere of influence for the cities of San Buenaventura and Santa Paula are perhaps the most inconsistent with current policies and service areas, while the City of Thousand Oaks, at least preliminarily, has no inconsistencies. It is anticipated that the sphere of influence of each city reviewed in this MSR will be updated by LAFCo well before the January 1, 2008 deadline. Final 2 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities II. Introduction IIII.. IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN Beginning in 2001 the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in each county in the state was required to review and, as necessary, update the sphere of influence of each city and special district. No sphere of influence can be updated, however, unless the LAFCo first conducts a municipal service review. California Government Code §56430 provides that municipal service reviews (“service reviews” or “MSRs”) consist of written determinations relating to the following nine factors: 1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies. 2. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 3. Financing constraints and opportunities. 4. Cost avoidance opportunities. 5. Opportunities for rate restructuring. 6. Opportunities for shared facilities. 7. Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers. 8. Evaluation of management efficiencies. 9. Local accountability and governance. Municipal service reviews are: • The written determinations adopted by a LAFCo for the services provided by cities and special districts. LAFCo service review reports are essentially only studies with recommended determinations for each of the nine factors. • Not applicable to counties, except for special districts governed by a county board of supervisors, and are not applicable to private providers of public services, such as private water companies or public utilities regulated by the state Public Utilities Commission. This is because service reviews are based on the preparation or update of spheres of influence and LAFCos do not establish spheres of influence for counties or private service providers. • Not investigations. While authorized to prepare studies relating to their role as boundary agencies, LAFCos have no investigative authority. As required by Government Code §56430, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) adopted advisory guidelines for municipal service reviews. Because of the timing of the issuance of the guidelines and widely varying local circumstances, each LAFCo in the state is following its own process and procedures for meeting the sphere of influence update and related municipal service review mandate. The Ventura LAFCo’s municipal service review process is being completed in three phases based on a work plan that has been periodically updated and is available on the Ventura LAFCo web site (www.ventura.LAFCo.ca.gov). The process used to prepare all service review reports to date involved a four-part questionnaire that each affected agency was requested to complete. The first part collected general information about the agency (contact information, governing body, financial information, etc), the second part asked for service specific data, the third part included both questions and a map relating to boundary issues and the fourth part was a signature page. The questionnaire was the basis for most of the information in the service review reports and was designed to ensure the efficient transfer of information into a database designed to serve as a base of information for future service reviews. For this MSR, information provided by each city in MSR – Nine Cities 3 Final II. Introduction MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities responding to the questionnaire was supplemented by information from other public sources, especially including the three most recent Cities Annual Report published by the State Controller. The first phase of the Ventura LAFCo’s municipal service review work plan, completed in January 2004 reviewed the water and/or wastewater services provided by public agencies in Ventura County. The cities Camarillo, Fillmore, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, San Buenaventura, Santa Paula, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks were included in those municipal service reviews as providers of water and/or wastewater services. The second phase of the MSR work plan, conducted from 2004 though 2006 included service reviews of the functions of nineteen special districts, not including water and/or wastewater services. This phase is now complete, except for the MSR relating to the three public cemetery districts in the County. It is expected that the MSR for the three public cemetery districts will be completed based on updated information shortly after this MSR. This MSR is part of the third and final phase of the Ventura LAFCo’s MSR work plan. It is for nine of the ten cities in Ventura County; all cities except the City of Port Hueneme. The City of Port Hueneme is surrounded by the City of Oxnard on three sides and the Pacific Ocean on the fourth, and the City boundary and sphere of influence are co-terminus. The Ventura LAFCo reviewed the sphere of influence for the City of Port Hueneme and determined, on March 24, 2004, that no update was necessary. Because it was determined that no sphere of influence update was necessary, no municipal service review is required. This service review contains six sections and five appendices. In addition to the Executive Summary and this Introduction section, the other four sections are: • III Profiles - a summary profile of important information for each of the nine cities; • IV Services - containing a summary table showing the services provided by each city and the per capita expenditures for each service based on the most recent Cities Annual Report published by the State Controller, plus a summary review of information relating to each of the nine mandatory service review factors; • V Determinations - contains the recommended determinations for each of the nine mandatory factors for each of the nine cities; and • VI Sphere of Influence - a discussion and maps that will form the basis for subsequent sphere of influence reviews for each of the nine cities. The Appendices contain detailed revenue and expense information, including averages and per capita information, for each city based on the three most recent Cities Annual Report, information about staffing and elected official compensation, the Guidelines for Orderly Development and a summary table of the various SOAR and other voter approved ordinances that have an influence on growth and population. The result of this MSR will be the adoption of determinations by LAFCo, via a separate resolution for each city addressing each of the nine mandatory factors, based on the recommendations in section V. Everything else in this MSR should be considered as background information. Final 4 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles IIIIII.. CCIITTYY PPRROOFFIILLEESS AA.. CCiittyy ooff CCaammaarriilllloo -- PPrrooffiillee Contact Information City Hall: 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010 Mailing Address: PO Box 248, Camarillo, CA 93011-0248 Phone Number: (805) 388-5307 Fax Number: (805) 388-5318 Web Site www.ci.camarillo.ca.us E-mail cityhall@ci.camarillo.ca.us Governance Information Date Incorporated October 22, 1964 Organization General Law Form of Government Council - Manager City Council Five member city council; members elected at-large to staggered, four year terms of office; elections held in even numbered years; Mayor selected by the city council to a two year term. The city council regularly meets on the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of each month. The meetings begin at 5:00 p.m. City council meetings are broadcast live on the City’s government cable TV channel. Population & Area Information Population Area (sq. mi.)1 City 64,0342 19.65 Sphere of Influence 82,8093 22.71 Services Animal Regulation4 Public Transit5 Community Development & Redevelopment Solid Waste & Recycling5 Disaster Preparedness Streets, Highways & Storm Drains General Government Street Trees & Landscaping Police4 Water6 Public Agencies with Overlapping Jurisdiction7 Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura Pleasant Valley Recreation & Park District Calleguas Municipal Water District Pleasant Valley School District Camarillo Health Care District Rio School District Camarillo Sanitary District Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Camrosa Water District Ventura County Fire Protection District Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Ventura County Transportation Commission Oxnard Union High School District Ventura County Watershed Protection District Pleasant Valley County Water District Ventura Regional Sanitation District 1 Approximate area based on geographic information system calculations 2 CA Dept. of Finance estimate – Jan. 1, 2006 3 City estimate 4 Contract with County of Ventura 5 Contract with private sector 6 Treatment and retail water distribution is provided by the City for only portions of the City; remaining areas in the City are served by Camrosa Water District or by private, mutual water companies 7 In addition to the County of Ventura the boundaries of these public agencies overlap the City boundaries in whole or in part; each of these separate public agencies provide services to some or all of the residents/property owners in the City MSR – Nine Cities 5 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities CCiittyy ooff CCaammaarriilllloo –– PPrrooffiillee ((ccoonnttiinnuueedd)) Summary Financial Information1 Revenue Percent Per Capita2 Property taxes $3,212,278 6.90% $51.92 Sales & use taxes $9,866,703 21.19% $159.49 Other taxes $6,912,397 14.85% $111.74 Special Benefit Assessments (total) $261,220 0.56% $4.22 Licenses & permits (total) $1,220,246 2.62% $19.72 Fines & forfeitures (total) $451,495 0.97% $7.30 Use of money & property (total) $862,293 1.85% $13.94 Intergovernmental (total) $5,542,918 11.90% $89.60 Solid waste service charges $4,317,374 9.27% $69.79 Water service charges/connection fees $8,193,612 17.60% $132.45 Other service charges $4,532,986 9.74% $73.27 Other revenue (total) $1,187,257 2.55% $19.19 Total Revenue $46,560,779 100.00% $752.63 Expenses3 Percent Per Capita General government $3,700,279 8.65% $59.81 Police $9,337,013 21.82% $150.93 Animal regulation $190,858 0.45% $3.09 Other public safety $457,897 1.07% $7.40 Streets and highways $9,867,993 23.06% $159.51 Street trees and landscaping $565,305 1.32% $9.14 Public transit $675,638 1.58% $10.92 Community development $5,738,376 13.41% $92.76 Solid waste $4,444,176 10.39% $71.84 Health – other $30,835 0.07% $0.50 Parks $60,823 0.14% $0.98 Libraries $415,830 0.97% $6.72 Water $7,334,703 17.14% $118.56 Total Expenses $42,788,891 100.00% $691.66 1 Source: CA State Controller Cities Annual Report 2003-04; see Appendix A for details and prior year information 2 Based on CA Dept. of Finance Jan, 1, 2004 population estimate of 61,864 3 Includes both operating and capital expenses Final 6 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles MMaapp 11.. CCiittyy ooff CCaammaarriilllloo MSR – Nine Cities 7 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Final 8 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles BB.. CCiittyy ooff FFiillllmmoorree -- PPrrooffiillee Contact Information City Hall: 250 Central Avenue, Fillmore, CA 93015-1907 Mailing Address: 250 Central Avenue, Fillmore, CA 93015-1907 Phone Number: (805) 524-3701 Fax Number: (805) 524-5707 Web Site www.fillmoreca.com E-mail firstintiallastname@ci.fillmore.ca.us Governance Information Date Incorporated July 10, 1914 Organization General Law Form of Government Council - Manager City Council Five member city council; members elected at-large to staggered, four year terms of office; elections held in even numbered years; Mayor selected by the city council to a two year term The city council regularly meets on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month. The meetings begin at 6:30 p.m. Population & Area Information Population Area (sq. mi.)1 City 15,1802 3.2 Sphere of Influence Not available 3.93 Services Animal Regulation3 Public Transit Community Development & Redevelopment Solid Waste & Recycling4 General Government Streets, Highways & Storm Drains Fire Street Trees & Landscaping Parks & Recreation Sewer Police3 Water Public Agencies with Overlapping Jurisdiction5 Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Bardsdale Cemetery District Ventura County Transportation Commission Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Ventura County Watershed Protection District Fillmore Unified School District Ventura Regional Sanitation District United Water Conservation District 1 Approximate area based on geographic information system calculations 2 CA Dept. of Finance estimate Jan. 1, 2006 3 Contract with the County of Ventura 4 Contract with private sector 5 In addition to the County of Ventura, the boundaries of these public agencies overlap the City boundaries in whole or in part; each of these separate public agencies provide services to some or all of the residents/property owners in the City MSR – Nine Cities 9 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities CCiittyy ooff FFiillllmmoorree –– PPrrooffiillee ((ccoonnttiinnuueedd)) Summary Financial Information1 Revenue Percent Per Capita2 Property taxes $313,074 2.95% $20.66 Sales & use taxes $829,279 7.82% $54.71 Other taxes $1,621,979 15.29% $107.01 Special Benefit Assessments (total) $203,987 1.92% $13.46 Licenses & permits (total) $196,707 1.85% $12.98 Fines & forfeitures (total) $130,834 1.23% $8.63 Use of money & property (total) $136,956 1.29% $9.04 Intergovernmental (total) $1,318,949 12.43% $87.02 Sewer service charges/connection fees $1,319,512 12.44% $87.06 Solid waste service charges $44,062 0.42% $2.91 Water service charges/connection fees $1,957,773 18.46% $129.17 Other service charges $1,075,928 10.14% $70.99 Other revenue (total) $1,458,483 13.75% $96.23 Total Revenue $10,607,563 100.00% $699.85 Expenses3 Percent Per Capita General Government $1,180,184 11.50% $77.86 Police $2,307,978 22.48% $152.27 Fire $1,053,305 10.26% $69.49 Animal Regulation $43,079 0.42% $2.84 Streets and Highways $558,698 5.44% $36.86 Street Trees and Landscaping $262,430 2.56% $17.31 Public Transit $259,326 2.53% $17.11 Transportation – Other $1,596 0.02% $0.11 Community Development & Redevelopment $489,472 4.77% $32.29 Sewers (collection & treatment) $1,619,172 15.77% $106.83 Solid Waste $57,856 0.56% $3.82 Parks $413,114 4.02% $27.26 Water $1,822,001 17.75% $120.21 Public Utilities – Other $198,564 1.93% $13.10 Total Expenses $10,266,777 100.00% $677.36 1 Source: CA State Controller Cities Annual Report 2003-04; see Appendix A for details and prior year information 2 Based on CA Dept. of Finance Jan. 1, 2004 population estimate of 15,167 3 Includes both operating and capital expenses Final 10 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles MMaapp 22.. CCiittyy ooff FFiillllmmoorree . MSR – Nine Cities 11 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Final 12 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles CC.. CCiittyy ooff MMoooorrppaarrkk -- PPrrooffiillee Contact Information City Hall: 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93012 Mailing Address: 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93012 Phone Number: (805) 517-6200 Fax Number: (805) 529-8270 Web Site www.ci.moorpark.ca.us E-mail firstintiallastname@ci.moorpark.ca.us Governance Information Date Incorporated July 1, 1983 Organization General Law Form of Government Council - Manager City Council Five member city council consisting of a directly elected mayor elected at large to a two-year term and four council members elected at large to four year terms in alternate slates of two every two years; elections held in even numbered years. The city council regularly meets on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of each month. The meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. City Council meetings are broadcast live on the City’s government cable TV channel. Recorded regular City Council meetings may also be viewed on the City’s web site. Population & Area Information Population Area (sq. mi.)1 City 35,8012 12.47 Sphere of Influence 35,801 12.47 Services Animal Regulation3 Police3 Community Centers/Auditoriums Public Transit Community Development & Redevelopment Solid Waste & Recycling4 General Government Streets, Highways & Storm Drains Libraries Street Lighting Parks & Recreation Street Trees & Landscaping Public Agencies with Overlapping Jurisdiction5 Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura Ventura County Fire Protection District Calleguas Municipal Water District Ventura County Transportation Commission Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Ventura County Watershed Protection District Moorpark Unified School District Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 1 Approximate area based on geographic information system calculations 2 CA Dept. of Finance estimate Jan. 1, 2006 3 Contract with the County of Ventura 4 Contract with private sector 5 In addition to the County of Ventura, the boundaries of these public agencies overlap the City boundaries in whole or in part; each of these separate public agencies provide services to some or all of the residents/property owners in the City MSR – Nine Cities 13 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities CCiittyy ooff MMoooorrppaarrkk –– PPrrooffiillee ((ccoonnttiinnuueedd)) Summary Financial Information1 Revenue Percent Per Capita2 Property taxes $2,321,818 9.43% $66.60 Sales & use taxes $2,176,893 8.84% $62.44 Other taxes $5,555,713 31.04% $219.32 Special Benefit Assessments (total) $2,572,958 10.45% $73.81 Licenses & permits (total) $1,169,397 4.75% $33.54 Fines & forfeitures (total) $306,401 1.24% $8.79 Use of money & property (total) $870,172 3.53% $24.96 Intergovernmental (total) $3,831,038 15.55% $109.89 Solid waste service charges $267,758 1.09% $7.68 Other service charges $4,975,155 20.20% $142.71 Other revenue (total) $585,116 6.44% $45.47 Total Revenue $24,632,419 100.00% $706.59 Expenses3 Percent Per Capita General Government $2,064,861 8.76% $59.23 Police $6,463,306 27.41% $185.40 Animal Regulation $223,560 0.95% $6.41 Street Lighting $233,861 0.99% $6.70 Public Safety - Other 101,629 0.43% $2.92 Streets and Highways $3,785,124 16.05% $108.58 Street Trees and Landscaping $672,378 2.85% $19.29 Public Transit $1,114,078 4.72% $31.96 Community Development & Redevelopment $4,448,119 18.86% $127.60 Solid Waste $253,560 1.08% $7.27 Parks $3,972,865 16.85% $113.96 Community Centers/Auditoriums $250,803 1.06% $7.19 Total Expenses $23,584,144 100.00% $676.52 1 Source: CA State Controller Cities Annual Report 2003-04; see Appendix A for details and prior year information 2 Based on CA Dept. of Finance Jan. 1, 2004 population estimate of 34,861 3 Includes both operating and capital expenses Final 14 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles MMaapp 33.. CCiittyy ooff MMoooorrppaarrkk MSR – Nine Cities 15 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Final 16 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles DD.. CCiittyy ooff OOjjaaii -- PPrrooffiillee Contact Information City Hall: 401 S. Ventura Street, Ojai, CA 93023 Mailing Address: PO Box 1570, Ojai, CA 93024 Phone Number: (805) 646-5581 Fax Number: (805) 646-1980 Web Site www.ci.ojai.ca.us E-mail firstinitiallastname@ci.ojai.ca.us Governance Information Date Incorporated July 26, 1921 Organization General Law Form of Government Council - Manager City Council Five member city council; members elected at-large to staggered, four year terms of office; elections held in even numbered years; Mayor selected by the city council to a two year term The city council regularly meets on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month. The meetings begin at 7:30 p.m. Population & Area Information Population Area (sq. mi.)1 City 8,1562 4.37 Sphere of Influence 9,0003 8.3 Services Animal Regulation4 Public Transit5 Cemeteries Solid Waste & Recycling6 Community Development & Redevelopment Streets, Highways & Storm Drains General Government Street Lighting Parks & Recreation Street Trees & Landscaping Police4 Public Agencies with Overlapping Jurisdiction7 Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Casitas Municipal Water District Ventura County Fire Protection District Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency Ventura County Transportation Commission Ojai Unified School District Ventura County Watershed Protection District Ojai Valley Sanitary District Ventura Regional Sanitation District Ojai Water Conservation District Ventura River County Water District South Coast Area Transit 1 Approximate area based on geographic information system calculations 2 CA Dept. of Finance estimate – Jan. 1, 2006 3 City estimate 4 Contract with County of Ventura 5 As a part of a Joint Powers Agreement 6 Contract with private sector 7 In addition to the County of Ventura, the boundaries of these public agencies overlap the City boundaries in whole or in part; each of these separate public agencies provide services to some or all of the residents/property owners in the City MSR – Nine Cities 17 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities CCiittyy ooff OOjjaaii –– PPrrooffiillee ((ccoonnttiinnuueedd)) Summary Financial Information1 Revenue Percent Per Capita2 Property taxes $846,095 13.76% 104.31 Sales & use taxes $973,888 15.83% 120.07 Other taxes $1,143,105 18.59% 140.93 Special Benefit Assessments (total) $323,922 5.27% 39.94 Licenses & Permits (total) $311,677 5.07% 38.43 Fines & forfeitures (total) $44,719 0.73% 5.51 Use of Money & Property (total) $31,250 0.51% 3.85 Intergovernmental (total) $1,339,222 21.77% 165.11 Service Charges $975,188 15.86% 120.23 Other revenue (total) $161,556 2.63% 19.92 Total Revenue $6,150,622 100.00% 758.31 Expenses3 Percent Per Capita General government $2,081,528 24.76% 256.63 Police $2,219,065 26.39% 273.59 Animal regulation $44,129 0.52% 5.44 Street Lighting $98,312 1.17% 12.12 Streets and highways $1,156,713 13.76% 142.61 Street trees and landscaping $484,235 5.76% 59.70 Public transit $528,720 6.29% 65.19 Community development $435,794 5.18% 53.73 Cemeteries $30,797 0.37% 3.80 Parks and Recreation $1,214,312 14.44% 149.71 Libraries $114,500 1.36% 14.12 Total Expenses $8,408,105 100.00% 1,036.63 1 Source: CA State Controller Cities Annual Report 2003-04; see Appendix A for details and prior year information 2 Based on CA Department of Finance Jan, 1, 2004 population estimate of 8,111 3 Includes both operating and capital expenses Final 18 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles MMaapp 44.. CCiittyy ooff OOjjaaii MSR – Nine Cities 19 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Final 20 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles EE.. CCiittyy ooff OOxxnnaarrdd -- PPrrooffiillee Contact Information City Hall: 305 West Third Street, Oxnard, CA 93030 Mailing Address: 305 West Third Street, Oxnard, CA 93030 Phone Number: (805) 385-7430 Fax Number: (805) 385-7595 Web Site www.ci.oxnard.ca.us E-mail firstname.lastname@ci.oxnard.ca.us Governance Information Date Incorporated June 30, 1903 Organization General Law Form of Government Council - Manager City Council Five member city council consisting of a directly elected mayor elected at large to a two-year term and four council members elected at large to four year terms in alternate slates of two every two years; elections held in even numbered years. In addition to the City Council, the City has a directly elected City Treasurer and City Clerk elected at large to four-year terms. The city council regularly meets on Tuesdays based on a schedule approved annually (approximately 40-42 meetings per year). The meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. Meetings are broadcast live on the City’s government cable TV channel. Recorded regular City Council meetings may also be viewed on the City’s web site. Population & Area Information Population Area (sq. mi.)1 City 189,9902 47.77 (26.91 land; 20.86 water) Sphere of Influence 206,0593 51.69 (30.83 land; 20.86 water) Services Community Center/Auditoriums Police Community Development & Redevelopment Sewers (collection & treatment) Fire Solid Waste & Recycling General Government Streets & Highways (inc. storm drains) Golf Courses Street Lighting Libraries Street Trees & Landscaping Museums Water Parking Facilities Weed Abatement Parks Public Agencies with Overlapping Jurisdiction4 Calleguas Municipal Water District Oxnard Union High School District Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Rio School District Hueneme School District South Coast Area Transit Ocean View Municipal Water District United Water Conservation District Ocean View School District Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 Ventura County Transportation Commission Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 Ventura County Watershed Protection District Oxnard Harbor District Ventura Regional Sanitation District Oxnard School District 1 Approximate area based on geographic information system calculations 2 CA Dept. of Finance estimate Jan. 1, 2006 3 City estimate Jan. 1, 2005 4 In addition to the County of Ventura, the boundaries of these public agencies overlap the City boundaries in whole or in part; each of these separate public agencies provide services to some or all of the residents/ property owners in the City. MSR – Nine Cities 21 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities CCiittyy ooff OOxxnnaarrdd –– PPrrooffiillee ((ccoonnttiinnuueedd)) Summary Financial Information1 Revenue Percent Per Capita2 Property taxes (total all types) $25,762,033 7.29% $138.15 Sales & use taxes $22,772,358 6.44% $122.12 Other taxes $14,308,865 4.05% $76.73 Special Benefit Assessments (total) $2,089,100 0.59% $11.20 Licenses & permits (total) $2,182,715 0.62% $11.71 Fines & forfeitures (total) $2,355,947 0.67% $12.63 Use of money & property (total) $6,520,080 1.84% $34.96 Intergovernmental (total) $34,557,540 9.77% $185.32 Sewer service charges/connection fees $21,932,305 6.20% $117.61 Solid waste service charges $32,965,746 9.32% $176.78 Water service charges/connection fees $28,401,190 8.03% $152.30 Golf course fees $7,487,215 2.12% $40.15 Other service charges $18,989,384 5.37% $101.83 Other revenue (total) $4,372,597 1.24% $23.45 Other financing sources (bonds/notes –total) $128,860,094 36.45% $691.03 Total Revenue $353,557,169 100.00% $1,895.99 Expenses3 Percent Per Capita General government $13,326,618 5.72% $71.47 Police $42,472,151 18.23% $227.76 Fire $11,645,061 5.00% $62.45 Weed abatement $65,145 0.03% $0.35 Street lighting $1,161,249 0.50% $6.23 Streets and highways $29,008,692 12.45% $155.56 Street trees and landscaping $1,729,758 0.74% $9.28 Parking facilities $2,023,850 0.87% $10.85 Community development $11,651,533 5.00% $62.48 Solid waste $33,815,516 14.51% $181.34 Sewers (collection and treatment) $23,240,235 9.98% $124.63 Water $31,643,410 13.58% $169.69 Parks $16,877,893 7.24% $90.51 Libraries $3,846,663 1.65% $20.63 Museums $320,980 0.14% $1.72 Golf courses $8,745,409 3.75% $46.90 Community centers/auditoriums $1,402,812 0.60% $7.52 Total Expenses $232,976,975 100.00% $1,249.37 1 Source: CA State Controller Cities Annual Report 2003-04; see Appendix A for details and prior year information 2 Based on CA Dept. of Finance Jan, 1, 2004 population estimate of 186,476 3 Includes both operating and capital expenses Final 22 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles MMaapp 55.. CCiittyy ooff OOxxnnaarrdd MSR – Nine Cities 23 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Final 24 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles FF.. CCiittyy ooff SSaann BBuueennaavveennttuurraa ((VVeennttuurraa)) -- PPrrooffiillee Contact Information City Hall: 501 Poli Street, Ventura, CA 93001 Mailing Address: PO Box 99, Ventura, CA 93002 Phone Number: (805) 654-7800 Fax Number: (805) 652-0865 Web Site www.ci.ventura.ca.us E-mail firstinitiallastname@ci.ventura.ca.us Governance Information Date Incorporated March 10, 1886 Organization City Charter Form of Government Council - Manager City Council Seven member city council; members elected at-large to staggered, four year terms of office; elections held in odd numbered years; Mayor selected by the city council to a two year term The city council regularly meets on Monday each week, except during August and on holidays. The meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. City Council meetings are broadcast live on the City’s government cable TV channel Population & Area Information Population Area (sq. mi.)1 City 106,7102 31.91 (21.85 land; 10.05 water) Sphere of Influence Not available 42.96 (32.91 land; 10.05 water) Services Animal Regulation3 Parks Community Development & Redevelopment Police Disaster Procedures Sewers (collection & treatment) Fire Solid Waste & Recycling4 Emergency Medical Services Streets & Highways (inc. storm drains) General Government Street Lighting Golf Courses Street Trees & Landscaping Libraries Water Parking Facilities Public Agencies with Overlapping Jurisdiction5 Casitas Municipal Water District Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Ventura County Transportation Commission Montalvo Municipal Improvement District Ventura County Watershed Protection District Saticoy Sanitary District Ventura Port District South Coast Area Transit Ventura Regional Sanitation District United Water Conservation District Ventura Unified School District 1 Approximate area based on geographic information system calculations 2 CA Dept. of Finance estimate Jan. 1, 2006 3 Contract with the County of Ventura 4 Contract with private sector 5 In addition to the County of Ventura the boundaries of these public agencies overlap the City boundaries in whole or in part; each of these separate public agencies provide services to some or all of the residents/property owners in the City MSR – Nine Cities 25 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities CCiittyy ooff SSaann BBuueennaavveennttuurraa ((VVeennttuurraa)) –– PPrrooffiillee ((ccoonnttiinnuueedd)) Summary Financial Information1 Revenue Percent Per Capita2 Property taxes (total all types) $14,536,958 11.14% $136.85 Sales & use taxes $19,778,626 15.15% $186.19 Utility users taxes $7,260,284 5.56% $68.35 Other taxes $11,784,550 9.03% $110.94 Special Benefit Assessments (total) $1,384,697 1.06% $13.04 Licenses & permits (total) $1,337,911 1.03% $12.59 Fines & forfeitures (total) $1,735,787 1.33% $16.34 Use of money & property (total) $3,449,486 2.64% $32.47 Intergovernmental (total) $10,467,011 8.02% $98.53 Sewer service charges/connection fees $13,430,212 10.29% $126.43 Water service charges/connection fees $16,866,810 12.92% $158.78 Golf course fees $3,380,562 2.59% $31.82 Other service charges $6,722,294 5.15% $63.28 Other revenue (total) $4,067,654 3.12% $38.29 Other financing sources (bonds/notes –total) $14,325,000 10.97% $134.85 Total Revenue $130,527,842 100.00% $1,228.75 Expenses3 Percent Per Capita General government $17,752,307 12.96% $167.12 Police $39,646,133 17.07% $220.14 Fire $23,384,792 10.90% $140.56 Animal regulation $184,227 0.13% $1.73 Street lighting $972,080 0.71% $9.15 Other public safety $173,477 0.13% $1.63 Streets and highways $13,463,446 9.83% $126.74 Street trees and landscaping $1,085,101 0.79% $10.21 Parking facilities $1,675,905 1.22% $15.78 Community development $5,441,954 3.97% $51.23 Sewers (collection and treatment) $10,870,649 7.93% $102.33 Water $30,253,129 22.08% $284.79 Health - other $586,676 0.43% $5.52 Parks $12,880,375 9.40% $121.25 Libraries $42,087 0.03% $0.40 Golf courses $3,156,680 2.30% $29.72 Culture and leisure - other $145,406 0.11% $1.37 Total Expenses $136,999,848 100.00% $1,289.68 1 Source: CA State Controller Cities Annual Report 2003-04; see Appendix A for details and prior year information 2 Based on CA Dept. of Finance Jan, 1, 2004 population estimate of 105,228 3 Includes both operating and capital expenses Final 26 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles MMaapp 66.. CCiittyy ooff SSaann BBuueennaavveennttuurraa MSR – Nine Cities 27 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Final 28 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles GG.. CCiittyy ooff SSaannttaa PPaauullaa -- PPrrooffiillee Contact Information City Hall: 970 E. Ventura Street, Santa Paula, CA 93060-3637 Mailing Address: PO Box 569, Santa Paula, CA 93061 Phone Number: (805) 525-4478 Fax Number: (805) 525-6278 Web Site www.ci.santa-paula.ca.us E-mail firstinitiallastname@ci.santa-paula.ca.us Governance Information Date Incorporated April 22, 1902 Organization General Law Form of Government Council - Manager City Council Five member city council; members elected at-large to staggered, four year terms of office; elections held in even numbered years; Mayor selected by the city council to a one-year term. In addition to the City Council the City has a directly elected City Treasurer and City Clerk who each serve four-year terms. The city council regularly meets the first and third Monday of each month, except on holidays. The meetings begin at 6:30 p.m. City Council meetings are broadcast live by the City in both English and Spanish. Population & Area Information Population Area (sq. mi.)1 City 29,1332 4.69 Sphere of Influence Not available 17.1 Services Community Centers/Auditoriums Police Community Development & Redevelopment Sewers (collection & treatment) Disaster Procedures Solid Waste & Recycling3 Fire Streets & Highways (inc. storm drains) General Government Street Trees & Landscaping Museums Water Parks Public Agencies with Overlapping Jurisdiction4 Briggs Elementary School District Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Mupu Elementary School District Ventura County Transportation Commission Santa Paula Elementary School District Ventura County Watershed Protection District Santa Paula Union High School District Ventura Regional Sanitation District United Water Conservation District 1 Approximate area based on geographic information system calculations 2 CA Dept. of Finance estimate Jan. 1, 2006 3 Contract with private sector 4 In addition to the County of Ventura the boundaries of these public agencies overlap the City boundaries in whole or in part; each of these separate public agencies provide services to some or all of the residents/property owners in the City MSR – Nine Cities 29 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities CCiittyy ooff SSaannttaa PPaauullaa –– PPrrooffiillee ((ccoonnttiinnuueedd)) Summary Financial Information1 Revenue Percent Per Capita2 Property taxes (total all types) $2,103,185 9.05% $72.08 Sales & use taxes $1,620,776 6.97% $55.55 Transient lodging taxes $1,021,648 4.40% $35.01 Other taxes $640,294 2.75% $21.94 Licenses & permits (total) $391,028 1.68% $13.40 Fines & forfeitures (total) $79,024 0.34% $2.71 Use of money & property (total) $518,358 2.23% $17.76 Intergovernmental (total) $5,120,028 22.03% $175.47 Sewer service charges/connection fees $2,523,543 10.86% $86.48 Solid waste revenues $1,645,707 7.08% $56.40 Water service charges/connection fees $5,511,072 23.71% $188.87 Other service charges $1,700,081 7.31% $58.26 Other revenue (total) $370,610 1.59% $12.70 Total Revenue $23,245,354 100.00% $796.65 Expenses3 Percent Per Capita General government $2,005,223 9.32% $68.74 Police $4,170,313 19.39% $142.96 Fire $1,169,421 5.44% $40.09 Disaster procedures $118,925 0.55% $4.08 Other public safety $1,553,361 7.22% $53.25 Streets and highways $2,192,107 10.19% $75.14 Street trees and landscaping $671,611 3.12% $23.02 Community development $1,386,798 6.45% $47.54 Sewers (collection and treatment) $1,794,816 8.35% $61.53 Solid waste $1,049,677 4.88% $35.98 Water $4,200,365 19.53% $143.99 Parks $577,470 2.69% $19.80 Museums $207,676 0.97% $7.12 Community centers/auditoriums $223,815 1.04% $7.67 Culture and leisure - other $185,302 0.86% $6.35 Total Expenses $21,506,880 100.00% $737.24 1 Source: CA State Controller Cities Annual Report 2003-04; see Appendix A for details and prior year information 2 Based on CA Dept. of Finance Jan, 1, 2004 population estimate of 29,179 3 Includes both operating and capital expenses Final 30 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles MMaapp 77.. CCiittyy ooff SSaannttaa PPaauullaa MSR – Nine Cities 31 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Final 32 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles HH.. CCiittyy ooff SSiimmii VVaalllleeyy -- PPrrooffiillee Contact Information City Hall: 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063 Mailing Address: 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063 Phone Number: (805) 583-6700 Fax Number: (805) 526-2489 Web Site www.ci.simi-valley.ca.us E-mail firstinitiallastname@ci.simi-valley.ca.us Governance Information Date Incorporated October 10, 1969 Organization General Law Form of Government Council - Manager City Council Five member city council consisting of a directly elected mayor elected at large to a two-year term and four council members elected at large to four year terms in alternate slates of two every two years; elections held in even numbered years. The city council regularly meets on Mondays typically twice a month (approximately 25 meetings a year). The meetings begin at 6:30 p.m. Council meetings are broadcast live by the City’s cable TV operator. Population & Area Information Population Area (sq. mi.)1 City 122,7082 42.03 Sphere of Influence Not available 48.16 Services Animal Regulation3 Police Community Development & Redevelopment Public Transit General Government Sewers (collection & treatment) Disaster Procedures Solid Waste & Recycling4 Museums Streets, Highways & Storm Drains Physical and Mental Health Street Trees & Landscaping Public Agencies with Overlapping Jurisdiction5 Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Calleguas Municipal Water District Ventura County Fire Protection District El Rancho Simi Cemetery District Ventura County Transportation Commission Rancho Simi Recreation & Park District Ventura County Watershed Protection District Simi Valley Unified School District Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 1 Approximate area based on geographic information system calculations 2 CA Dept. of Finance estimate – Jan. 1, 2006 3 Contract with the County of Ventura 4 Contract with private sector 5 In addition to the County of Ventura the boundaries of these public agencies overlap the City boundaries in whole or in part; each of these separate public agencies provide services to some or all of the residents/property owners in the City MSR – Nine Cities 33 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities CCiittyy ooff SSiimmii VVaalllleeyy –– PPrrooffiillee ((ccoonnttiinnuueedd)) Summary Financial Information1 Revenue Percent Per Capita2 Property taxes (total) $8,971,998 12.11% $75.38 Sales & use taxes $13,878,702 18.73% $116.61 Transient lodging taxes $4,801,764 6.48% $40.34 Other taxes $6,657,029 8.98% $55.93 Licenses & permits (total) $3,910,943 5.28% $32.86 Fines & forfeitures (total) $692,871 0.94% $5.82 Use of money & property (total) $1,154,273 1.56% $9.70 State motor vehicle in-lieu tax $5,686,714 7.67% $47.78 State gasoline tax $2,222,406 3.00% $18.67 Other Intergovernmental (total) $6,070,051 9.00% $56.04 Sewer service charges and connection fees $12,314,861 16.62% $103.47 Other service charges $4,843,123 6.54% $40.69 Other revenues (total) $2,295,923 3.10% $19.29 Total Revenue $74,100,668 100.00% $622.57 Expenses3 Percent Per Capita General government $6,065,931 8.21% $50.96 Police $22,690,959 30.71% $190.64 Animal regulation $451,726 0.61% $3.80 Other public safety $230,863 0.31% $1.94 Streets and highways $5,272,261 7.13% $44.30 Street trees and landscaping $4,464,111 6.04% $37.51 Public transit $4,075,059 5.51% $34.24 Community development (total) $12,190,314 16.50% $102.42 Sewers (collection and treatment) $16,369,678 22.15% $137.53 Solid Waste $1,275,460 1.73% $10.72 Physical and mental health $467,298 0.63% $3.93 Museums $318,865 0.43% $2.68 Total Expenses $73,893,525 100.00% $620.83 1 Source: CA State Controller Cities Annual Report 2003-04; see Appendix A for details and prior year information 2 Based on CA Dept. of Finance Jan, 1, 2004 population estimate of 61,864 3 Includes both operating and capital expenses Final 34 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles MMaapp 88.. CCiittyy ooff SSiimmii VVaalllleeyy MSR – Nine Cities 35 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Final 36 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles II.. CCiittyy ooff TThhoouussaanndd OOaakkss -- PPrrooffiillee Contact Information City Hall: 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Mailing Address: 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Phone Number: (805) 449-2100 Fax Number: (805) 449-2125 Web Site www.toaks.org E-mail firstinitiallastname@toaks.org Governance Information Date Incorporated October 7, 1964 Organization General Law Form of Government Council - Manager City Council Five member city council; members elected at-large to staggered, four year terms of office; elections held in even numbered years; Mayor selected by the city council to a one year term. The city council regularly meets on Tuesdays, typically twice a month except during August, based on a calendar adopted annually. The meetings begin at 6:00 p.m. City Council meetings are broadcast live by the City’s cable TV operator and on the internet. Population & Area Information Population Area (sq. mi.)1 City 127,6442 54.86 Sphere of Influence 133,0003 57.86 Services Animal Regulation4 Public Transit Community Centers/Auditoriums Sewers (collection & treatment)5 Community Development & Redevelopment Solid Waste & Recycling General Government Sports arenas and Stadiums Golf Courses Streets, Highways & Storm Drains Disaster Procedures Street Lighting Libraries Street Trees & Landscaping Museums Water6 Police7 Public Agencies with Overlapping Jurisdiction8 Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura Triunfo Sanitation District Calleguas Municipal Water District Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Camrosa Water District Ventura County Fire Protection District Conejo Open Space and Conservation Agency Ventura County Transportation Commission Conejo Recreation and Park District Ventura County Watershed Protection District Conejo Valley Unified School District 1 Approximate area based on geographic information system calculations 2 CA Dept. of Finance estimate – Jan. 1, 2006 3 City estimate as of January 1, 2005 4 Contract with County of Los Angeles 5 For a portion of the City only; part of the City is served by Camrosa Water District and by Triunfo Sanitation District 6 For a portion of the City only; part of the City is served by Camrosa Water District and by private water companies 7 Contract with County of Ventura 8 In addition to the County of Ventura the boundaries of these public agencies overlap the City boundaries in whole or in part; each of these separate public agencies provide services to some or all of the residents/property owners in the City MSR – Nine Cities 37 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities CCiittyy ooff TThhoouussaanndd OOaakkss –– PPrrooffiillee ((ccoonnttiinnuueedd)) Summary Financial Information1 Revenue Percent Per Capita2 Property taxes (total) $11,072,663 8.87% $87.65 Sales & use taxes $27,073,530 21.70% $214.32 Transient lodging taxes $5,691,957 4.56% $45.06 Other taxes $7,478,935 5.99% $59.20 Special benefit assessments (total) $3,944,271 3.16% $31.22 Licenses & permits (total) $4,167,423 3.34% $32.99 Fines & forfeitures (total) $1,216,053 0.97% $9.63 Use of money & property (total) $2,408,986 1.93% $19.07 State motor vehicle in-lieu tax $5,996,869 4.81% $47.47 State gasoline tax $2,382,637 1.91% $18.86 Other Intergovernmental (total) $4,594,454 3.68% $36.37 Golf course fees $2,607,161 2.09% $20.64 Sewer service charges and connection fees $19,308,003 15.47% $152.85 Water service charges and connection fees $13,553,241 10.86% $107.29 Other service charges $11,095,575 8.89% $87.83 Other revenues (total) $2,198,400 1.76% $17.40 Total Revenue $124,790,158 100.00% $987.87 Expenses3 Percent Per Capita General government $18,140,408 13.86% $143.60 Police $17,264,051 13.19% $136.67 Animal regulation $90,464 0.07% $0.72 Disaster procedures $141,880 0.11% $1.12 Street lighting $708,596 0.54% $5.61 Streets and highways $13,233,333 10.11% $104.76 Street trees and landscaping $4,356,781 3.33% $34.49 Public transit $2,681,580 2.05% $21.23 Transportation – other $194,405 0.15% $1.54 Community development (total) $10,387,541 7.94% $82.23 Sewers (collection and treatment) $31,660,456 24.19% $250.63 Solid waste $1,109,175 0.85% $8.78 Health - other $559,180 0.43% $4.43 Parks (open space) $1,179,037 0.90% $9.33 Libraries $7,290,976 5.57% $57.72 Museums $267,434 0.20% $2.12 Golf courses $2,752,022 2.10% $21.79 Sport arenas and stadiums $3,331,383 2.55% $26.37 Community centers/auditoriums $1,399,425 1.07% $11.08 Water $14,145,046 10.81% $111.98 Total Expenses $130,893,173 100.00% $1,036.18 1 Source: CA State Controller Cities Annual Report 2003-04; see Appendix A for details and prior year information 2 Based on CA Dept. of Finance Jan, 1, 2004 population estimate of 126,323 3 Includes both operating and capital expenses Final 38 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities III. City Profiles MMaapp 99.. CCiittyy ooff TThhoouussaanndd OOaakkss MSR – Nine Cities 39 Final III. City Profiles MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Final 40 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities IV. Services IIVV.. SSEERRVVIICCEESS AA.. OOvveerrvviieeww The cities in Ventura County each provide a variety of services. As a part of the municipal service review questionnaire each city was asked to identify the services it provides based on fixed categories. The categories used in the questionnaire, when combined with the array of responses provided by the cities, did not provide a complete or comparable list of services. To attempt to gain consistency for comparative purposes, it was determined that the best method of identifying services is to use the same categorization used in the Cities Annual Report published annually by the State Controller for city expenses. This categorization of services is based on the expenses reported by each city to the State Controller and provides a list of services that can be compared between cities. However, because cities determine how to categorize their expenses when reporting information to the State Controller, and because different cities categorize their expenses differently, this listing of services is not based on a standard method of input. However, it is the best available at the macro level for comparative purposes without going into substantial detail about the specifics of each category. The State Controller is required to compile and publish financial data pertinent to the operation of city governments. The Cities Annual Report presents the cities costs of providing an array of public services, as well as the means by which they finance those services. The most recent Cities Annual Report published by the State Controller was for the 2003-04 fiscal year, and that Report is the basis for the information used throughout this municipal service review. Table 1 presents an overview of the services provided by each of the nine cities covered by this municipal service review using the service categories for city expenses used by the State Controller for the 2003-04 fiscal year. The Table also shows the per capita expenses for each city in each service category using the January 1, 2004 state Department of Finance population estimate for each city and the total expenditures reported to the state. Thus, Table 1 provides an overview of the services directly provided by each city and a general comparison of the per capita amounts expended by each city for each service. This is the closest method possible to develop an “apples to apples” comparison of services and the costs for each city. In reviewing Table 1 the following information should be considered: • The data in the Cities Annual Report is compiled from unaudited city reports submitted to the State Controller. The State Controller does not verify the accuracy of the information. • Cities lack a prescribed uniform system of accounting. Therefore, readers should be cautious when making comparisons, because what comprises a piece of data may differ from one city to the next. • Some cities have special districts for which the city council acts as the board of directors. Generally accepted accounting principles require local governments to combine such entities in their financial reports. However, the State Controller does not include such districts in the Cities Annual Report because these districts are included in the Special Districts Annual Report. In Ventura County this affects the City of Camarillo where the City Council is the governing board for the Camarillo Sanitary District and the City of Simi Valley where the City Council is the governing board for Waterworks District No. 8. Likewise, information about expenditures by Redevelopment Agencies or legally separate financing agencies, such as parking authorities and MSR – Nine Cities 41 Final IV. Services MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities landscape and lighting districts, are not included. Table 1 presents only expenditures by cities, not for other legally separate agencies and districts that may be controlled by cities. • Total expenditure information is used, including both general and enterprise function expenses and both operating and capital expenses. Capital expenses can vary substantially year to year, especially for enterprise functions such a water and sewer. TTaabbllee 11 OOvveerrvviieeww ooff SSeerrvviicceess && PPeerr CCaappiittaa SSeerrvviiccee CCoosstt Based on the State Controller’s Cities Annual Report 2003-04 and State Department of Finance Population Estimates as of January 1, 2004 SERVICE Final 42 MSR – Nine Cities olliramaC eromlliF kraprooM iajO dranxO arutnevaneuB naS aluaP atnaS yellaV imiS skaO dnasuohT GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL- Total 59.81 77.86 59.23 256.63 71.47 168.70 68.72 50.96 143.60 Legislative 20.31 10.08 13.07 47.68 5.84 37.94 4.78 7.40 24.87 Management and support 39.50 67.78 46.16 208.95 65.63 130.76 63.94 43.56 118.73 PUBLIC SAFETY-Total 161.41 224.61 201.44 291.15 296.79 376.76 240.31 196.46 144.11 Police 150.93 152.27 185.40 273.59 227.76 222.23 142.92 190.64 136.67 Fire 0.00 69.49 0.80 0.00 62.45 141.90 40.08 0.00 0.00 Emergency Medical Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 Animal Regulation 3.09 2.84 6.41 5.44 0.00 1.75 0.00 3.88 0.72 Weed Abatement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Street Lighting 0.00 0.00 6.71 12.12 6.23 9.24 0.00 0.00 5.61 Disaster Procedures 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 4.08 1.94 1.12 Other Public Safety 6.74 0.00 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.24 0.00 0.00 TRANSPORTATION-Total 179.57 71.39 159.82 267.50 175.69 154.18 98.14 116.04 162.01 Streets and highways 159.51 36.86 108.58 142.61 155.56 127.95 75.13 44.30 104.76 Street trees and landscaping 9.14 17.31 19.29 59.70 9.28 10.31 23.02 37.51 34.49 Parking Facilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.85 15.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 Public Transit 10.92 17.11 31.96 65.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.24 21.23 Ports and Harbors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-Total 92.76 32.29 127.60 53.73 62.48 51.72 47.53 102.42 82.23 Planning 27.79 6.95 16.04 53.73 6.15 19.75 25.90 24.93 31.65 Construct/Engineering Regulation 54.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.73 19.75 49.56 34.03 Redevelopment 0.00 12.77 75.69 0.00 15.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 Housing 0.00 5.57 29.62 0.00 20.24 2.70 1.58 21.23 0.00 Employment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.85 0.00 0.00 6.70 0.00 Community Promotion 6.82 5.26 5.58 0.00 3.64 17.67 0.30 0.00 2.60 MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities IV. Services SERVICE MSR – Nine Cities 43 Final olliramaC eromlliF kraprooM iajO dranxO arutnevaneuB naS aluaP atnaS yellaV imiS skaO dnasuohT Community Development Other 3.80 1.74 0.67 0.00 10.10 0.86 0.00 0.00 13.12 HEALTH-Total 71.84 110.64 7.27 3.80 305.97 108.88 97.48 152.27 263.84 Physical and Mental Health 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.02 0.00 Solid Waste 71.34 3.82 7.27 0.00 181.34 0.00 35.97 10.72 8.78 Sewers (collection & treatment) 0.00 106.83 0.00 0.00 124.63 103.31 61.51 137.53 250.63 Cemeteries 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Health-Other 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.58 0.00 0.00 4.43 CULTURE AND LEISURE-Total 7.70 27.26 121.16 163.83 167.28 154.18 40.93 2.68 128.40 Parks 0.98 27.26 113.96 149.71 90.51 122.40 19.79 0.00 9.33 Libraries 6.72 0.00 0.001 14.12 20.63 0.40 0.00 0.00 57.72 Museums 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 0.00 7.12 2.68 2.12 Golf Courses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.90 30.00 0.00 0.00 21.79 Sport arenas and Stadiums 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.37 Community Centers/Auditoriums 0.00 0.00 7.19 0.00 7.52 0.00 7.67 0.00 11.08 Culture and Leisure Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 6.35 0.00 0.00 PUBLIC UTILITIES-Total 118.56 133.31 0.00 0.00 169.69 287.50 143.95 0.00 111.98 Water 118.56 120.21 0.00 0.00 169.69 287.50 143.95 0.00 111.98 Public Utilities-Other 0.00 13.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 691.66 677.36 676.521,036.631,249.371,301.93 737.07 620.831,036.18 Appendix 1 contains similar comparisons for both total revenue and expenses for each of the nine cities based on the Cities Annual Report for fiscal years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, and per capita information for each fiscal year based on State Department of Finance population estimates for each city as of January 1, 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively. A review of this information can reveal changes caused by debt financing, changes in capital expenditures and other changes in either revenue or expenditures that can impact the data for any given fiscal year. However, the considerations noted above for Table 1 should also be taken into account when reviewing the tables in Appendix 1. BB.. IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree NNeeeeddss aanndd DDeeffiicciieenncciieess Cities are responsible for the construction and maintenance of a wide range of infrastructure based on the services provided. Given the differences in services provided, the only infrastructure that is common to each of the nine cities are streets and highways, street trees and landscaping, and municipal buildings and structures. 1 As of January 1, 2007 the City of Moorpark took over direct operation of library services and is no longer a party to the Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Ventura and other cities regarding library services. IV. Services MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Perhaps the greatest difference in infrastructure needs and deficiencies between the nine cities relates to whether or not a city directly provides for water and/or wastewater services. As reflected in Table 1 all the cities, except Moorpark, Ojai and Simi Valley, directly provide for water services (treatment and/or distribution) to all or to at least a portion of the city. Note, however, that the City of Simi Valley City Council also serves as the governing board for Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 that provides water services to a portion of the City of Simi Valley and nearby unincorporated areas (including the Reagan Library). Similarly, all the cities, except Camarillo, Ojai and Moorpark, provide wastewater (sewer collection and treatment) services. The City of Camarillo City Council is the governing board for the Camarillo Sanitary District, a legally separate entity that provides sewer collection and treatment services to a portion of the City of Camarillo and nearby unincorporated areas. Based on information provided by the cities, each city’s infrastructure is in compliance with safety and environmental standards, except for the wastewater treatment facilities in the cities of Fillmore and Santa Paula. Both Fillmore and Santa Paula are under orders from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board to alter their wastewater treatment processes to comply with current discharge requirements. To comply both cities have acquired land and are preparing to construct new wastewater treatment facilities. Each of the nine cities annually reviews infrastructure needs and deficiencies and prepares a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as a means of identifying needs and deficiencies and budgeting to meet the needs and alleviate deficiencies. Each city reported that it correlates its CIP with its General Plan and best practices in terms of ensuring that infrastructure is planned and constructed in accordance with growth projections. While each city annually reviews its CIP, cities adopt CIPs for different time periods, ranging from 2 to 7 years. Revenue sources for funding each city CIP vary. Some cities rely exclusively on grant and/or special purpose revenue, including revenue from self-funding “enterprise” operations including water, sewer and golf course services. Others supplement these revenue sources with debt financing and with general fund appropriations. Only the cities of Camarillo, Oxnard and Thousand Oaks reported that their CIP beginning in 2005 was fully funded. For the other cities the CIP beginning in 2005 is not fully funded, especially for projects identified for future years. In such instances, the CIP serves the purpose of identifying needs and deficiencies, but the ability of a city to meet these needs or correct deficiencies depends on future, currently unknown revenue sources. In such cases, needed infrastructure may not be built, or deficient infrastructure corrected, in the time period identified in any given CIP, and needs and deficiencies can continue until revenue sources become available. Based on the responses received to the LAFCo municipal services review questionnaire Table 2 provides information about each city’s CIP beginning in 2005. TTaabbllee 22 CCIIPP IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn aass ooff 22000055 City CIP Time Frame Total CIP Amount Percent Funded Camarillo 5 years $124,205,000 100% Fillmore 5 years Not provided Not provided Moorpark 7 years $65,900,000 20% Ojai 5 years $6,460,706 Not provided Final 44 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities IV. Services City CIP Time Frame Total CIP Amount Percent Funded Oxnard 2 years $89,158,052 100% San Buenaventura 5 years $371,737,732 55% Santa Paula 5 years Not provided 20% Simi Valley 5 years $98,995,900 25% Thousand Oaks 2 years $57,237,900 100% CC.. GGrroowwtthh aanndd PPooppuullaattiioonn The base point of reference for all growth and population information is the U.S. Census. For census reporting purposes each city is a discrete entity. This means that even though census tract boundaries do not necessarily coincide with city boundaries, the Census Bureau reports census information based on city boundaries at the time of the census. While not perfect this information is much better than for special districts where no population data is reported by special district boundary. During the intervening years between each census, various governmental agencies prepare population estimates for cities, including the state, regional joint powers authorities such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG), counties and, in some instances, cities. For this municipal service review population estimates prepared by the state Department of Finance are used for current population information. These estimates are also used for the apportionment of revenue by the state and are, therefore, accepted by most cities. The lack of any one accepted standard for estimating current population is an on-going issue that becomes greater in attempting to make growth and population projections. For example, both SCAG and VCOG have prepared population growth forecasts for the cities in Ventura County. While both are based on information provided by the cities and Ventura County, the methodology differs and, therefore, the population projections differ. For the purpose of this municipal service review the VCOG adopted population projections to the year 2025 have been used. This information will soon be updated, however, by both SCAG and VCOG given state law requirements relating to updating General Plan Housing Elements. To exacerbate issues relating to growth and population, unless prepared by a city directly, no governmental agency compiles existing population information, much less growth and population projection data, for sphere of influence areas, extraterritorial service areas for services provided outside city boundaries or areas covered by city General Plans. While VCOG population projections are delineated by city and “city growth area,” the growth areas do not necessarily coincide with spheres of influence, areas covered by city General Plans or, more currently, areas within voter established growth boundaries, such as city urban restriction boundaries (CURB) established by most Save Our Agricultural and Open Space Areas (SOAR) ordinances. The fact that differing units of government use differing estimates for current city population between census years, and the fact that Ventura County and the individual cities have no commonly accepted methodology for estimating population within spheres of influence or General Plan areas, severely limits the ability to provide meaningful, County-wide information about growth and population. With this background Table 3 summarizes each city’s population based on the April 2000 census, the MSR – Nine Cities 45 Final IV. Services MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities January 1, 2005 state Department of Finance population estimate and the currently adopted VCOG population forecast for each city for the year 2025. TTaabbllee 33 CCiittyy PPooppuullaattiioonn:: 22000000,, 22000055,, 22002255 2005 Dept. of 2000 - 2005 – 2000 Census Finance 2005 2025 VCOG 2025 City (4-1-2000) Estimate Percent Projection Percent (1-1-2005) Change Change Camarillo 57,084 62,570 9.61% 82,654 32.10% Fillmore 13,643 15,182 11.28% 23,302 53.48% Moorpark 31,415 35,717 13.69% 42,497 18.98% Ojai 7,862 8,132 3.43% 9,424 15.89% Oxnard 170,358 188,333 10.55% 200,086 6.24% San Buenaventura 100,916 105,812 4.85% 128,051 21.02% Santa Paula 28,598 29,201 2.11% 40,515 38.75% Simi Valley 111,381 121,096 8.72% 145,078 19.80% Thousand Oaks 117,005 126,770 8.35% 132,000 4.13% For purposes of state law relating to General Plan Housing Elements that must be updated on a five- year cycle, SCAG is now in the process of preparing population projections to the year 2035. In making these projections state law does not require SCAG to consider spheres of influence areas, but even if SCAG was inclined to consider spheres of influence, the lack of any commonly accepted population data for spheres of influence areas is an issue. State law further prevents SCAG from considering any locally established ordinances or policies that may limit future growth in making future population projections for the purpose of assigning regional “fair share” housing production numbers that all cities and the County must use when updating Housing Elements. In Ventura County there are a variety of policies and ordinances that have an effect on the location and, many would argue, the intensity of growth. State law for the purposes of General Plan Housing Elements notwithstanding, these local policies and ordinances are significant. Among the policies and ordinances that contribute to shaping the location and amount of growth for the cities are: • Guidelines for Orderly Development – Originally adopted in 1969 by the Ventura LAFCo, Ventura County and each of the cities in the County, the Guidelines for Orderly Development are statements of local policy. The current version of the Guidelines is contained in Appendix 4. The key policy contained in the Guidelines for Orderly Development states that urban development should occur, whenever and wherever practical, within incorporated cities. Urban development is defined as the need for a new community sewer system or the expansion of an existing community sewer system, the creation of residential lots less than two acres in area, or the establishment of commercial or industrial uses that are not related to agriculture or the production of mineral resources. The Guidelines also divide up the non- federal lands in the County “areas of interest.” As a matter of policy the Guidelines provide that there should not be more than one city in any area of interest. Final 46 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities IV. Services The result of the implementation of the Guidelines for Orderly Development has been that the County of Ventura does not compete for urban development with cities and the County does not allow urban development to occur in a city’s sphere of influence unless the area involved is annexed to a city. For unincorporated areas the County of Ventura allows urban development only in limited circumstances within areas designated as “Unincorporated Urban Centers” within their own area of interest or in areas designated as “Existing Communities” in the County General Plan. The Guidelines for Orderly Development have been updated periodically, most recently in 1998, and have been effective because they are recognized and followed by the County, all the cities in the County, and the Ventura LAFCo. The Guidelines for Orderly Development, perhaps more than any other local policies or ordinances, make Ventura County almost unique in the state as most counties do not follow such practices. • Greenbelt Agreements – Greenbelt agreements are statements of local policy adopted by one or more cities and the County of Ventura, either by resolution or ordinance. In Ventura County greenbelts are areas where cities have agreed not to annex territory and the County has pledged to permit only open space or agricultural uses (the Tierra Rejada Greenbelt also allows for low-density residential, equestrian facilities and recreational land uses). Greenbelt agreements are policy statements only, not land use restrictions, but carry great weight politically. The Ventura LAFCo is not a formal party to greenbelt agreements, but has “endorsed” each of the seven greenbelt agreements adopted to date as local policies and considers greenbelts in making decisions on city sphere of influence amendments and annexations. The currently adopted greenbelts are: Ventura/Santa Paula; Ventura/Oxnard; Santa Paula/Fillmore; Fillmore/Piru; Oxnard/Camarillo; Santa Rosa Valley; and, Tierra Rejada. • Ordinances Limiting General Plan Changes and/or Service Extensions – The County of Ventura and all the cities in the County, except the cities of Ojai and Port Hueneme, have adopted ordinances known as SOAR ordinances. SOAR stands for Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (except in the City of Ventura where SOAR stands for Save Our Agricultural Resources). SOAR ordinances are based on the general plan of the jurisdiction to which they apply and, unlike greenbelts, are local land use regulations that have binding legal authority. Each SOAR ordinance is slightly different in scope and application. In the City of San Buenaventura, city voter approval is required to change the general plan for any property with an agricultural land use designation. The SOAR ordinances for the cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Oxnard, Santa Paula, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks, established a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). With limited exceptions, the SOAR ordinances for these cities provide that CURB lines cannot be changed without a majority vote of the people in the jurisdiction to which they apply. Also, for these cities, services provided by the city cannot be extended beyond the CURB unless the voters first amend the CURB. The City of San Buenaventura voters also approved an ordinance known as the Hillside Voter Protection Act (HVPA) that requires voter approval of any service extensions into a defined geographic area of the Ventura hillsides. The City of Thousand Oaks also enacted an ordinance that requires voter approval for General Plan land use designation changes from “Existing Parks,” “Golf Courses” and/or “Open Space” to other land use designations, with limited exceptions. These ordinances and the SOAR ordinances for both San Buenaventura MSR – Nine Cities 47 Final IV. Services MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities and Thousand Oaks expire or “sunset” at the end of 2030. All of the other SOAR ordinances sunset at the end of 2020. The Ventura LAFCo considers general plan consistency, including SOAR ordinances and CURB lines, in making decisions about city annexations and sphere of influence amendments and updates. Even though not bound by SOAR ordinances or CURB lines, the policy of the Ventura LAFCo is not to allow city annexations or sphere of influence amendments into areas covered by a SOAR or equivalent ordinances, or outside the CURB line of a city, unless unusual circumstances exist. Further, if a SOAR ordinance requires voter approval to convert land with a local general plan land use designation of agriculture or open space to another land use, or voter approval to extend city services, the Ventura LAFCo requires that the voters approve such a change prior to LAFCo action on any proposal to amend a city’s sphere of influence or annex territory to a city. • City Growth Control Ordinances – The cities of Camarillo, Ojai, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks each have local growth control ordinances that in some fashion limit the number of residential building permits that may be issued in any calendar year or some similar time frame. These restrictions thus limit both the amount and timing of residential development, but typically do not affect LAFCo actions. City growth and population can also be affected by the annexation of developed, unincorporated areas. The cities of Camarillo, Oxnard and San Buenaventura each have substantial developed unincorporated areas adjacent to city boundaries and within their current spheres of influence where city services are being provided, directly or indirectly via other agencies. Over time, and whenever and wherever possible, these areas should be annexed into the adjoining city. Similarly, the cities of Camarillo, San Buenaventura, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks each have developed, unincorporated areas that are totally surrounded by the city and that receive a variety of city services either directly or indirectly. With few exceptions each of these areas could be annexed into the adjoining city pursuant to existing provisions in state law that provide for the annexation of developed, unincorporated “islands” into a city without property owner consent and without the standard LAFCo protest proceedings. The Ventura LAFCo has a policy that these “island” areas must be annexed whenever an adjoining city proposes to annex 40 acres or more of currently undeveloped land for urban use. While this policy cannot be applied to the City of Simi Valley due to special legislation, each city with qualifying “island” areas, including the City of Simi Valley, is encouraged to take action to annex all “island” areas. DD.. FFiinnaanncciinngg CCoonnssttrraaiinnttss aanndd OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess Like all units of government in California, cities have financing constraints based on state constitutional limitations imposed by both Proposition 13, adopted in 1978 with provisions retroactive to 1976, and Proposition 218, adopted in 1996. Specifically, the two-thirds voter approval that these measures require in order to levy or increase taxes has proven to be a substantial barrier to establishing new or enhancing existing services, even when new or increased taxes are supported by a majority of the voters. In some cases the ability to finance needed infrastructure has also been affected. Final 48 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities IV. Services All governmental agencies in the state have had to adapt and work within the state constitution limits, and the rules are understood and fairly well fixed. Perhaps a more difficult financing constraint issue, at least until recently, was the state’s shift of revenues away from local government during most of the last fifteen years in order to balance the state budget. This revenue shift, generally under the heading of ERAF (education reimbursement and augmentation fund), but including an array of traditionally local revenues, affected each of the nine cities. These revenue shifts by the state complicated local budgeting, made it difficult for local governments to reliably predict local revenue and resulted in service reductions in some cities. Proposition 1A, approved by the voters in 2004, was designed to limit the state’s ability to shift revenue and provide local governments with better ability to predict future revenue. This measure, together with an improved economy that has resulted in increased tax revenue, has served to stabilize how local government is financed. Based on information provided by each city and from the State Controller’s Cities Annual Report FY 2003-04, city revenues are derived from a variety of sources. This diversity of sources is a good in that there is potentially some buffer in case of the reduction of revenue from any one source. However, not counting user fees and service charges for “enterprise” functions such as water and sewer services, the majority of revenue for each of the nine cities for the 2003-04 fiscal year was from property and sales taxes. During the last thirty years since Proposition 13, the reliance on property taxes as the primary source of local government revenue has changed. In the 2003-04 fiscal year sales taxes were the primary source of tax revenue for all the cities except Moorpark, Oxnard and Santa Paula. The table in Appendix 1 provides detailed information for each city based on information from the State Controller’s Cities Annual Report for fiscal years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. These tables also reflect that for the City of Ojai, the traditional major source of revenue is transient lodging taxes, not property or sales taxes. The fact that this source was not as great during the 2003-04 fiscal year related to the remodeling of that City’s signature transient lodging facility, the Ojai Valley Inn. The local focus on sales tax revenue is indicative of the fact that increasing these revenues is one of the few opportunities cities have left for directly controlling local revenue. This change has resulted in what has been referred to as “zoning for dollars,” meaning that cities often attempt to accommodate land uses that provide substantial sales tax revenue (primarily commercial uses such as “big box” retailers, auto dealers, malls, etc., but also including industrial uses that generate substantial business to business sales taxes), sometimes to the detriment of residential and agricultural land uses. This phenomenon has been widely observed, discussed and debated, and an analysis is beyond the scope of this municipal service review. However, to the extent that a city, via its development policies, pursues land uses based primarily on their potential sales tax revenue such actions can be considered both a financing opportunity and, if it results on a city’s over reliance on sales tax revenue, a potential constraint. All the cities except Oxnard and Thousand Oaks annually review and adopt a comprehensive budget. The cities of Oxnard and Thousand Oaks adopt a two-year budget. All of the cities have also adopted financial polices and procedures relating to budgeting and expenditures to attempt to ensure that there are sufficient funds available to meet needs. All cities are in compliance with requirements that budgets are balanced and adopted in a timely fashion. Each of the cities uses debt financing as necessary, primarily for major capital projects relating to infrastructure needs or deficiencies. Long term debt varies by city and fiscal year. A city may go for MSR – Nine Cities 49 Final IV. Services MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities several years without issuing any new debt, and cities and their financial advisors typically try to take advantage of favorable market conditions for the issuance and refinancing of debt. As a part of the LAFCo municipal service review questionnaire each city was asked to provide information about their bond rating by both Standard & Poors and Moody’s, the two major bond rating firms. Table 4 reflects the responses received. The ratings for those cities that provided the information indicate they do not have any significant debt burdens or would not have problems in attempting to issue new long term debt. TTaabbllee 44 BBoonndd RRaattiinngg aass ooff 22000055 City Standard & Poors Moodys Camarillo AA- AaB Fillmore Not provided Not provided Moorpark AAA AAA Ojai1 Not provided Not provided Oxnard Not provided Not provided San Buenaventura AAA AAA Santa Paula AAA Not provided Simi Valley A+ Not rated Thousand Oaks AA AA Each of the nine cities has at least one redevelopment project area and the city council of each city serves as the governing board of the city redevelopment agency. Redevelopment agencies are legally separate entities from cities and are not part of this municipal service review. They are noted, however, as redevelopment agencies must be able to demonstrate indebtedness in order to receive a share of the property tax, known as tax increment, from each redevelopment project area. As a result of this requirement redevelopment agencies frequently borrow funds from a city. Also, redevelopment agencies are required to set aside a portion of any tax increment funds received for low and moderate income housing purposes. Such funds may be spent anywhere in a city, not just within redevelopment project areas. Thus, the use of redevelopment housing funds is related to city boundaries. EE.. CCoosstt AAvvooiiddaannccee OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess Given the constrained nature of local government financing opportunities, all the cities seek cost avoidance possibilities on an on-going basis. All the cities have adopted purchasing polices and/or procedures to, among other things, reduce costs and comply with the many legal requirements relating to governmental purchasing and construction. All the cities are members of at least one joint powers authority. Joint powers authorities (JPAs) are legally separate entities composed of two or more local government entities (two or more cities, cities and a county, cities and special districts, etc.). JPAs are usually formed for a particular purpose and to 1 The City of Ojai indicated that the small size of the City is the likely reason that bond rating firms have not evaluated the City bonds. Final 50 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities IV. Services provide economies of scale in terms of administration and sharing costs. There are many active JPAs in Ventura County. Examples include: • VCOG - All of the cities, and the County of Ventura, are members of the Ventura Council of Governments. • Area Housing Authority - All the cities, except the cities of Oxnard, San Buenaventura and Santa Paula, and the County of Ventura, are members of the Area Housing Authority. • SCAT - The cities of Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme and San Buenaventura, together with the County of Ventura, are members the South Coast Area Transit (SCAT) JPA. • COSCA - The City of Thousand Oaks is a member of the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency (COSCA), together with the Conejo Recreation and Park District. • VCREA - The cities of Oxnard, San Buenaventura, Santa Paula and Thousand Oaks, together with the County of Ventura, the Community College District, Casitas Municipal Water District and the Ventura Regional Sanitation District, are members of the Ventura County Regional Energy Alliance. • California JPIA – The cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai and Santa Paula are members of the California Joint Powers Insurance Agency, a JPA that provides liability, worker compensation and other “pooled” insurance for its members. In addition to JPAs, the cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, and Thousand Oaks contract with the Ventura County Sheriff for police services, thus seeking to avoid costs by benefiting from regional economies of scale for police service. Similarly, all the cities except Fillmore, Oxnard, San Buenaventura and Santa Paula, are part of the Ventura County Fire Protection District. The Ventura County Fire Protection District serves the majority of the County’s population and is able to provide regional economies of scale for fire and paramedic services. Further, the Ventura County Fire Protection District now provides emergency dispatch services for all the cities, except the City of Oxnard. All the cities benefit from emergency service mutual aide agreements. Such agreements not only provide support as needed in emergencies, but assist in reducing on-going staffing, training, equipment and facility costs. Each city to some extent requires new development to pay appropriate fees and charges to provide for cost recovery and to reduce the fiscal impacts of new development on existing residents and property owners. FF.. RRaattee RReessttrruuccttuurriinngg OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess Each city adopts a variety of rates and fees depending on the types of services provided. The previously completed water and wastewater municipal service reviews noted that there is not an easy basis for a side-by-side, “apples to apples” comparison of the rates for various water and wastewater services provided by different jurisdictions. Similarly, because each city has adopted other rates and fees based on differing local circumstances, service needs and demands and service delivery costs, there is no real basis for comparison of the myriad other rates and fees adopted by cities. Attempting to compare each city’s rates and fees to determine if there are rate restructuring opportunities would likely not yield meaningful results as each city periodically reviews its rates and fees, annually in many instances, and information can quickly become out of date. In reviewing rates MSR – Nine Cities 51 Final IV. Services MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities and fees cities typically, among other factors, consider the costs of service delivery, “market” conditions in terms of the rates and fees charged by other jurisdictions for similar services and/or the economic elasticity of what is reasonable in terms of ability to pay. All rate setting is done through a public process. In some instances state law requires cities to follow prescribed processes for the adoption or change of rates and fees (e.g. development fees and building permit fees). In nearly all instances public scrutiny of city rates and fees is high and local elected officials receive considerable feedback about any proposed changes. Given the diversity of rates and fees, the fact that most are regularly reviewed and updated, the legal requirements relating to fee adoption and the large degree of public scrutiny, no specific rate restructuring opportunities were noted for any of the nine cities. It was noted, however, that no city provides fee offsets (e.g. fee waivers or fee reductions) for affordable housing, although fee offsets do occur in limited instances for various economic development projects. Several cities noted, however, that they have on occasion deferred fees, as opposed to fee waivers or reductions, for some affordable housing projects. GG.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr SShhaarreedd FFaacciilliittiieess Based on the responses received to the LAFCo municipal service review questionnaire it is clear that each of the cities evaluates opportunities for shared facilities on an on-going basis. Cost avoidance is the usual starting point for evaluation of opportunities for shared facilities, but cities and other public agencies share facilities for a variety of other reasons, including location, community relations and duration/timing of need. Also, facilities are shared based on an array of arrangements, ranging from very formal agreements to ad hoc use arrangements. Most cities have relationships with local school districts about sharing various types of facilities. All the cities, except the City of Oxnard share a common dispatch center for fire and paramedic services that is operated by the Ventura County Fire Protection District. Via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Ojai, San Buenaventura and Simi Valley, have joined with the County of Ventura for library services. Based on this MOU each city determines the role libraries play in their jurisdiction, the days and hours of operation and projects and programming for library services and facilities. The City of Fillmore provides administrative services for the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District that operates a memorial hall. The City of Oxnard provides wastewater treatment services to the City of Port Hueneme, Naval Base Ventura County and to Ventura County Service Area No. 34. The City of Oxnard is also the lead agency for the Groundwater Recovery Enhancement and Treatment (GREAT) program to construct a new groundwater desalination facility to serve the City of Oxnard and the Port Hueneme Water Agency (a joint powers authority) and a recycled water system to serve agricultural users in the Oxnard Plain. The City of Thousand Oaks shares various facilities with the Conejo Recreation and Park District and is currently working with the Conejo Recreation and Park District and California Lutheran University to develop a shared-use swimming pool. Via joint powers agreements, including those listed above under the Cost Avoidance Opportunities heading each city shares facilities with the County of Ventura, other cities, special districts and/or state or federal agencies. While no city indicated any opposition to exploring opportunities for shared facilities, no obvious new opportunities for shared facilities were noted, with the exception of the City of Oxnard that Final 52 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities IV. Services indicated the City would be receptive to considering sharing its vehicle maintenance facilities and services with other agencies and the City of Ojai that indicated they have had discussions with other public agencies about a shared vehicle maintenance facility. HH.. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt SSttrruuccttuurree OOppttiioonnss Government structure options are limited for cities, but changes can be profound in terms of how a city functions. In California, cities are classified as either being “general law cities,” cities that operate under the general laws of the state, or “chartered cities,” cities that have established certain aspects of local governance based on a locally approved charter. In Ventura County all the cities are general law cities, except the cities of Port Hueneme and San Buenaventura. The City of San Buenaventura city charter, for example, includes provisions about local elections, the size and duties of the city council, the qualifications and duties of the city manager and city attorney, parameters for administrative departments, and even provisions for the powers, duties and election of the board of education for the Ventura Unified School District. For general law cites each of these matters is prescribed by state law. All cities in Ventura County operate under a council-manager form of government whereby an elected city council functions as the legislative body responsible for enacting all local ordinances and policies and selecting a city manager. The city manager is responsible for all administrative aspects of city operations, implementing city policies and hiring and directing all non-elected city staff. The city councils of all cities in Ventura County are elected “at-large,” meaning that all voters within a city may vote for all city council members including directly elected mayors, as opposed to the election of individual city council members by voting districts within a city. The cities of Moorpark, Oxnard and Simi Valley have directly elected mayors, whereas the city councils of each of the other cities select the mayor. The cities of Fillmore, Ojai, Oxnard and Santa Paula also elect, at-large, the city clerk and city treasurer. If the elections for the city clerk and city treasurer positions are not contested on a regular basis, one governmental structure option these four cities could consider is to make both the city clerk and city treasurer positions appointed. Over time, various cities have considered modifying their governmental structure. For example, based on a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, the City of Santa Paula in 2002 voted on whether or not to change from the at-large election of its city council to establishing voting districts for city council elections. That measure failed by over a two-thirds margin. At this time, none of the nine cities reported that changes to the existing governmental structure are being considered. While not changes to the functional structure, changes to city boundaries can have an effect on governmental structure as to how and where services are provided. Both the state and the Ventura LAFCo encourage the annexation of all so-called “island” areas that are developed. Island areas are unincorporated areas that are substantially surrounded by a city. Currently there are provisions in state law that encourage the annexation of fully developed, unincorporated island areas of 150 acres or less by allowing annexation without any protest proceedings. The Ventura LAFCo has adopted policies indicating that change of organization or reorganization proposals (e.g. annexation to a city) involving 40 acres or more of undeveloped land may be conditioned upon a city initiating the annexation of any fully developed, unincorporated island areas that meet the state law criteria for the expedited annexation process. MSR – Nine Cities 53 Final IV. Services MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities The rationale for encouraging the annexation of developed, unincorporated island areas relates to the efficient delivery of services. In nearly all instances, these island areas are receiving some form of service or services from the adjoining city. It is simply more efficient for the services provided to developed, unincorporated island areas to be provided by a city, rather than by the County for some services and a city for other services. It is also often more expensive and burdensome for the County to provide services to these areas, especially public safety services. Further, for any service being provided by an adjoining city, residents of developed, unincorporated island areas are effectively disenfranchised from being represented by those responsible for the service. This can raise issues relating to social equity. The cities of Camarillo, San Buenaventura, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks each have developed, unincorporated island areas that qualify for the expedited annexation process in state law (CA Government Codes Section 56375.3). In each instance, the city is strongly encouraged to initiate the annexation of these areas. State law and the arguments in favor of the annexation of these areas notwithstanding, however, there have been strong objections, particularly by the City of Simi Valley, to undertaking any annexation not supported by at least a majority of the property owners affected. Some of the developed unincorporated island areas were created when the respective city was first formed, while others were developed areas that became islands as the adjoining city grew and expanded. In limited cases these existing developed areas were permitted to remain as islands by LAFCo. In other cases LAFCo required the surrounding city to initiate annexation proceedings, but the proceedings were never completed due to majority protests by the property owners and/or voters of the unincorporated areas. Regardless of the history of the individual unincorporated island areas, however, it is now possible for a surrounding city to initiate the annexation of developed unincorporated island areas of less than 150 acres without protest proceedings, and LAFCo cannot turn down such proposals once they are filed. Based both on city policy and the historical basis for the developed, unincorporated island areas adjacent to the City of Simi Valley, that city secured special legislation that in essence prevents the Ventura LAFCo from even considering the application of its policy to condition the annexation of 40 acres or more of undeveloped land upon the initiation of annexation proceedings for the developed, unincorporated island areas surrounded by the City of Simi Valley. That special legislation sunsets at the end of 2007, whereas the provisions providing for the expedited annexation of developed, unincorporated island areas statewide now sunsets as of January 1, 2014. Related to governmental structure are the types of services provided by a city. Unlike special districts, cities are empowered to provide the full range of local governmental services. This results in a basic presumption that cities, as the providers of multiple services, are the preferred service providers. However, as reflected in Table 1, the actual services provided by each of the nine cities varies considerably. Cities may have the ability, via a merger with a special district, to assume all the services now being provided by a special district, basically resulting in the special district ceasing to exist as a unit of local government. Cities in some instances may assume the governance of a special district, resulting in the district continuing to exist as a separate legal entity, but being a dependent district governed by a city council versus an independent district with a separate, directly elected governing board or governed by the County. Cities also have the ability to acquire the assets of private service providers (e.g. mutual water companies) and provide the service as a public function. Each of these possibilities is constrained by state law provisions, including for some actions a Final 54 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities IV. Services requirement that the boundaries of a city and special district overlap by at least 70%. There are other constraints as well, both in terms of costs and political feasibility. Nonetheless, in those cities where one or more services are provided by special districts and/or private providers, the city should continually evaluate whether or not the city could more effectively and efficiently provide such service or services. Specific instances are: • City of Camarillo – Evaluate the feasibility and potential benefits, if any, of a reorganization with the Camarillo Sanitary District and the Camrosa Water District, and of acquiring all private, mutual water providers now providing potable water service within the City boundaries. In addition, the City should work with the Pleasant Valley County Water District, a purveyor of water for agricultural purposes, to ensure that developed areas within the City are detached from the Pleasant Valley County Water District. • City of Fillmore – Evaluate the feasibility and potential benefits, if any of a reorganization with the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District. • City of Moorpark – While existing service areas may at this time make any reorganization or merger infeasible, as the City may expand and on a long-term basis, the City should continue to explore the potential feasibility and benefits, if any, of a merger or reorganization with Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. • City of Oxnard – Evaluate the feasibility and potential benefits, if any, of a reorganization with the Ocean View Municipal Water District or a dissolution of the District with the City being the successor agency. In addition, the City should work with both Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 and Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 that provide services exclusively to agricultural properties, to ensure that developed areas within the City are detached from the boundaries of both Districts. • City of San Buenaventura – Evaluate the feasibility and potential benefits, if any, of a merger with the Montalvo Municipal Improvement District or a dissolution of the District with the City being the successor agency. At minimum, the City should work cooperatively with the Montalvo Municipal Improvement District to interconnect systems in the case of emergency. II.. EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff MMaannaaggeemmeenntt EEffffiicciieenncciieess Every city continually receives public scrutiny by its citizens, the press and other units of government. As such, city council members receive on-going input about management efficiencies in their jurisdiction and it is the responsibility of the city council to evaluate and as necessary, take action to improve management efficiencies. While state law requires LAFCos to make written determinations about the evaluation of management efficiencies, LAFCo has no authority whatsoever over the management efficiency of any public agency. For the purpose of this service review and in order to comply with the requirement to make written determinations about the evaluation of management efficiencies, the following can be noted for each of the nine cities: • The management structure of each city is adequate to serve the present and near-term future needs of the city. • Each city has current management, interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate for efficient operations and service delivery. MSR – Nine Cities 55 Final IV. Services MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities • Each city uses outside vendors and contracting with other agencies to provide more efficient services. • Each city fully complies with all budget, audit and financial reporting requirements. Of note, , the cities of Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, San Buenaventura, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks, have each received awards from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers for budgeting and/or financial reporting practices. • Each city has up-to-date, legally compliant personnel and training policies. • Each city, except the city of Moorpark, has adopted policies about minimum amounts to maintain in unrestricted reserve/contingency funds. The City of Moorpark indicates that although the City does not have a formal policy about minimum amounts to maintain in unrestricted reserve/contingency funds, the City by practice has maintained a healthy reserve representing 195% of total general fund expenditures as of June 30, 2006. In municipal service reviews for special districts, the presence of master plans, administrative overhead as a percent of expenses, the number of employees and current and past litigation were used as a part of the evaluation of management efficiencies. These items do not have the same significance for cities given the diversity of services cities provide. Every city is required to have a general plan, and various other plans, such as an urban water master plan, depending on the types of services provided. Each of the nine cities is fully compliant with all requirements for plans including having state approved housing elements as a part of their general plans. Because of differences in services and the way budgets are prepared, there is no meaningful way to easily compare administrative overhead as a percent of expenses. To do so would require separate audits by service function for each city that would require extra work and expense by each city and is beyond the scope of this municipal service review. Appendix 1 contains the revenue and expenses for each of the nine cities as reported by the State Controller for fiscal years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003- 04, with both percentage and per capita information. The State Controller lists an expense heading for general government, but this is not equivalent to the administrative overhead that may relate to any particular service. The LAFCo municipal service review questionnaire asked each city to provide base information about staffing levels. The responses received are contained in Appendix 2. However, because the number of employees varies considerably from city to city based on the types of services provided, and because how a city classifies its employees (e. g. management, professional, operations, etc.) varies from city to city, this information does not yield any meaningful evaluation of management efficiencies. Similarly, a review of past and current litigation would not result in a meaningful evaluation of management efficiencies for cities. Indicative of society as a whole, each city must handle a variety of tort claims of varying magnitude on an on-going basis and cities are also plaintiffs in a variety of litigation. A major function of the Ventura County Grand Jury is “civil government oversight.” During the last four years the Grand Jury has investigated a number of topics that relate both to management Final 56 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities IV. Services efficiencies and/or to local accountability and governance. A complete listing and a full discussion of the Grand Jury’s findings, conclusions and recommendations, together with responses from affected agencies is readily available on the Grand Jury’s web site http://grandjury.countyofventura.org/index.html, but during the last five years one or more of the nine cities was required to respond to the following investigations: 2005-06 • Affordable Housing in Ventura County Cities – all cities • Cemetery Memorial Park: A Follow-Up Report – San Buenaventura • Thousand Oaks City Council – Thousand Oaks 2004-05 • City of Oxnard Golf Course Management – Oxnard • Elementary School Site Selection Adjacent to Oxnard Airport – Oxnard • Public Right to Public Records and Cemetery Memorial park – San Buenaventura 2003-04 • City of Oxnard River Ridge Revisited – Oxnard • Elections and Local Appointment Lists – Moorpark, Thousand Oaks • Oxnard Community Redevelopment - Oxnard 2002-03 • City of Moorpark Practices of Code Enforcement & Building & Safety – Moorpark • City of Oxnard River Ridge Golf Course - Oxnard • Intervention Programs for Delinquent Non-Violent juveniles by the Sheriff & Probation Departments in Ventura County – Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Thousand Oaks • Police Information Systems within Ventura County – Oxnard, San Buenaventura, Santa Paula, Simi Valley • Redevelopment Agencies & Requirements for Low & Moderate Income Housing – all cities on behalf of their respective redevelopment agencies • Thousand Oaks Day Laborer Site – Thousand Oaks To the extent that the citizens in any city believe they have valid concerns about a city’s management, accountability or governance, that are not being addressed, they may file a formal complaint with the Grand Jury. JJ.. LLooccaall AAccccoouunnttaabbiilliittyy aanndd GGoovveerrnnaannccee Cities are perhaps criticized more frequently about accountability and governance than any other topic. However, each city must follow the requirements of a variety of laws intended to ensure governmental accountability at the local level and it can fairly be stated that each city strives to be locally accountable through adherence to applicable laws, open and accessible meetings, dissemination of information and encouragement of public participation. To the extent that any city fails to comply with any of these factors there are a number of opportunities to address concerns and grievances at public meetings, with the press, during elections, by filing complaints with the Grand MSR – Nine Cities 57 Final IV. Services MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Jury, and/or in seeking remedies via the judicial system. Overall, though, each citizen is responsible for local accountability and governance, and all public agencies function best when there is an active and involved citizenry. For the purposes of this service review considerations about local accountability and governance included a review of city elections since 2000, including the recent 2006 election, whether elected officials and senior staff received regular reviews of the Brown Act, Fair Political Practices Commission rules and procedures and the Public Records Act, compliance with mandatory ethics training for elected officials (new in 2006, based on AB 1234 passed in 2005), accessibility of public meetings and a review of each city’s web site. The city council in each city consists of elected members. The cities of Moorpark, Oxnard and Simi Valley have directly elected mayors, and the cities of Fillmore, Ojai, Oxnard and Santa Paula have directly elected city clerks and city treasurers. Since the November 2000 election, all city elections have been contested, meaning that no incumbent has run unopposed, except: November 2006 • Mayor – cities of Moorpark and Simi Valley • City Council – City of Simi Valley November 2004 • City Council – City of Ojai • Mayor – cities of Moorpark and Simi Valley • City Clerk – cities of Fillmore, Ojai and Oxnard • City Treasurer – cities of Fillmore, Ojai, Oxnard and Santa Paula November 2002 • Mayor – cities of Moorpark and Oxnard November 2000 • Mayor – City of Oxnard • City Clerk – cities of Fillmore, Ojai and Santa Paula • City Treasurer – cities of Fillmore, Ojai and Santa Paula Each city indicated that it conducts formal, annual or bi-annual, public reviews of the Brown Act, Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) rules and procedures and the Public Records Act for elected officials, appointed boards and commissions and senior staff, except the City of Ojai, that indicated it does not conduct regular reviews of the Public Records Act, and the City of Simi Valley. However, the City of Simi Valley indicated that while no formal, public reviews are conducted, the City Council, appointed boards and commissions and senior staff receive regular information about these Acts, rules, and procedures. In terms of Brown Act compliance no city reported that it has recently been cited for violations of the Brown Act, except the City of Oxnard. Based on a lawsuit filed by local citizens the Ventura County Superior Court in 2004 determined that the Oxnard City Council/Community Development Commission (redevelopment agency) conducted closed sessions under the real estate negotiations Final 58 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities IV. Services section of the Brown Act that included discussions of topics not authorized by state law, but the court also determined that the violations were not intentional. While not a part of the LAFCo municipal service review questionnaire because it is a new requirement in 2006 based on the passage of AB 1234 in 2005, all the cities appear to be in compliance with having elected officials attend mandatory ethics training sessions. Each city reported that the location of city meetings and the facilities and equipment at meetings are in compliance with at least the minimum accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). All the cities, except the cities of Fillmore and Ojai, broadcast city council meetings live on a local cable television channel and the cities of Moorpark, Oxnard, San Buenaventura, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks reported that city council meetings are also able to be viewed over the internet from the city web site. Some cities also broadcast and/or provide for internet viewing of meetings of various city advisory boards and commissions such as the planning commission. The City of Ojai reports that the City videotapes both City Council and planning commission meetings and that the local cable channel plays these tapes usually the following day. The increasing use of the internet for viewing public meetings also allows for archiving, allowing citizens to not only view the current or most recent meeting, but also meetings that occurred in the past. The time period that cities maintain an archive of city council meetings varies from city to city, but some cities maintain a web archive of meetings for up to the prior year. Over time it is expected that all the cities will take advantage of the internet for viewing public meetings and as an archive resource, providing much greater access for the public. All the cities have web sites. As a part of this municipal service review each city’s web site was reviewed to see if the following public information was available: • A phone directory for city services – ideally including a complete city employee directory in addition to a list of phone numbers for service functions • The complete city municipal code – ideally in a easily searchable format • Complete copies of the most recent operating and capital budgets – ideally also including the operating and capital budgets for the prior two or three fiscal years • A complete copy of the most recent certified annual financial report – ideally also including the certified annual financial reports for the prior two or three fiscal years • All current public hearing notices for pending city council public hearings – ideally also including all current public hearing notices for all pending public hearings by any city board and commission • The most recent city council agenda – ideally also including the agendas of all city boards and commissions, plus links from agenda items to copies of staff reports and an archive of past agendas and links to reports for the last year • Copies of minutes for the most recent city council meeting - ideally also including copies of minutes for all city boards and commissions and an archive of minutes for the last year MSR – Nine Cities 59 Final IV. Services MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities As noted in the determinations for each city in Section V, no city currently has all of the information noted above on its web site, but all cities are encouraged to do so to improve local accountability and governance. However, several of the cities, notably Moorpark and Thousand Oaks, maintain excellent web sites with a substantial amount of information, and any shortcomings identified are minor overall. As noted, it is fully expected that each city will continue to seek to improve its web site as a source of public information and to encourage public participation in all aspects of governance. Final 60 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations VV.. DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS CCiittyy ooff CCaammaarriilllloo –– DDeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonnss AA.. IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree NNeeeeddss oorr DDeeffiicciieenncciieess 1. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure for local streets and highways, drainage, water supply (including treatment and distribution) for a portion of the City and various other city-owned buildings and facilities. The Camarillo Sanitary District, a dependent, subsidiary, special district governed by the City Council, is responsible for infrastructure relating to wastewater collection and treatment for a portion of the City. All other public infrastructure is provided by other public agencies and by private companies, including regulated utility companies. 2. The City annually updates its list of infrastructure needs and adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a five-year period. The purpose of the City’s CIP is to identify current and future infrastructure needs and to plan for sufficient financing and sequencing of construction to meet the needs identified. The City’s capital improvement budget for the 2005 – 2010 time period was $124,205,000, and was fully funded. Revenue for capital improvements comes from a variety of sources including the City general fund, grants, development impact fees, and community facility and assessment bonds. 3. The City did not identify any infrastructure that is not in compliance with safety and environmental standards. 4. The City coordinates its infrastructure improvements with its General Plan, other service providers and applicable regional plans and programs. BB.. GGrroowwtthh aanndd PPooppuullaattiioonn PPrroojjeeccttiioonnss 1. The City grew by approximately 9.6% between 2000 and 2005, based on information from the 2000 U.S. census and annual population projections by the California Department of Finance (DOF). Based on DOF estimates the City grew by approximately 2.6% between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006. 2. The City is a member of the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG). VCOG has adopted population forecasts to 2025 for each city in Ventura County and for geographical subareas around each city, generally consistent with each city’s area of interest. The City participated in these forecasts and generally accepts them for planning purposes. Based on the January 1, 2005 DOF population estimate for the City of 62,570 and the VCOG 2025 population projection of 82,654, the City will grow by approximately 32% during this twenty-year time frame. 3. The City is within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, is a member of SCAG, and is required by state law to use SCAG’s population projections for the preparation of the City’s Housing Element. SCAG population projections differ from the population projections adopted by VCOG. SCAG is currently preparing population projections through 2035, but these are not yet finalized. MSR – Nine Cities 61 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities 4. The City is limited by ordinance to issuing building permits for a maximum of 400 dwelling units per year, not including senior or affordable housing units sponsored by federal, state or local programs. 5. The City adopted a Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) ordinance in 1998 that established the Camarillo Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). Based on this ordinance the City cannot, with limited exceptions, amend its General Plan to allow urban services and urban uses in areas outside the CURB without a vote of the people. This ordinance is in effect until December 31, 2020, and affects how and where the City may grow. 6. There are substantial developed areas within the City’s CURB and within the City’s sphere of influence that could potentially be annexed to the City that would, upon annexation, increase the City’s population. 7. There are differences between the existing sphere of influence line and the CURB line established by the City’s voters. As a part of LAFCo’s sphere of influence update process consideration should be given to changing the sphere of influence line to match the City’s CURB line, except for properties already within the City. 8. Demographic information for the City’s sphere of influence and the area covered by the City’s General Plan, outside existing City boundaries, is difficult to estimate as the sphere of influence and the area covered by the City General Plan do not match census tract boundaries and no separate population projections are made for these areas. The City should work cooperatively with the County and other cities in the County to develop a consistent methodology to prepare annual population estimates and projections for areas in the City’s sphere of influence and areas covered by the City’s General Plan. CC.. FFiinnaanncciinngg CCoonnssttrraaiinnttss aanndd OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City is subject to tax and funding limitations applicable to all municipalities throughout the state, including Propositions 13 and 218. 2. The City is subject to changes in revenue allocation based on the state budget and its relationship to local funding sources. The City estimates that the two-year transfer of revenue from the state to the City under Proposition 1A, adopted in 2004, is over $2 million. 3. The City annually prepares a comprehensive budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent with need. 4. City revenue is derived from a diverse combination of sources and consists of both non- enterprise and enterprise revenue. In FY 2003 –2004, based on information reported to the State Controller, the top three sources of non-enterprise revenue (i.e. not including water service revenue) were sales and use taxes (21.2%), intergovernmental revenue, including state motor vehicle in-lieu taxes and state gasoline taxes (11.9%), and property taxes (6.9%). 5. The City uses debt financing as it deems necessary and appropriate, including revenue bonds, community facility district financing and 1915 Act assessment district bonds. In 2005 the City’s bond rating was AA- by Standard and Poors and AaB by Moodys. 6. The City Council serves as the governing board for the City’s Redevelopment Agency. The City did not respond to questions about how many redevelopment project areas exist. As of June 30, 2005, the Redevelopment Agency owed the City approximately $9,820,000. The Redevelopment Agency utilizes tax increment funding and other Final 62 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations redevelopment revenue to repay the City and to cover the costs of redevelopment activities in the City’s redevelopment project area(s). The Redevelopment Agency maintains a separate low and moderate income housing set aside fund of approximately $733,385 as of June 30, 2005, to provide for affordable housing throughout the City. DD.. CCoosstt AAvvooiiddaannccee OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City has adopted purchasing policies with the objective of securing supplies and equipment at the lowest possible cost and complies with public bid requirements. 2. The City is a member of the California Joint Powers Insurance Agency to purchase insurance at favorable group rates. 3. The City contracts with the County of Ventura for police services and is located within the boundaries of the Ventura County Fire Protection District that provides fire and paramedic services. Via these agencies the City benefits from emergency service mutual aid agreements. 4. The City is part of the Area Housing Authority, a joint powers agency that includes the County of Ventura and five other cities, that provides, operates and maintains low and moderate income housing and administers housing programs pursuant to state housing authority law. 5. The City requires that new development pay appropriate fees and charges to provide for cost recovery and reduce impacts on existing residents and property owners. 6. There are no obvious cost avoidance opportunities that have not been implemented by the City through internal reviews, contracts with other agencies and joint powers authorities. EE.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr RRaattee RReessttrruuccttuurriinngg 1. The City establishes rates and fees through a public process. Most, but not all, City rates and fees are reviewed annually to ensure basic cost recovery, maintenance of service levels and the provision and maintenance of infrastructure. 2. The City does provides fee offsets for affordable housing for its traffic and police facilities fees, as approved by the City Council. FF.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr SShhaarreedd FFaacciilliittiieess 1. The City actively cooperates with other agencies as appropriate to share facilities. A formal joint use agreement exists with the Pleasant Valley School District for use of the City library and with the County of Ventura for library services. 2. No obvious additional opportunities for shared facilities were noted. GG.. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt SSttrruuccttuurree OOppttiioonnss 1. The City should explore the potential benefits, if any, of a reorganization with the Camarillo Sanitary District and with the Camrosa Water District. 2. The City should explore the potential benefits, if any, of acquiring all private, mutual water providers now providing potable water service within the City boundaries. 3. The City, in conjunction with the Pleasant Valley County Water District, should initiate the detachment of all developed territory within the City from the Pleasant Valley County Water District to ensure that property owners are not being taxed unnecessarily for the provision of non-potable, agricultural water services. MSR – Nine Cities 63 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities 4. The City should annex all developed, unincorporated areas that are surrounded or substantially surrounded by the City. HH.. EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff MMaannaaggeemmeenntt EEffffiicciieenncciieess 1. The management structure of the City is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the City. 2. The City has current management, interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate for efficient operations and service delivery. 3. The City uses outside vendors and contracting with other agencies to provide more efficient services. 4. The City fully complies with all budget, audit and financial reporting requirements. The City received awards from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers for its 2003-2004 budget and certified annual financial report. 5. The City adopted policies in 2001 about minimum amounts to maintain in unrestricted reserve/contingency funds. 6. The City indicates it has up-to-date, legally compliant personnel rules and training polices. II.. LLooccaall AAccccoouunnttaabbiilliittyy aanndd GGoovveerrnnaannccee 1. The City is locally accountable through adherence to applicable Government Code requirements, open and accessible meetings, dissemination of information and encouragement of public participation. 2. The City Council is elected and no City Council member has recently run unopposed. 3. The City conducts regular review for the City Council and senior staff of the Brown Act, Fair Political Practices Commission rules and procedures and the Public Records Act. 4. The City indicates that the location of most City meetings and the facilities and equipment at meetings, including all City Council meetings, complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) minimum requirements. 5. The City maintains a web site that includes basic information about the City, a basic phone directory for City services and a list of current agendas for the City Council and City advisory boards and commissions. However the City could substantially improve its web site for the purpose of local accountability and governance by posting the most recent city budget, capital improvement program and certified annual financial report, all public hearing notices, links to all staff reports and written materials for each City Council and City advisory board and commission agenda item, and a historical archive of agendas and meeting minutes for at least one year. 6. Meetings of the City Council/Community Development Commission are broadcast live on the City’s government access cable TV channel. Final 64 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations CCiittyy ooff FFiillllmmoorree –– DDeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonnss AA.. IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree NNeeeeddss oorr DDeeffiicciieenncciieess 1. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure for water supply (including treatment and distribution), wastewater (sewer) collection and treatment, local streets and highways, drainage, parks and recreation facilities and various other city-owned buildings and facilities. All other public infrastructure is provided by other public agencies and by regulated utility companies. 2. The City annually updates its list of infrastructure needs and adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a five-year period. The purpose of the City’s CIP is to identify current and future infrastructure needs and to plan for sufficient financing and sequencing of construction to meet the needs identified. The City did not provide information about the total dollar amount of its CIP or if the CIP is fully funded. The City did indicate that the primary sources of revenue for the CIP are redevelopment and development impact fees. No information was provided as to whether or not the City funds a portion of its CIP with any General Fund revenue. 3. The City is under order from the state Regional Water Control Board to upgrade its wastewater treatment facilities. The City has is currently in the process of constructing a new wastewater treatment facility to meet current and projected needs and to meet all safety and environmental standards. The City did not identify any other infrastructure that is not in compliance with safety and environmental standards. 4. The City coordinates its infrastructure improvements with its General Plan, other service providers and applicable regional plans and programs. BB.. GGrroowwtthh aanndd PPooppuullaattiioonn PPrroojjeeccttiioonnss 1. The City grew by approximately 11.3% between 2000 and 2005, based on information from the 2000 U.S. census and annual population projections by the California Department of Finance (DOF). Based on DOF estimates the City population remained basically unchanged (0% change) between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006. 2. The City is a member of the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG). VCOG has adopted population forecasts to 2025 for each city in Ventura County and for geographical subareas around each city, generally consistent with each city’s area of interest. The City participated in these forecasts and generally accepts them for planning purposes. Based on the January 1, 2005 DOF population estimate for the City of 15,182 and the VCOG 2025 population projection of 23,302, the City will grow by approximately 53.5% during this twenty-year time frame. 3. The City is within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, is a member of SCAG, and is required by state law to use SCAG’s population projections for the preparation of the City’s Housing Element. SCAG population projections differ from the population projections adopted by VCOG. SCAG is currently preparing population projections through 2035, but these are not yet finalized. 4. The City adopted a Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) ordinance in 2002 that established a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). Based on this ordinance the City cannot, with limited exceptions, amend its General Plan to allow urban services and urban uses in areas outside the CURB without a vote of the people. MSR – Nine Cities 65 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This ordinance is in effect until December 31, 2020, and affects how and where the City may grow. 5. There are significant differences between the existing sphere of influence line and the CURB line established by the City’s voters. Also, there are areas within the City that are outside either the sphere of influence and/or outside the City’s CURB. As a part of LAFCo’s sphere of influence update process these areas should be reviewed for possible changes to the sphere of influence line. Undeveloped areas in the City, but outside the sphere of influence should be detached. 6. Demographic information for the City’s sphere of influence and the area covered by the City’s General Plan, outside existing City boundaries, is difficult to estimate as the sphere of influence and the area covered by the City General Plan do not match census tract boundaries and no separate population projections are made for these areas. The City should work cooperatively with the County and other cities in the County to develop a consistent methodology to prepare annual population estimates and projections for areas in the City’s sphere of influence and areas covered by the City’s General Plan. CC.. FFiinnaanncciinngg CCoonnssttrraaiinnttss aanndd OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City is subject to tax and funding limitations applicable to all municipalities throughout the state, including Propositions 13 and 218. 2. The City is subject to changes in revenue allocation based on the state budget and its relationship to local funding sources. The City has indicated that state revenue allocation changes have impacted the City’s ability to provide basic services. 3. The City annually prepares a comprehensive budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent with need. 4. City revenue is derived from a diverse combination of sources and consists of both non- enterprise and enterprise revenue. In FY 2003 –2004, based on information reported to the State Controller, the top three sources of non-enterprise revenue (i.e. not including revenue from water and sewer services) were taxes, including sales and property taxes, (25.1%), other unspecified revenue (13.8%), and intergovernmental revenue, including state motor vehicle in-lieu taxes and state gasoline taxes (12.4%). 5. The City uses debt financing as necessary and appropriate, including certificates of participation and community facility district financing. The City did not respond to questions about its bond rating. 6. The City Council serves as the governing board for the City’s Redevelopment Agency. The City did not respond to questions about how many redevelopment project areas exist and the amount of debt the redevelopment agency owes the City, if any. The Redevelopment Agency maintains a separate low and moderate income housing set aside fund of approximately $1,904,862 as of June 30, 2005, to provide for affordable housing throughout the City. DD.. CCoosstt AAvvooiiddaannccee OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City has adopted purchasing policies with the objective of securing supplies and equipment at the lowest possible cost and complies with public bid requirements. 2. The City is a member of the California Joint Powers Insurance Agency to purchase insurance at favorable group rates. Final 66 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations 3. The City contracts with the County of Ventura for police services and, in conjunction with the City’s Fire Department, benefits from emergency service mutual aid agreements. 4. The City is part of the Area Housing Authority, a joint powers agency that includes the County of Ventura and five other cities, that provides, operates and maintains low and moderate income housing and administers housing programs pursuant to state housing authority law. 5. The City requires that new development pay appropriate fees and charges to provide for cost recovery and reduce impacts on existing residents and property owners. 6. There are no obvious cost avoidance opportunities that have not been implemented by the City through internal reviews, contracts with other agencies and joint powers authorities. EE.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr RRaattee RReessttrruuccttuurriinngg 1. The City establishes rates and fees through a public process. Most, but not all, City rates and fees are reviewed annually to ensure basic cost recovery, maintenance of service levels and the provision and maintenance of infrastructure. 2. The City does not provide fee offsets for affordable housing. FF.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr SShhaarreedd FFaacciilliittiieess 1. The City actively cooperates with other agencies as appropriate to share facilities. A formal agreement exists with the Fillmore Unified School District and, for library services, with the County of Ventura. The City provides administration for the Fillmore- Piru Memorial District that owns and operates a veteran’s memorial hall in the City. 2. No obvious additional opportunities for shared facilities were noted. GG.. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt SSttrruuccttuurree OOppttiioonnss 1. The City should explore the potential benefits, if any, of a reorganization with the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District. 2. Since recent elections for City Clerk and/or City Treasurer have not been contested, the City should explore the viability of changing one or both offices to appointed positions rather than elected positions. HH.. EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff MMaannaaggeemmeenntt EEffffiicciieenncciieess 1. The management structure of the City is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the City. 2. The City has current management, interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate for efficient operations and service delivery. 3. The City uses outside vendors and contracting with other agencies to provide more efficient services. 4. The City fully complies with all budget, audit and financial reporting requirements. 5. The City has adopted, and periodically reviews, a policy about maintaining 45% of General Fund operating expenses in unrestricted reserve/contingency funds. 6. The City indicates it has up-to-date, legally compliant personnel rules and training polices. MSR – Nine Cities 67 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities II.. LLooccaall AAccccoouunnttaabbiilliittyy aanndd GGoovveerrnnaannccee 1. The City is locally accountable through adherence to applicable Government Code requirements, open and accessible meetings, dissemination of information and encouragement of public participation. 2. The City Council is elected and no City Council member has recently run unopposed. 3. The City conducts regular review for the City Council and senior staff of the Brown Act, Fair Political Practices Commission rules and procedures and the Public Records Act. 4. The City indicates that the location of most City meetings and the facilities and equipment at meetings, including all City Council meetings, complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) minimum requirements. 5. The City maintains a web site that includes basic information about the City, a phone directory for some, but not all, City departments, the City Municipal Code and the most recent three months of agendas for the City Council, Redevelopment Agency and Planning Commission. However the City could substantially improve its web site for the purpose of local accountability and governance by posting a complete phone directory for city departments, the most recent city budget, capital improvement program and audit, links to all staff reports and written materials for each City Council and City advisory board and commission agenda item, and a historical archive of agendas and meeting minutes for at least one year. Final 68 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations CCiittyy ooff MMoooorrppaarrkk –– DDeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonnss AA.. IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree NNeeeeddss oorr DDeeffiicciieenncciieess 1. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure for local streets and highways, drainage, parks and recreation facilities and various other city- owned buildings and facilities. All other public infrastructure is provided by other public agencies and by regulated utility companies. 2. The City annually updates its list of infrastructure needs and adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a seven-year period. The purpose of the City’s CIP is to identify current and future infrastructure needs and to plan for sufficient financing and sequencing of construction to meet the needs identified. The City’s 2005-2012 CIP contained projects with an estimated cost of $65,900,000. The City indicated that approximately 20% of this total was currently funded. The primary sources of revenue for the CIP are grants, gas tax, redevelopment, and various mitigation fees. No information was provided as to whether or not the City funds a portion of its CIP with any General Fund revenue. 3. The City coordinates its infrastructure improvements with its General Plan, other service providers and applicable regional plans and programs. BB.. GGrroowwtthh aanndd PPooppuullaattiioonn PPrroojjeeccttiioonnss 1. The City grew by approximately 13.7% between 2000 and 2005, based on information from the 2000 U.S. census and annual population projections by the California Department of Finance (DOF). Based on DOF estimates the City population changed by only 0.2% between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006. 2. The City is a member of the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG). VCOG has adopted population forecasts to 2025 for each city in Ventura County and for geographical subareas around each city, generally consistent with each city’s area of interest. The City participated in these forecasts but they have proven to be less than the City’s actual growth. Thus, the City has generated its own population projections, at least until 2020. Based on the January 1, 2005 DOF population estimate for the City of 35,717 and the City’s 2020 population projection of 43,874, the City will grow by approximately 22.9% during this fifteen-year time frame. 3. The City is within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, is a member of SCAG, and is required by state law to use SCAG’s population projections for the preparation of the City’s Housing Element. SCAG population projections differ from the population projections adopted by VCOG. SCAG is currently preparing population projections through 2035, but these are not yet finalized. 4. The City adopted a Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) ordinance in 1999 that established a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). Based on this ordinance the City cannot, with limited exceptions, amend its General Plan to allow urban services and urban uses in areas outside the CURB without a vote of the people. This ordinance is in effect until December 31, 2020, and affects how and where the City may grow. 5. There is one area that is within the City and within the City’s sphere of influence that is outside the City’s CURB. As a part of LAFCo’s sphere of influence update process MSR – Nine Cities 69 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities consideration should be given to changing the sphere of influence line to match the City’s CURB line, and the City should consider detaching this area. 6. The City’s sphere of influence and the area covered by the City’s General Plan are co- terminus with the City boundaries. Thus, population projections for the City also apply to the City’s sphere of influence and the area covered by the City’s General Plan. The City should work cooperatively with the County and other cities in the County to develop a consistent methodology to prepare annual population estimates and projections for areas in the City’s sphere of influence and areas covered by the City’s General Plan. CC.. FFiinnaanncciinngg CCoonnssttrraaiinnttss aanndd OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City is subject to tax and funding limitations applicable to all municipalities throughout the state, including Propositions 13 and 218. 2. The City is subject to changes in revenue allocation based on the state budget and its relationship to local funding sources. 3. The City annually prepares a comprehensive budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent with need. 4. City revenue is derived from a diverse combination of sources. In FY 2003 –2004, based on information reported to the State Controller, the top three sources of revenue were taxes (40.8%), including property and sales taxes, service charges (21.2%), and intergovernmental revenue (15.6%), including state motor vehicle in-lieu taxes and state gasoline taxes. 5. The City has used debt financing only for its redevelopment agency. In 2005 the City’s bond rating was AAA by Standard and Poors and AAA by Fitch. 6. The City Council serves as the governing board for the City’s Redevelopment Agency. There is one redevelopment project area in the City. In fiscal year 2004-2005 the Redevelopment Agency received $3,901,778 in tax increment revenue. The redevelopment agency maintains a separate low and moderate income housing set aside fund of approximately $995,242 as of June 30, 2005, to provide for affordable housing throughout the City. DD.. CCoosstt AAvvooiiddaannccee OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City has adopted purchasing policies with the objective of securing supplies and equipment at the lowest possible cost and complies with public bid requirements. 2. The City is a member of the California Joint Powers Insurance Agency to purchase insurance at favorable group rates. 3. The City contracts with the County of Ventura for police services and is located within the boundaries of the Ventura County Fire Protection District that provides fire and paramedic services. Via these agencies the City benefits from emergency service mutual aid agreements. 4. The City is part of the Area Housing Authority, a joint powers agency that includes the County of Ventura and five other cities, that provides, operates and maintains low and moderate income housing and administers housing programs pursuant to state housing authority law. 5. The City requires that new development pay appropriate fees and charges to provide for cost recovery and reduce impacts on existing residents and property owners. Final 70 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations 6. The City has indicated that there might be an opportunity to share vehicle maintenance with another agency to reduce costs. There are no other obvious cost avoidance opportunities that have not been implemented by the City through internal reviews, contracts with other agencies and joint powers authorities. EE.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr RRaattee RReessttrruuccttuurriinngg 1. The City establishes rates and fees through a public process. Most, but not all, City rates and fees are reviewed annually to ensure basic cost recovery, maintenance of service levels and the provision and maintenance of infrastructure. 2. The City does not provide fee offsets for affordable housing. FF.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr SShhaarreedd FFaacciilliittiieess 1. The City actively cooperates with other agencies as appropriate to share facilities. The City cooperates with Moorpark Unified School District about facility use. 2. No obvious additional opportunities for shared facilities were noted. GG.. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt SSttrruuccttuurree OOppttiioonnss 1. While existing service areas and the geographic areas within current boundaries make any reorganization or merger infeasible, on a long-term basis the City should explore the potential issues and benefits, if any, of a reorganization with the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 or merging the District into the City. HH.. EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff MMaannaaggeemmeenntt EEffffiicciieenncciieess 1. The management structure of the City is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the City. 2. The City has current management, interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate for efficient operations and service delivery. 3. The City uses outside vendors and contracting with other agencies to provide more efficient services. 4. The City fully complies with all budget, audit and financial reporting requirements. The City received a 2005-06 budget excellence award from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers in the operating category. 5. The City indicates that although it does not have a formal policy about minimum amounts to maintain in unrestricted reserve/contingency funds, by practice it has maintained a healthy reserve representing 195% of total General Fund expenditures as of June 30, 2006. Based on this practice the City should consider adopting a formal reserve/contingency policy. 6. The City indicates it has up-to-date, legally compliant personnel rules and training polices. II.. LLooccaall AAccccoouunnttaabbiilliittyy aanndd GGoovveerrnnaannccee 1. The City is locally accountable through adherence to applicable Government Code requirements, open and accessible meetings, dissemination of information and encouragement of public participation. MSR – Nine Cities 71 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities 2. The City Council is elected and while no City Council member has recently run unopposed the Mayor has run unopposed in the last three elections. 3. The City conducts regular reviews of the Brown Act, Fair Political Practices Commission rules and procedures and the Public Records Act for the City Council, appointed commissions and senior staff. 4. The City indicates that the location of most City meetings and the facilities and equipment at meetings, including all City Council meetings, complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) minimum requirements. 5. The City maintains a web site that contains substantial public information. It includes basic information about the City, a complete phone directory, the City Municipal Code, the City budget, the most recent certified annual financial report, the City’s investment policy and over two years of annotated agendas for the City Council/Redevelopment Agency. Agendas and notices are also available for both the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission. 6. Meetings of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency, Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission are broadcast live on the City’s government access cable TV channel. In addition, the broadcasts of City Council meetings for at least the last year are archived for viewing on the City’s web site. Final 72 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations CCiittyy ooff OOjjaaii –– DDeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonnss AA.. IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree NNeeeeddss oorr DDeeffiicciieenncciieess 1. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure for local streets and highways, drainage, parks, a cemetery, and various other city-owned buildings and facilities. Water service infrastructure for most of the City is the responsibility of Golden State Water Company, a private company that is a subsidiary of American States Water Company regulated by the State Public Utilities Commission. The Ventura River County Water District, an independent special district, has responsibility for water service infrastructure for a small area of the city. The Ojai Valley Sanitary District, an independent special district, is responsible for infrastructure relating to wastewater collection and treatment. All other public infrastructure is provided by other public agencies and by regulated utility companies. 2. The City annually updates its list of infrastructure needs and adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a five-year period. The purpose of the City’s CIP is to identify current and future infrastructure needs and to plan for sufficient financing and sequencing of construction to meet the needs identified. The City’s capital improvement budget for the 2005 – 2010 time period was $6,460,706, but was not fully funded especially for years 2007-08 through 2009-10. The primary sources of revenue for the CIP are grants and redevelopment funds. No information was provided as to whether or not the City funds a portion of its CIP with any General Fund revenue. 3. The City did not identify any infrastructure that is not in compliance with safety and environmental standards., however, the City indicated that the lack of public sewer infrastructure in the Arbolada area is an unmet need. 4. The City coordinates its infrastructure improvements with its General Plan, other service providers and applicable regional plans and programs. BB.. GGrroowwtthh aanndd PPooppuullaattiioonn PPrroojjeeccttiioonnss 1. The City grew by approximately 3.4% between 2000 and 2005, based on information from the 2000 U.S. census and annual population projections by the California Department of Finance (DOF). Based on DOF estimates the City grew by approximately 0.3% between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006. 2. The City is a member of the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG). VCOG has adopted population forecasts to 2025 for each city in Ventura County and for geographical subareas around each city, generally consistent with each city’s area of interest. The City participated in these forecasts and generally accepts them for planning purposes. Based on the January 1, 2005 DOF population estimate for the City of 8,132 and the VCOG 2025 population projection of 9,424, the City will grow by approximately 15.9% during this twenty-year time frame. 3. The City is within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, is a member of SCAG, and is required by state law to use SCAG’s population projections for the preparation of the City’s Housing Element. SCAG population projections differ from the population projections adopted by VCOG. SCAG is currently preparing population projections through 2035, but these are not yet finalized. MSR – Nine Cities 73 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities 4. Demographic information for the City’s sphere of influence and the area covered by the City’s General Plan, outside existing City boundaries, is difficult to estimate as the sphere of influence and the area covered by the City General Plan do not match census tract boundaries and no separate population projections are made for these areas. The City should work cooperatively with the County and other cities in the County to develop a consistent methodology to prepare annual population estimates and projections for areas in the City’s sphere of influence and areas covered by the City’s General Plan. CC.. FFiinnaanncciinngg CCoonnssttrraaiinnttss aanndd OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City is subject to tax and funding limitations applicable to all municipalities throughout the state, including Propositions 13 and 218. 2. The City is subject to changes in revenue allocation based on the state budget and its relationship to local funding sources. The City indicates that these changes have affected monthly cash flow. 3. The City annually prepares a comprehensive budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent with need. 4. City revenue is derived from a combination of sources. In FY 2003 –2004, based on information reported to the State Controller, the top three sources of revenue were sales and use taxes (15.83%), property taxes (13.76%), and state grants (6.9%). In other years transient lodging taxes were the primary revenue source. 5. The City uses debt financing as necessary and appropriate, including general obligation and assessment bonds. The City indicated that the small size of the City is the likely reason that bond rating firms have not evaluated City bonds. 6. The City Council serves as the governing board for the City’s Redevelopment Agency that administers one redevelopment project area. As of June 30, 2005, the Redevelopment Agency owed the City approximately $3,918,151. The redevelopment agency utilizes tax increment funding, tax allocation bonds and other redevelopment revenue to repay the City and to cover the costs of redevelopment activities in the City’s redevelopment project area. The Redevelopment Agency maintains a separate low and moderate income housing set aside fund of approximately $202,932 as of June 30, 2005, to provide for affordable housing throughout the City. DD.. CCoosstt AAvvooiiddaannccee OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City has adopted purchasing policies with the objective of securing supplies and equipment at the lowest possible cost and complies with public bid requirements. 2. The City is a member of the California Joint Powers Insurance Agency to purchase insurance at favorable group rates. 3. The City contracts with the County of Ventura for police services and is located within the boundaries of the Ventura County Fire Protection District that provides fire and paramedic services. Via these agencies the City benefits from emergency service mutual aid agreements. 4. The City is part of the Area Housing Authority, a joint powers agency that also includes the County of Ventura and five other cities, that provides, operates and maintains low and moderate income housing and administers housing programs pursuant to state housing authority law. Final 74 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations 5. The City is part of South Coast Area Transit (SCAT), a joint powers agency that also includes the County of Ventura and the cities of Port Hueneme, Oxnard and San Buenaventura, that operates a public transit system that serves and connects the territories of the member agencies. 6. The City contracts with private contractors for street sweeping, solid waste/recycling services, engineering services, and landscape and tree maintenance, to increase operational and management efficiencies. 7. The City requires that new development pay appropriate fees and charges to provide for cost recovery and reduce impacts on existing residents and property owners. 8. There are no obvious cost avoidance opportunities that have not been implemented by the City through internal reviews, contracts with other agencies and joint powers authorities. EE.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr RRaattee RReessttrruuccttuurriinngg 1. The City establishes rates and fees through a public process. Most, but not all, City rates and fees are reviewed annually to ensure basic cost recovery, maintenance of service levels and the provision and maintenance of infrastructure. The City’s local transit and its public cemetery are operated as enterprise funds that rely primarily on user fees and service charges. 2. The City does not provide fee offsets for affordable housing. FF.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr SShhaarreedd FFaacciilliittiieess 1. The City cooperates with other agencies as appropriate to share facilities. A formal memorandum of understanding exists with the County of Ventura for library services and the City has held discussions with other public agencies about a shared vehicle maintenance facility. 2. No obvious additional opportunities for shared facilities were noted. GG.. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt SSttrruuccttuurree OOppttiioonnss 1. In the past the City reviewed and rejected the establishment of a local police department in lieu of contracting for police services with the County of Ventura. No obvious, current government structure changes were noted. 2. Since recent elections for City Clerk and/or City Treasurer have not been contested, the City should explore the viability of changing one or both offices to appointed positions rather than elected positions. HH.. EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff MMaannaaggeemmeenntt EEffffiicciieenncciieess 1. The management structure of the City is limited by the City’s relatively small size and revenue base, but is adequate to serve the present needs of the City. 2. The City has current management, interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate for efficient operations and service delivery. 3. The City uses outside vendors and contracting with other agencies to provide more efficient services. 4. The City fully complies with all budget, audit and financial reporting requirements. 5. The City indicates it has up-to-date, legally compliant personnel rules and training polices. MSR – Nine Cities 75 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities 6. The City, in April 2001, adopted policies about minimum amounts to maintain in unrestricted reserve/contingency funds. II.. LLooccaall AAccccoouunnttaabbiilliittyy aanndd GGoovveerrnnaannccee 1. The City is locally accountable through adherence to Government Code requirements, open and accessible meetings, dissemination of information and encouragement of public participation. 2. The City Council is elected and no City Council member has recently run unopposed. 3. The City conducts regular reviews for the City Council and senior staff of the Brown Act and Fair Political Practices Commission rules and procedures, but not the Public Records Act. 4. The City indicates that the location of most City meetings and the facilities and equipment at meetings, including all City Council meetings, complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) minimum requirements. 5. The City maintains a web site that includes basic information about the City, a basic phone directory for City services, a list of current agendas and all related reports for the City Council and Planning Commission, and a year-to-date archive of City Council minutes. However the City could improve its web site for the purpose of local accountability and governance by posting the City’s Municipal Code and the most recent city budget, capital improvement program and certified annual financial report. Final 76 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations CCiittyy ooff OOxxnnaarrdd –– DDeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonnss AA.. IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree NNeeeeddss oorr DDeeffiicciieenncciieess 1. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of nearly all local infrastructure for streets and highways, drainage, water supply (including treatment and distribution), wastewater (sewer) collection and treatment, solid waste/recycling materials handling, parks and recreation facilities, a golf course, libraries, a museum, a community center/auditorium and various other city-owned buildings and facilities. All other public infrastructure is provided by other public agencies and by regulated utility companies. 2. The City annually updates its list of infrastructure needs and adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a two-year period. The purpose of the City’s CIP is to identify current and future infrastructure needs and to plan for sufficient financing and sequencing of construction to meet the needs identified. The City’s capital improvement budget for the 2005 – 2007 time period was $89,158,052, and was fully funded. Revenue for capital improvements comes from a variety of sources including the City general fund, gas taxes, grants and a variety of development impact fees. 3. The City did not identify any infrastructure that is not in compliance with safety and environmental standards. 4. The City coordinates its infrastructure improvements with its General Plan, other service providers and applicable regional plans and programs. BB.. GGrroowwtthh aanndd PPooppuullaattiioonn PPrroojjeeccttiioonnss 1. The City grew by approximately 10.6% between 2000 and 2005, based on information from the 2000 U.S. census and annual population projections by the California Department of Finance (DOF). Based on DOF estimates the City grew by approximately 0.9% between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006. 2. The City is a member of the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG). VCOG has adopted population forecasts to 2025 for each city in Ventura County and for geographical subareas around each city, generally consistent with each city’s area of interest. The City participated in these forecasts but the VCOG population estimates for the City were based on a year 2000 population estimate that was considerably lower than the City’s actual year 2000 census population. Thus, the City has developed its own population estimates. Based on the January 1, 2005 DOF population estimate for the City of 188,333 and the City’s 2025 population projection of 232,536, the City will grow by approximately 23.5% during this twenty-year time frame. 3. The City is within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, is a member of SCAG, and is required by state law to use SCAG’s population projections for the preparation of the City’s Housing Element. SCAG population projections differ from the population projections adopted by VCOG. SCAG is currently preparing population projections through 2035, but these are not yet finalized. 4. The City adopted a Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) ordinance in 1998 that established a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). Based on this ordinance the City cannot, with limited exceptions, amend its General Plan to allow urban services and urban uses in areas outside the CURB without a vote of the people. MSR – Nine Cities 77 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This ordinance is in effect until December 31, 2020, and affects how and where the City may grow. 5. There are substantial developed areas within the City’s CURB and within the City’s sphere of influence that could potentially be annexed to the City that would, upon annexation, increase the City’s population. 6. There are differences between the existing sphere of influence line and the CURB line established by the City’s voters. As a part of LAFCo’s sphere of influence update process consideration should be given to changing the sphere of influence line to match the City’s CURB line. 7. The City has developed both population estimates and projections for areas outside the City boundary, but within the City’s sphere of influence and the area covered by the City’s General Plan. In general, population estimates and projections for these areas outside existing City boundaries are difficult to derive as the sphere of influence and the area covered by the City General Plan do not match census tract boundaries and there is no generally accepted methodology. The City should work cooperatively with the County and other cities in the County to develop a consistent methodology to prepare annual populations estimates and projections for all areas in the City’s sphere of influence and areas covered by the City’s General Plan. CC.. FFiinnaanncciinngg CCoonnssttrraaiinnttss aanndd OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City is subject to tax and funding limitations applicable to all municipalities throughout the state, including Propositions 13 and 218. 2. The City is subject to changes in revenue allocation based on the state budget and its relationship to local funding sources. 3. The City prepares a two-year comprehensive budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent with need. 4. City revenue is derived from a diverse combination of sources. In FY 2003 –2004, based on information reported to the State Controller, the top three sources of revenue were intergovernmental revenue, including state motor vehicle in-lieu taxes and state gasoline taxes (9.8%), property taxes (7.3%) and sales and use taxes (6.4%), not including service charges (including but not limited to water, sewer, solid waste, golf course and similar service fee revenues) and debt financing (bonds and notes). 5. The City uses debt financing as necessary and appropriate, including certificates of participation and various types of revenue bonds. The City did not respond to questions about its bond rating. 6. The City Council serves as the governing board for the City’s Community Development Commission (redevelopment agency). The City has five active redevelopment project areas. As of June 30, 2005, the Community Development Commission (redevelopment agency) owed the City approximately $28,413,886. The Community Development Commission (redevelopment agency) utilizes tax increment funding and other redevelopment revenue to repay the City and to cover the costs of redevelopment activities in the City’s redevelopment project areas. The Community Development Commission (redevelopment agency) maintains a separate low and moderate income housing set aside fund of approximately $5,109,303 as of June 30, 2005, to provide for affordable housing throughout the City. Final 78 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations DD.. CCoosstt AAvvooiiddaannccee OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City has adopted purchasing policies with the objective of securing supplies and equipment at the lowest possible cost and complies with public bid requirements. 2. The City uses private contractors and other outside vendors for services when shown to be cost effective. For example, the City uses private contractors for street sweeping and for some landscape maintenance 3. The City requires that new development pay appropriate fees and charges to provide for cost recovery and reduce impacts on existing residents and property owners. 4. The City is part of South Coast Area Transit (SCAT), a joint powers agency that also includes the County of Ventura and the cities of Port Hueneme, Oxnard and San Buenaventura, that operates a public transit system that serves and connects the territories of the member agencies. 5. There are no obvious cost avoidance opportunities that have not been implemented by the City through internal reviews, contracts with private vendors and other agencies and joint powers authorities. EE.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr RRaattee RReessttrruuccttuurriinngg 1. The City establishes rates and fees through a public process. Most, but not all, City rates and fees are reviewed annually to ensure basic cost recovery, maintenance of service levels and the provision and maintenance of infrastructure. 2. The City does not provide fee offsets for affordable housing. FF.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr SShhaarreedd FFaacciilliittiieess 1. The City actively cooperates with other agencies as appropriate to share facilities. Formal joint use agreements exist with the school districts that serve the City. 2. Based on formal agreements, the City provides wastewater treatment services to the City of Port Hueneme, Naval Base Ventura County and to Ventura County Service Area No. 34. 3. The City is the lead agency for the Groundwater Recovery Enhancement and Treatment (GREAT) program to construct a new groundwater desalination facility to serve the City and the Port Hueneme Water Agency and a recycled water system to serve agricultural users in the Oxnard Plain. 4. The Ventura County Fire Protection District contracts with the City for the City to be first responder for fire protection and paramedic services to the unincorporated beach communities of Silver Strand, Hollywood-by-the-Sea and Hollywood Beach. 5. The City has indicated that it would be receptive to considering sharing its vehicle maintenance facilities and services with other agencies. 6. No obvious additional opportunities for shared facilities were noted. GG.. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt SSttrruuccttuurree OOppttiioonnss 1. The City should continue to explore the potential benefits, if any, of a reorganization with the Ocean View Municipal Water District or a dissolution of the District with the City being the successor agency. 2. The City should work with both Oxnard Drainage District No 1 and Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 to detach all developed areas in the City from each District. MSR – Nine Cities 79 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities 3. Since recent elections for City Clerk and/or City Treasurer have not been contested, the City should explore the viability of changing one or both offices to appointed positions rather than elected positions. HH.. EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff MMaannaaggeemmeenntt EEffffiicciieenncciieess 1. The management structure of the City is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the City. 2. The City has current management, interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate for efficient operations and service delivery. 3. The City uses outside vendors and contracting with other agencies to provide more efficient services. 4. The City fully complies with all budget, audit and financial reporting requirements. The City received an award from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers for its 2003-2004 certified annual financial report. 5. The City has adopted policies about minimum amounts to maintain in unrestricted reserve/contingency funds. 6. The City indicates it has up-to-date, legally compliant personnel rules and training polices. II.. LLooccaall AAccccoouunnttaabbiilliittyy aanndd GGoovveerrnnaannccee 1. The City is locally accountable through adherence to applicable Government Code requirements, open and accessible meetings, dissemination of information and encouragement of public participation. 2. The City Council is elected and no City Council member, including the directly elected mayor, has recently run unopposed. 3. The City conducts regular review for the City Council and senior staff of the Brown Act, Fair Political Practices Commission rules and procedures and the Public Records Act. 4. The City indicates that the location of most City meetings and the facilities and equipment at meetings, including all City Council meetings, complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) minimum requirements. 5. The Ventura County Grand Jury in 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05, investigated the City’s management of the River Ridge Golf Club. The Grand Jury’s 2004-05 report listed 36 findings, 22 conclusions and 4 recommendations. Among the conclusions was that the golf course operation is not fully consistent with the written operational contract and, “…that operating in contradiction to the terms of a written agreement is not consistent with sound and open government practice.” As a part of the City’s response, the City commissioned an independent audit of the River Ridge Golf Club’s financial condition that resulted in an unqualified opinion of the financial condition of the contract operator of the Golf Club and transactions with the City. 6. Based on a law suit filed by local citizens the Ventura County Superior Court in 2004 determined that the City Council/Community Development Commission (redevelopment agency) conducted closed sessions under the real estate negotiations section of the Brown Act that included discussions of topics not authorized by State law, but the court also determined that the violations were not intentional. 7. The City maintains a web site that contains substantial public information. It includes basic information about the City, the City Municipal Code, general plan and zoning Final 80 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations maps, the City’s latest comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) and over nine months of annotated agendas for the City Council/Community Development Commission/Housing Authority. Agendas are also available for the City’s Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board for at least the last year. However the City could improve its web site for the purpose of local accountability and governance by posting all public hearing notices and the current City budget and capital improvement program on the web site. 8. Meetings of the City Council/Community Development Commission/Housing Authority and the Planning Commission are broadcast live on the City’s government access cable TV channel. The meeting broadcasts for at least the most recent nine month period are archived for viewing on the City’s web site. MSR – Nine Cities 81 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank Final 82 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations CCiittyy ooff SSaann BBuueennaavveennttuurraa ((VVeennttuurraa)) –– DDeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonnss AA.. IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree NNeeeeddss oorr DDeeffiicciieenncciieess 1. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of nearly all local infrastructure for streets and highways, drainage, water supply (including treatment and distribution), wastewater (sewer) collection and treatment, parks and recreation facilities, public golf courses and various other city-owned buildings and facilities. All other public infrastructure is provided by other public agencies and by regulated utility companies. 2. The City annually updates its list of infrastructure needs and adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a five-year period. The purpose of the City’s CIP is to identify current and future infrastructure needs and to plan for sufficient financing and sequencing of construction to meet the needs identified. The City’s capital improvement budget for the 2005 – 2010 time period was $371,737,732, and was 55% funded. Revenue for capital improvements comes from a variety of sources including the City general fund, gas taxes, water and wastewater charges, grants, certificates of participation and a variety of development impact fees. 3. The City did not identify any infrastructure that is not in compliance with safety and environmental standards. However, the City did identify infrastructure deficiencies, especially for park facilities, based on deferred maintenance caused by lack of funding. The City also indicated that approximately 800 properties within the City are on individual septic tanks and not connected to a public sewer system. 4. The City coordinates its infrastructure improvements with its General Plan, other service providers and applicable regional plans and programs. BB.. GGrroowwtthh aanndd PPooppuullaattiioonn PPrroojjeeccttiioonnss 1. The City grew by approximately 4.9% between 2000 and 2005, based on information from the 2000 U.S. census and annual population projections by the California Department of Finance (DOF). Based on DOF estimates the City grew by approximately 0.85% between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006. 2. The City is a member of the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG). VCOG has adopted population forecasts to 2025 for each city in Ventura County and for geographical subareas around each city, generally consistent with each city’s area of interest. The City participated in these forecasts and generally accepts them for planning purposes. Based on the January 1, 2005 DOF population estimate for the City of 105,812 and the VCOG 2025 population projection of 128,051, the City will grow by approximately 21% during this twenty-year time frame. 3. The City is within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, is a member of SCAG, and is required by state law to use SCAG’s population projections for the preparation of the City’s Housing Element. SCAG population projections differ from the population projections adopted by VCOG. SCAG is currently preparing population projections through 2035, but these are not yet finalized. 4. The City adopted a Save Our Agricultural Resources (SOAR) ordinance by initiative in 1995 that provides that the City cannot change the land use designation of any property designated as open space by its General Plan as of February 1, 1995, to any other land use designation without a vote of the people. This ordinance is in effect until December MSR – Nine Cities 83 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities 31, 2030. Via initiative the City also adopted the Hillside Voter Participation Act ordinance in 2001 that provides that no urban services can be extended in a defined “Hillside Area” without a vote of the people. This ordinance is also in effect until December 31, 2030. Both of these ordinances affect how and where the City may grow. 5. There are significant differences between the existing sphere of influence line and the City’s voter established growth boundaries. As a part of LAFCo’s sphere of influence update process consideration should be given to changing the sphere of influence line to match the City’s voter established growth boundaries. 6. There are substantial developed areas within the City’s CURB and within the City’s sphere of influence that could potentially be annexed to the City that would, upon annexation, increase the City’s population. 7. Demographic information for the City’s sphere of influence and the area covered by the City’s General Plan, outside existing City boundaries, is difficult to estimate as the sphere of influence and the area covered by the City General Plan do not match census tract boundaries and no separate population projections are made for these areas. The City should work cooperatively with the County and other cities in the County to develop a consistent methodology to prepare annual population estimates and projections for areas in the City’s sphere of influence and areas covered by the City’s General Plan. CC.. FFiinnaanncciinngg CCoonnssttrraaiinnttss aanndd OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City is subject to tax and funding limitations applicable to all municipalities throughout the state, including Propositions 13 and 218. 2. The City is subject to changes in revenue allocation based on the state budget and its relationship to local funding sources. The City noted that changes in revenue allocation by the state resulted in the loss of $1,767,950 in vehicle license fees for a short period, the loss of over $33 million since 1994, the loss of $2.8 million cumulatively in property taxes, the loss of two police positions due to changes in grants, and an increase of local expenses for library funding. 3. The City annually prepares a comprehensive budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent with need. 4. City revenue is derived from a diverse combination of sources. In FY 2003 –2004, based on information reported to the State Controller, the top three sources of revenue were sales and use taxes (15.15%), property taxes (10.64%) and intergovernmental revenue, including state motor vehicle in-lieu taxes and gas taxes (8.02%), not including service charges (including but not limited to water, sewer, golf course and similar service fee revenues) and debt financing (bonds and notes). 5. The City uses debt financing as necessary and appropriate, including certificates of participation and various types of revenue bonds. In 2005 the City’s bond rating was AAA by Standard and Poors and AAA by Moodys. 6. The City Council serves as the governing board for the City’s Redevelopment Agency. The City has one active redevelopment project area. The Redevelopment Agency utilizes tax increment funding and other redevelopment revenue to repay debt and to cover the costs of redevelopment activities in the City’s redevelopment project area. The Redevelopment Agency maintains a separate low and moderate income housing set aside fund of approximately $2,610,075 as of June 30, 2005, to provide for affordable housing throughout the City. Final 84 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations DD.. CCoosstt AAvvooiiddaannccee OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City has adopted purchasing policies with the objective of securing supplies and equipment at the lowest possible cost and complies with public bid requirements. 2. The City uses private contractors and other outside vendors for services when shown to be cost effective. For example, the City uses private contractors for solid waste collection, recycling, street sweeping and for some landscape maintenance 3. The City requires that new development pay appropriate fees and charges to provide for cost recovery and reduce impacts on existing residents and property owners. 4. The City is part of South Coast Area Transit (SCAT), a joint powers agency that also includes the County of Ventura and the cities of Port Hueneme, Ojai and Oxnard, that operates a public transit system that serves and connects the territories of the member agencies. 5. There are no obvious cost avoidance opportunities that have not been implemented by the City through internal reviews, contracts with private vendors and other agencies and joint powers authorities. EE.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr RRaattee RReessttrruuccttuurriinngg 1. The City establishes rates and fees through a public process. Most, but not all, City rates and fees are reviewed annually to ensure basic cost recovery, maintenance of service levels and the provision and maintenance of infrastructure. 2. The City does not provide fee offsets for affordable housing. FF.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr SShhaarreedd FFaacciilliittiieess 1. The City actively cooperates with other agencies as appropriate to share facilities. A formal memorandum of understanding exists with the County of Ventura for library services. The City has a joint use agreement with the Ventura Unified School District for recreational use of certain school facilities. Fire dispatch service is shared with and provided by the Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2. No obvious additional opportunities for shared facilities were noted. GG.. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt SSttrruuccttuurree OOppttiioonnss 1. The City should evaluate the potential feasibility and benefits, if any, of a merger with the Montalvo Municipal Improvement District or a dissolution of the District with the City being the successor agency. At minimum, the City should work cooperatively with the Montalvo Municipal Improvement District to interconnect systems in the case of emergency. 2. The City should work with the Saticoy Sanitary District to establish formal service agreements as areas in the unincorporated portions of Saticoy are annexed. 3. The City should annex all developed, unincorporated areas that are surrounded or substantially surrounded by the City. MSR – Nine Cities 85 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities HH.. EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff MMaannaaggeemmeenntt EEffffiicciieenncciieess 1. The management structure of the City is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the City. 2. The City has current management, interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate for efficient operations and service delivery. 3. The City uses outside vendors and contracting with other agencies to provide more efficient services. 4. The City fully complies with all budget, audit and financial reporting requirements. The City received an award from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers for its 2003-2004 certified annual financial report. 5. The City adopted a policy in 2005 to maintain a minimum general fund unrestricted reserve equal to three months of operating cash needs. At the end of FY 2004-05, the City had total unrestricted reserve/contingency funds of $28,287,215. 6. The City indicates it has up-to-date, legally compliant personnel rules and training polices. II.. LLooccaall AAccccoouunnttaabbiilliittyy aanndd GGoovveerrnnaannccee 1. The City is locally accountable through adherence to applicable Government Code requirements, open and accessible meetings, dissemination of information and encouragement of public participation. 2. The City Council is elected and no City Council member has recently run unopposed. 3. The City conducts regular review for the City Council and senior staff of the Brown Act, Fair Political Practices Commission rules and procedures and the Public Records Act. 4. The City indicates that the location of most City meetings and the facilities and equipment at meetings, including all City Council meetings, complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) minimum requirements. 5. The City maintains a web site that contains substantial public information. It includes basic information about the City, the City Charter and Municipal Code, general plan and zoning maps, the City’s the adopted operating and capital improvement program budgets and comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFR) for the last two fiscal years and agendas and minutes for the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and Planning Commission for the past year. The City could improve its web site for the purpose of local accountability and governance by posting all public hearing notices on its web site and by having a keyword search function on its web site. 6. Meetings of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency are broadcast live on the City’s government access cable TV channel. These meeting broadcasts for the last year are archived for viewing on the City’s web site. Final 86 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations CCiittyy ooff SSaannttaa PPaauullaa –– DDeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonnss AA.. IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree NNeeeeddss oorr DDeeffiicciieenncciieess 1. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of nearly all local infrastructure for streets and highways, drainage, water supply (including treatment and distribution), wastewater (sewer) collection and treatment, parks and recreation facilities, a community center, a museum and various other city-owned buildings and facilities. All other public infrastructure is provided by other public agencies and by regulated utility companies. 2. The City annually updates its list of infrastructure needs and adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a five-year period. The purpose of the City’s CIP is to identify current and future infrastructure needs and to plan for sufficient financing and sequencing of construction to meet the needs identified. The City did not respond to questions about the total amount of the capital improvement budget for the 2005 – 2010 time period, but did indicate that it was only 20% funded. The City further indicated that revenue for capital improvements comes primarily from the issuance of debt, but revenue sources for debt service were not identified. 3. The City is under order from the state Regional Water Control Board to upgrade its wastewater treatment facilities. The City has is currently in the process of constructing a new wastewater treatment facility to meet current and projected needs and to meet all safety and environmental standards. The City did not identify any other infrastructure that is not in compliance with safety and environmental standards. 4. The City coordinates its infrastructure improvements with its General Plan, other service providers and applicable regional plans and programs. BB.. GGrroowwtthh aanndd PPooppuullaattiioonn PPrroojjeeccttiioonnss 1. The City grew by approximately 2.1% between 2000 and 2005, based on information from the 2000 U.S. census and annual population projections by the California Department of Finance (DOF). Based on DOF estimates the City grew by approximately 0.85% between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006. 2. The City is a member of the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG). VCOG has adopted population forecasts to 2025 for each city in Ventura County and for geographical subareas around each city, generally consistent with each city’s area of interest. The City participated in these forecasts and generally accepts them for planning purposes. Based on the January 1, 2005 DOF population estimate for the City of 29,201 and the VCOG 2025 population projection of 40,515, the City will grow by approximately 38.7% during this twenty-year time frame. 3. The City is within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, is a member of SCAG, and is required by state law to use SCAG’s population projections for the preparation of the City’s Housing Element. SCAG population projections differ from the population projections adopted by VCOG. SCAG is currently preparing population projections through 2035, but these are not yet finalized. 4. The City adopted a Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) ordinance in 1998 that established a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). Based on this ordinance the City cannot, with limited exceptions, amend its General Plan to allow MSR – Nine Cities 87 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities urban services and urban uses in areas outside the CURB without a vote of the people. This ordinance is in effect until December 31, 2020, and affects how and where the City may grow. 5. There are developed areas within the City’s CURB and within the City’s sphere of influence that should be annexed to the City and that would, upon annexation, increase the City’s population. 6. There are significant differences between the existing sphere of influence line and the CURB line established by the City’s voters. As a part of LAFCo’s sphere of influence update process consideration should be given to changing the sphere of influence line to match the City’s CURB line. 7. Demographic information for the City’s sphere of influence and the area covered by the City’s General Plan, outside existing City boundaries, is difficult to estimate as the sphere of influence and the area covered by the City General Plan do not match census tract boundaries and no separate population projections are made for these areas. The City should work cooperatively with the County and other cities in the County to develop a consistent methodology to prepare annual population estimates and projections for areas in the City’s sphere of influence and areas covered by the City’s General Plan. CC.. FFiinnaanncciinngg CCoonnssttrraaiinnttss aanndd OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City is subject to tax and funding limitations applicable to all municipalities throughout the state, including Propositions 13 and 218. 2. The City is subject to changes in revenue allocation based on the state budget and its relationship to local funding sources. 3. The City annually prepares a comprehensive budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent with need. 4. City revenue is derived from a diverse combination of sources. In FY 2003 –2004, based on information reported to the State Controller, the top three sources of revenue were property taxes (9.05%), sales and use taxes (6.97%) and state motor vehicle in-lieu taxes (6.82%), not including water and sewer service charges and connection fees. 5. The City uses debt financing as necessary and appropriate, including revenue bonds. In 2005 the City’s bond rating was AAA by Standard and Poors. 6. The City Council serves as the governing board for the City’s Redevelopment Agency. The City has one active redevelopment project area. The Redevelopment Agency utilizes tax increment funding and other redevelopment revenue to repay redevelopment tax allocation bond debt and to cover the costs of redevelopment activities in the City’s redevelopment project area. The Redevelopment Agency maintains a separate low and moderate income housing set aside fund of approximately $860,289 as of June 30, 2005, to provide for affordable housing throughout the City. DD.. CCoosstt AAvvooiiddaannccee OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City has adopted purchasing policies with the objective of securing supplies and equipment at the lowest possible cost and complies with public bid requirements. 2. The City is a member of the California Joint Powers Insurance Agency to purchase insurance at favorable group rates. 3. The City uses private contractors and other outside vendors for services when shown to be cost effective. For example, the City uses private contractors for the operation of its Final 88 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations wastewater treatment facility, utility billing, commercial solid waste collection, recycling, street sweeping and for some landscape maintenance 4. The City should consider adopting development impact fees to insure that new development pays appropriate fees and charges to provide for cost recovery and reduce impacts on existing residents and property owners. 5. The City has indicated that there might be an opportunity to share vehicle maintenance with another agency to reduce costs. There are no other obvious cost avoidance opportunities that have not been implemented by the City through internal reviews, contracts with other agencies and joint powers authorities. EE.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr RRaattee RReessttrruuccttuurriinngg 1. The City establishes rates and fees through a public process. Most, but not all, City rates and fees are reviewed annually to ensure basic cost recovery, maintenance of service levels and the provision and maintenance of infrastructure. 2. The City does not provide fee offsets for affordable housing. FF.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr SShhaarreedd FFaacciilliittiieess 1. The City actively cooperates with other agencies as appropriate to share facilities. The City has a formal joint use agreement with the Santa Paula Elementary School District for shared parking facilities. Fire dispatch service is shared and provided by the Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2. No obvious additional opportunities for shared facilities were noted. GG.. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt SSttrruuccttuurree OOppttiioonnss 1. Since recent elections for City Clerk and/or City Treasurer have not been contested, the City should explore the viability of changing one or both offices to appointed positions rather than elected positions. HH.. EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff MMaannaaggeemmeenntt EEffffiicciieenncciieess 1. The management structure of the City is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the City. 2. The City has current management, interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate for efficient operations and service delivery. 3. The City uses outside vendors and contracting with other agencies to provide more efficient services. 4. The City fully complies with all budget, audit and financial reporting requirements. 5. The City adopted a policy in 2003 to maintain a minimum unrestricted reserve equal to 10% of the annual general fund operating budget. At the end of FY 2004-05, the City had total unrestricted reserve/contingency funds of $1,714,282. 6. The City indicates it has up-to-date, legally compliant personnel rules and training polices. MSR – Nine Cities 89 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities II.. LLooccaall AAccccoouunnttaabbiilliittyy aanndd GGoovveerrnnaannccee 1. The City is locally accountable through adherence to applicable Government Code requirements, open and accessible meetings, dissemination of information and encouragement of public participation. 2. The City Council is elected and no City Council member has recently run unopposed. 3. The City conducts bi-annual reviews for the City Council and senior staff of the Brown Act, Fair Political Practices Commission rules and procedures and the Public Records Act. 4. The City indicates that the location of City meetings and the facilities and equipment at meetings, including all City Council meetings, complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) minimum requirements. 5. The City maintains a web site that contains basic public information. It includes information about the City, the complete Municipal Code, zoning maps, the most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for City and Redevelopment Agency and agendas and minutes for the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and the Planning Commission/ Historic Preservation Commission for at least the past year. The City could substantially improve its web site for the purpose of local accountability and governance by posting the complete City budget and capital improvement program, the General Plan and all public hearing notices on its web site, and by posting staff reports linked to both City Council and Planning Commission agendas. 6. The City provides for live broadcasts of meetings of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency in both English and Spanish. Final 90 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations CCiittyy ooff SSiimmii VVaalllleeyy –– DDeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonnss AA.. IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree NNeeeeddss oorr DDeeffiicciieenncciieess 1. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure for local streets and highways, drainage, sewers (including collection and treatment) and various other city-owned buildings and facilities. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8, a dependent, subsidiary, special district governed by the City Council, is responsible for infrastructure relating to water supply, treatment and distribution for a portion of the City. Water service infrastructure for areas in the City not served by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 is the responsibility of Golden State Water Company, a private company regulated by the State Public Utilities Commission, that is a subsidiary of American States Water Company. All other public infrastructure is provided by other public agencies and by regulated utility companies. 2. The City annually updates its list of infrastructure needs and adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a five-year period. The purpose of the City’s CIP is to identify current and future infrastructure needs and to plan for sufficient financing and sequencing of construction to meet the needs identified. The City’s capital improvement budget for the 2005 – 2010 time period was $98,995,900, and was approximately 25% funded. Revenue for capital improvements comes from a variety of sources including the City general fund, grants, and debt financing. 3. The City did not identify any infrastructure that is not in compliance with safety and environmental standards. 4. The City coordinates its infrastructure improvements with its General Plan, other service providers and applicable regional plans and programs. BB.. GGrroowwtthh aanndd PPooppuullaattiioonn PPrroojjeeccttiioonnss 1. The City grew by approximately 8.6% between 2000 and 2005, based on information from the 2000 U.S. census and annual population projections by the California Department of Finance (DOF). Based on DOF estimates the City grew by approximately 1.3% between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006. 2. The City is a member of the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG). VCOG has adopted population forecasts to 2025 for each city in Ventura County and for geographical subareas around each city, generally consistent with each city’s area of interest. The City participated in these forecasts and generally accepts them for planning purposes. Based on the January 1, 2005 DOF population estimate for the City of 121,096 and the VCOG 2025 population projection of 145,078, the City will grow by approximately 19.8% during this twenty-year time frame. 3. The City is within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, is a member of SCAG, and is required by state law to use SCAG’s population projections for the preparation of the City’s Housing Element. SCAG population projections differ from the population projections adopted by VCOG. SCAG is currently preparing population projections through 2035, but these are not yet finalized. 4. The City adopted a Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) ordinance in 1998 that established a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). Based on this ordinance the City cannot, with limited exceptions, amend its General Plan to allow MSR – Nine Cities 91 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities urban services and urban uses in areas outside the CURB without a vote of the people. This ordinance is in effect until December 31, 2020, and affects how and where the City may grow. 5. There are substantial developed areas within the City’s CURB and within the City’s sphere of influence that could potentially be annexed to the City that would, upon annexation, increase the City’s population. 6. There are differences between the existing sphere of influence line and the CURB line established by the City’s voters. As a part of LAFCo’s sphere of influence update process consideration should be given to changing the sphere of influence line to match the City’s CURB line, except for properties already within the City. 7. Demographic information for the City’s sphere of influence and the area covered by the City’s General Plan, outside existing City boundaries, is difficult to estimate as the sphere of influence and the area covered by the City General Plan do not match census tract boundaries and no separate population projections are made for these areas. The City should work cooperatively with the County and other cities in the County to develop a consistent methodology to prepare annual population estimates and projections for areas in the City’s sphere of influence and areas covered by the City’s General Plan. CC.. FFiinnaanncciinngg CCoonnssttrraaiinnttss aanndd OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City is subject to tax and funding limitations applicable to all municipalities throughout the state, including Propositions 13 and 218. 2. The City is subject to changes in revenue allocation based on the state budget and its relationship to local funding sources. The City noted that changes in revenue allocation by the state resulted in the loss of $1 million to the general fund and $200,000 to other funds. 3. The City annually prepares a comprehensive budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent with need. 4. City revenue is derived from a diverse combination of sources and consists of both non- enterprise and enterprise revenue. In FY 2003 –2004, based on information reported to the State Controller, the top three sources of non-enterprise revenue (i.e. not including sewer service revenue) were sales and use taxes (18.7%), property taxes of all types (12.6%), and federal grants (8%). 5. The City uses debt financing as necessary and appropriate, including revenue bonds, certificates of participation and 1915 Act assessment district bonds. In 2005 the City’s bond rating was A+ by Standard and Poors. 6. The City Council serves as the governing board for the City’s Redevelopment Agency that is responsible for the City’s two redevelopment project areas. As of June 30, 2005, the Redevelopment Agency owed the City approximately $10,192,000. The Redevelopment Agency utilizes tax increment funding and other redevelopment revenue to repay the City and to cover the costs of redevelopment activities in the City’s redevelopment project areas. The Redevelopment Agency maintains a separate low and moderate income housing set aside fund of approximately $3,823,738 as of June 30, 2005, to provide for affordable housing throughout the City. Final 92 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations DD.. CCoosstt AAvvooiiddaannccee OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City has adopted purchasing policies with the objective of securing supplies and equipment at the lowest possible cost and complies with public bid requirements. 2. The City is located within the boundaries of the Ventura County Fire Protection District that provides fire and paramedic services and benefits from emergency service mutual aid agreements. 3. The City is part of the Area Housing Authority, a joint powers agency that includes the County of Ventura and five other cities, that provides, operates and maintains low and moderate income housing and administers housing programs pursuant to state housing authority law. 4. The City participates in a pooled insurance program sponsored by the California State Association of Counties for workers compensation insurance. 5. The City requires that new development pay appropriate fees and charges to provide for cost recovery and reduce impacts on existing residents and property owners. 6. There are no obvious cost avoidance opportunities that have not been implemented by the City through internal reviews, contracts with other agencies and joint powers authorities. EE.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr RRaattee RReessttrruuccttuurriinngg 1. The City establishes rates and fees through a public process. Most, but not all, City rates and fees are reviewed annually to ensure basic cost recovery, maintenance of service levels and the provision and maintenance of infrastructure. 2. The City does not provide fee offsets for affordable housing. FF.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr SShhaarreedd FFaacciilliittiieess 1. The City actively cooperates with other agencies as appropriate to share facilities. A formal agreement exists with the County of Ventura for library services. The City also cooperates with the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District to share facilities. 2. No obvious additional opportunities for shared facilities were noted. GG.. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt SSttrruuccttuurree OOppttiioonnss 1. The City should annex all developed, unincorporated areas that are surrounded or substantially surrounded by the City. HH.. EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff MMaannaaggeemmeenntt EEffffiicciieenncciieess 1. The management structure of the City is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the City. 2. The City has current management, interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate for efficient operations and service delivery. 3. The City uses outside vendors and contracting with other agencies to provide more efficient services. 4. The City fully complies with all budget, audit and financial reporting requirements. The City received 2005-06 budget excellence awards from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers in both the operating and capital categories, and a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its 2003-04 comprehensive MSR – Nine Cities 93 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities annual financial report. The City has received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting award for 25 consecutive years. 5. The City annually reviews its budget policies including the minimum amount for cash reserves. In 2004-05 the City policy was to maintain 13% of general fund expenditures as a cash reserve. At the end of the 2003-04 fiscal year the City indicated it had $6,184,633 set aside as a cash reserve. 6. The City indicates it has up-to-date, legally compliant personnel rules and training polices. II.. LLooccaall AAccccoouunnttaabbiilliittyy aanndd GGoovveerrnnaannccee 1. The City is locally accountable through adherence to applicable Government Code requirements, open and accessible meetings, dissemination of information and encouragement of public participation. 2. The Mayor and City Council are elected but in the most recent election the mayor and the incumbent candidates for city council were all unopposed. 3. The City indicated that it does not conduct formal reviews for the City Council or senior staff of the Brown Act, Fair Political Practices Commission rules and procedures and the Public Records Act, but that information on these laws and rules is regularly provided to the City Council, appointed boards and commissions, and senior staff. The City should consider providing for formal, public reviews of these laws and rules by the City Council, appointed boards and commissions, and senior staff. 4. The location of City meetings and the facilities and equipment at meetings, including all City Council meetings, complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) minimum requirements. 5. The City maintains a web site with information about the City that includes a basic phone directory for City services, the City Municipal Code, the most recent comprehensive annual financial report (audit) and the most recent agendas for the City Council and City Planning Commission. However the City could substantially improve its web site for the purpose of local accountability and governance by posting the most recent city budget and capital improvement program, all public hearing notices, a historical archive of agendas and meeting minutes for at least one year, and links to all staff reports and written materials for each City advisory board and commission agenda item. 6. Meetings of the City Council are broadcast live by the City’s cable TV operator. The City has recently made these meeting broadcasts available for viewing on the City’s web site. Final 94 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations CCiittyy ooff TThhoouussaanndd OOaakkss –– DDeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonnss AA.. IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree NNeeeeddss oorr DDeeffiicciieenncciieess 1. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure for local streets and highways and drainage for the entire City and for various city-owned buildings and facilities. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure for retail water service and sewers (including collection and treatment) for a portion of the City. For retail water service, part of the City is served by California American Water Company and part is served by California Water Service Company, both of which are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. California American Water Company is a subsidiary of American Water Company which until recently was a subsidiary of RWE AG based in Essen, Germany. RWE AG is in the process, via an initial public offering, of selling American Water Company to return it to a separate public company. California Water Service Group is an investor owned public company traded on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol CWT). Camrosa Water District, an independent special district, is responsible for water and sewer collection and treatment for a small portion of the City. Also, Triunfo Sanitation District, a dependent special district, is responsible for sewer collection and treatment service for a portion of the City. All other public infrastructure is provided by other public agencies or regulated utility companies. 2. The City annually updates its list of infrastructure needs and adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a two-year period. The purpose of the City’s CIP is to identify current and future infrastructure needs and to plan for sufficient financing and sequencing of construction to meet the needs identified. The City’s capital improvement budget for the 2005 – 2007 time period was $57,237,900, and was 100% funded. Revenue for capital improvements comes from a variety of sources including non- recurring general fund reserves, grants, and debt financing. 3. The City did not identify any infrastructure that is not in compliance with safety and environmental standards. 4. The City coordinates its infrastructure improvements with its General Plan, other service providers and applicable regional plans and programs. BB.. GGrroowwtthh aanndd PPooppuullaattiioonn PPrroojjeeccttiioonnss 1. The City grew by approximately 8.3% between 2000 and 2005, based on information from the 2000 U.S. census and annual population projections by the California Department of Finance (DOF). Based on DOF estimates the City grew by approximately 0.69% between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006. 2. The City is a member of the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG). VCOG has adopted population forecasts to 2025 for each city in Ventura County and for geographical subareas around each city, generally consistent with each city’s area of interest. The City participated in these forecasts and generally accepts them for planning purposes. Based on the January 1, 2005 DOF population estimate for the City of 126,770 and the VCOG 2025 population projection of 132,000, the City will grow by approximately 4.1% during this twenty-year time frame. MSR – Nine Cities 95 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities 3. The City is within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, is a member of SCAG, and is required by state law to use SCAG’s population projections for the preparation of the City’s Housing Element. SCAG population projections differ from the population projections adopted by VCOG. SCAG is currently preparing population projections through 2035, but these are not yet finalized.. 4. The City adopted a Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) ordinance in 1998 that established a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). Based on this ordinance the City cannot, with limited exceptions, amend its General Plan to allow urban services and urban uses in areas outside the CURB without a vote of the people. This ordinance is in effect until December 31, 2030, and affects how and where the City may grow. 5. There are substantial developed areas within the City’s CURB and within the City’s sphere of influence that could potentially be annexed to the City that would, upon annexation, increase the City’s population. 6. Demographic information for the City’s sphere of influence and the area covered by the City’s General Plan, outside existing City boundaries, is difficult to estimate as the sphere of influence and the area covered by the City General Plan do not match census tract boundaries. While the City indicates that it does make population estimates for the area covered by the City’s General Plan, these estimates are not necessarily accepted by other agencies due to the lack of a common methodology. The City should work cooperatively with the County and other cities in the County to develop a consistent methodology to prepare annual population estimates and projections for areas in the City’s sphere of influence and areas covered by the City’s General Plan. CC.. FFiinnaanncciinngg CCoonnssttrraaiinnttss aanndd OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City is subject to tax and funding limitations applicable to all municipalities throughout the state, including Propositions 13 and 218. 2. The City is subject to changes in revenue allocation based on the state budget and its relationship to local funding sources. The City noted that it takes the uncertainty of various state revenue sources and paybacks into account as a part of its budget process. 3. The City prepares a two-year comprehensive budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent with need. 4. City revenue is derived from a diverse combination of sources and consists of both non- enterprise and enterprise revenue. In FY 2003 –2004, based on information reported to the State Controller, the top three sources of non-enterprise revenue (i.e. not including sewer service revenue) were sales and use taxes (21.7%), property taxes of all types (7.5%), and state motor vehicle in-lieu tax (4.8%). 5. The City uses debt financing as necessary and appropriate, including certificates of participation and community facilities district bonds. In 2005 the City’s bond rating was AA by Standard and Poors and by Moodys. 6. The City Council serves as the governing board for the City’s Redevelopment Agency that is responsible for the City’s two redevelopment project areas. As of June 30, 2005, the Redevelopment Agency owed the City approximately $58,265,000. The Redevelopment Agency utilizes tax increment funding and other redevelopment revenue to repay the City and to cover the costs of redevelopment activities in the City’s redevelopment project areas. The Redevelopment Agency maintains a separate low and Final 96 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities V. Determinations moderate income housing set aside fund of approximately $2,682,000 as of June 30, 2005, to provide for affordable housing throughout the City. DD.. CCoosstt AAvvooiiddaannccee OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess 1. The City has adopted purchasing policies with the objective of securing supplies and equipment at the lowest possible cost and complies with public bid requirements. 2. The City is located within the boundaries of the Ventura County Fire Protection District that provides fire and paramedic services and benefits from emergency service mutual aid agreements. 3. The City is part of the Area Housing Authority, a joint powers agency that includes the County of Ventura and five other cities, that provides, operates and maintains low and moderate income housing and administers housing programs pursuant to state housing authority law. 4. The City requires that new development pay appropriate fees and charges to provide for cost recovery and reduce impacts on existing residents and property owners. 5. There are no obvious cost avoidance opportunities that have not been implemented by the City through internal reviews, contracts with other agencies and joint powers authorities. EE.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr RRaattee RReessttrruuccttuurriinngg 1. The City establishes rates and fees through a public process. Most, but not all, City rates and fees are reviewed annually to ensure basic cost recovery, maintenance of service levels and the provision and maintenance of infrastructure. 2. The City does not provide fee offsets for affordable housing. FF.. OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr SShhaarreedd FFaacciilliittiieess 1. The City actively cooperates with other agencies as appropriate to share facilities. A formal agreement exists with the Conejo Recreation and Park District for sharing various facilities, including adult and teen centers and office facilities. The City is currently working cooperatively with the Conejo Recreation and Park District and California Lutheran University to develop a shared-use swimming pool. 2. The City is a member of several Joint Powers Agreements including the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency . 3. No obvious additional opportunities for shared facilities were noted. GG.. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt SSttrruuccttuurree OOppttiioonnss 1. The City should annex all developed, unincorporated areas that are surrounded or substantially surrounded by the City. HH.. EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff MMaannaaggeemmeenntt EEffffiicciieenncciieess 1. The management structure of the City is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the City. 2. The City has current management, interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate for efficient operations and service delivery. MSR – Nine Cities 97 Final V. Determinations MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities 3. The City uses outside vendors and contracting with other agencies to provide more efficient services. 4. The City fully complies with all budget, audit and financial reporting requirements. The City received 2005-06 budget excellence awards from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers in both the operating and capital categories, and a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its 2003-04 comprehensive annual financial report. 5. The City adopted policies in 2001 to maintain approximately 15% of the general fund as unrestricted reserves and approximately 5% of annual fund balance as contingency reserves. At the end of the 2003-04 fiscal year the City indicated it had $12,200,000 set aside as unrestricted reserves/contingency funds. 6. The City indicates it has up-to-date, legally compliant personnel rules and training polices. II.. LLooccaall AAccccoouunnttaabbiilliittyy aanndd GGoovveerrnnaannccee 1. The City is locally accountable through adherence to applicable Government Code requirements, open and accessible meetings, dissemination of information and encouragement of public participation. 2. The City Council is elected and no City Council member has recently run unopposed. 3. The City indicated that it conducts regular reviews for the City Council and senior staff of the Brown Act, Fair Political Practices Commission rules and procedures and the Public Records Act. 4. The City indicates that the location of City meetings and the facilities and equipment at meetings, including all City Council meetings, complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) minimum requirements. 5. The City maintains a comprehensive web site with information about the City that includes a basic phone directory for City services, the City Municipal Code, the operating and capital improvement program budgets, comprehensive annual financial report (audit), public hearing notices and the current and archived agendas for the City Council and City advisory boards and commissions, including links to staff reports and written materials. 6. Meetings of the City Council and most City advisory boards and commissions are broadcast live on the City’s government access TV channel and are archived for viewing on the City’s web site. Final 98 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities VI. Spheres of Influence VVII.. SSPPHHEERREESS OOFF IINNFFLLUUEENNCCEE State law now requires each LAFCo to, as necessary, review and update each jurisdiction’s sphere of influence on or before January 1, 2008 and every five years thereafter. This municipal service review and action by the Ventura LAFCo making determinations with respect to each of the nine factors required by law are prerequisites to taking any action to update, as necessary, the sphere of influence for any of the nine cities covered in this report. The Ventura LAFCo work plan for municipal service reviews and sphere of influence updates indicates that any necessary sphere of influence updates should be done separately from municipal service reviews, primarily to be able to work collaboratively with affected agencies and to provide for separate review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Thus, sphere of influence reviews and, as necessary, sphere of influence updates will occur separately following the adoption of the determinations resulting from this municipal service review. Even though sphere of influence reviews/updates will occur after separate actions for each of the nine cities on municipal service review determinations, this section provides background about the information received from each of the nine cities as a part of LAFCo’s municipal service review questionnaire relevant to the sphere of influence review/update process and discusses each city’s current sphere of influence in relation to any voter established measures that limit a city’s ability to designate land for urban uses and/or extend urban services. This information, together with LAFCo’s policies, will form the basis for discussions with each city about sphere of influence changes and subsequent recommendations to the Ventura LAFCo about sphere of influence updates. As part of the service review process, the cities were given LAFCo-generated maps of their jurisdictional and sphere of influence boundaries. Agencies were asked to note on the maps: • Areas of duplication of planned or existing facilities with another agency • Areas better served by another agency • Areas better served by the responding agency • Areas outside the agency’s boundaries which currently receive service • Areas difficult to serve or with illogical boundaries In addition to the responses received to the above, sphere of influence updates will be considered for consistency with the following Ventura LAFCo policies (Ventura LAFCo Commissioner’s Handbook Sections 4.1.2.2, 4.1.2.3 and 4.1.2.4): Conformance with lines of ownership and assessment: Sphere of influence boundaries should coincide with lines of assessment or ownership. If sphere of influence boundaries do not coincide with lines of assessment or ownership they shall be described by metes and bounds legal descriptions sufficient for definitive map purposes using geographic information system software. Consistent with voter approved growth boundaries: For cities that have enacted ordinances that require voter approval for the extension of services or for changing general plan designations, sphere of influence boundaries should coincide with, or cover lesser area than, voter approved growth boundaries. MSR – Nine Cities 99 Final VI. Spheres of Influence MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities General boundary criteria: (a) LAFCo favors sphere of influence boundaries that: i. Coincide with existing and planned service areas. ii. Follow natural and man-made features, such as ridgelines, drainage areas, watercourses, and edges of rights-of way, provided they coincide with lines of assessment or ownership, or are described by metes and bounds legal descriptions which can be used easily for mapping boundaries. iii. Include adjacent urbanized areas which are receiving or which may require urban services such as public water and/or sewer services. (b) LAFCo discourages sphere of influence boundaries that: i. Split neighborhoods or divide an existing identifiable community, commercial district, or other area having a social and economic identity. ii. Create areas where it is difficult to provide services. iii. Result in islands, peninsulas, flags, “cherry stems,” or other unusual physical shapes that could cause, or further the distortion of boundaries. To date, in considering sphere of influence amendments, the Ventura LAFCo has applied these policies, case by case and has, in some instances, decided not to apply them. For example, in limited instances LAFCo has approved spheres of influence that are not consistent with voter approved growth boundaries. Among the criteria considered are: • Ownership – if a property is owned by a city, or by an entity such as a joint powers authority that is partially controlled by a city, it may be appropriate for the property to be in the city’s sphere of influence so the property can be annexed into the city, regardless of whether or not the property is within a city’s voter established growth boundary. • Services – if a city is providing services or is responsible for the operation and/or maintenance of facilities in an area outside voter set growth boundaries, it may be appropriate for the property to be in the city’s sphere of influence. • City boundaries – if a property is within the boundaries of a city, but outside voter set growth boundaries, it may be appropriate for the property to be in the city’s sphere of influence, especially if the property is receiving city services. In some instances, however, there may be areas within a city’s boundaries and/or within a city’s current sphere of influence that are either federally owned lands and/or open space lands where no city services are being provided and where the city has no plans to service these areas. In these cases there may be cause to have these areas remain, or to be placed, outside a city’s sphere of influence. If areas are within a city’s boundaries, but outside the city’s sphere of influence it is generally an indication that no services are or should be provided and that the area should be detached. This general background information will form the basis for sphere of influence update discussions with each city and subsequent recommendations to LAFCo, and is further discussed for each city in reference to Maps 10 through 19. Final 100 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities VI. Spheres of Influence CCiittyy ooff CCaammaarriilllloo –– SSpphheerree RReevviieeww DDiissccuussssiioonn Map 10 shows the City of Camarillo boundaries in relation to the existing sphere of influence and the Camarillo Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) set by the City’s Save Our Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) ordinance. The two areas shown in green are outside the City’s sphere, but inside the City’s CURB. These two areas may be best left outside the sphere until the City considers development proposals and completes CEQA review for entitlements. However, the area shown in lavender as being inside the City, but outside the sphere of influence and City CURB – part of Sterling Hills – should be within the City’s sphere. The majority of this area was annexed into the City in 1966, but remained undeveloped and was excluded from the City’s sphere by LAFCo in 1981, based on City plans at that time. Subsequently the area was developed in the City and is receiving City services. Accordingly, the sphere boundary should be adjusted to include this area. The small area in red that is in the City and the City’s sphere, but outside the City’s CURB is the site of the new Camarillo library owned by the City. The sphere boundary was adjusted and annexation approved in 2004, consistent with the City’s SOAR ordinance that exempts public facilities. No change to the sphere should result at this time for this area. While not shown on Map 10, there are several areas along the northerly sphere boundary where the sphere (and the CURB) do no follow property boundaries or lines of assessment. This is based on the City of Camarillo’s general plan that identifies this area as a ridgeline. However, this line is not precisely mapped and splits several large parcels whose only access is from Highway 118 in the Somis area. Adjusting the sphere boundary to coincide with property boundaries in this area will be further reviewed with the City. MSR – Nine Cities 101 Final VI. Spheres of Influence MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities MMaapp 1100.. CCiittyy ooff CCaammaarriilllloo SSOOII//CCUURRBB Final 102 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities VI. Spheres of Influence CCiittyy ooff FFiillllmmoorree –– SSpphheerree RReevviieeww DDiissccuussssiioonn The City of Fillmore, as shown on Map 11, has numerous areas where the current sphere of influence line does not align with the City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). The areas in red on Map 11 are currently in the sphere of influence, but outside the City’s CURB and should be considered for removal from the sphere. The areas in green on Map 11 are inside the City’s CURB, but currently outside the sphere. Until and unless these areas are considered by the City for urban use and/or extension of services, and the City has conducted the necessary CEQA review for urban use entitlements and/or extension of services, these areas should remain outside the sphere. The lavender colored areas on Map 11 are inside the City boundaries and within the City’s CURB, but were purposefully left outside the sphere of influence as a means of encouraging the City to detach these properties. Because these properties are essentially in the flood way and flood plain, there is little to no development potential or need for urban services. Thus, the prior rationale for leaving them outside the sphere and encouraging the City to initiate detachment proceedings remains. The area in dark blue on Map 11 was recently included in the City’s sphere and annexed to the City, even though it is outside the City’s CURB. The reason LAFCo agreed to amend the City’s sphere to include this area and to approve annexation outside the City’s CURB was because the City represented that it will have either direct ownership of the area and/or limited public park facilities in this area that is to remain open space. In approving both a sphere amendment for this area and annexation, LAFCo required that if the City does not have ownership control of this area, or otherwise has an interest in public facilities in the area, by 2010, the City would initiate detachment and LAFCo would possibly remove the area from the sphere at a later date. At this point in time, however, the circumstances relating to the recent changes for this area remain the same. In addition to the changes noted that will be reviewed with the City, aligning the City’s sphere boundary with ownership and lines of assessment will also be a focus of any sphere of influence update. MSR – Nine Cities 103 Final VI. Spheres of Influence MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities MMaapp 1111.. CCiittyy ooff FFiillllmmoorree SSOOII//CCUURRBB Final 104 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities VI. Spheres of Influence CCiittyy ooff MMoooorrppaarrkk –– SSpphheerree RReevviieeww DDiissccuussssiioonn As reflected on Map 12, the City of Moorpark city boundary, sphere, and City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) match except for one area (shown in dark blue). This area was included in the City’s sphere of influence and annexed to the City in June 1998, before the City’s Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) initiative became effective in February 1999. However, because the City’s SOAR ordinance established the City’s CURB line based on the sphere of influence as of January 1, 1998, this area had already been included in the City’s sphere of influence and annexed into the City. Prior to the annexation and prior to the City’s SOAR Ordinance being adopted, the City designated this area for open space in its General Plan and accepted a conservation easement to maintain this area as open space in perpetuity. For this reason, the LAFCo policy about aligning spheres of influence with voter approved growth boundaries should not be applied in this instance and the sphere of influence should not be changed to exclude this area. Except for reviewing the sphere for following lines of ownership and assessment, no changes to the sphere are apparent at this time. MSR – Nine Cities 105 Final VI. Spheres of Influence MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities MMaapp 1122.. CCiittyy ooff MMoooorrppaarrkk SSOOII//CCUURRBB Final 106 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities VI. Spheres of Influence CCiittyy ooff OOjjaaii –– SSpphheerree RReevviieeww DDiissccuussssiioonn The City of Ojai is the only one of the cities included in this MSR that has not adopted some form of Save Our Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) ordinance and that, therefore, does not have a CURB or other limitation requiring voter approval for changing the land use designation of properties in the City’s general plan or for the extension of services. Thus, Map 13 is the same as Map 4. Aside from reviewing the City’s sphere for alignment with lines of ownership and assessment, consideration should be given to changing the northerly sphere boundary to exclude any area that is part of Los Padres National Forest and owned by the U.S. government. MSR – Nine Cities 107 Final VI. Spheres of Influence MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities MMaapp 1133.. CCiittyy ooff OOjjaaii SSOOII Final 108 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities VI. Spheres of Influence CCiittyy ooff OOxxnnaarrdd –– SSpphheerree RReevviieeww DDiissccuussssiioonn There are few discrepancies between the City of Oxnard’s sphere of influence and City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB), as shown on Map 14. Two small areas, shown in red on Map 14, are inside the City’s sphere but outside the CURB. Area 1 is a section of the Reliant (aka Edison) Canal that was included in the sphere and annexed into the City as a part of the approval of an adjoining residential project that is still pending. Area 2 is a street cul-de-sac that is part of a city street right-of- way. The fact that it is shown as being outside the City’s CURB may be a mapping error. Given the circumstances, no changes are expected for either Area 1 or Area 2. The small area shown in green on map 14 is in the City boundaries and in the CURB, but outside the sphere of influence. This property, on the west side of Victoria Avenue across from the runway of the Oxnard airport, is actively being used for agricultural purposes. LAFCo previously left this property outside the City’s sphere of influence as an indication that it should be detached from the City. Given the property’s use and location in respect to other agricultural properties, this rationale still applies. Not shown on Map 14, but a small adjustment to the sphere that should be considered is moving the City’s sphere line from the easterly to the westerly side of Victoria Avenue north of Gonzales Road. The County and the City are considering formally transferring maintenance and liability obligations for Victoria Avenue south of the Santa Clara River to the City. Changing the sphere boundary along Victoria Avenue in the area next to the City boundary will facilitate the annexation of the full street right-of-way into the City. Current law precludes a city or special district from providing services outside its sphere of influence with very limited exceptions. To the extent practical, the sphere of influence should thus include areas where city services are currently being provided. Via contract, the City of Oxnard provides both water and sewer services to the Channel Islands Beach Community Services District. This area along the coast both to the north and south of Channel Islands Harbor, is currently located outside the City’s sphere of influence. As a part of the sphere update process, and to facilitate the City’s ability to provide new or expanded services to this area as may be necessary, consideration should be given to including the unincorporated Channel Islands Beach Community Services District area in the City’s sphere of influence. MSR – Nine Cities 109 Final VI. Spheres of Influence MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities MMaapp 1144.. CCiittyy ooff OOxxnnaarrdd SSOOII//CCUURRBB Final 110 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities VI. Spheres of Influence CCiittyy ooff SSaann BBuueennaavveennttuurraa –– SSpphheerree RReevviieeww DDiissccuussssiioonn The City of San Buenaventura was the first in Ventura County to adopt a SOAR ordinance. Known as the Save Our Agricultural Resources ordinance, this measure, unlike the SOAR ordinance adopted in seven of the other cities in the County, did not in any way reference the City’s sphere of influence and did not establish any form of city urban restriction boundary (CURB). It simply prevents any change in the land use designation of any property designated “agriculture” as shown on the City’s general plan as of February 1, 1995. Unfortunately, the City’s general plan land use element map at that time was at a fairly large scale with the result that the mapping was not precise. Further, the City’s land use designations were applied in many cases without regard to lines of ownership or assessment and, especially along both the Ventura and Santa Clara Rivers, referenced other boundaries, such as flood plain boundaries, that have been more precisely mapped since 1995. The result is that the City has had to make a variety of interpretations about exactly what properties, and what portions of properties, are covered by the City’s SOAR ordinance. Because the City’s SOAR ordinance did not establish any form of CURB line or address open space or hillside designated lands a second initiative qualified and was approved by the voters in 2001. Known as the Hillside Voter Protection Act (HVPA), this measure identified a hillside voter protection area via a separate map based on the City boundary, City sphere of influence and the “planning area” from the City’s general plan as of January 1, 2001. The area involved is generally outside the City boundary in the hillsides above Foothill Road. This ordinance prevents the City from extending defined urban services, including water and sewer services, to the defined hillside area without a City wide vote. Map 15 shows the areas covered by both the City’s SOAR ordinance and the HVPA ordinance. Map 16 shows the areas covered by both ordinances in relation to the City boundary and sphere of influence. The areas shown in red on Map 16 are outside the City boundaries, but currently in the sphere. Given the voter established restrictions and LAFCo policies, the sphere of influence should be updated to remove these areas from the sphere unless the City can provide compelling reasons why they should be kept within the sphere. The areas shown in orange on Map 16 are currently both within the City Boundary and within the City’s sphere of influence. Given the voter established restrictions and LAFCo policies, the sphere of influence should be updated to exclude these areas, and the City should be encouraged to detach these areas, unless a property is owned by the City or there are other compelling reasons to keep the property in the sphere and the City. As with other sphere of influence updates, a focus of consideration will also be ensuring that to the extent practical the sphere of influence follows lines of ownership and assessment. MSR – Nine Cities 111 Final VI. Spheres of Influence MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities MMaapp 1155.. CCiittyy ooff SSaann BBuueennaavveennttuurraa SSOOII//SSOOAARR ((11 ooff 22)) Final 112 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities VI. Spheres of Influence MMaapp 1166.. CCiittyy ooff SSaann BBuueennaavveennttuurraa SSOOII//SSOOAARR ((22 ooff 22)) MSR – Nine Cities 113 Final VI. Spheres of Influence MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank Final 114 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities VI. Spheres of Influence CCiittyy ooff SSaannttaa PPaauullaa –– SSpphheerree RReevviieeww DDiissccuussssiioonn As shown on Map 17, the City of Santa Paula has a large area, known as Adams Canyon that is currently , inside the City’s sphere of influence but outside the City boundary and outside the City’s City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). This circumstance was based on the City’s 1998 general plan and LAFCo approval of an amended sphere to include both the Fagan and Adams Canyon areas in early 2000. In November of 2000 the City voters approved a Save Our Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) measure that established the City’s CURB. The Adams Canyon area (the larger area in red on map 17) was at that time left outside the City’s CURB while the Fagan Canyon area, adjoining to the east, was left inside the City’s CURB. Since 2000 the City’s voters have twice voted to uphold the CURB line to not include the Adams Canyon area, but a third vote to change the CURB line to include the Adams Canyon area is now scheduled for May 2007. Because of the voter restrictions established by the City’s SOAR and related LAFCo policies the areas shown in red on map 17 should be considered for removal from the sphere of influence as a part of any sphere update. In addition to, but separate from, the City’s SOAR ordinance, the City’s voters approved Measure L6 in November 2006. This measure basically requires a City-wide vote for any development project of greater than 80 acres. The primary effect of this Measure will be on the future development of the Fagan Canyon area. Because of this measure, because there are several parcels still in active land Conservation Act Contracts in the Fagan Canyon area, and based on LAFCo policies, the sphere of influence update should also consider excluding the Fagan Canyon area from the sphere. As elsewhere, if urban development and/or the extension of City services requires a City wide vote, such actions should occur first, along with city entitlements based on new CEQA reviews, before areas are included in a city’s sphere of influence. MSR – Nine Cities 115 Final VI. Spheres of Influence MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities MMaapp 1177.. CCiittyy ooff SSaannttaa PPaauullaa SSOOII//CCUURRBB Final 116 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities VI. Spheres of Influence CCiittyy ooff SSiimmii VVaalllleeyy –– SSpphheerree RReevviieeww DDiissccuussssiioonn There are only limited discrepancies between the City of Simi Valley’s City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) and the City’s sphere of influence, as shown on Map 18. The area shown in red is an approximately 31 acre parcel that is outside the City boundary and City CURB, but currently inside the City’s sphere of influence. As a part of the sphere update process this area should be considered for exclusion from the sphere of influence. The areas shown in green on Map 18 are outside the City boundary and current sphere of influence, but inside the City’s CURB. These areas are based on the City’s general plan, but do not necessarily follow lines of ownership or assessment. Until and unless these areas are considered by the City for urban use and/or extension of services, and the City has conducted the necessary CEQA review for urban use entitlements and/or extension of services, these areas should remain outside the sphere. The dark blue area shown on map 18 was recently added to the City’s sphere and annexed into the City even though it is outside the City’s CURB. LAFCo approved both the sphere amendment and annexation for this area because the City and/or the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District will be overseeing the area as permanent open space. Not shown on map 18, but a factor that will be strongly considered as a part of any sphere of influence update will be to include areas, currently outside the City and the City’s CURB, in the City’s sphere where the City provides one or more services. The most notable example of this is the Reagan Library and immediately surrounding area. The City provides sewer service, water service, via Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (a dependent district controlled by the City of Simi Valley City Council) and, via agreement with the County of Ventura, emergency 911 police services, to the Reagan Library and adjoining residential area. Current law precludes a city or special district from providing services outside its sphere of influence with very limited exceptions. To the extent practical, the sphere of influence should thus include areas where city services are currently being provided. As a part of the City’s merger with the former Simi Valley County Sanitation District in 1995, the City adopted Resolution 95-98 and agreed to “continue providing the services of the Simi Valley County Sanitation District at the same level to those areas outside the City of Simi Valley’s boundaries, but within the territory of the Simi Valley County Sanitation District, as the services provided for the territory within the City of Simi Valley limits.” This commitment by the City that was a part of the LAFCo approval of the merger action, affects existing developed areas outside the City’s sphere in addition to the Reagan Library, such as the Santa Susana Knolls area. The boundaries and service area of the former Simi Valley County Sanitation District will therefore also be considered as a part of the sphere update process. MSR – Nine Cities 117 Final VI. Spheres of Influence MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities MMaapp 1188.. CCiittyy ooff SSiimmii VVaalllleeyy SSOOII//CCUURRBB Final 118 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities VI. Spheres of Influence CCiittyy ooff TThhoouussaanndd OOaakkss –– SSpphheerree RReevviieeww DDiissccuussssiioonn As shown on Map 19 the sphere of influence and the City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) for the City of Thousand Oaks are co-terminus. As a part of the sphere update process City owned properties outside the current sphere will be considered for inclusion in the sphere of influence, as will other publicly owned properties that may require new or expanded City services. However, any sphere changes as a part of the sphere update process by LAFCo will only be made if they can be determined to be categorically exempt or of no impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). MSR – Nine Cities 119 Final VI. Spheres of Influence MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities MMaapp 1199.. CCiittyy ooff TThhoouussaanndd OOaakkss SSOOII//CCUURRBB Final 120 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices Appendix 1- Financial Tables 2 – Staffing 3 – Compensation 4 – Guidelines for Orderly Development 5 – Comparison of Ventura County SOAR & Related Ordinances MSR – Nine Cities 121 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank Final 122 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices AAppppeennddiixx 11 -- FFiinnaanncciiaall TTaabblleess There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. (attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain) The tables in Appendix 1 contain information from the Cities Annual Report published by the State Controller for fiscal years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, the three most recent years available. For each city there are two tables, one for revenue and one for expenditures. Each table includes per capita information for each fiscal year based on State Department of Finance population estimates for each city as of January 1, 2002, 2003 and 2004. By comparing this information a generalized comparison can be made for each city over time and between cities. Information for the City of Port Hueneme is included for informational and comparative purposes, even though that City is not a part of this municipal service review. In reviewing the data in the tables following information should be considered: • The data in the Cities Annual Report is compiled from unaudited city reports submitted to the State Controller. The State Controller does not verify the accuracy of the information. • Cities lack a prescribed uniform system of accounting. Therefore, readers should be cautious when making comparisons, because what comprises a piece of data may differ from one city to the next. • Some cities have special districts for which the city council acts as the board of directors. Generally accepted accounting principles require local governments to combine such entities in their financial reports. However, the State Controller does not include such districts in the Cities Annual Report because these districts are included in the Special Districts Annual Report. In Ventura County this affects the City of Camarillo where the City Council is the governing board for the Camarillo Sanitary District and the City of Simi Valley where the City Council is the governing board for Waterworks District No. 8. Likewise, information about expenditures by Redevelopment Agencies or legally separate financing agencies, such as parking authorities and landscape and lighting districts, are not included. Table 1 presents only expenditures by cities, not for other legally separate agencies and districts that may be controlled by cities. • Total expenditure information is used, including both general and enterprise function expenses and both operating and capital expenses. Capital expenses can vary substantially year to year, especially for enterprise functions such as water and sewer. MSR – Nine Cities 123 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank Final 124 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices MSR – Nine Cities 125 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Final 126 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices MSR – Nine Cities 127 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Final 128 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices MSR – Nine Cities 129 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Final 130 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices MSR – Nine Cities 131 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Final 132 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices MSR – Nine Cities 133 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Final 134 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices MSR – Nine Cities 135 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Final 136 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices MSR – Nine Cities 137 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Final 138 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices MSR – Nine Cities 139 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Final 140 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices MSR – Nine Cities 141 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Final 142 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices MSR – Nine Cities 143 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Final 144 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices AAppppeennddiixx 22 -- SSttaaffffiinngg Appendix 2 contains information about the staff levels for each city as of 2005, including the number of executive/management, professional/support and operations staff, and information about the number of bargaining units (labor unions). The information is based on the responses received on the LAFCo municipal service review questionnaire. Information for the City of Port Hueneme is included for informational and comparative purposes, even though that City is not a part of this municipal service review. MSR – Nine Cities 145 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Total Executive/ Professional/ Agency Name Operational Employees Management Support City of Camarillo 138 7 35 96 City of Fillmore 40 6 13 21 City of Moorpark 52 6 36 10 City of Ojai 28 5 3 20 City of Oxnard 1048 18 424 606 City of Port Hueneme 118 9 12 97 City of San Buenaventura 661 10 161 550 City of Santa Paula 148 10 30 108 City of Simi Valley 579 7 199 373 City of Thousand Oaks 450 68 82 300 Final 146 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices AAppppeennddiixx 33 -- CCoommppeennssaattiioonn Appendix 3 provides information about the compensation of city council members in each city as of 2005 based on information provided by each city in response to the LAFCo municipal service review questionnaire. Information for the City of Port Hueneme is included for informational and comparative purposes, even though that City is not a part of this municipal service review. MSR – Nine Cities 147 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Final 148 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices AAppppeennddiixx 44 –– GGuuiiddeelliinneess ffoorr OOrrddeerrllyy DDeevveellooppmmeenntt The Guidelines for Orderly Development have contributed substantially to shaping where growth occurs in Ventura County and are one of the major reasons that Ventura County, unlike nearly every other county in the state, does not actively compete for development with cities. The Guidelines for Orderly Development were originally adopted in 1969 and have been periodically updated, most recently in 1996. The County of Ventura, all ten cities in the County and the Ventura LAFCo have all adopted the Guidelines for Orderly Development as policy. MSR – Nine Cities 149 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities AAppppeennddiixx 44 –– GGuuiiddeelliinneess ffoorr OOrrddeerrllyy DDeevveellooppmmeenntt Final 150 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices MSR – Nine Cities 151 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank Final 152 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Appendices AAppppeennddiixx 55 –– CCoommppaarriissoonn ooff VVeennttuurraa CCoouunnttyy SSooaarr aanndd RReellaatteedd OOrrddiinnaanncceess This Appendix contains a comparison table of the various ordinances that require voter approval for the extension of services or for changing local general plan land use designations. These ordinances, known as SOAR ordinances (an acronym of Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources and of Save Our Agricultural Resources) are administered by the County (only for the County of Ventura’s ordinance) and by each affected city. This is a summary table only. The jurisdiction responsible for administering each ordinance should be consulted for specific information. While LAFCos are not bound by these local ordinances, the Ventura LAFCo has adopted a policy that sphere of influence boundaries should coincide with, or cover lesser area than, any growth boundaries these ordinances establish for affected cities. The Table is current as of January 1, 2006. As such it does not contain information about Measure L6 adopted by the voters in the City of Santa Paula on November 7, 2006. That measure amended the City of Santa Paula’s general plan to require that any residential or commercial project on 80 acres or more by approved by a majority of voters in the City of Santa Paula. Detailed information about this ordinance can be obtained from the City of Santa Paula. MSR – Nine Cities 153 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities Final 154 MSR – Nine Cities MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities VII. Appendix MSR – Nine Cities 155 Final Appendices MSR – Nine Ventura County Cities This Page Intentionally Left Blank Final 156 MSR – Nine Cities