Fillmore MSR Resolution 2018 02 21reduced

Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission City of Fillmore Municipal Service Review Prepared By: Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission 800 S. Victoria Avenue, L #1850 Ventura, CA 93009 Accepted by the Commission on February 21, 2018 Prepared By Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Profile........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Growth and Population Projections ......................................................................................................... 7 Review of Municipal Services ................................................................................................................... 8 Written Determinations ......................................................................................................................... 16 Introduction Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCos) exist in each county in California and were formed for the purpose of administering state law and local policies relating to the establishment and revision of local government boundaries. According to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California Government Code § 56000 et seq.), LAFCo’s purposes are to: • discourage urban sprawl; • preserve open space and prime agricultural land; • ensure efficient provision of government services; and • encourage the orderly formation and development of local agencies. To achieve its purposes, LAFCos are responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local government boundaries (such as annexations), conducting special studies that identify ways to reorganize and streamline governmental structure, and determining a sphere of influence for each city and special district over which they have authority. A sphere of influence is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by LAFCo (Government Code § 56076). Beginning in 2001, each LAFCo was required to review, and as necessary, update the sphere of each city and special district on or before January 1, 2008, and every five years thereafter (Government Code § 56425(g)). Government Code § 56430(a) provides that in order to determine or update a sphere of influence, LAFCo shall prepare a Municipal Service Review (MSR) and make written determinations relating to the following seven factors: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy. MSRs are not prepared for counties, but are prepared for special districts governed by a county Board of Supervisors. Additionally, while LAFCos are authorized to prepare studies relating to their role as boundary agencies, LAFCos have no investigative authority. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 1 of 22 A MSR was completed for each of nine of 10 Ventura County cities (a MSR was not prepared for the City of Port Hueneme1) in Ventura County in 2007, and a second MSR for the same nine cities was completed in 2012. This MSR includes an updated examination of the City’s services, as required by LAFCo law. LAFCo staff prepared this MSR for the City of Fillmore, using information obtained from multiple sources, including: • 2017 MSR Questionnaire: The City completed a questionnaire, which elicited general information about the City (e.g., its contact information, governing body, financial information), as well as service-specific data; • City Budget: The City’s adopted budget provided information regarding services and funding levels; • General Plan: The City’s General Plan provided information regarding land use, populations, and service levels; • City Documents: Various City documents provided supplementary information relating to service provision; • 2012 MSR: The 2012 MSR provided certain data that remain relevant and accurate for inclusion in the current MSR; • City Website: The City’s website provided supplementary and clarifying information; and • City Staff: City staff provided supplementary and clarifying information. This report is divided into four sections: • Profile: Summary profile of information about the City, including contact information, governing body, summary financial information, and staffing levels; • Growth and Population Projections: Details of past, current, and projected population for the City; • Review of Municipal Services: Discussion of the municipal services that the City provides; and • Written Determinations: Recommended determinations for each of the seven mandatory factors for the City. The Commission’s acceptance of the MSR and adoption of written determinations will be memorialized through the adoption of a resolution that addresses each of the seven mandatory factors based on the Written Determinations section of the MSR. 1 No MSR was prepared for the City of Port Hueneme, consistent with past Commission practice, because: (1) the City’s municipal boundary is coterminous with its existing sphere boundary; (2) the City is nearly entirely surrounded by the City of Oxnard and the Pacific Ocean, and (3) the only area available for inclusion in the City’s sphere is the unincorporated community of Silver Strand, which is provided municipal services by the Channel Islands Beach Community Services District. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 2 of 22 Profile Contact Information City Hall 250 Central Avenue, Fillmore, CA 93015 Mailing Address 250 Central Avenue, Fillmore, CA 93015 Phone Number (805) 524-1500 Website fillmoreca.com Employee E-mail Addresses firstinitiallastname@ci.fillmore.ca.us Governance Information Incorporation Date July 10, 1914 Organization General Law Form of Government Council - Manager City Council • Five members. • Elected at-large to staggered, four-year terms of office (elections held in even numbered years). • City Council selects one of its members to serve as Major (Mayor serves a one- year term). Other Elected Officials • City Treasurer and City Clerk elected at-large and serve four-year terms. City Council Meetings • 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month, beginning at 6:30 p.m. Broadcast live on the City’s government cable television channel. Webcast live (and available anytime) on the City’s website. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 3 of 22 Population and Area Information Population Area (square miles) City Jurisdiction 15,5292 3.23 Sphere of Influence Not available 3.0 Services Provided by the City Animal Services3 Police Services4 Building and Safety Services Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services5 Community Development/Planning Services Storm Drain Maintenance Services Engineering6 Street Maintenance Services Fire Protection Services Wastewater Services Parks and Recreation Services Water Services Staffing – Full Time Equivalent Positions7 Departments FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 City Attorney8 0 0 0 0 City Manager 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Human Rsrcs/Dpty City Clerk/Risk Mgmt 0.75 1.54 1.75 1.05 Finance and Central Support 8.23 7.73 7.73 3.12 Planning and Community Dev. 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 Building Department 0.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 Engineering 0 0 0 0.75 Public Works 11.00 11.50 11.50 12.37 Community Services 9.00 8.87 9.68 6.56 Police Services 1.62 1.62 1.82 1.50 Fire Protection 5.58 5.65 5.79 6.08 Total 39.43 41.16 43.02 36.68 Public Agencies with Overlapping Jurisdiction Bardsdale Cemetery District Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Ventura County Transportation Commission Fillmore Unified School District Ventura County Watershed Protection District United Water Conservation District Ventura Regional Sanitation District 2 Source: California Department of Finance estimate (January 1, 2016). 3 Service provided by contract with Ventura County Animal Services (County of Ventura). 4 Service provided by contract with Ventura County Sheriff’s Office. 5 Service provided by contract with a private provider. 6 Service provided by contract with a private provider. 7 Source: Current and historical City budget documents, and City staff. 8 Staffing provided by contract with a private provider. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 4 of 22 Summary Financial Information9 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 General Fund Revenues Actual Budget Estimated Budget Property tax 2,131,255 2,171,383 2,726,380 2,458,326 Sales tax 3,118,320 1,855,200 2,051,970 2,205,543 Franchises 349,363 359,182 359,182 359,182 Licenses and permits 537,160 490,962 465,041 499,620 Fines and forfeits 53,495 60,400 50,259 60,400 Money and Property Use 68,400 92,905 83,905 80,905 Grants 312,495 370,500 380,875 370,500 Charges for services 233,697 215,836 175,604 216,201 Other Revenue 11,3217 92,000 81,427 65,000 Transfers In 612,868 536,705 536,705 559,654 Loan Proceeds/Reserves 9,000 518,622 0 86,000 Carry Over/Set Aside 0 1,080,000 800,000 850,000 Total $7,539,270 $7,843,695 $7,711,348 $7,811,331 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 General Fund Expenditures Actual Budget Estimated Adopted City Council 14,276 16,517 23,431 31,471 City Attorney 371,338 240,000 337,232 260,000 City Clerk 58,889 86,075 96,826 110,849 Administration 175,535 174,211 195,862 232,448 Finance/Central Support 256,702 337,304 365,211 361,350 Government Buildings 121,683 133,850 102,313 128,344 Risk Management 193,071 83,927 116,547 120,074 Human Resources 38,555 50,011 46,240 80,427 Information Technology 100,146 154,750 112,490 139,750 Non-Departmental 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 Police Services 3,201,037 3,299,365 3,262,408 3,409,511 Fire Protection 1,195,899 1,258,111 1,144,198 1,240,160 Animal Control 49,794 88,300 88,300 88,300 Code Enforcement 33,075 28,399 36,287 43,600 Parking Facilities 500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Central Garage 65,861 60,005 59,709 60,005 Planning 325,451 559,326 474,273 527,314 Cable TV/Promotion 13,924 10,968 6,233 10,952 Economic Development 58,530 61,744 52,346 66,993 Public Works Engineering 49,110 54,898 33,756 59,938 Building and Safety 160,382 136,298 110,504 145,781 Meadowlark Park 7,063 9,100 9,100 10,100 Delores Day Park 33,310 39,030 40,065 45,400 Two Rivers Park 31,235 37,355 35,573 42,855 Shiells Park 33,224 50,235 31,573 53,800 Parks - General 136,421 201,099 141,540 185,409 Transfers out 67,986 568,622 568,622 305,000 Total $6,792,997 $7,791,000 $7,542,139 $7,811,331 9 Source: FY 2017-18 Adopted Budget Summary Report. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 5 of 22 According to the FY 2010-11 adopted budget, the City received over $5,965,000 in sales tax revenue in FY 2007-08 and $607,000 in FY 2008-09, which was the result of an agreement between the City and private parties under which retailers operating in other cities were recruited to establish sales offices in Fillmore in order to divert sales tax revenue to the City of Fillmore instead of to the jurisdiction in which the retailer actually operated. Under the agreement, the City would keep 15% of the tax revenue and the private parties would receive 85%, a portion of which was repaid to the retailers, thereby essentially reducing the amount of sales tax they paid. Seven retailers were recruited to open offices in the City of Fillmore. In 2009 two cities asserted that they were deprived of millions of dollars of sales tax revenue under the Fillmore agreement and filed a lawsuit against the City. The State Board of Equalization (BOE) subsequently withheld the sales tax payments that would otherwise have gone to Fillmore until the legal challenge was resolved. In March of 2012, the court ordered the BOE to pay several million dollars of the revenue that it had withheld from the City of Fillmore to four cities, including $2.68 million to the City of Industry. The City is required to refund the $2.721 million in sales tax revenue that it received in FY 2007-08. To date, the City has repaid $1.5 million, and is making quarterly payments of $243,619 with the final payment to be made in the second quarter of 2018. The actual amount repaid by the City is reduced by $2.034 million (which is the responsibility of the consultant used to acquire the sales tax), leaving the City responsible for repayment of just under $687,000. The City’s financial responsibility is reflected in the FY 2017-18 budget as a reduction in the estimated sales tax revenue. Additionally, the City’s town theatre is currently showing a negative fund balance, which is expected to drop further during FY 2017-18. The City is reviewing options to keep the theatre and pay down its debt, rather than sell it as required by the BOE. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 6 of 22 Growth and Population Projections City Annual Growth Projections According to the U.S. Census, from 2000 to 2010, the City of Fillmore’s population increased from 13,643 to 15,002. The California Department of Finance estimated the City’s population to be 15,529 as of January 1, 2016. Thus, from 2000 to 2016, the City grew by an estimated 1,886 people, or 13.8% (0.9% annually, on average). The following table reflects the City’s projected population through 2040 based on the estimated annual rate of growth: Year 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Population 15,529 16,096 16,833 17,604 18,411 19,254 Estimate The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) growth forecast projects population growth of the City to occur more rapidly, with an estimated population of 21,800 in 2040. The City updated its General Plan in 2003. The General Plan Land Use Element estimates a General Plan buildout population of 22,693. This population projection was based on development project densities that exceed what is currently anticipated, and therefore, it appears that the General Plan’s buildout population projection overestimates actual growth capacity. The City’s current boundary and sphere of influence are shown below: City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 7 of 22 Review of Municipal Services The review of City services is based on provisions of state law which require LAFCo to make determinations regarding the present and planned capacity of public facilities, the adequacy of public services, infrastructure needs and deficiencies, and the City’s financial ability to provide these services (Government Code § 56430(a)(3)). Fire Services The City’s Fire Department provides medical emergency response, hazardous materials mitigation, rescue, structural and wild land fire response, public education, training (Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)), fire safety inspections, fire prevention, and investigation services throughout the City. Fire Stations Two fire stations serve the City. The City operates one fire station (Station 91) centrally located within the City. In addition, Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD) Station 27 works in partnership with the City Fire Department, although the VCFPD’s service area does not include the City. 1 Station 27 613 Old Telegraph Road 2 Station 91 711 Sespe Place Staffing According to City staff, the City employs four personnel for fire services, consisting of one Fire Chief and three Fire Captains. The remaining Fire Department staff consists of volunteers, including two assistant chiefs, four captains, and 60 firefighters. Response Times According to City staff and the City’s Fire Department website, the City’s goal is to respond to both emergency and non-emergency calls within five minutes. Average Response Time Response Time Goal During Last Two Years Non-Emergency 5 minutes, 90% of the time 5 minutes, 95% of the time Emergency 5 minutes, 90% of the time 5 minutes, 97% of the time The VCFPD is responsible for all fire response dispatch within the County. According to a mutual aid agreement between the cities and the VCFPD, the closest available personnel responds to emergency calls for service, regardless of whether the service need is located within the responding agency’s jurisdiction. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 8 of 22 Costs The adopted FY 2017-18 budget allocates $1,240,160 from the General Fund for fire protection services. According to City staff, the current per capita cost for fire protection services is approximately $84. Future Fire Service Level Based on the City’s ability to consistently meet its response time goals for both emergency and non- emergency calls, it appears that at this time the City’s reliance on volunteers enables it to provide adequate fire protection services. Given the level of population growth anticipated within the City, it appears that the Fire Department will continue to have the ability to provide adequate fire services in the future. Library Services The City does not provide library services. Instead, it is served by the Fillmore Library, which is operated by the Ventura County Library System (VCLS). In 2014, the VCLS began planning for the construction of a major expansion to the library, which includes a meeting room, reading area, study rooms, patios, and landscaping. Funding for the expansion is to be provided by the VCLS, in partnership with the Friends of the Fillmore Library and the Wigley Trust. For FY 2017-18, the City has budgeted a contribution of $27,250 for the library facility through revenue generated by license, permit, and development impact fees. During FY 2015-16, the California State Library (a California public research institution) estimated that the Ventura County Library had a per capita cost of $32.25 for library operations. Statewide, the average cost for library operations was $51.21 and the median cost was $32.25. Police Services The City does not provide police services directly. Instead, the City contracts with the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office for all police services, including administration, patrol, and investigation services. While the City does not have a goal with respect to the ratio of police officers to population, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City’s General Plan states that a ratio of more than 1,375 residents per officer constitutes a significant impact related to police protection services. Present Staffing Levels The Ventura County Sheriff’s Office states that for FY 2017-18, it has allocated 12.08 police positions to the City, including 11.39 sworn positions (Captain (0.5), Senior Deputy Detective (0.5), Cadet (0.5), Deputy Sheriff/School Resource Officer (.89), and Patrol Deputies (9)), and 0.69 non-sworn positions (Communication Operator (0.69)). City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 9 of 22 Ratio of Sworn Officers to Population Based on current staffing levels and the 2016 population estimate of 15,529, the City provides one sworn officer for every 1,363 residents. Response Times According to the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office, the average response time goals and average response times are as follows10: Average Goal Met During Last Response Time Goal Response Time Two Years Non-Emergency 20 minutes 18.5 minutes 74% Emergency 10 minutes 6.03 minutes 90% Operational Costs For FY 2017-18, the City allocates $3,409,511 for police services, a per capita cost of approximately $219. According to the City’s FY 2017-18 recommended budget staff report, the City’s cost for police services represents an increase of 3.5% since FY 2016-17, and constitutes the largest expense category for the City (i.e., 49% of the total expense budget). Policing costs for the City have increased by about 19% since FY 2012-13; however, the City justifies this expense by emphasizing the need to fund quality police services in order to maintain a safe community. Future Staffing Levels To maintain the current ratio of 1 officer per 1,363 residents for the projected population of 19,254 in 2040, a total of 14 officers would be required. Recreation and Park Services The City provides park facilities and recreational programs, services, and activities for City residents. The Recreation Fund supports the operation of facilities and activities (e.g., basketball, softball and soccer) that are available at the four major parks within the City (i.e., Shiells Park, Meadowlark Park, Two Rivers Park, and Delores Day Park) as well as several smaller parks, various trails and passive park space. The City maintains a total of approximately 47 acres of parkland and 4 miles of trails. In addition, it operates a community swimming pool. A $320,000 federal Community Development Block Grant enabled the construction of a playground at Two Rivers Park, which has recently been completed. Another 7-acre park (Heritage Valley Park, at the intersection of Telegraph Road (Highway 126) and Mountain View Street) is currently under development. The City also rents its parks and community center to individuals for private events. 10 The Sheriff’s Office call types have changed. The “Emergency” call category has been replaced with the “Priority 1” call category, which includes a wider range of call situations (e.g., burglary alarm calls, and other in-progress events in addition to traffic accidents, person not breathing, shots fired, and battery in progress). City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 10 of 22 Among the parks and recreation programs offered by, or in conjunction with, the City are youth and adult sports classes and leagues including basketball, softball, aquatics, and fitness programs, and senior services, including recreational, social, health, and fitness programs available at the Fillmore Senior Center. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City’s General Plan indicates that the City has adopted a parkland standard of 1-2 acres of neighborhood parkland and 5-8 acres of community parkland for every 1,000 residents. To meet this ratio for the estimated 2016 population of 15,529, a total of 90-150 acres of parkland is required. With 47 acres of parkland, the City currently provides 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, totaling approximately 52% of the minimum amount of parkland necessary to meet its adopted goal. Costs The Recreation Fund revenue source includes charges for services and rental fees. The Community Pool fund receives 53% of its total revenue from property taxes and the remaining revenue is generated by use charges. According to the FY 2017-18 budget, Recreation Fund revenues are $389,170 and expenditures are $374,966. While revenues exceed expenses, the fund balance remains negative (-$123,352). As the Recreation Fund does not generate sufficient revenues to create a positive fund balance, the General Fund covers the shortfall. City staff states that the City allocates a portion of its General Fund revenues to the Recreation Fund each budget year ($198,622 in FY 2016-17 and $195,000 in FY 2017-18). These transfers will continue as General Fund revenues become available and as needed to offset the deficit. The Community Pool Fund accounts for the operation of the swimming pool which was constructed in 2010 using redevelopment funds. City voters approved a special tax to generate funds to maintain the pool, which involves a $15 per-parcel tax. For FY 2017-18, the Community Pool Fund had a starting fund balance of -$350,510. It is anticipated to generate $157,635 in revenue, cost $234,935, resulting in a -$427,810 fund balance. During FY 2017-18, the City intends to develop a plan to correct the deficit in the Community Pool Fund. Solid Waste Services Solid waste collection and disposal services are provided by means of a franchise agreement with a private provider. Customers are billed directly by the service provider for these services. The City funds a variety of additional services related to solid waste, including hazardous waste disposal. The FY 2017- 18 budget allocated $113,684 for these services. According to the FY 2016-17 budget, a new contract for waste management services resulted in a decrease in solid waste costs. Streets, Highways, and Drainage Services According to City staff, the City provides street construction and maintenance directly. Street lighting, street sweeping, and landscape maintenance are provided by means of a contract. City staff estimates that the City has 80 paved lane miles. The City has 35 assessment districts and zones within a district to support landscaping and lighting, storm drains, and community facilities. Each zone is financially independent, and therefore those that are operating at a surplus may not fund those operating at a deficit. Funding for some of these zones City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 11 of 22 has not been sufficient to cover the contracted services cost. Voters within these zones have rejected the option to increase the assessment. Street Maintenance The City’s street maintenance services include installation of streets and signage, and maintenance and repair of streets, such as pothole patching, street striping, slurry seals, street overlays, and storm drain maintenance. During FY 2016-17, the City’s total street maintenance expenses were $586,188 ($7,327 per lane mile). The City’s FY 2017-18 budget allocates $346,211 for street maintenance ($4,328 per lane mile). Gas tax funds provide the revenue for street maintenance. Street capital improvement projects include $254,000 for the rehabilitation of arterial and major collector roadways, $250,000 for the design and construction of new sidewalks, and $75,000 for sidewalk repairs and rehabilitation. Street Sweeping Street sweeping services are provided by a private provider as part of the franchise agreement with a private provider for solid waste services. Customers are billed directly by the provider. According to the City, streets are swept once per month. Street Lighting and Landscaping The City has 25 voter-approved landscape and lighting districts. The City maintains City trees, such as those located within the parkways (the areas between sidewalks and streets), road rights-of-way, and parks. The City also oversees a contract with a private operator for tree maintenance. Southern California Edison provides street lighting services at a cost in FY 2016-17 of $127,638 ($1,595 per lane mile). For FY 2017-18, the City allocated $284,261 for landscaping and lighting in combination ($3,553 per lane mile). Expenditures are anticipated to exceed revenues by $64,216; however, fund balance will cover the difference. The City expects to enter into a new contract for landscape maintenance within the City, and the contract services to be provided are anticipated to reflect the available funding for each zone (which may result in a service reduction). Drainage The City has nine voter-approved storm drain districts. The City provides stormwater and flood control services, such as storm drain cleaning and maintenance, to comply with the Ventura Countywide Municipal Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System11 (NPDES) permit. According to the City’s website, it maintains and repairs City-owned storm drains and two catch basins. The City furnishes sandbags and sand to City residents for use during emergency flood situations. The City participates in the County’s NPDES program. The County’s NPDES plan for the Lower Santa Clara River area involves between $6.5 and $11.2 million in new capital facilities that require an annual contribution 11 The City participates in the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program (VCSQMP). As a VCSQMP partner, the City works together with other agencies to control stormwater pollution and to ensure compliance under the Ventura Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit, issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board under the federal Clean Water Act. The Ventura County Watershed Protection District is the principal NPDES permittee and the City is a co-permittee. In general, the program is funded through grant funding and a benefit assessment imposed on properties. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 12 of 22 by the City of between $230,000 and $390,000 to operate. Funding has not been identified to cover this cost. Transit Services The City of Fillmore does not provide transit services. However, under a Cooperative Agreement among the County of Ventura, the City of Fillmore, and the City of Santa Paula, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) administers (by contract) public transit service in and surrounding the Santa Paula, Fillmore, and Piru areas of Ventura County. The service is known as the Valley Express, and has been operational since March 2015. The City anticipates receiving $420,000 during FY 2017-18 in Transportation Development Act funding from the State, which is used for local transit purposes. Wastewater Services The City provides wastewater conveyance and treatment services for all areas within the City. The City’s Water Recycling Plant has been operational since September 2009, and delivers treated wastewater as recycled water. The facility is owned by the City, but is operated and maintained by a private contractor, who is responsible for operation of the wastewater treatment plant and maintenance and repair of sewer trunk lines. Wastewater Demand, Treatment, and Conveyance Pursuant to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the City’s Water Recycling Plant has a permitted capacity of 1.8 million gallons per day (mgd), with the capability of expanding to a future capacity of 2.4 mgd. It currently treats approximately 1 mgd. The facility provides approximately 200,000 gallons per day of recycled water used for irrigation at Two Rivers Park, two schools, and other landscaped areas. The City’s 2006 Sewer System Master Plan (Master Plan) evaluated the condition of the wastewater conveyance system. According to the Master Plan, the aging sewer collection system experiences high rates of inflow and infiltration during wet weather. System infiltration occurs in the pipeline primarily due to pipeline joints that no longer seal, small cracks in the pipe walls, and poorly-sealed service connections. Substantial portions of the system are submerged beneath groundwater much of the year. As a result, during wet weather as much as 20% of the wastewater being conveyed and treated is a result of storm water and groundwater inflow and infiltration into the system. This increase in volume exacerbates existing and future capacity deficiencies and results in higher treatment costs. According to the City, the facility currently has unused capacity sufficient to treat this infiltration. During dry months, such cracks and joints can be expected to result in exfiltration, or the seepage of wastewater out of the sewer collection system. Such exfiltration can lead to groundwater contamination. According to the Master Plan, sections of sewer pipeline along B Street, Ventura Street, and C Street are currently overloaded during peak storm events. The Master Plan indicates that manhole surcharging currently occurs on these streets during extreme storm events, and system overflows may occur. Unless capacity is increased, additional development on Fillmore’s north side will cause the trunk lines in B and C Streets to become even more overloaded. Additionally, City staff states that the treatment membranes at the wastewater treatment facility are due for replacement. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 13 of 22 Costs The Master Plan recommends $9.4 million in improvements to correct existing deficiencies and $1.7 million in improvements to correct future deficiencies beginning in 2006 (the system is constructed of clay pipe that is subject to cracking and infiltration). The City currently estimates a cost of $5 million to resolve all of these issues, and is accumulating funds in a sanitation capital reserve fund to cover the related capital expenses. According to City staff, the City’s sewer system is inspected and cleaned cyclically over a 5-year period (i.e., 20% of the system is inspected and cleaned annually). Engineering studies are necessary to determine options and exact costs for the pipeline improvement projects. For FY 2017-18, the City plans to use $312,536 from the Sewer Development Impact Fee fund to help cover the cost for debt service. The monthly sewer rate increased in February 2017 from $92.29 to $103.36 per equivalent dwelling unit (a 12% increase), and this rate is expected to be sufficient to cover the operating expenses and the required debt service coverage ratio for FY 2017-18. Revenues and expenditures during FY 2017-18 are budgeted to be equal at almost $7 million. The budget includes: (1) an increase of 2% in the Wastewater Reclamation Plant contract with American Water to $1.5 million, (2) a $550,000 transfer to the Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to cover future major equipment repairs and replacement projects (such as the replacement of the membrane structure and replacement and/or repair of sewer lines), and (3) increases in the cost for utilities and personnel. Water Services The City supplies potable water to all areas within its jurisdiction for domestic, agricultural, and fire protection purposes. The City also provides limited potable water outside its municipal boundaries. The City’s potable water supply comes entirely from groundwater pumped from the Fillmore Basin which includes the Sespe Creek watershed and receives flow from the Piru Aquifer Basin to the east. The groundwater basin is not adjudicated. Since 2009, the City also has the ability to treat wastewater for use as recycled water, and therefore the City now also has a recycled water source that can be used to replace some of its potable water usage. For FY 2017-18, the City anticipates pursuing capital improvement projects totaling $583,800, which include rehabilitation of one water well, a feasibility study and design of another water well, and various water line replacements and other equipment and system upgrades. Current Potable Water Demand and Supply Historically, the groundwater source has reliably supplied the City with potable water. In 2015, the City generated 1,987 AFY (114 gallons per day using the 2016 population projection) of groundwater for potable use to meet demand. The City has the capacity to pump up to 6,291 AFY from its three wells, which is based on normal water year conditions and wells operating 75% of the time. Future Potable Water Demand and Supply As stated above, the City has the ability to pump a maximum of 6,291 AFY of potable water from its groundwater sources. The City is exploring the possibility of adding two more wells to its inventory. As a result of projected population increases, the City anticipates an increase in potable water demand over the next two decades, projected at 2,582 AFY in 2020 and 3,322 AFY in 2040. The City expects to be able to support future demand, and expects to be able to reliably produce 6,291 AFY (during an City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 14 of 22 average year) for the foreseeable future using its current well capacity. According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, following a drought the Fillmore Basin is able to quickly recover water levels to normal levels. In the instance of the third year of multiple dry years, the City anticipates the ability to pump at least 4,404 AFY, which exceeds maximum anticipated demand through 2040. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 15 of 22 Written Determinations The Commission is required to prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the subject areas provided below (Government Code § 56430(a)). 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area According to the U.S. Census, from 2000 to 2010, the City of Fillmore’s population increased from 13,643 to 15,002. The California Department of Finance estimated the City’s population to be 15,529 as of January 1, 2016. Thus, from 2000 to 2016, the City grew by an estimated 1,886 people, or 13.8% (0.9% annually, on average). The following table reflects the City’s projected population through 2040 based on the estimated annual rate of growth: Year 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Population 15,529 16,096 16,833 17,604 18,411 19,254 Estimate The City updated its General Plan in 2003. The General Plan Land Use Element estimates a General Plan buildout population of 22,693. This population projection was based on development project densities that exceed what is currently anticipated, and therefore, it appears that the General Plan’s buildout population projection overestimates actual growth capacity. 2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence A disadvantaged unincorporated community is defined as a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (Government Code § 56033.5). No disadvantaged unincorporated communities are located within or contiguous to the City of Fillmore’s sphere of influence.12 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies Fire services: • The City operates one fire station. • The City relies almost exclusively on volunteers to staff and operate the Fire Department, which allows the City to provide fire protection service at a low cost. • The Fire Department consistently meets its response time goals. 12 According to Ventura LAFCo Commissioner’s Handbook Section 3.2.5, Ventura LAFCo has identified Nyeland Acres (within the City of Oxnard’s sphere of influence to the north of the city) and Saticoy (within the City of San Buenaventura’s sphere of influence to the east of the city) as disadvantaged unincorporated communities. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 16 of 22 Police services: • The City provides police services by means of a contract with the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office. • Based on the 2016 population estimate of 15,529, there is one sworn officer for every 1,363 residents (11.39 sworn officers). • In order to maintain the current ratio of one officer for every 1,363 residents for the projected population of 19,254 in 2040, a total of 14 officers would be required. • Over the last two years, police response time goals were met 90% of the time for emergency calls, and 74% of the time for non-emergency calls. Recreation and park services: • The City provides 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. • Due to budget constraints and staffing reductions, the City relies on volunteers to dispose of trash in City parks and the donation of pool chemicals for the community pool. • The General Fund partially subsidizes the Recreation Fund. • During FY 2017-18, the City intends to develop a plan to correct the deficit in the Community Pool Fund. Solid waste services: • The City has a franchise agreement with a private refuse collection company for solid waste collection and disposal services. • The City funds additional services related to solid waste, including hazardous waste collection. Streets, highways, and drainage services: • The City provides street maintenance and storm drain maintenance services. • Street lighting, street sweeping, and landscaping services are provided by means of a contract. Wastewater services: • The City’s wastewater collection system experiences significant inflow and infiltration during wet weather, resulting in several sections of trunklines that currently have insufficient capacity. • The City is currently accumulating funds in a sanitation capital reserve fund to cover the capital expenses related to improvements to the sewer collection system. • Engineering studies are necessary to determine options and costs for the pipeline improvement projects. • The treatment membranes at the wastewater treatment facility are due for replacement. • A recent increase to the monthly sewer rate will allow the City to cover operating costs and debt service related to sewer service. Water services: • The City provides potable water within its boundaries and to areas adjacent to the City. • The City appears to have the ability to provide potable water for its current population and future population through at least 2040. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 17 of 22 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services • The City has a balanced budget. • It appears that the City has the ability to finance the services it currently provides, albeit at reduced staffing levels and base service levels. • According to the FY 2017-18 adopted budget, the City’s General Fund revenues match expenditures, resulting in a balanced budget. • The City has not allocated funding to address the existing wet-weather deficiencies in the City wastewater system, but is accumulating capital reserves to pay for these improvements in the future. • The City anticipates that the Parks and Recreation Department will continue to experience expenditures exceeding revenues in the future. The General Fund continues to support the Recreation Fund and Community Pool Fund. The City may wish to consider alternative funding options to reduce or eliminate reliance on the General Fund for subsidies. • During FY 2012-13, budget constraints resulted in elimination of over half of the City’s workforce. Since that time, a significant number of staff positions have been restored, resulting in a current workforce that is at nearly 80% of what is was in FY 2010-11. • The City is responsible for repayment of just under $687,000 as a result of an agreement involving the unlawful diversion of sales taxes to the City. The repayment is expected to be complete as of mid-2018. 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities • The VCFPD provides fire dispatch service for the unincorporated County area as well as all cities within the County. 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies • The City is locally accountable through an elected legislative body, adherence to applicable government code sections, open and accessible meetings and dissemination of information. • The City’s website contains information regarding the current and previous City budgets, public meetings, current and historical City Council agendas, documents, videos, some services and programs, City happenings and activities, and other City documents. • Public accountability could be enhanced if the following information were available online: (1) past City Council minutes, (2) the City’s current Urban Water Management Plan, (3) the City’s Water Master Plan, and (4) the City’s Wastewater Master Plan. • Given that the U.S. Census estimates that 58.5% of City residents speak a language other than English at home, accessibility would be enhanced if the City provided a bilingual (i.e., Spanish) component to the website. • City Council meetings are broadcast live on the City’s government cable channel and on the City’s website. Archived videos of City Council meetings are available for viewing on the City’s website. • The City achieves operational efficiencies through its participation as a co-permittee in the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program. Under this program, the City works with other agencies to control stormwater pollution and to ensure compliance under the City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 18 of 22 Ventura Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit. 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy Opportunities exist for better regional coordination of the many transit services within the County. The following discussion includes a summary of existing public transit services within Ventura County, current public transit inefficiencies and limitations on regionalization, progress toward public transit coordination, and opportunities for further public transit coordination. Some cities prefer to control and operate their own transit systems in order to provide service focused on users within their jurisdictions; however, the following discussion is based on the idea that a more coordinated, regional perspective on public transit will result in improved service for public transit users. Existing Public Transit Services in Ventura County: • The City of Ojai13 and the City of Simi Valley each provide transit service, with City employees operating and maintaining the vehicles. • The City of Camarillo provides transit service by means of a contract with a private operator (i.e., Roadrunner Shuttle). • The City of Thousand Oaks provides transit service by means of a contract with a private operator (i.e., MV Transportation). • The City of Moorpark provides transit service by means of a contract with the City of Thousand Oaks, which holds a contract for service with a private operator (i.e., MV Transportation). • Under a cooperative agreement amongst the County of Ventura, the City of Santa Paula, and the City of Fillmore, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC)14 administers public transit service in and surrounding the Santa Paula, Fillmore, and Piru areas of Ventura County (i.e., the Valley Express). The service is provided by means of a contract with a private operator (i.e., MV Transportation). • The County of Ventura contracts with the City of Thousand Oaks, which contracts the service to a private operator (i.e., MV Transportation), for the operation of the free Kanan Shuttle service between the unincorporated area of Oak Park and the City of Agoura Hills. The service is provided fare-free as the required 20% farebox recovery15 required by the Transportation Development Act (TDA) is provided by local contributions from Ventura County Service Area No. 4, the Oak Park Unified School District, and, most recently, the City of Agoura Hills. • Gold Coast Transit District (GCTD) provides local and regional fixed-route and paratransit service in the cities of Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Ventura and the unincorporated areas of Ventura County. Service is provided on 20 fixed routes, with a fleet includes 56 buses and 24 paratransit 13 The City’s transit service is limited to the Ojai Trolley which operates within the City, and the unincorporated communities of Meiners Oaks and Mira Monte. The Ojai Trolley service operates within the GCTD service area, but is operated directly by the City. 14 VCTC is the regional transportation planning agency of Ventura County, and oversees a large part of the distribution of public funds for transportation and transit within the County. 15 TDA funding provided by the State to local jurisdictions may not exceed a certain percentage of the cost to provide public transit service (i.e., 80% for urban areas and 90% for rural areas). The remaining percentage of the cost (i.e., 20% for urban areas and 10% for rural areas) must be covered locally through some other means, known as “farebox recovery.” Note that funding sources other than rider fares may qualify as “farebox recovery.” City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 19 of 22 vehicles. GCTD directly operates its fixed-route service and contracts its paratransit service to a private operator (i.e., MV Transportation). • The VCTC provides regional service, by means of a contract with a private provider, which consists of the following routes: (1) Highway 101/Conejo Connection (serving the section of Highway 101 between Ventura and the San Fernando Valley), (2) Highway 126 (serving Fillmore, Santa Paula, Saticoy, and Ventura), (3) Coastal Express (serving Ventura County and Santa Barbara County), (4) East County (serving the Simi Valley, Moorpark, and Thousand Oaks area), (5) Oxnard/Camarillo/California State University at Channel Islands Connector (serving the Camarillo and Oxnard area), and (6) East/West Connector (serving Simi Valley, Moorpark, Camarillo, Oxnard and Ventura, as of November 2017). • The ECTA was formed in 2013 through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) amongst the City of Camarillo, City of Moorpark, City of Simi Valley, City of Thousand Oaks, and the County of Ventura for the eastern portion of unincorporated Ventura County. ECTA was formed to better coordinate transit services among these agencies. In August 2015, ECTA initiated a service known as “CONNECT City-to-City” which offers Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Senior intercity dial-a-ride service under a single paratransit system.16 The City of Thousand Oaks administers the service, which is contracted to a private operator (i.e., MV Transportation). Current Public Transit Inefficiencies and Limitations on Regional Coordination: • According to the Ventura County Regional Transit Study (VCTC, April 9, 2012)17, public transit within the County was found to be disjointed. Public transit service providers have varying schedules (i.e., days and hours of operation, frequency of buses (headways)), and fares (including different eligible ages for senior fares (e.g., a lower qualifying age for seniors in the City of Camarillo)), and maintain separate websites and bus books. No single agency or website provides a complete guide for public transit users who wish to plan interagency trips. The study concluded that “This makes connections difficult and service confusing, especially for the infrequent or new rider. While VCTC and the operators have attempted to improve connections through coordinated fare media and scheduling software, progress toward truly integrated service has been minimal.” • Limited access to non-TDA funding for transit restricts the ability of cities and other public transit operators to increase revenue service hours and still meet TDA farebox recovery requirements. Because of the minimal levels of service currently provided in some areas of the County, regional travel times are often lengthy and opportunities for passengers to connect between buses are few. Shorter headways and total trip times depend on increased transit funding under the current funding distribution structure or a different method of distribution for the County’s transit funding. Inability to access funding for transportation also limits implementation of improvements for fleet expansions, pedestrian infrastructure, and street lighting. • While some of the individual transit-serving agencies have made efforts to improve coordination among systems (e.g., through the formation of the GCTD (formed in 2013), and the ECTA 16 The City of Camarillo does not participate in the CONNECT service because: (1) the City already provides regional ADA and Senior intercity service throughout the East County ((this enables the City to provide senior service to more riders within the City by allowing a lower qualifying age limit of 55 years (rather than 65 years)), and (2) Camarillo ADA and senior riders have the benefit of using just one dial-a-ride system for both local and regional service. 17 The study included consultation with VCTC commissioners, city managers, local public transit providers, and the public. City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 20 of 22 (created in 2013)), public transit in the County overall is divided into separate, often unrelated, transit systems. The Ventura County Regional Transit Study acknowledged the challenges in establishing a coordinated system, including the fact that Ventura County consists of “widely spaced, diverse communities and centers where geographic areas do not share common economic, social, and transportation service values.” • While it is the intent of ECTA to move toward further consistency and regionalization of services in the eastern portion of Ventura County, the existing local transit programs of two ECTA member agencies are limited in their ability to fully participate in the regional ECTA programs: o The City of Simi Valley operates fixed route transit service using City personnel and City- owned equipment. o The City of Camarillo receives contributions from local funding partners (e.g., the Leisure Village retirement community for residents age 55 and older). For the purposes of City of Camarillo public transit, riders aged 55 and older qualify to ride as senior fares, whereas 65 is the qualifying age for seniors on other transit systems. • Senate Bill 325 (1971) established State transit funding (TDA funding) for the purpose of directly supporting public transportation through the imposition of a ¼-cent local sales tax beginning in 1972. An exception was included for rural counties (i.e., counties with populations of fewer than 500,000, based on the 1970 U.S. Census), in general, to also allow use of the funding for local streets and roads if the transportation planning agency finds that there are no unmet transit needs. Through Senate Bill 716 (2009), the law was modified, and specified that the exception now applied to: (1) rural counties (i.e., counties with populations of fewer than 500,000 (based on the 2010 U.S. Census), and (2) cities within urban counties (i.e., counties with populations of 500,000 or more, based on the 2010 U.S. Census) with populations of 100,000 or fewer. Ventura County has a population of more than 500,000 and therefore qualifies as an urban county; however, several of its cities are eligible to use TDA money for streets and roads projects, provided that they: (1) have a population of 100,000 or fewer, (2) are not within the GCTD service area, and (3) do not have an unmet transit need. Because Ventura County cities with populations of more than 100,000 are restricted to using all their TDA money for public transit purposes regardless of the extent of need for public transit, these cities cannot use TDA funding for streets and roads projects. Progress Toward Regional Coordination of Public Transit: • On October 3, 2013, Governor Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 664, which formed the GCTD to include five members: four cities and the County. AB 664 also authorized the remaining cities in Ventura County to request to join the GCTD in the future. Prior to the formation of the GCTD, local TDA funding for operating costs and capital projects was provided to Gold Coast Transit (operating as a Joint Powers Authority (JPA)) by its member agencies, allocated by a formula based on the percentage of revenue miles of transit service provided within each participating jurisdiction. As a district, GCTD has the ability to implement service improvements and meet the public’s transit needs from a systemwide perspective, and distributes TDA funds to its members for transit-related purposes such as bus stop construction and transit-related maintenance needs. Following the formation of the District, the GCTD also adopted the following planning documents to further improve the delivery of service to GCTD members: GCTD Service Planning Guidelines (Adopted February 2014), Bus Stop Guidelines (Adopted June 2015), Short Range Transit Plan (Adopted November 2015), and Fleet Management Plan (October 2016). Additionally, in May 2017, GCTD began construction of a new Operations and Maintenance Facility in the City of Oxnard. Once built, the 15-acre facility will allow GCTD to maintain a fleet City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 21 of 22 of up to 125 buses and will include an administration and operations building, an 8-bay maintenance and repair building, a compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel station and bus wash. The facility is scheduled to open in the fall of 2018. • GCTD’s Short Range Transit Plan identified recommended service improvements such as implementing: (1) additional service to Naval Base Ventura County in Port Hueneme, (2) express service between Oxnard and Ventura, and (3) increased service frequencies on its core routes. While funding for these improvements is not in place, service improvements could potentially be funded through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (FTA Section 5310/5307 program). • ECTA is the result of greater awareness for the need to improve coordination amongst transit systems in the eastern portion of the County, and has initiated programs to simplify interjurisdictional trips for riders in the eastern portion of the County (e.g., CONNECT City-to- City). The cities of Moorpark, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks are each in various stages of completing strategic plans for transit, including improved regional coordination with regard to hours of operation, route schedules and connectivity, fares, senior age criteria, and consistency of policies. • Technological advances have provided opportunities for improved regional trip-planning resources for riders. GCTD, VCTC, and Thousand Oaks Transit have schedules available on Google Maps. By the end of FY 2017-18, information about other fixed-route transit services countywide is expected to be available on Google Transit (a web application that assists riders in accessing transit schedule information and planning public transit trips). GCTD launched Google Maps Online Trip Planner in 2014, and recently launched a mobile ticketing application. • Transfer agreements and fare media (GO Ventura 31-day pass) including the installation of the GFI Genfare system on all transit vehicles have helped improve coordination between systems. However, fare discrepancies and fare policies still need to be addressed. • VCTC’s Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan (April 2017) identifies strategies to address gaps or deficiencies in the current public transit system in meeting the needs of senior, disabled, and low-income populations in Ventura County. One of the strategies identified in the plan is the implementation of a countywide “one-call/one-click” transit information center intended to simplify and improve trip-planning and access to information about public transit services. Funding has not yet been identified for this service, but the service could potentially be funded through the FTA. Opportunities for Further Regional Coordination of Public Transit: • It is clear that constraints to regionalizing public transit exist within Ventura County, and that local jurisdictions have identified opportunities (and implemented some improvements) with respect to local public transit. The City may wish to continue its dialogue with the County and the other cities to further improve connectivity within Ventura County and simplify customers’ public transit experiences, including (but not necessarily limited to) the following discussion topics: o Identify one agency as the regional transportation authority to oversee and implement the majority of public transit within the County; o Encourage cities that are not currently members of the GCTD to request to join the GCTD, or contract with GCTD for some or all of their planning or operational needs; or o Establish a new transit district that would complement the GCTD’s service area and provide service within areas not currently served by the GCTD in the East County (the formation of ECTA was a step toward potentially realizing this opportunity in the eastern portion of Ventura County). City of Fillmore – Municipal Service Review February 21, 2018 Page 22 of 22 RESOLUTION OF THE VENTURA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR THE CITY OF FILLMORE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ACCEPTING THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR THE CITY OF FILLMORE, AND MAKING STATEMENTS OF DETERMINATION WHEREAS, Government Code § 56425 et seq. requires the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo or Commission) to develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the County; and WHEREAS, Government Code§ 56430(e) requires each LAFCo to conduct a municipal service review before, or in conjunction with, but no later than the time it is considering an action to establish or update a sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, the Ventura LAFCo has approved a work plan to conduct municipal service reviews and sphere of influence reviews/updates, and the municipal service review for the City of Fillmore (City) is part of that work plan; and WHEREAS, LAFCo has prepared a report titled "City of Fillmore - Municipal Service Review" that contains a review of the services provided by the City; and WHEREAS, the "City of Fillmore - Municipal Service Review" report contains recommended statements of determinations related to the City, as required by Government Code § 56430; and WHEREAS, the "City of Fillmore - Municipal Service Review" including the recommended statements of determination were duly considered at a public hearing on February 21, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Commission heard, discussed, and considered all oral and written testimony for and against the recommended exemption from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the "City of Fillmore - Municipal Service Review" report and the written determinations, including, but not limited to, the LAFCo staff report dated February 21, 2018, and recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission as follows: (1) The municipal service review report titled "City of Fillmore - Municipal Service Review", including the related statements of determination, are determined to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to§ 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and LAFCo staff is directed to file a Notice of Exemption as the lead agency pursuant to§ 15062 ofthe CEQA Guidelines; and (2) The Commission accepts the "City of Fillmore - Municipal Service Review" report as presented to the Commission on February 21, 2018, including any modifications approved by a majority of the Commission as a part of this action. The Executive Officer is authorized to make minor edits to the report for accuracy and completeness; and (3) The LAFCo staff report dated February 21, 2018, and recommendation for acceptance of the "City of Fillmore - Municipal Service Review" report are hereby adopted; and (4) Pursuant to Government Code§ 56430(a), the following statements of determination are hereby made for the City: a. Growth and population projections for the affected area. [§ 56430(a}{1)] According to the U.S. Census, from 2000 to 2010, the City of Fillmore's population increased from 13,643 to 15,002. The California Department of Finance estimated the City's population to be 15,529 as of January 1, 2016. Thus, from 2000 to 2016, the City grew by an estimated 1,886 people, or 13.8% (0.9% annually, on average). The following table reflects the City's projected population through 2040 based on the estimated annual rate of growth: Year 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Population 15,529 16,096 16,833 17,604 18,411 19,254 Estimate The City updated its General Plan in 2003. The General Plan Land Use Element estimates a General Plan buildout population of 22,693. This population projection was based on development project densities that exceed what is currently anticipated, and therefore, it appears that the General Plan's buildout population projection overestimates actual growth capacity. Resolution Municipal Service Review Report - City of Fillmore February 21, 2018 Page 2 of 12 b. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. [§ 56430(a)(2}] A disadvantaged unincorporated community is defined as a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (Government Code§ 56033.5). No disadvantaged unincorporated communities are located within or contiguous to the City of Fillmore's sphere of influence.1 c. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs and deficiencies. [§ 56430(a}(3)] Fire services: • The City operates one fire station. • The City relies almost exclusively on volunteers to staff and operate the Fire Department, which allows the City to provide fire protection service at a low cost. • The Fire Department consistently meets its response time goals. Police services: • The City provides police services by means of a contract with the Ventura County Sheriff's Office. • Based on the 2016 population estimate of 15,529, there is one sworn officer for every 1,363 residents (11.39 sworn officers). • In order to maintain the current ratio of one officer for every 1,363 residents for the projected population of 19,254 in 2040, a total of 14 officers would be required. • Over the last two years, police response time goals were met 90% of the time for emergency calls, and 74% of the time for non-emergency calls. Recreation and park services: • The City provides 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. • Due to budget constraints and staffing reductions, the City relies on volunteers to dispose of trash in City parks and the donation of pool chemicals for the community pool. • The General Fund partially subsidizes the Recreation Fund. • During FY 2017-18, the City intends to develop a plan to correct the deficit in the Community Pool Fund. 1 According to Ventura LAFCo Commissioner's Handbook Section 3.2.5, Ventura LAFCo has identified Nyeland Acres (within the City of Oxnard's sphere of influence to the north of the city) and Saticoy (within the City of San Buenaventura's sphere of influence to the east of the city) as disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Resolution Municipal Service Review Report - City of Fillmore February 21, 2018 Page 3 of 12 Solid waste services: • The City has a franchise agreement with a private refuse collection company for solid waste collection and disposal services. • The City funds additional services related to solid waste, including hazardous waste collection. Streets, highways, and drainage services: • The City provides street maintenance and storm drain maintenance services. • Street lighting, street sweeping, and landscaping services are provided by means of a contract. Wastewater services: • The City's wastewater collection system experiences significant inflow and infiltration during wet weather, resulting in several sections of trunklines that currently have insufficient capacity. • The City is currently accumulating funds in a sanitation capital reserve fund to cover the capital expenses related to improvements to the sewer collection system. • Engineering studies are necessary to determine options and costs for the pipeline improvement projects. • The treatment membranes at the wastewater treatment facility are due for replacement. • A recent increase to the monthly sewer rate will allow the City to cover operating costs and debt service related to sewer service. Water services: • The City provides potable water within its boundaries and to areas adjacent to the City. • The City appears to have the ability to provide potable water for its current population and future population through at least 2040. d. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. [§ 56430(a)(4)] • The City has a balanced budget. • It appears that the City has the ability to finance the services it currently provides, albeit at reduced staffing levels and base service levels. • According to the FY 2017-18 adopted budget, the City's General Fund revenues match expenditures, resulting in a balanced budget. • The City has not allocated funding to address the existing wet-weather deficiencies in the City wastewater system, but is accumulating capital reserves to pay for these improvements in the future. Resolution Municipal Service Review Report - City of Fillmore February 21, 2018 Page 4 of 12 • The City anticipates that the Parks and Recreation Department will continue to experience expenditures exceeding revenues in the future. The General Fund continues to support the Recreation Fund and Community Pool Fund. The City may wish to consider alternative funding options to reduce or eliminate reliance on the General Fund for subsidies. • During FY 2012-13, budget constraints resulted in elimination of over half of the City's workforce. Since that time, a significant number of staff positions have been restored, resulting in a current workforce that is at nearly 80% of what is was in FY 2010-11. • The City is responsible for repayment of just under $687,000 as a result of an agreement involving the unlawful diversion of sales taxes to the City. The repayment is expected to be complete as of mid-2018. e. Status ot and opportunities for, shared facilities. [§ 56430(a)(S)] • The Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD} provides fire dispatch service for the unincorporated County area as well as all cities within the County. f. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. [§ 56430(a)(6)] • The City is locally accountable through an elected legislative body, adherence to applicable government code sections, open and accessible meetings and dissemination of information. • The City's website contains information regarding the current and previous City budgets, public meetings, current and historical City Council agendas, documents, videos, some services and programs, City happenings and activities, and other City documents. • Public accountability could be enhanced if the following information were available online: (1) past City Council minutes, (2) the City's current Urban Water Management Plan, (3) the City's Water Master Plan, and (4) the City's Wastewater Master Plan. • Given that the U.S. Census estimates that 58.5% of City residents speak a language other than English at home, accessibility would be enhanced if the City provided a bilingual (i.e., Spanish) component to the website. • City Council meetings are broadcast live on the City's government cable channel and on the City's website. Archived videos of City Council meetings are available for viewing on the City's website. • The City achieves operational efficiencies through its participation as a co-permittee in the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program. Under this program, the City works with other agencies to control stormwater pollution and to Resolution Municipal Service Review Report - City of Fillmore February 21, 2018 Page 5 of 12 ensure compliance under the Ventura Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit. g. Any other matter related to effective and efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. [§ 56430(a)(7)] Opportunities exist for better regional coordination of the many transit services within the County. The following discussion includes a summary of existing public transit services within Ventura County, current public transit inefficiencies and limitations on regionalization, progress toward public transit coordination, and opportunities for further public transit coordination. Some cities prefer to control and operate their own transit systems in order to provide service focused on users within their jurisdictions; however, the following discussion is based on the idea that a more coordinated, regional perspective on public transit will result in improved service for public transit users. Existing Public Transit Services in Ventura County: • The City of Ojai2 and the City of Simi Valley each provide transit service, with City employees operating and maintaining the vehicles. • The City of Camarillo provides transit service by means of a contract with a private operator (i.e., Roadrunner Shuttle). • The City of Thousand Oaks provides transit service by means of a contract with a private operator (i.e., MV Transportation). • The City of Moorpark provides transit service by means of a contract with the City of Thousand Oaks, which holds a contract for service with a private operator (i.e., MV Transportation). • Under a cooperative agreement amongst the County of Ventura, the City of Santa Paula, and the City of Fillmore, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC)3 administers public transit service in and surrounding the Santa Paula, Fillmore, and Piru areas of Ventura County (i.e., the Valley Express). The service is provided by means of a contract with a private operator (i.e., MV Transportation). • The County of Ventura contracts with the City of Thousand Oaks, which contracts the service to a private operator (i.e., MV Transportation), for the operation of the free Kanan Shuttle service between the unincorporated area of Oak Park and the City of Agoura Hills. The service is provided fare-free as the required 20% farebox 2 The City's transit service is limited to the Ojai Trolley which operates within the City, and the unincorporated communities of Meiners Oaks and Mira Monte. The Ojai Trolley service operates within the GCTD service area, but is operated directly by the City. 3 VCTC is the regional transportation planning agency of Ventura County, and oversees a large part of the distribution of public funds for transportation and transit within the County. Resolution Municipal Service Review Report - City of Fillmore February 21, 2018 Page 6 of 12 recovery4 required by the Transportation Development Act (TDA) is provided by local contributions from Ventura County Service Area No. 4, the Oak Park Unified School District, and, most recently, the City of Agoura Hills. • Gold Coast Transit District (GCTD) provides local and regional fixed-route and paratransit service in the cities of Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Ventura and the unincorporated areas of Ventura County. Service is provided on 20 fixed routes, with a fleet includes 56 buses and 24 paratransit vehicles. GCTD directly operates its fixed-route service and contracts its paratransit service to a private operator (i.e., MV Transportation). • The VCTC provides regional service, by means of a contract with a private provider, which consists of the following routes: (1) Highway 101/Conejo Connection (serving the section of Highway 101 between Ventura and the San Fernando Valley), (2) Highway 126 (serving Fillmore, Santa Paula, Saticoy, and Ventura), (3) Coastal Express (serving Ventura County and Santa Barbara County), (4) East County (serving the Simi Valley, Moorpark, and Thousand Oaks area), (5) Oxnard/Camarillo/California State University at Channel Islands Connector (serving the Camarillo and Oxnard area), and (6) East/West Connector (serving Simi Valley, Moorpark, Camarillo, Oxnard and Ventura, as of November 2017). • The ECTA was formed in 2013 through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) amongst the City of Camarillo, City of Moorpark, City of Simi Valley, City of Thousand Oaks, and the County of Ventura for the eastern portion of unincorporated Ventura County. ECTA was formed to better coordinate transit services among these agencies. In August 2015, ECTA initiated a service known as "CONNECT City-to-City" which offers Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Senior intercity dial-a-ride service under a single paratransit system.5 The City of Thousand Oaks administers the service, which is contracted to a private operator (i.e., MV Transportation). Current Public Transit Inefficiencies and Limitations on Regional Coordination: • According to the Ventura County Regional Transit Study (VCTC, April 9, 2012)6 , public transit within the County was found to be disjointed. Public transit service providers 4 TDA funding provided by the State to local jurisdictions may not exceed a certain percentage of the cost to provide public transit service (i.e., 80% for urban areas and 90% for rural areas). The remaining percentage of the cost (i.e., 20% for urban areas and 10% for rural areas) must be covered locally through some other means, known as "farebox recovery." Note that funding sources other than rider fares may qualify as "farebox recovery." 5 The City of Camarillo does not participate in the CONNECT service because: (1) the City already provides regional ADA and Senior intercity service throughout the East County ((this enables the City to provide senior service to more riders within the City by allowing a lower qualifying age limit of 55 years (rather than 65 years)), and (2) Camarillo ADA and senior riders have the benefit of using just one dial-a-ride system for both local and regional service. 6 The study included consultation with VCTC commissioners, city managers, local public transit providers, and the public. Resolution Municipal Service Review Report - City of Fillmore February 21, 2018 Page 7 of 12 have varying schedules (i.e., days and hours of operation, frequency of buses (headways)), and fares (including different eligible ages for senior fares (e.g., a lower qualifying age for seniors in the City of Camarillo)), and maintain separate websites and bus books. No single agency or website provides a complete guide for public transit users who wish to plan interagency trips. The study concluded that "This makes connections difficult and service confusing, especially for the infrequent or new rider. While VCTC and the operators have attempted to improve connections through coordinated fare media and scheduling software, progress toward truly integrated service has been minimal." • Limited access to non-TDA funding for transit restricts the ability of cities and other public transit operators to increase revenue service hours and still meet TDA farebox recovery requirements. Because of the minimal levels of service currently provided in some areas of the County, regional travel times are often lengthy and opportunities for passengers to connect between buses are few. Shorter headways and total trip times depend on increased transit funding under the current funding distribution structure or a different method of distribution for the County's transit funding. Inability to access funding for transportation also limits implementation of improvements for fleet expansions, pedestrian infrastructure, and street lighting. • While some of the individual transit-serving agencies have made efforts to improve coordination among systems (e.g., through the formation of the GCTD (formed in 2013), and the ECTA (created in 2013)), public transit in the County overall is divided into separate, often unrelated, transit systems. The Ventura County Regional Transit Study acknowledged the challenges in establishing a coordinated system, including the fact that Ventura County consists of "widely spaced, diverse communities and centers where geographic areas do not share common economic, social, and transportation service values." • While it is the intent of ECTA to move toward further consistency and regionalization of services in the eastern portion of Ventura County, the existing local transit programs of two ECTA member agencies are limited in their ability to fully participate in the regional ECTA programs: o The City of Simi Valley operates fixed route transit service using City personnel and City-owned equipment. o The City of Camarillo receives contributions from local funding partners (e.g., the Leisure Village retirement community for residents age 55 and older). For the purposes of City of Camarillo public transit, riders aged 55 and older qualify to ride as senior fares, whereas 65 is the qualifying age for seniors on other transit systems. • Senate Bill 325 (1971) established State transit funding (TDA funding) for the purpose of directly supporting public transportation through the imposition of a X cent local sales tax beginning in 1972. An exception was included for rural counties (i.e., counties with populations of fewer than 500,000, based on the 1970 U.S. Resolution Municipal Service Review Report - City of Fillmore February 21, 2018 Page 8 of 12 Census), in general, to also allow use of the funding for local streets and roads if the transportation planning agency finds that there are no unmet transit needs. Through Senate Bill 716 {2009), the law was modified, and specified that the exception now applied to: {1) rural counties (i.e., counties with populations of fewer than 500,000 (based on the 2010 U.S. Census), and (2) cities within urban counties (i.e., counties with populations of 500,000 or more, based on the 2010 U.S. Census) with populations of 100,000 or fewer. Ventura County has a population of more than 500,000 and therefore qualifies as an urban county; however, several of its cities are eligible to use TOA money for streets and roads projects, provided that they: (1) have a population of 100,000 or fewer, (2) are not within the GCTD service area, and (3) do not have an unmet transit need. Because Ventura County cities with populations of more than 100,000 are restricted to using all their TOA money for public transit purposes regardless of the extent of need for public transit, these cities cannot use TOA funding for streets and roads projects. Progress Toward Regional Coordination of Public Transit: • On October 3, 2013, Governor Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 664, which formed the GCTD to include five members: four cities and the County. AB 664 also authorized the remaining cities in Ventura County to request to join the GCTD in the future. Prior to the formation of the GCTD, local TOA funding for operating costs and capital projects was provided to Gold Coast Transit (operating as a Joint Powers Authority (JPA)) by its member agencies, allocated by a formula based on the percentage of revenue miles of transit service provided within each participating jurisdiction. As a district, GCTD has the ability to implement service improvements and meet the public's transit needs from a systemwide perspective, and distributes TOA funds to its members for transit-related purposes such as bus stop construction and transit-related maintenance needs. Following the formation of the District, the GCTD also adopted the following planning documents to further improve the delivery of service to GCTD members: GCTD Service Planning Guidelines (Adopted February 2014), Bus Stop Guidelines {Adopted June 2015), Short Range Transit Plan (Adopted November 2015), and Fleet Management Plan (October 2016). Additionally, in May 2017, GCTD began construction of a new Operations and Maintenance Facility in the City of Oxnard. Once built, the 15-acre facility will allow GCTD to maintain a fleet of up to 125 buses and will include an administration and operations building, an 8-bay maintenance and repair building, a compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel station and bus wash. The facility is scheduled to open in the fall of 2018. • GCTD's Short Range Transit Plan identified recommended service improvements such as implementing: (1) additional service to Naval Base Ventura County in Port Hueneme, (2) express service between Oxnard and Ventura, and (3) increased Resolution Municipal Service Review Report - City of Fillmore February 21, 2018 Page 9 of 12 service frequencies on its core routes. While funding for these improvements is not in place, service improvements could potentially be funded through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (FTA Section 5310/5307 program). • ECTA is the result of greater awareness for the need to improve coordination amongst transit systems in the eastern portion of the County, and has initiated programs to simplify interjurisdictional trips for riders in the eastern portion of the County (e.g., CONNECT City-to-City). The cities of Moorpark, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks are each in various stages of completing strategic plans for transit, including improved regional coordination with regard to hours of operation, route schedules and connectivity, fares, senior age criteria, and consistency of policies. • Technological advances have provided opportunities for improved regional trip planning resources for riders. GCTD, VCTC, and Thousand Oaks Transit have schedules available on Google Maps. By the end of FY 2017-18, information about other fixed-route transit services countywide is expected to be available on Google Transit (a web application that assists riders in accessing transit schedule information and planning public transit trips). GCTD launched Google Maps Online Trip Planner in 2014, and recently launched a mobile ticketing application. • Transfer agreements and fare media (GO Ventura 31-day pass) including the installation of the GFI Gen fare system on all transit vehicles have helped improve coordination between systems. However, fare discrepancies and fare policies still need to be addressed. • VCTC's Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Plan (April 2017) identifies strategies to address gaps or deficiencies in the current public transit system in meeting the needs of senior, disabled, and low-income populations in Ventura County. One of the strategies identified in the plan is the implementation of a countywide "one-call/one-click" transit information center intended to simplify and improve trip-planning and access to information about public transit services. Funding has not yet been identified for this service, but the service could potentially be funded through the FTA. Opportunities for Further Regional Coordination of Public Transit: • It is clear that constraints to regionalizing public transit exist within Ventura County, and that local jurisdictions have identified opportunities (and implemented some improvements) with respect to local public transit. The City may wish to continue its dialogue with the County and the other cities to further improve connectivity within Ventura County and simplify customers' public transit experiences, including (but not necessarily limited to) the following discussion topics: o Identify one agency as the regional transportation authority to oversee and implement the majority of public transit within the County; Resolution Municipal Service Review Report- City of Fillmore February 21, 2018 Page 10 of 12 o Encourage cities that are not currently members of the GCTD to request to join the GCTD, or contract with GCTD for some or all of their planning or operational needs; or o Establish a new transit district that would complement the GCTD's service area and provide service within areas not currently served by the GCTD in the East County (the formation of ECTA was a step toward potentially realizing this opportunity in the eastern portion of Ventura County). Resolution Municipal Service Review Report - City of Fillmore February 21, 2018 Page 11 of 12 This resolution was adopted on February 21, 2018. AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT B D D D Commissioner Freeman 0 D D D Commissioner Parks @" D D D Commissioner Parvin 0 D D D Commissioner Ramirez D D D Commissioner Rooney ~ Commissioner Ross [2l D D D 0 D D D Commissioner Zaragoza D D D D Alt. Commissioner Bennett D D D D Alt. Commissioner Bill-de la Pena D D D D Alt. Commissioner Richards ca' D D D Alt. Commissioner Waters /2_/-- J~[-)oti C7z'.,..,.~ Date Linda Parks, Chair, Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission c: City of Fillmore Resolution Municipal Service Review Report - City of Fillmore February 21, 2018 Page 12 of 12