Drainage Districts MSRFinal

MMUUNNIICCIIPPAALL SSEERRVVIICCEE RREEVVIIEEWW DDRRAAIINNAAGGEE SSEERRVVIICCEESS SPECIAL DISTRICTS Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 Prepared for: Ventura LLooccaall AAggeennccyy FFoorrmmaattiioonn CCoommmmiissssiioonn 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, California 93009-1850 February 16, 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Table of Contents TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................1 II. SERVICE REVIEW PROCESS............................................................................................3 III. VENTURA COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICTS................................................................4 A. Background..................................................................................................................4 B. Agency Profiles............................................................................................................5 C. Growth and Population.................................................................................................8 D. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies.........................................................................8 E. Financing Constraints and Opportunities, Cost Avoidance Opportunities and Rate Restructuring...........................................................................................9 F. Opportunities for Shared Facilities, Evaluation of Management Efficiencies and Government Structure Options...............................................................10 G. Local Accountability and Governance.......................................................................18 IV. DETERMINATIONS............................................................................................................19 A. Oxnard Drainage District No. 1.................................................................................19 B. Oxnard Drainage District No. 2.................................................................................21 LLIISSTT OOFF TTAABBLLEESS Table III-1: Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 Financial Data.........................................................10 Table III-2: Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 Financial Data.........................................................10 Table III-3: Drainage District Audits.............................................................................................11 Table III-4: Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 Special Study Areas (Map 2)..................................14 Table III-5: Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 Special Study Areas (Map 3)..................................16 Table III-6: Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 – Board Members and Terms..................................18 Table III-7: Oxnard Drainage District No.2 – Board Members and Terms...................................18 LLIISSTT OOFF MMAAPPSS Map 1: Oxnard Drainage Districts No. 1 and 2..................................................................................7 Map 2: Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 – Special Study Areas.......................................................15 Map 3: Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 – Special Study Areas.......................................................17 Final i February 16, 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank I. Executive Summary II.. EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY The Municipal Service Review for Drainage Services includes two drainage districts located in Oxnard. Both Districts were formed under the Drainage District Act of 1903, and are among the oldest special districts in Ventura County. Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 was formed in 1918 and Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 was formed in 1926. Both are single-purpose, independent, landowner-voter districts, with a three person governing board elected to four year terms from the landowners within each district. Both Drainage Districts were formed to install and operate sub-surface drains to lower the water table in the Oxnard Plain so the surface lands could be tilled for agricultural purposes. Bonds were originally sold to pay for installing the system of sub-surface drains in each District, and the bonds were fully paid years ago. Today the primary function of the Districts is to maintain the drainage systems. Municipal service reviews are a new requirement for LAFCos and are intended to promote more efficient services, to identify areas of improvement and to assess service provision in relation to boundaries and spheres of influence (SOI). Service reviews do not directly change the provision of service but are a source of comprehensive information LAFCo can use in future actions. LAFCo must conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with the mandated five-year schedule for updating SOIs. The service review report must include an analysis of the issues and written determinations for each of the following: • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies; • Growth and population projections for the affected area; • Financing constraints and opportunities; • Cost avoidance opportunities; • Opportunities for rate restructuring; • Opportunities for shared facilities; • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers; • Evaluation of management efficiencies; and • Local accountability and governance. The service review process for the Drainage Districts began in June and will be completed in February of 2005. A four-part questionnaire was sent to the agencies requesting data on quantitative, qualitative and boundary issues. All the agencies were contacted individually and meetings arranged as available. All data received was entered into the Ventura LAFCo database. The database will be used for subsequent service reviews, sphere of influence studies and other Ventura LAFCo studies and analysis. No significant infrastructure issues were identified for either of the Drainage Districts. Increasing run-off from urbanizing areas and associated impervious surfaces can overwhelm the existing drainage facilities of the Districts which were sized for draining the agricultural land only. Due to on- going lack of coordination between the City of Oxnard and each District, areas have been annexed Final 1 February 16, 2005 I. Executive Summary into the City of Oxnard and developed, but remain within the boundaries of each District even though District services are no longer necessary or being provided. As a result of this lack of coordination both Districts should now pursue detachment of developed territory within their respective boundaries and pay for all costs relating to detachments. In the future, the Districts and the City should coordinate changes in governmental boundaries in a timelier manner as development occurs. There is the potential for future land use conflicts between development inside the City of Oxnard’s CURB (City Urban Restriction Boundary) line and adjacent existing agricultural uses within the Districts. As areas develop, adequate buffers should be provided between the urban uses in the City and agricultural uses remaining in the Districts. No significant financing constraints were noted for either District. However as lands annex to the City of Oxnard for development and detach from the Districts, the financial burden on the remaining District landowners will increase. The Districts have discussed a potential consolidation or reorganization between the agencies in the past and the subject should be re-examined as detachments continue. In addition to further examination of potential consolidation or reorganization by each District for government structure options, several changes in the spheres for each District have been noted. These are areas of existing urban development that have not been detached from the District, areas that are inside the City of Oxnard CURB that should be removed from the sphere of each District and areas where urban development is not expected and the sphere of the District should be amended. No significant issues in management efficiency, local accountability and governance, shared facilities or rate restructuring were noted. February 16, 2005 2 Final II. Service Review Process IIII.. SSEERRVVIICCEE RREEVVIIEEWW PPRROOCCEESSSS The Ventura LAFCo’s municipal service review process is being completed in phases. The Commission completed the first round of municipal service review reports, which addressed water and wastewater services, in January of 2004. The second phase includes the following services and related service providers: SERVICES AGENCIES • Casitas Municipal Water District* • Conejo Recreation and Park District • County Service Area (CSA) #33 Park/Recreation • Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District • Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District • United Water Conservation District* • Bardsdale Public Cemetery District Cemetery • Piru Public Cemetery District • El Rancho Simi Cemetery District • Ventura Regional Sanitation District* Solid Waste • Channel Islands Beach Community Services District* • Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 Drainage • Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 • County Service Area (CSA) # 3 Roads • County Service Area (CSA) # 4 • County Service Area (CSA) # 14 Community Services • Bell Canyon Community Services District * Also included in the Water/Wastewater Service Review report The process used to prepare the water and wastewater service review report was also used for the agencies listed above. A four-part questionnaire was distributed to all 17 agencies. The first part collected general information about the agency (contact information, governing body, financial, etc.), the second part asked for service specific data, the third part included a both questions and a map relating to boundary issues and the fourth part was a signature page. The questionnaire was designed to ensure the efficient transfer of data into the LAFCo database. A meet and confer process was offered to all agencies and included interviews and email/phone conversations. Of the 17 agencies, 15 returned questionnaires although the format, quantity and quality of information returned varied significantly. Agencies which had previously completed the water/wastewater service review questionnaire were asked to just complete those portions of the questionnaires applicable to the service addressed in current service review. All information collected from the questionnaires was entered into the Ventura LAFCo database which has been improved to increase its efficiency and facilitate future LAFCo reports. Final 3 February 16, 2005 III. Ventura County Drainage Districts IIIIII.. VVEENNTTUURRAA CCOOUUNNTTYY DDRRAAIINNAAGGEE DDIISSTTRRIICCTTSS A. BACKGROUND Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 was formed in 1918, and Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 was formed in 1926, pursuant to the Drainage District Act of 1903. There was an Oxnard Drainage District No. 3 formed in 1937 under this same Act, but because most of the territory in its boundaries had been developed for urban uses that District was dissolved and its remaining agricultural lands were merged into Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 in 1984. The Drainage District Act of 1903 provides for the organization and governmental structure of special districts whose sole purpose is to drain agricultural lands. The Act does not grant authority to perform other services, including any urban service functions. Districts formed under the Act are governed by a three member board of directors elected from the landowners of the district and, therefore, are considered as landowner-voter, independent districts. The Act provides for these types of districts to issue bonds for capital improvements and to use eminent domain as necessary for public purposes. The Act also provides for the districts to levy taxes, but this ability was limited by the passage of Proposition 13 and Proposition 218. An unusual restriction in the Drainage District Act of 1903 is that only lands that are susceptible to one general mode of drainage by the same system of works may be included within a district. The districts are formed along topographic lines that allow the drainage of agricultural lines within a common system of drainage. Lands that cannot be served by the common system of drainage may not be included within the district. At the time of the formation of the Oxnard Drainage Districts, the water table in the Oxnard Plain was sufficiently high to prevent agricultural development in many areas. Thus, a system of lowering the water table was necessary in order that the surface lands could be tilled. The water table was lowered by the installation of clay or tile pipe approximately six to ten feet below the surface of the ground. A small space was allowed between each joint of the pipe to allow the water above the level of the pipe to seep into the pipe and thus be carried to a drainage ditch or other drains away from the agricultural lands. By this means thousands of acres of land were made suitable for agriculture in the Oxnard Plain. Shortly after the formation of each of the Oxnard Drainage Districts bonds were issued to construct the necessary drainage facilities. All of these bonds have been redeemed, with the last bond payment being made in 1958. The current activities of both Districts consist primarily of conducting the day- to-day business activities, including maintenance of facilities. Little maintenance is required for the underground tile drains, but on-going maintenance is required for the open ditches. The Boards of Directors perform largely caretaker functions. The Districts have no staff and District operations are performed by contract. Over time portions of the territory within the boundaries of the Drainage Districts have been developed for urban uses. The transition of properties from agriculture use to urban use has a continuing impact on the operations of the Drainage Districts. As lands are developed for urban uses, agricultural drainage facilities are no longer necessary and the installation of more sophisticated systems of surface drainage is required. An on-going issue for the Districts and the neighboring City of Oxnard is to ensure that developing lands are detached from the Districts and that urban uses do not impact District facilities or the viability of adjoining agriculture. February 16, 2005 4 Final III. Ventura County Drainage Districts B. AGENCY PROFILES Profiles of Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 and Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 follow along with Map 1 which shows the location, current boundaries and sphere of influence for each agency. OXNARD DRAINAGE DISTRICT No. 1 Contact: William B. Smith, Ferguson Case Orr Paterson & Cunningham LLP Mailing Address: 1050 S. Kimball Road, Ventura, CA 93004 Site Address: Same Phone Number: 805-659-6800 Fax Number: 805-659-6818 Email/Website wsmith@fcopc.com Types of Services: Agricultural and subsurface drainage Population Served: NP Size of Service Area (sq miles): 3.1 Date of Formation December 3, 1918 STAFF AND FACILITIES Number of Paid Staff 0 (all work done by contractors) FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2003-2004) Revenues: Expenses $38,061 $38,061 % Revenue Property Taxes: 8% % Revenue Assessments 91% NP – Not Provided Final 5 February 16, 2005 III. Ventura County Drainage Districts OXNARD DRAINAGE DISTRICT No. 2 Contact: John Orr, Ferguson Case Orr Paterson & Cunningham LLP Mailing Address: 1050 S. Kimbal Road, Ventura CA 93004 Site Address: Same Phone Number: 805-659-6800 Fax Number: 805-659-6818 Email/Website jorr@fcopc.com Types of Services: Agricultural and subsurface drainage Population Served: 200 Size of Service Area (sq miles): 12.5 Date of Formation 1926 STAFF AND FACILITIES Number of Paid Staff 0 (all work done by contractors) FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2003-2004) Revenues: Expenses $110,764* $126,415* % Revenue Property Taxes: 0% % Revenue Assessments 92% * Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 was required to relocate its drainage facilities as a result of the Rice Road/Highway 1 construction. The imbalance in the budgets, starting in FY 2000-01 and ending in FY 2003-04, is a result of that work which was paid for by Caltrans. February 16, 2005 6 Final III. Ventura County Drainage Districts Map 1: Final 7 February 16, 2005 III. Ventura County Drainage Districts C. GROWTH AND POPULATION The area included within both Drainage Districts is used primarily for agricultural purposes and no significant changes in the population are expected. Growth patterns are also not expected to change significantly for either Drainage District. A majority of both Districts’ territory is located outside the City of Oxnard’s City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB), adopted as a part of the Oxnard Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) Ordinance; it is designated for agricultural use by the County of Ventura’s General Plan and, thus, is subject to the County’s SOAR Ordinance. The City of Oxnard’s SOAR Ordinance and CURB is in effect until 2020 and, with limited exemptions, cannot be changed except by a majority vote of the voters in Oxnard. The County of Ventura’s SOAR Ordinance is also in effect until 2020 and lands designated for agricultural or open space uses by the County’s General Plan cannot, with limited exceptions, be changed to other designations without a majority vote of voters in the County. Given the restrictions of both the City and County SOAR ordinances the potential for urban growth to extend into most of the service areas of the Drainage Districts is considered limited. However, there are discrepancies between the boundaries and spheres of influence of each District and the Oxnard CURB. These discrepancies are addressed in Section F under Government Structure Options. D. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES Ventura County's farmland contributes approximately $4 billion to the local economy annually, and as a result of the voter approved SOAR Ordinances, agriculture is not viewed as an interim land use as it is in other areas of California. However, continued residential development adjacent to farmland can have negative impacts for agriculture’s long-term viability if restraints are placed on the grower as the result of complaints. Both Districts include relatively large blocks of farmland that can continue as viable agricultural operations if future land use conflicts are minimized by the City of Oxnard. Buffers and the strict application of zoning controls are necessary between agriculture and urban uses. Barriers, such as rivers, major roads and freeways, drainage channels and airports are natural and easily recognizable boundaries between agricultural and urban uses. For example, the Edison Canal on the western side of the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 provides a recognizable boundary between the agricultural land and other land uses. Where such types of buffers do not exist, the responsibility for a buffer must rest with the new urban use, not with the pre-existing agricultural use. Another impact on both Districts is the increase in surface drainage from urban development on District facilities. The facilities of both Districts were not sized to handle increased run-off from urban development and associated impervious surfaces. When drainage systems for urban uses are not properly sized or when such systems tie into drainage systems that are the responsibility of the Districts, the Districts should take a more proactive role in the environmental review of urban projects and other entitlement processes to protect their systems. Also, as development occurs, it is necessary for the City of Oxnard, Ventura County and other agencies to ensure that urban run-off does not negatively impact the existing facilities of the Districts. No other significant issues were noted for infrastructure specific to the Districts. The Board of each District annually reviews the projects necessary for the continuation of agriculture and prepares the budget and annual assessments (based on a per parcel amount) needed to fund the necessary infrastructure. While neither agency has a formal Master Plan, the small size and number of landowners make such documents superfluous. February 16, 2005 8 Final III. Ventura County Drainage Districts E. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES, COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES AND RATE RESTRUCTURING Both Drainage Districts are funded through assessments on individual landowners. Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 receives some property tax revenue; however this amounts to less than 1% of the total budget. Fees are set annually by dividing the cost of needed infrastructure maintenance and repairs by the number of parcels in the District. When urban development of territory in either District occurs, the effect is to reduce both the amount of farmland in the County and the special assessment revenue available to each District. Lands developed for urban uses reduce the service area of each District when the agricultural sub-surface facilities are removed. However, each District must still maintain its master drainage facilities and the reduction in farmland results in an increased financial burden on the remaining farmlands in each District. This impacts the viability of the remaining farmland overall and can impact the future financing capacity of each District. The State’s budget act of 2004 includes significant changes in how local revenues are allocated. For FYs 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, special districts throughout the state are required to contribute an aggregate of $350 million each year to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). This is paid directly out of the district’s tax increment. The State provided the Ventura County Auditor- Controller with the following estimated FY 2004-2005 contributions from the two Drainage Districts: • Oxnard Drainage District No. 1: $3,723.40 • Oxnard Drainage District No. 2: $10,407.10 The State estimates provided to the Auditor-Controller were based on information filed with the State by the Districts. Somewhere in this reporting, an error occurred for Oxnard Drainage District No. 2. Because Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 does not receive any property tax revenues or any revenues that the Auditor-Controller can collect under the ERAF formula, ERAF will have no impact during the next two fiscal years on this District. According to the Auditor-Controller this means that the State ERAF fund will be under funded by a corresponding amount from Ventura County. Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 does receive a small amount of property tax ($13,647.54 for FY 2004-2005 according to the Auditor-Controller) and, thus, will be affected by ERAF for the amount indicated. The District can address this impact through the use of reserves, deferring maintenance expenditures, or increasing assessments in following years. However, in the near term the loss of this revenue over the next two fiscal years can be considered a financing constraint. The landowners in Drainage District No. 1 maximize cost avoidance opportunities by performing some of the work themselves, by using independent contractors rather than hiring staff and by having the City of Oxnard maintain some district facilities. Final 9 February 16, 2005 III. Ventura County Drainage Districts TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--11 OOxxnnaarrdd DDrraaiinnaaggee DDiissttrriicctt NNoo.. 11 FFiinnaanncciiaall DDaattaa GENERAL FUND FY 02-031 FY 01-022 FY 00-013 Total Operating Revenue $43,535 $40,700 $39,274 Total Operating Expenses $38,229 $35,380 $31,409 Operating Income (Loss) $14,333 $5,320 $7,865 Fund Balance, End of Year $5,306 $42,728 $37,408 Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 appears to be in stable condition although its small size makes reaching economies of scale difficult. TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--22 OOxxnnaarrdd DDrraaiinnaaggee DDiissttrriicctt NNoo.. 22 FFiinnaanncciiaall DDaattaa GENERAL FUND FY 02-034 FY 01-025 FY 00-016 Total Operating Revenue $102,625 $110,924 $492,037* Total Operating Expenses $123,962 $283,920 $456,708 Operating Income (Loss) $21,337 ($172,996)* $35,329 Fund Balance, End of Year $297,528 * Rice Road/State Highway 1 project required the District to relocate its lines within the project area. Caltrans paid the District funds to accomplish this work in year 2001 and the District completed the expenditure in 2002. Accordingly, the budget appears unbalanced when, in fact, it is just a question of the timing of one time revenues (from Caltrans) and corresponding district expenditures. Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 appears to have a stable financial situation and no significant issues were noted. F. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES, EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS Some facilities of Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 are maintained by the City of Oxnard which increases the efficiency of the operations of the agency. Both agencies use the same law firm and have periodically discussed some form of consolidation between the two agencies to reduce costs and reach economies of scale. As additional territory is developed and detached from the agencies, the need to more closely examine the possibility of some form of shared operations may be necessary to ensure an adequate revenue base. 1 Provided by District on MSR questionnaire. 2 Independent Auditor's Report, Ferguson, Case, Orr, Paterson & Cunningham, LLP, November 15, 2002. 3 Independent Auditor's Report, Ferguson, Case, Orr, Paterson & Cunningham, LLP, November 15, 2002. 4 Provided by District on MSR questionnaire. 5 California State Controller's Data. 6 Independent Auditor's Report, Vance, Thrift and Biller LLP, February 6, 2002. February 16, 2005 10 Final III. Ventura County Drainage Districts Another measure of management efficiencies was the presence and opinion of audits. Table III-3 summarizes the audit status for both agencies: TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--33 DDrraaiinnaaggee DDiissttrriicctt AAuuddiittss LAST AUDIT SUBMITTED NEXT AUDIT AUDIT DISTRICT AUDIT CYCLE TO COUNTY DUE COMMENTS AUDITOR Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 2 yr. June '02 Jun '04 Qualified Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 2 yr. June '03 Jun '05 Qualified The qualifications of the audits are not considered significant. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt SSttrruuccttuurree OOppttiioonnss As noted, increased urbanization has steadily reduced the amount of territory within each of the two Oxnard Drainage Districts. This trend is expected to continue, especially for any lands within the Oxnard CURB. As the Districts continue to shrink in size, their ability to function as independent units of local government will lessen. The two Districts have discussed consolidation of the agencies in the past. Both agencies are formed under the same enabling legislation and provide similar services. They share similar forms of assessments and share staff (same law firm). Some economies of scale might be reached through a consolidation of the two agencies or through a functional consolidation of the agency functions. A possible constraint may be the provision in the Drainage District Act of 1903 that may require a common system of drainage. It is recommended that both Districts again review the potential for consolidation of the agencies with LAFCo. DDiissttrriicctt BBoouunnddaarriieess aanndd SSpphheerreess ooff IInnfflluueennccee A governmental structure issue for both Districts has resulted from poor coordination between the City of Oxnard and the Districts over the timing for detaching territory from the Districts as development occurs. This poor coordination and timing problem is well documented in LAFCo records for at least the last 30 years. Ideally, when territory to be developed is annexed to the City of Oxnard it would simultaneously be detached from the respective Drainage District (i.e. a LAFCo reorganization action). However, this has been previously discussed by LAFCo and the Districts and rejected as a course of action. The reason is that after an annexation to the City of Oxnard is approved, there is often a lag time of months to a year or more before actual development occurs. During this lag time period the territory involved may continue in agricultural use and utilize a District’s sub-surface drainage facilities. In other words the cessation of the agricultural use does not occur with annexation to the City of Oxnard. Given this fact, the Districts and LAFCo have previously agreed that the Districts would coordinate with the City of Oxnard and file with LAFCo for detachment of the lands to be developed as urban development occurs. This process is more expensive for the Districts but, if properly timed, it provides for maximum use of District facilities. Unfortunately, the Districts’ actions to request detachment upon urbanization are not always coordinated or timed to coincide with actual development. The result has been that there are areas Final 11 February 16, 2005 III. Ventura County Drainage Districts remaining in the boundaries of each District that have been developed in the City of Oxnard and where the Districts no longer provide services. In several cases these developed lands have been subdivided into many parcels and in at least some cases are now inhabited (i.e. contain twelve or more registered voters). This means that the Districts will not necessarily be able to obtain the consent of all the affected property owners and that the process for detachment with LAFCo will require protest hearings and significantly more time and expense. Also, the Districts may not be able to pass on the costs of detachment to the affected property owners and this will result in an additional expense burden for the Districts. It is recommended that LAFCo, in conjunction with the Districts and the City of Oxnard, re-examine policies about not requiring detachment from the respective Drainage District whenever a reorganization with the City of Oxnard affects territory in a Drainage District boundary. One possible solution is that areas annexed to the City could be concurrently detached from the District but the recordation could occur when actual development occurs and agricultural uses cease. In addition to the issue of boundaries for each of the Districts, it has been more than twenty years since the spheres of influence for each District were updated. The current spheres of influence for both Districts were adopted in 1982 and were based on the City of Oxnard’s General Plan and anticipated urban development. Since that time the City of Oxnard has adopted a new General Plan and both the Oxnard and County SOAR ordinances have been approved. There are now several areas for each District where the sphere of influence should be updated to reflect the Oxnard CURB. Territory within the Oxnard CURB can be developed in the future and should be outside the sphere of influence boundary of each of the Districts. Such an update will alleviate the need for the Districts to seek amendment of their respective spheres of influence in the future, but will have no impact on District services to the lands remaining in the boundaries of each District. Areas that should be detached from each District and areas where the sphere of influence should be updated to either remove or to consider adding territory based on the Oxnard CURB and/or the County SOAR ordinance, should be considered as special study areas as a part of LAFCo’s sphere of influence updates. These special study areas are described in the following Table III-4 and the related Map 2 for Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 and Table III-5 and related Map 3 for Oxnard Drainage District No. 2. February 16, 2005 12 Final III. Ventura County Drainage Districts This Page Intentionally Left Blank Final 13 February 16, 2005 III. Ventura County Drainage Districts TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--44 OOxxnnaarrdd DDrraaiinnaaggee DDiissttrriicctt NNoo.. 11 SSppeecciiaall SSttuuddyy AArreeaass ((MMaapp 22)) SPECIAL STUDY DESCRIPTION AREA # Approximately 142 acres west of Victoria Avenue between Wooley Road and Hemlock Street – This area is currently being developed and is no longer in 1 agricultural use. Drainage District No. 1 should promptly seek the consent of the current property owner and file with LAFCo to have this area detached before the area is sold to multiple owners. Approximately 16 acres of the former Edison Canal southerly of Wooley Road – This portion of the former Edison Canal is entirely outside the Oxnard CURB and 2 outside the existing sphere of influence. The District should consider detaching this portion of the Canal from its boundaries. Approximately 40 acres of the former Edison Canal from north of W. Fifth Street to Wooley Road – This portion of the Canal is now entirely within the sphere of 3 influence. LAFCo should consider changing the sphere boundary to the easterly side of the canal. The canal serves as a logical buffer for areas to the west that are within the Oxnard CURB Approximately 560 acres south of Gonzales Road and east of Harbor Boulevard – In consultation with the District, LAFCo should consider adding this large area to the sphere of influence. The area is outside the Oxnard CURB and will remain in 4 agricultural use for the foreseeable future. If the agricultural lands in this area could benefit from extension of the District’s services, the area could be annexed to the District. Approximately 13 acres south of Oxnard High School on Gonzales Road – This property is developed and is part of Oxnard High School. The District should seek 5 the consent of Oxnard Union High School District and file with LAFCo to have this area detached. Approximately 216 acres east of Oxnard Blvd. south of Gonzales Road – This area has been almost entirely developed, including Pacifica High School and single- family homes. The District should file with LAFCo to have all the developed 6 portions of this area detached. Because the City of Oxnard and the District failed to coordinate the detachment of this area prior to development, detachment will be subject to protest proceedings with LAFCo and will be more expensive for the District. Approximately 12 acres south of W. Fifth Street and along Monte Carlo Drive and Naples Drive – The District should file with LAFCo to have this area detached as it has been developed with single family homes. Because the City of Oxnard and the 7 District failed to coordinate the detachment of this area prior to development, detachment will be subject to protest proceedings with LAFCo and will be more expensive for the District. Approximately 17 acres at the north easterly corner of W. Fifth Street and Victoria Avenue - The District should file with LAFCo to have this area detached as it has been developed with a commercial center. Because the City of Oxnard and the 8 District failed to coordinate the detachment of this area prior to development, detachment will likely be subject to protest proceedings with LAFCo and will be more expensive for the District Approximately 59 acres west of Victoria Avenue and north of W. Fifth Street – LAFCo should consider removing this area from the District’s sphere of influence. 9 While it is currently used for agricultural purposes it is within the Oxnard CURB and development is possible. February 16, 2005 14 Final III. Ventura County Drainage Districts Map 2: Final 15 February 16, 2005 III. Ventura County Drainage Districts TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--55 OOxxnnaarrdd DDrraaiinnaaggee DDiissttrriicctt NNoo.. 22 SSppeecciiaall SSttuuddyy AArreeaass ((MMaapp 33)) SPECIAL STUDY DESCRIPTION AREA # 1 Approximately 6.5 acres along Rose Avenue between Wooley Road and Emerson Avenue – LAFCo should consider updating the District’s sphere of influence to coincide with the Oxnard CURB in this area. 2 Approximately 311 acres east of Rose Avenue between E. Fifth Street and Wooley Road - In consultation with the District, LAFCo should consider adding this large area to the sphere of influence. The area is outside the Oxnard CURB and will remain in agricultural use for the foreseeable future. If the agricultural lands in this area could benefit from extension of the District’s services, the area could be annexed to the District. 3 Approximately 424 acres between Rice Avenue on the east and the Oxnard CURB on the west and north of Sturgis Road - The District should file with LAFCo to have this area detached as it has been almost entirely developed with industrial uses. Because the City of Oxnard and the District failed to coordinate the detachment of this area prior to development, detachment will likely be subject to protest proceedings with LAFCo and will be more expensive for the District. February 16, 2005 16 Final III. Ventura County Drainage Districts Map 3: Final 17 February 16, 2005 III. Ventura County Drainage Districts G. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The board members of each Drainage District, their terms of office and compensation are shown in the following tables: TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--66 OOxxnnaarrdd DDrraaiinnaaggee DDiissttrriicctt NNoo.. 11 –– BBooaarrdd MMeemmbbeerrss aanndd TTeerrmmss BOARD MEMBER TITLE TERM OF OFFICE COMPENSATION John Dullam President 2007 $0 Vice President/Board Frank Hiji 2005 $0 Member Thomas McGrath Board Member 2007 $0 Meetings of the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 are held quarterly (January, April, July and October) on the last Tuesday of the month starting at 4:00 pm at 1050 South Kimbal Road in Ventura. Notification of the public is through posting at the meeting location and published in the newspaper. The Board of Directors receives no compensation. Reviews of the laws applicable to Board members (Brown Act, Fair Political Practices Commissions and Public Disclosure Act) are held regularly. The last audit was completed in July of 2003. TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--77 OOxxnnaarrdd DDrraaiinnaaggee DDiissttrriicctt NNoo..22 –– BBooaarrdd MMeemmbbeerrss aanndd TTeerrmmss BOARD MEMBER TITLE TERM OF OFFICE COMPENSATION James Naumann President 2005 $0 Jesse DeBusschere Director 2007 $0 Jurgen Gramckow Director 2007 $0 Meetings of the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 are held quarterly (January, April, July and September) on the last Tuesday of the month starting at 11:00 am at 1050 South Kimbal Road in Ventura. Notification of the public is through posting at the meeting location and published in the newspaper. The Board of Directors receives no compensation. Reviews of the laws applicable to Board members (Brown Act, Fair Political Practices Commissions and Public Disclosure Act) are held regularly. The last audit was completed in April of 2004. Generally no significant issues regarding local accountability and governance were noted for either Drainage Districts. The governing boards of the Districts are elected by the landowners and appear to be as locally accountable as possible. Neither of the Districts has a website but with the structure of the Districts, it is not needed to ensure local accountability. . February 16, 2005 18 Final IV. Determinations IIVV.. DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Determinations are based on data provided by the districts. A. OXNARD DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1 • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 bases its assessment of maintenance of drainage facilities on annual evaluations by landowners. 2. That encroaching urban development can impact the services of the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1. 3. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 currently provides adequate levels of services for its customers. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That growth in the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 is limited due to both the City of Oxnard and County of Ventura SOAR Ordinances, and the continued viability of agricultural operations. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 prepares an annual budget based on estimated maintenance needs and on the assessment of individual landowners. 2. That continued detachments of land from the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 may negatively impact the financial resources of the District and jeopardize its ability to continue operations. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 uses cost sharing programs with other agencies wherever possible. 2. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 uses contractors for services when shown to be cost effective. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That the rates and fees of the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 are set annually. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 collaborates with the City of Oxnard and other agencies about facilities. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 should reexamine the potential benefits of consolidation with Oxnard Drainage District No. 2. 2. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 and the City of Oxnard should collaborate more effectively about the timing of development of territory in the District’s boundaries and the related need to detach such territory from the District’s boundaries. 3. That LAFCo, in conjunction with the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 and the City of Oxnard, should re-examine policies about not requiring detachment from the District whenever a reorganization with the City of Oxnard affects territory in the District’s boundary. Final 19 February 16, 2005 IV. Determinations 4. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 should promptly file with LAFCo for the detachment of all territory within the District’s boundaries that has been developed or that is no longer benefiting from District services. 5. That LAFCo, in conjunction with the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1, should consider updating the District’s sphere of influence to include territory adjacent to existing District boundaries that is located outside the Oxnard CURB, that is likely to remain in agricultural use for the foreseeable future, and that could potentially benefit from the extension of District facilities. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the current management structure of the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the agency. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 is locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information and encouragement of participation in their process. February 16, 2005 20 Final IV. Determinations B. OXNARD DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 2 • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 bases its assessment of maintenance of drainage facilities on annual evaluations by landowners. 2. That encroaching urban development can impact the services of the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2. 3. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 currently provides adequate levels of services for its customers. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That growth in the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 is limited due to both the City of Oxnard and County of Ventura SOAR Ordinances, and the continued viability of agricultural operations. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 prepares an annual budget based on estimated maintenance needs and on the assessment of individual landowners. 2. That continued detachments of land from the agency may negatively impact the financial resources of the District and jeopardize its ability to continue operations. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 uses cost sharing programs with other agencies wherever possible such as the watershed plan. 2. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 uses contractors for services when shown to be cost effective. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That the rates and fees of the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 are set annually. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 collaborates with the City of Oxnard and other agencies about facilities. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 should reexamine the potential benefits of consolidation with Oxnard Drainage District No. 1. 2. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 and the City of Oxnard should collaborate more effectively about the timing of development of territory in the District’s boundaries and the related need to detach such territory from the District’s boundaries. 3. That LAFCo, in conjunction with the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 and the City of Oxnard, should re-examine policies about not requiring detachment from the District whenever a reorganization with the City of Oxnard affects territory in the District’s boundary. 4. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 should file with LAFCo for the detachment of all territory within the District’s boundaries that has been developed or that is no longer benefiting from District services. 5. That LAFCo, in conjunction with the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2, should consider updating the District’s sphere of influence to include territory adjacent to Final 21 February 16, 2005 IV. Determinations existing District boundaries that is located outside the Oxnard CURB, that is likely to remain in agricultural use for the foreseeable future, and that could potentially benefit from the extension of District facilities. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the current management structure of the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the agency. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 is locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information and encouragement of participation in their process. February 16, 2005 22 Final