Rec Park MSRFinal

MMUUNNIICCIIPPAALL SSEERRVVIICCEE RREEVVIIEEWW RREECCRREEAATTIIOONN AANNDD PPAARRKK SSEERRVVIICCEESS SPECIAL DISTRICTS Casitas Municipal Water District; Conejo Recreation and Park District; County Service Area No. 33; Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District; Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District; United Water Conservation District Prepared for: Ventura LLooccaall AAggeennccyy FFoorrmmaattiioonn CCoommmmiissssiioonn 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, California 93009-1850 Accepted by Ventura LAFCO on: March 16, 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Table of Contents TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................1 II. SERVICE REVIEW PROCESS............................................................................................3 III. DISTRICT REVIEW..............................................................................................................4 A. Background..................................................................................................................5 B. Agency Profiles............................................................................................................6 C. Growth and Population...............................................................................................18 D. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies.......................................................................20 E. Financing Constraints and Opportunities, Cost Avoidance Opportunities and Rate Restructuring...............................................................................................23 F. Evaluation of Management Efficiencies, Opportunities for Shared Facilities and Government Structure Options.....................................................................30 G. Local Accountability and Governance.......................................................................42 IV. DETERMINATIONS............................................................................................................46 H. Casitas Municipal Water District...............................................................................47 I. Conejo Recreation and Park District..........................................................................48 J. Ventura County Service Area #33..............................................................................49 K. Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District.............................................................50 L. Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District.................................................................51 M. United Water Conservation District...........................................................................52 LLIISSTT OOFF TTAABBLLEESS Table III-1: Ventura County Population Projections...............................................................18 Table III-2: Ventura County Population Projections by Sub-Area.........................................19 Table III-3: Recreation and Park Expenditures Per Capita.....................................................24 Table III-4: Casitas MWD: Financial Performance – Recreation Services.............................24 Table III-5: Conejo Recreation and Park District: Financial Performance.............................25 Table III-6: Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District: Financial Performance................27 Table III-7: Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District: Financial Performance....................28 Table III-8: United Water Conservation District: Financial Performance..............................29 Table III-9: Agency Audit Summary......................................................................................30 Table III-10: Agency Staffing for Recreation and Park Services..............................................31 Table III-11: Conejo Recreation and Park District Special Study Areas (Map III-7)...............36 Table III-12: Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District Special Study Areas (Map III-8)..38 Final Draft i February 25, 2005 Table of Contents Table III-13: Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District Special Study Areas (Map III-9)......40 Table III-14: Casitas Municipal Water District: Board Members and Terms...........................42 Table III-15: Conejo Recreation and Park District: Board Members and Terms......................43 Table III-16: County Service Area #33: Board Members and Terms........................................43 Table III-17: Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District: Board Members and Terms.........44 Table III-18: Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District: Board Members and Terms.............44 Table III-19: United Water Conservation District: Board Members and Terms.......................45 LLIISSTT OOFF FFIIGGUURREESS Figure III-1: Maintenance Cost per Developed Acre of Parkland............................................31 LLIISSTT OOFF MMAAPPSS Map III-1: Casitas Municipal Water District...........................................................................9 Map III-2: Conejo Recreation and Park District....................................................................11 Map III-3: Ventura County Service Area No. 33...................................................................13 Map III-4: Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District.......................................................15 Map III-5: Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District...........................................................17 Map III-6: United Water Conservation District.....................................................................19 Map III-7: Conejo Recreation and Park District-Special Study Areas................................397 Map III-8: Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District-Special Study Areas.....................41 Map III-9: Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District-Special Study Areas.........................43 March 16, 2005 ii Final I. Executive Summary II.. EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY Recreation and park services are provided by a variety of different agencies in Ventura County, including the federal government, the State, the County, most of the cities in the County and by special districts. This Recreation and Parks Municipal Service Review addresses only the recreation and park services provided by the special districts in the County. Included are three Recreation and Park independent special districts, one County Service Area (CSA; a dependent district) and two independent, water districts that also provide recreation related services. The recreation and park services provided by the cities in the County will be addressed in the separate municipal service reviews for each city. Because municipal service reviews are required only when a Local Agency Formation Commission updates spheres of influence, and because spheres of influence only apply to cities and special districts, no municipal service reviews will be prepared for the services provided by the County, the State or the federal government. The Conejo Recreation and Park District provides service to the City of Thousand Oaks and adjacent unincorporated areas, the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District to the City of Camarillo and adjacent unincorporated areas, and the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District to the City of Simi Valley and adjacent areas. County Service Area No. 33 (CSA #33) is intended to provide regional recreational and parks services countywide while the Casitas Municipal Water District and the United Water Conservation District provide some recreation services as ancillary service to their primary mission of water service. Only the recreational services provided by the two agencies are addressed in this report. Water services provided by the Casitas Municipal Water District were addressed in the Ojai-San Buenaventura (Ventura River Watershed) water and wastewater service review report. Water services provided by the United Water Conservation District were addressed in the Santa Clara River watershed water and wastewater service review report. The Ventura LAFCO adopted municipal service review determinations for the water services provided by both of these agencies in December 2003. Together with the determinations made relating to the water services provided by both Casitas and United, determinations made by the Ventura LAFCO about the recreational services provided by each agency will complete the municipal service reviews for both agencies. LAFCO must conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with the mandated five-year schedule for updating spheres of influence. 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 Recreation and Parks service review process began in June 2004 and will be completed in March of 2005. A four-part questionnaire was sent to the districts requesting data on quantitative, qualitative and boundary issues. All the agencies responding to the questionnaire were contacted directly to Agency Review Draft 1 January 20, 2005 I. Executive Summary clarify some of their responses. 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. County Service Area No. 33 did not respond to the questionnaire distributed. A follow-up review found that County Service Area No. 33 is non-functional. No financial reporting for this dependent special district has occurred since 1995 and the District has no funding. For the other districts no significant issues were noted relative to growth or infrastructure. Ventura County is projected to grow by approximately 1% annually, however it is the County’s policy to direct growth to designated urban areas or existing communities. Except for County Service Area No. 33, the agencies have generally planned for growth through their master plans and each works closely with the cities and other regional groups to track anticipated growth and provide for needed and requested infrastructure and services. The Recreation and Park Districts rely on a mixture of property taxes, special assessments, grants and fees for revenue. Both the United Water Conservation District and the Casitas Municipal Water District use fees from recreation facilities to cover costs of those operations. The change in local revenue allocations required by the State’s budget act of 2004 is expected to create financial limitations for the agencies over the next two or three years. However, each of the agencies responding to the service review questionnaire has planned for the projected reduction in revenue through a variety of means. All agencies responding to the questionnaire reported unqualified audits and are achieving a degree of management efficiency through their operations, planning and joint use agreements. Three government structure options were identified. One option would be to reorganize each Recreation and Park District with the appropriate city; however, this option is not considered feasible due to fiscal and service related issues. Another option was to merge the three Recreation and Park Districts into one large agency; however, the agencies currently have reached economies of scale and it is doubtful that a larger agency could find additional costs savings. Finally, it is recommended that LAFCO work with Ventura County to dissolve CSA #33. The district is non-functional; no revenues have been received nor expenses incurred since 1995. In addition to reviewing broad based government structure options a number of “special study” areas have been identified for each of the three recreation and park districts. These special study reviews should occur with each district prior to or in conjunction with any sphere of influence updates. March 16, 2005 2 Final II. Service Review Process IIII.. SSEERRVVIICCEE RREEVVIIEEWW PPRROOCCEESSSS The Ventura LAFCO completed the first round of municipal service review reports, which addressed water and wastewater services, in January of 2004. The second round of service review reports includes the following services and agencies: SERVICES AGENCIES • Casitas Municipal Water District* • Conejo Recreation and Park District • County Service Area (CSA) #33 Recreation/Parks • 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 Public Cemetery District • Ventura Regional Sanitation District* Solid Waste • Channel Islands Beach Community Service District* • Oxnard Drainage District #1 Drainage • Oxnard Drainage District #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 Reviews 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 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 that had previously completed the water/wastewater service review questionnaires (Casitas MWD and United WCD) 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 that has been improved to increase its efficiency and facilitate future LAFCO reports. Final 3 March 16, 2005 III. District Review This Page Intentionally Left Blank March 16, 2005 4 Final III. District Review IIIIII.. DDIISSTTRRIICCTT RREEVVIIEEWW A. BACKGROUND The Casitas Municipal Water District was formed in 1956 under the Municipal Water District Act of 1911 (Water Code §71000 et seq.). The District operates the 300-acre Lake Casitas Recreation Area located in the Ojai Valley. Lake Casitas was constructed in 1959 as a reservoir; recreational uses include boating, camping, and fishing. In 1997 the District opened the Blue Heron Water Park. The Water Park was expanded in 2003 and renamed the Lake Casitas Water Adventure. The Conejo Recreation and Park District was formed in 1963, before the City of Thousand Oaks was incorporated, under the Public Resources Code §5780 et seq. relating to recreation and parks districts. The District provides a number of programs and facilities in the Conejo Valley, including the planned communities of Dos Vientos Ranch and Shapell/Rancho Conejo as well as the unincorporated communities of Lake Sherwood, Casa Conejo and Lynn Ranch. The Board of Supervisors initiated the formation of County Service Area #33 in December 1991. LAFCO approval was granted and the District was formed during the same month. With this formation, County Service Area No.28 was dissolved and CSA #33 was named as the successor agency for the functions of CSA #28. CSA #33 was formed for the purpose of providing “enhanced funding for local parks and recreational facilities in the unincorporated areas.” The District includes all unincorporated area in the County except areas within the Conejo, Pleasant Valley and Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks Districts, and except for offshore islands. However, since 1995 the District has been non-functional and no financial reports have been prepared. No revenue has been received or expenses incurred on behalf of the District. The County’s General Services Agency, which administers the County parks, has not used the CSA’s functions or governing structure and does not plan to in the future. The Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District was formed in 1962, before the City of Camarillo was incorporated, under the Public Resources Code §5780 et seq. relating to recreation and parks districts. The District serves the greater Camarillo area, including Camarillo Heights and Las Posas Estates. The District offers parks and a variety of recreational facilities and programs. The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District was formed in 1961, before the City of Simi Valley was incorporated, under the Public Resources Code §5780 et seq. relating to recreation and parks districts. The District serves the greater Simi Valley area, plus areas beyond Simi Valley including the Oak Park area. The District boundaries extend beyond the Simi Valley Area of Interest. The Moorpark Area of Interest was detached in 1975, and Bell Canyon was detached in 1984 in conjunction with the formation of the Bell Canyon Community Services District. The District offers parks and a variety of recreational programs and facilities. The United Water Conservation District was formed in 1950 under the Water Conservation Act of 1931 (Water Code §74000 et seq.). The District owns and manages recreational facilities in the Lake Piru Recreation Area. The Santa Felicia Dam was built on Piru Creek in 1954, forming Lake Piru. The District owns approximately 2,200 acres around and including the lake. Along the western shore, the District has developed 60 acres with various recreational facilities for camping, boating, fishing, swimming and picnicking. Final 5 March 16, 2005 III. District Review B. AGENCY PROFILES CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Contact: John Johnson, General Manager Mailing Address: 1055 Ventura Ave., Oak View, CA 93022 Site Address: Same Phone Number: 805-649-2233 (recreation) Fax Number: 805-649-4661 Email/Website jjohnson@casitaswater.com; www.casitaswater.org Types of Services: Recreational facilities, parks* Population Served: 60,000 Size of Service Area (sq miles): 155 Date of Formation 1953 STAFF AND FACILITIES Staff: Parks Recreation Total FTE 4.5 5.0 9.5 Temporary / Seasonal 10.0 75.0 85.0 Park Acreage Developed 300 acres Undeveloped 0 Adopted Master Plan Yes Facilities: Yes/No # of Facilities Acreage/Miles Tot Lots / Playgrounds Yes Golf Courses No Recreation Centers No Fitness Centers (gym, courts) Yes 1 Senior Centers No Ball fields No Special Use Areas Yes 13 (playgrounds) 3 Special Resource Areas No Open Space (passive parks) Yes 1 300 Trails Yes 20 miles Other: Water Adventure Yes 1 5 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues Expenses Budget: (FY 2004-2005)1 $2,281,148 $1,991,3092 Sources of Revenue Fees 100% Maintenance Costs Per Acre of Parkland: $1,688 1 The Casitas Municipal Water District provides wholesale and retail water service as well as recreational facilities at Lake Casitas. The service review for the District’s water utility services was completed in 2003; this service review only addresses the recreational services provided by the District. 2 The difference between budgeted revenues and expenses is depreciation. March 16, 2005 6 Final III. District Review Map III-1: Casitas Municipal Water District Final 7 March 16, 2005 III. District Review CONEJO RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Contact: Tex Ward, General Manager Mailing Address: 403 W. Hillcrest Drive, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Site Address: Same Phone Number: 805-495-6471 Fax Number: 805-497-3199 Email/Website parks@crpd.org; www.crpd.org Types of Services: Recreational facilities, parks, public open space Population Served: 134,000 Size of Service Area (sq miles): 65 Date of Formation January 8, 1963 STAFF AND FACILITIES Staff: Parks Recreation Total FTE 52 49 101 Temporary / Seasonal 11 293 304 Park Acreage Developed 452 acres Undeveloped 642 to be developed; 14,852 acres open space Adopted Master Plan Yes Facilities: Yes/No # of Facilities Acreage/Miles Tot Lots / Playgrounds Yes 41 Golf Courses No Recreation Centers Yes 5 61,674 sq ft. Fitness Centers (gym, courts) No Senior Centers Yes 1 24,206 sq ft. Ball fields Yes 53 Special Use Areas Yes Special Resource Areas Yes Open Space (passive parks) Yes ±15,000 acres Trails Yes ±110 miles Other: (teen center) Yes FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2004-2005)* Revenues Expenses $17,448,657 $17,448,657 Sources of Revenue Property Taxes 45% Special Taxes/Assessments 10% Fees 17% Grants 19% Other 9% Maintenance Costs Per Acre of Parkland: $8,860 * The District includes carryovers/fund/balances in the budget. Fund balances total $3,309,018 March 16, 2005 8 Final III. District Review Map III-2: Conejo Recreation and Park District Final 9 March 16, 2005 III. District Review COUNTY SERVICE AREA #33 Contact: Andy Oshita, Parks Manager, General Services Agency Mailing Address: 800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura, CA 93009-1030 Site Address: Same Phone Number: 805-654-3945 Fax Number: 805-654-6537 Email/Website Andy.oshita@mail.co.ventura.ca.us; Types of Services: Parks Population Served: Size of Service Area (sq miles): 1,864 Date of Formation December 17, 1991 STAFF AND FACILITIES Staff: Parks Recreation Total FTE Temporary / Seasonal Park Acreage Developed Undeveloped Adopted Master Plan Facilities: Yes/No # of Facilities Acreage/Miles Tot Lots / Playgrounds Golf Courses Recreation Centers Fitness Centers (gym, courts) Senior Centers Ball fields Special Use Areas Special Resource Areas Open Space (passive parks) Trails Other: FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2004-2005) Revenues Expenses Maintenance Costs Per Acre of Developed Parkland: Note: CSA #33 has not received any revenue or incurred any expenses since 1995. March 16, 2005 10 Final III. District Review Map III-3: County Service Area No. 33 Final 11 March 16, 2005 III. District Review PLEASANT VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Contact: John Williamson, General Manager Mailing Address: 1605 E. Burnley Street, Camarillo CA 93010 Site Address: Same Phone Number: 805-482-1996 ext. 24 Fax Number: 805-482-3468 Email/Website jcwilliamson@pvrpd.org; www.pvrpd.org Types of Services: Recreational facilities, parks, public open space Population Served: 72,000 Size of Service Area (sq miles): 47 Date of Formation January 30, 1962 STAFF AND FACILITIES Staff: Parks Recreation Total FTE / Part time 21 / 1 4 / 25 25 / 26 Temporary / Seasonal 0 30 30 Park Acreage Developed 202 acres Undeveloped 55 acres Adopted Master Plan Yes Facilities: Yes/No # of Facilities Acreage/Miles Tot Lots / Playgrounds Yes 30 Golf Courses No Recreation Centers Yes 2 Fitness Centers (gym, courts) No Senior Centers Yes 1 Ball fields Yes 15 Special Use Areas (equestrian) Yes 1 Special Resource Areas No Open Space (passive parks) Yes 22 Trails Yes 2 Other: indoor swimming pool Yes 1 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2004-2005) Revenues Expenses $4,866,526 $4,866,526 Sources of Revenue Property Taxes 55% Special Taxes/Assessments 15% Service Charges 0.5% Fees 17% Grants 0.2% Other 12.3% Maintenance Costs Per Acre of Parkland: $5,722 March 16, 2005 12 Final III. District Review Map III-4: Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District Final 13 March 16, 2005 III. District Review RANCHO SIMI RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Contact: Larry Peterson, General Manager Mailing Address: 1692 Sycamore Drive, Simi Valley, CA 93065 Site Address: Same Phone Number: 805-584-4406 Fax Number: 805-526-7025 Email/Website Larry@rsrpd.us; www.rsrpd.org Types of Services: Recreational facilities, parks and public open space Population Served: 136,000 Size of Service Area (sq miles): 113 Date of Formation October 3, 1961 STAFF AND FACILITIES Staff: Parks Recreation Total FTE / Part time 53 12 65 Temporary / Seasonal 1 - 3 300 - 400 300 - 400 Park Acreage Developed 629 acres Undeveloped 5,142 acres Adopted Master Plan Yes Facilities: Yes/No # of Facilities Acreage/Miles Tot Lots / Playgrounds Yes 32 Golf Courses Yes 2 Recreation Centers Yes 3 Fitness Centers (gym, courts) No Senior Centers Yes 1 Ball fields Yes 30 Special Use Areas (equestrian) Yes 2 Special Resource Areas Yes 4 Open Space (passive parks) Yes 5,142 acres Trails Yes 80 miles Other: after school club facilities Yes 11 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2004-2005) Revenues Expenses $14,352,169 $25,428,503* Sources of Revenue Property Taxes 45% Special Taxes/Assessments 9% Service Charges 29% Fees 3% Grants 12% Other – Interest 1% Maintenance Costs Per Acre of Parkland: $8,306 * Expenses include $12,016,218 for Capital Outlay March 16, 2005 14 Final III. District Review Map III-5: Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District Final 15 March 16, 2005 III. District Review UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Contact: Dana Wisehart, General Manager Mailing Address: 106 N. 8th St., Santa Paula, CA 93060 Site Address: Same Phone Number: 805-525-4431 Fax Number: 805-525-2661 Email/Website dana@unitedwater.org; www.unitedwater.org Types of Services: Recreation facilities Population Served: 310,000 Size of Service Area (sq miles): NP Date of Formation December 5, 1950 STAFF AND FACILITIES Staff: Parks Recreation Total FTE / Part time NA 6 / 2 6 / 2 Temporary / Seasonal NA 15 15 Park Acreage Developed 200 acres Undeveloped 2,200 acres Adopted Master Plan Yes Facilities: Yes/No # of Facilities Acreage/Miles Tot Lots / Playgrounds No Golf Courses No Recreation Centers No Fitness Centers (gym, courts) No Senior Centers No Ball fields No Special Use Areas -campgrounds Yes 1 Special Resource Areas No Open Space (passive parks) No Trails No Other No FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2004-2005)* Revenues Expenses (recreation and park services) $878,000 $1,142,000 Sources of Revenue Fees 91% Other 9% Maintenance Costs Per Acre of Parkland: $5,660 *Note: The United Water Conservation District provides wholesale and retail water service as well as recreational facilities at Lake Piru. The service review for the District’s water utility services was completed in 2003; this service review only addresses the recreational services provided by the District. March 16, 2005 16 Final III. District Review Map III-6: United Water Conservation District Final 17 March 16, 2005 III. District Review C. GROWTH AND POPULATION Ventura County encompasses 1,864 square miles with the majority of the population located in the southern portion. Development patterns, population growth and demographics have a significant impact on the provision of recreation and park services. Park facilities are frequently considered community assets, and recreation programs are viewed as an improvement to the quality of life for residents. Community and neighborhood parks and recreation programs are generally designed to serve the needs of the local community. Larger facilities, such as at Lake Casitas and Lake Piru, are more regionally based and draw from a larger area that often extends beyond the County’s political boundaries. For a regional perspective, the population projections developed for Ventura County by the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG) are shown below in Table III-1. As a comparison, the California Department of Finance (DOF) projections are included as well. VCOG is projecting a 1% annual growth rate, while DOF is projecting 1.5%. TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--11 VVeennttuurraa CCoouunnttyy PPooppuullaattiioonn PPrroojjeeccttiioonnss Annual Population 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Growth Rate VCOG 796,387 836,186 874,881 915,005 951,080 1.0% DOF 818,600 877,400 934,000 1,007,200 1.5% The Land Use Appendix for the County’s General Plan Update divides the County into fifteen geographical sub-areas for planning purposes. A significant portion of land within the County is designated as Open Space or Open Space – Urban Reserve, some of which lies within the jurisdiction of the agencies in this review. Parks and recreation are addressed in the Public Facilities and Services section of the County General Plan. In order to implement the stated General Plan goals and policies, the County’s General Services Agency is directed to prepare and update a County Recreation Plan in order to evaluate demand, establish facility needs, and prioritize proposed facility development. This planning effort provides for recreation and park facilities within each sub-area. The highest growth rates are projected for the Fillmore, Moorpark and Piru sub-areas; however growth within any area signals a potential increase in demand for recreation and park services. Similar to other public services, agencies are often required to absorb growth with limited additional funding. Funding is frequently a limiting factor for expansion of services, and agency revenues are often at risk when funding is needed for other public services. While some of the services needed for subdivisions and developer-driven growth can be addressed through a Quimby Ordinance, Mello- Roos or other funding mechanisms, these mechanisms rarely provide all the funds necessary to adequately increase programs or facilities, or for on-going operational costs. Also, these mechanisms do not address the needs generated by growth that is a result of infill, development of single parcels, or redevelopment. Those agencies that operate their recreation and park funds as an enterprise do not face the same degree of impacts, but they are still challenged to maintain the expected level of service as population increases. Most of the County’s planning areas are projected to have some level of growth as are adjacent areas in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties. The projected population of those areas, along with the March 16, 2005 18 Final III. District Review agency primarily responsible for providing recreation and park services, are shown below in Table III-2. TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--22 VVeennttuurraa CCoouunnttyy PPooppuullaattiioonn PPrroojjeeccttiioonnss bbyy SSuubb--AArreeaa Annual Sub-area 2005 2010 2015 2020 Growth Rate Ahmanson Ranch Area 410 410 410 410 0.00% • County of Ventura* Camarillo Area 82,809 89,084 93,014 96,949 1.14% • Pleasant Valley RPD Fillmore Area 16,534 18,068 20,628 23,038 2.62% • City of Fillmore** Los Posas Area 3,666 3,788 3,911 4,034 0.67% • County of Ventura* Moorpark Area 31,777 32,561 33,346 42,108 2.17% • City of Moorpark** North Half Area 1,072 1,140 1,207 1,274 1.26% • County of Ventura* Oak Park Area 13,541 13,541 13,541 13,541 0.00% • Rancho Simi RPD Ojai Area 32,106 32,901 33,866 34,190 0.43% • City of Ojai** Oxnard Area 175,076 183,819 194,392 205,301 1.15% • City of Oxnard** Piru Area 2,360 2,596 2,834 3,070 2.01% • County of Ventura* Port Hueneme Area 23,512 23,512 23,512 23,512 0.00% • City of Port Hueneme** Santa Paula Area 34,724 37,515 40,625 43,443 1.67% • City of Santa Paula** Simi Valley Area 131,099 135,621 140,994 145,700 0.74% • Rancho Simi RPD Thousand Oaks Area 129,550 135,736 138,619 139,213 0.50% • Conejo RPD Ventura Area 114,193 119,652 125,454 130,696 0.96% • City of San Buenaventura** County Total 792,429 829,944 866,353 906,479 0.96% * The County of Ventura historically has been primarily responsible for regional recreation and park services Countywide. Because County Service Area No. 33 is not funded or functional, the County is also primarily responsible for recreation and park services in unincorporated areas not within the boundaries of the Conejo, Pleasant Valley and Rancho Simi Recreation and Park Districts. ** The cities of Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula and San Buenaventura are the primary providers of recreation and park services within their respective growth areas. The recreation and park services provided by these cities will be addressed in the municipal service review for these cities. Final 19 March 16, 2005 III. District Review Special districts often do not have the means to project population growth within their service area, and therefore must rely on the more generalized information provided by the cities, the County or other public entities. Even with this limitation, the agencies included in this review are aware of the growth and development trends for Ventura County and the areas they serve. The special districts noted the following population projections: • Conejo RPD: 145,000 at build-out • Pleasant Valley RPD: 90,000 at build-out • Rancho Simi RPD: 159,000 at build-out The Casitas Municipal Water District and the United Water Conservation District have specific recreational facilities (Lake Casitas and Lake Piru) and projections for population growth are not useful. Usage at similar facilities is often expressed in annual visitor days. The United Water Conservation District noted in their 1997 “Lake Piru Recreational Area Master Plan” that annual visitor days at Lake Piru ranged from 200,000 during drought conditions to 600,000 at the Lake’s full water elevation. Population growth will continue to impact the agencies providing recreation and park services as they try to maintain existing levels of service and provide for capital improvements in the face of increasingly limited funding. However, the agencies have considered potential growth within their master plans, capital improvement programs and service plans and are balancing operations with capital needs to the greatest extent possible. D. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES The agencies included in this review offer a wide range of recreation and park facilities and programs. The variety is due to a number of factors including customer preferences, natural amenities, service area demographics, City and County General Plans, and funding sources. Most of the agencies have master plans and capital improvement programs that guide the future development of their facilities. CCaassiittaass MMuunniicciippaall WWaatteerr DDiissttrriicctt The Casitas Municipal Water District operates the 300-acre Lake Casitas Recreation Area located in the Ojai Valley. Lake Casitas was constructed in 1959 as a reservoir; recreational uses include outdoor activities such as boating, camping, fishing, walking, and hiking as well as the Blue Heron Water Park that opened in 1997. In 2003 the District added a “lazy river” attraction and renamed the Water Park to the Lake Casitas Water Adventure. There are 12 campgrounds with over 400 campsites ranging from basic to executive hook-up with concrete pad, grass and sewer connection for long-term visitors. Group camping is available as well as recreational vehicle storage. Large group picnic areas are also available. Boats are permitted on the lake with a permit that can be purchased as day use or annually. The District has developed a five-year capital improvement program (CIP). The CIP addresses facility needs district-wide and includes $22 million in projects for both the water utility and recreation area. The District noted that the CIP program is 100% funded. CCoonneejjoo RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt March 16, 2005 20 Final III. District Review The Conejo Recreation and Park District provides a number of programs and facilities in the Conejo Valley, including the planned communities of Dos Vientos Ranch and Shapell/Rancho Conejo. The District maintains 42 parks, nearly 15,000 acres of open space and more than 100 miles of trails. Within Dos Vientos, there is a 27.8-acre community park and community center as well as a 5.1-acre neighborhood park. A new 4.56-acre neighborhood park is scheduled to open in FY 2005. The Rancho Conejo development includes two softball fields with a soccer overlay, two tennis courts, basketball court, sand tot lot and play equipment, sand volleyball court, restrooms, parking lot and open turf. The Conejo RPD adopted its Master Plan in 1992, and the Plan now serves as the Recreation Element for the City of Thousand Oak’s General Plan. The District’s service area is divided into six basic community zones and 19 neighborhood service areas. Each of these zones includes an analysis of community parks, playfields, and neighborhood parks with existing and projected population, acreage needed, and status. The District estimates that approximately 63% of the population within its service area utilizes District services and facilities. The overall participation level, including multiple uses by the same person, is estimated at nearly 1.4 million. The District offers a variety of classes and programs for residents. The District’s 1992 Master Plan serves as a guide for the acquisition and development of park and recreation areas and facilities for the Conejo Valley community. The Plan includes standards that are used to determine future facility needs. In accordance with the Plan, the District has a capital improvement program that identifies 51 proposed projects with an approximate cost of $6.1 million. The three largest projects are developing a master plan and Phase I for the Lang Ranch Community Park, lake construction and painting at McCrea Ranch, and completion of fields and lighting and design for Phase II at Conejo Creek Park South. The CIP is approximately 77% funded. The District noted several areas where there are unmet service needs. These include areas surrounding Lang Ranch Community Park, Northwood Park, McCrea Ranch, Conejo Creek Southwest, Banyan Park, Thousand Oaks Community Park, Oakbrook Neighborhood Park, Woodridge, and within the Rancho Conejo and Dos Vientos Specific Planned areas. The District’s 1992 Master Plan is reviewed annually in conjunction with the preparation of the District budget. The infrastructure needs of the District are addressed through this planning process. CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa NNoo.. 3333 The County of Ventura owns, maintains and/or operates 16 regional parks, 5 local parks, and 3 golf courses, and leases three other parks. Each of the regional recreation and park facilities owned by the County are operated as separate facilities and each is generally required to fund its operation and maintenance costs through fees. While County Service Area No. 33 (CSA #33) was formed in 1991 to provide “enhanced funding for local parks and recreational facilities in the unincorporated areas” (excluding areas within the Conejo, Pleasant Valley and Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks Districts, and offshore islands), the County has not used CSA #33 to fund or manage its facilities since 1995. The County General Services Agency did not return a service review questionnaire for CSA #33 as it is a non-functional District. PPlleeaassaanntt VVaalllleeyy RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt Final 21 March 16, 2005 III. District Review The Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District serves the greater Camarillo area. The District owns and operates 27 parks and a variety of recreational facilities including: indoor and outdoor swimming pools, lighted ball fields, tennis courts, racquetball courts, a running track, children’s play equipment, picnic shelters, and barbeques. Recreation and recreation-related classes for residents are offered at all of the District’s facilities. There are five community parks, generally over 10 acres in size, located throughout the community for easy access. In addition, there are 20 neighborhood parks, less than 10 acres in size, designed for passive use. These are intended to be within one-half mile from any residence. The District also operates one equestrian arena and one skateboard park. The District has adopted a capital improvement program that covers a ten-year period. It includes $3 million in projects and is 100% funded. RRaanncchhoo SSiimmii RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District serves the Simi Valley and Oak Park areas. The District’s facilities include five developed urban community parks, eight themed community parks, 27 neighborhood parks, and three swimming pools. The District also owns a 9-hole and an 18-hole golf course, an equestrian center and trails, historic buildings, a lagoon and numerous sports fields and courts. More than 250 programs are offered throughout the year, including programs designed for the mentally and physically disabled. A skateboard park and a dog park were identified as unmet service needs. The District adopted its “General Plan for Parks, Recreation and Open Space” in 1986; this serves as a master plan to guide the future development of district facilities. In accordance with this Plan, the District has established standards for community parks, neighborhood parks and play fields. The District has adopted a capital Improvement program that covers a ten-year period and is updated annually. $12 million is allocated to one year, with $18 million identified for the full ten-year period. The Plan is 83% funded, provided that assessment and Quimby fees continue. UUnniitteedd WWaatteerr CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn DDiissttrriicctt The United Water Conservation District owns and manages recreational facilities in the Lake Piru Recreation Area. The Santa Felicia Dam formed Lake Piru; the District owns approximately 2,200 acres around and including the Lake. Along the western shore, the District has developed 60 acres with various recreational facilities for camping, boating, fishing, swimming and picnicking. These facilities serve the population throughout the region, drawing users from both Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. The District provides developed camping facilities with water and electric hookup as well as a full-service marina and snack bar. There are 238 campsites and 66 boat slips at the marina. The District developed a draft “Lake Piru Recreation Area Master Plan” in 1997. While apparently still in draft form, the District uses this Plan’s policies and guidelines for management and operation of the recreation area as well as identifies future enhancements. Potential projects have been classified into Short-Term and Long-Term Strategies primarily determined by expected funding source and projected revenue return. Potential infrastructure improvements for the facilities include improved circulation, water system extension and improvements, wastewater system improvements, and parking. March 16, 2005 22 Final III. District Review The District has an adopted capital improvement program that covers a five-year period. Recreational facilities at Lake Piru are addressed in the plan. The District noted that the CIP includes $11.3 million in projects district-wide and it is currently 11% funded. E. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES, COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES AND RATE RESTRUCTURING The three Recreation and Park Districts serving the central and eastern areas of Ventura County were formed in the early 1960’s. Since they levied a property tax prior to Proposition 13, they are entitled to continue sharing a proportionate share of the 1% overall property tax. The cities served by these districts – Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks – were all incorporated after the creation of the Districts and have a smaller proportional share of the property tax revenue. The two water districts within the scope of this review provide recreational services in addition to their primary water services. While comparable in some ways to the Conejo, Pleasant Valley and Rancho Simi RPDs, the Casitas Municipal Water District and the United Water Conservation District were formed under different enabling legislation and their primary mission is substantially different than that of the Recreation and Park Districts. Both the Casitas MWD and United WCD provide recreational services as an ancillary service to their primary mission of the provision of water services. These recreational services are fee based and are regional in nature. Both of these Districts receive property tax funding, although user fees fund recreation services. As a method of evaluation, the recreation and park expenditures per capita were compared between special districts and cities providing similar services. Any comparison of this type must note several caveats: • It is expected that the cities within the service areas of the Recreation and Park special districts would have little or no expenditures as the Recreation and Park Districts meet the need for services. However, cities outside the boundaries of any recreation and park district would carry a greater burden for provision of services. • The Recreation and Parks special districts spend more per capita because of their property tax and special assessment allocations that remain undiluted by demand for other public services. It is unknown whether the expenditures reported for cities cover the full cost of all support services. Thus, this comparison may not yield a true “apples to apples” comparison between the special districts and the cities. • The population served (the per capita part of the equation) varies with the expenditure time period used. While expenditures are typically known, figures for the population served are usually estimates. Obviously, changing the population served estimates will result in different per capita expenditures. With the caveats noted, Table III-3 on the next page compares per capita spending for recreation and park services as reported to the State Controller for the 2001-02 Fiscal Year period. No figures have been included for the United Water Conservation District or the Casitas Municipal Water District because they are primarily providing recreation facilities associated with their lakes and serving a much larger population base than the local community. Also, County Service Area No. 33 is not included because, as previously noted, it is not funded or functional. Final 23 March 16, 2005 III. District Review TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--33 RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk EExxppeennddiittuurreess PPeerr CCaappiittaa EXPENDITURES PUBLIC AGENCY PER CAPITA RPDs and Cities within MSR Area Conejo RPD $83.13 City of Thousand Oaks 0* Pleasant Valley RPD $72.00 City of Camarillo $0.02 Rancho Simi RPD $83.86 City of Simi Valley 0 Cities outside RPD MSR Area City of Fillmore $19.52 City of Moorpark $61.86 City of Ojai $107.36 City of Oxnard $37.17 City of Port Hueneme $28.70 City of San Buenaventura $66.83 City of Santa Paula $15.87 County of Ventura $4.33 * Capital outlay only CCaassiittaass MMuunniicciippaall WWaatteerr DDiissttrriicctt The Casitas Municipal Water District was formed under the Municipal Water District Act of 1911 (Water Code §71000 et seq.). The District operates its recreational facilities as an enterprise fund with full cost recovery. Revenue is received from fees and grants, approximately 62% and 38% respectively. For the three years ended June 30, 2004, the District received a total of $1.59 million in grant funding; however no grant funding is budgeted for FY 2005. Table III-4 provides a financial summary related to the District’s recreation services. TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--44 CCaassiittaass MMWWDD:: FFiinnaanncciiaall PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee –– RReeccrreeaattiioonn SSeerrvviicceess RECREATION FUND FY 04-051 FY 03-042 FY 02-032 Total Operating Revenue $2,281,148 $2,479,950 $2,191,092 Total Operating Expense $1,991309 $2,728,116 $2,011,226 Income (Loss) $289,839 ($248,166) $179,866 Fund Balance, end of year NP NP NP 1 Based on the District’s budget; note that the District’s budget does not include depreciation. 2 Actual amounts based on the District’s audits; includes depreciation. NP = not provided March 16, 2005 24 Final III. District Review The District’s recreation services, including operations, capital expenditures and required revenue, are addressed by the District Board’s Recreation Committee and then submitted to the Board for any required action. The October 22, 2004 Committee Report noted that revenue projections for the Lake Casitas Water Adventure had been exceeded for the prior season. The District is avoiding costs through its planning and management strategies. It subleases the snack bar concession and operates a trailer storage facility on site to generate additional income. The District reviews rates annually and has established a rate structure based on full cost recovery. Frequent Visitor Cards are offered, which provide discounted prices to cardholders. Day use fees are $6.50 per vehicle and basic campsites with electric and water are $24 per night. The Recreation Committee recently recommended changes in the trailer storage contract, increasing late fees from $2.50 to 10% of the outstanding balance and making the fee effective after 14 days instead of 30. An impoundment fee of $25 was also added. This recommendation was pending with the Board when the District completed the municipal service review questionnaire. CCoonneejjoo RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt The Conejo Recreation and Park District was formed under the Public Resources Code §5780 et seq. The District is funded primarily through property taxes, user fees, grants and special assessments. As part of its financial management structure, the District operates with four separate funds: the General Fund, the District-wide Assessment District (Park Maintenance and Recreation Improvement District), the Dos Vientos Assessment District, and the Rancho Conejo Assessment District. The voters approved the District-wide Assessment in 2001 to provide adequate funding for park maintenance as well as funds for repair and replacement of capital facilities. Table III-5 provides a financial summary of the District. TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--55 CCoonneejjoo RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt:: FFiinnaanncciiaall PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee GENERAL FUND FY 02-031 FY 01-022 FY 00-013 Total Operating Revenue $12,702,156 $11,256,751 $10,609,197 Total Operating Expense $12,104,176 $10,326,896 $9,691,055 Income (Loss) $597,980 $929,855 $918,142 Fund Balance, end of year $2,711,468 $2,436,611 The three special assessment rates are as follows: Rancho Conejo $39.72 (per single family residence) Dos Vientos $146.12 (per single family residence) District-wide $29.96 (per single family residence) The District’s expenditures include 16% for management services, 45% for parks and planning, and 39% for recreation. The City of Thousand Oaks levees a Quimby fee that is passed on to the District to provide funding for parks associated with new residential development in the City. 1 District’s General Fund Budget Summary. www.crpd.org 2 Independent Auditor's Report, Moss, Levy & Hartzheim, October 30, 2002. 3 Ibid. (report includes data on prior year) Final 25 March 16, 2005 III. District Review The most important financial issue facing this District is the loss of property tax funding due to the State’s budget act of 2004, which significantly changes on how local revenues are allocated. Property tax revenues as a percentage of total operating revenues have dropped from 70% in FY 2003 to 57% in the most recent budget (FY 2005). The District has maintained revenues with Proposition 218 approved assessments. However, with the decrease in revenue due to the property tax shift to the State, the District will be redirecting funds intended for capital improvements from the District-wide assessment to the General Fund in order to maintain park and recreational facilities at the standards consistent with community expectations during the next two fiscal years The District appears to be meeting the needs of its residents for parks and recreation services and is in good fiscal condition. Voter approval of Proposition 218 assessments indicates a strong level of support for District activities. The ability to obtain approval for assessment funding has been a vital part of preserving service levels and will continue to be important in the future. The District is avoiding costs through its planning and management efforts. It noted numerous JPAs and intergovernmental agreements that provide a cooperative approach to fulfill public service gaps efficiently and cost-effectively. The District noted that it has frozen six positions for FY 2005 in anticipation of future funding limitations. The District reviews its fee structure annually and makes adjustments as necessary based on inflation and other cost increases. Facility fees and user fees are charged for the District’s various programs and facilities. The recreation program fee structure is intended to recover 50% of the costs of the recreation division, in the aggregate. Activity fees are set to recover direct costs as well as indirect costs when possible, taking into consideration the public’s ability to pay and market factors. Users who reside outside the District’s service area generally pay an additional 20% for recreation programs. Fee waivers are provided to individuals who qualify based on financial hardship. CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa ##3333 County Service Area #33 is non-functional and has not received any revenue or incurred any expenses since 1995. No financial reports are available. PPlleeaassaanntt VVaalllleeyy RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt The Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District was formed under the Public Resources Code §5780 et seq. The District receives approximately 70% of its revenue from property taxes and special assessments. The remaining sources include services charges, fees, grants and other income. The District maintains a separate fund for the special assessment used for capital improvements. The District’s financial summary is shown in Table III-6 on the following page. March 16, 2005 26 Final III. District Review TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--66 PPlleeaassaanntt VVaalllleeyy RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt:: FFiinnaanncciiaall PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee GENERAL FUND FY 03-041 FY 02-032 FY 01-023 Total Operating Revenue $5,162,392 $4,926,305 $5,027,264 Total Operating Expense $4,812,668 $6,114,867 $5,158,036 Income (Loss) $349,724 ($1,188,562) ($130,772) Fund Balance, end of year NP $900,837 $2,492,797 The special assessment rate structure is $29.10 per single-family residence. The City of Camarillo levees a Quimby fee that is passed on to the District to provide funding for parks associated with new residential development in the City. This District has also had to cope with declining property tax revenues due to the State budget. The District noted that it has laid off 12 employees and cut programs in anticipation of the pending property tax shift to the State. In the past, the District has successfully obtained additional assessment financing and as a result, expenditure levels have been maintained to this point, although in real terms expenditures are down slightly since the late 1990’s. With the loss of property tax funding to the State this District has and will become more dependent on Proposition 218 voter approved assessments. Budget trends over the last two years have been negative, with reserves dropping by more than $1.5 million. It appears that most of this has been due to capital outlay and may not reflect operating costs. Revenues from special assessments, which are kept separate from the General Fund along with a transfer out of the General Fund, offset some of this negative performance. The biggest financial issue for this District is that combined general and special fund expenditures exceeded total revenues by approximately $736,000 in FY 2003. However capital outlay was approximately $1.2 million the same year. Reserves are adequate at the current level for an agency of this size. The District is avoiding costs through its planning and management efforts. It participates in a Joint Powers Authority to purchase insurance at a reduced rate. The District establishes its rate structure based on a comparison of the rates charged by other agencies in the area as well as service to residents and specific costs. Within the past two years, rates have increased 30%. Users who reside outside the District’s boundaries pay fees that are 50% higher than residents within the boundaries. Facility fees are charged for facility rentals and group use of athletic fields and picnic/park areas. Program fees are based on cost for the facility and the instructor. RRaanncchhoo SSiimmii RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District was formed under the Public Resources Code §5780 et seq. The District’s operations are funded primarily through property tax revenue, special assessments and grants (60%), and by user fees (40%). In the past the District has received approximately 5.5% of the 1% property tax assessment. Capital development and improvement projects are funded primarily through one-time park dedication fees paid on a per parcel basis during new home construction. Revenue from a special assessment and grants supplement the primary revenue sources. The District 1 Provided by District on MSR questionnaire. 2 Independent Auditor's Report, Moss, Levy & Hartzheim, September 12, 2003. 3 Ibid. (report includes prior year’s data) Final 27 March 16, 2005 III. District Review actively pursues grant funding and has received $4.2 million from the State, $2.0 million in CDBG grants through the County of Ventura and City of Simi Valley, and $12,500 from private sources. Table III-7 summarizes the District’s financial performance. TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--77 RRaanncchhoo SSiimmii RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt:: FFiinnaanncciiaall PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee GENERAL FUND FY 02-031 FY 01-022 FY 00-013 Total Operating Revenue $10,362,550 $11,219,707 $11,190,948 Total Operating Expense $10,433,967 $10,901,299 $9,143,038 Income (Loss) ($71,417) $318,408 $2,047,910 Fund Balance, end of year $3,386,103 The special assessment rate structure is currently $26.82 per single-family residence. (Commercial property and vacant land is assessed at a lower rate.) Annual assessment increases are based on the Consumer Price Index and capped at 3% per year. However, the District may carry forward an adjustment if the CPI exceeds 3% in any given year for use in a year when the CPI is lower. In recent years the increase in the special assessment has averaged $0.70 per year. The City of Simi Valley levees a Quimby that is passed on to the District to provide funding for parks associated with new residential development in the City. Historically this District has tended to operate with operating revenues exceeding expenditures, which has probably benefited long term capital and rehabilitation needs. However with the advent of property tax shifts, this ability to keep operating revenues comfortably ahead of expenditures has eroded. Like other similar districts, Proposition 218 voter approved assessment financing will be necessary to maintain service levels. The District noted that they have taken aggressive steps to improve efficiency and maintain existing levels of service. Five employees were laid off in June 2004 due to pending reductions in property tax revenue. The District’s required Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) contribution is also a financial constraint. The District has a current outstanding balance of $595,000 on a Certificate of Participation that expires in November 2009. The District has generally posted good budget results and is in stable fiscal condition. However it has drastically cut capital spending in the last year and this trend is expected to continue through the next two fiscal years. The District is avoiding costs through its planning and management efforts. It also uses contractors to provide a variety of administrative and maintenance services, including golf course operations. The District establishes its rate structure depending on the activity. Some fees are set at full cost recovery and others are subsidized by district revenue. Rate reductions are offered to individuals who qualify for other governmental assistance such as the school discount lunch program. Within the past two years there has not been an overall rate increase, however fees for the after school program have 1 Independent Auditor's Report, Moss, Levy & Hartzheim, January 28, 2004. 2 State Controller’s Report. Fiscal Year 2001-2002 3 State Controller’s Report. Fiscal Year 2000-2001 March 16, 2005 28 Final III. District Review increased 2%. Users residing outside the District’s boundaries are required to pay a 25% higher rate for rental fees on select facilities due to high demand. UUnniitteedd WWaatteerr CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn DDiissttrriicctt The United Water Conservation District was formed under the Water Conservation Act of 1931 (Water Code §74000 et seq.). It is a multi service district providing electricity, flood control, water and recreation services. The District operates the Lake Piru Recreation Area with income derived from fees and other sources. The District received $1.9 million in grant funding in FY 2003. Table III-8 provides a financial summary. TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--88 UUnniitteedd WWaatteerr CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn DDiissttrriicctt:: FFiinnaanncciiaall PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee LAKE PIRU RECREATION FUND FY 04-051 FY 03-0410 FY 02-0310 Total Operating Revenue $878,000 $848,000 $2,900,000 Total Operating Expense $1,142,000 $1,164,000 $3,143,000 Income (Loss) ($264,000) ($316,000) ($243,000) Fund Balance, end of year ($17,456) ($16,475) ($16,475) The recreation facilities and services provided by the District are addressed by the Recreation Committee, which includes three directors and four staff members. This committee is responsible for the revenue, expenditures, and capital needs of the Lake Piru Recreation Area. Overall, the District has a variety of revenue sources and expenditure programs. About 25% of the budget is from property tax revenues. Water sales are responsible for about 50% of revenues and recreation and other revenues account for the remainder. From a governmental finance standpoint it has a relatively complex funding profile, with a variety of local and non-local revenues. Water activities account for more than 50% of total operating expenditures. Flood control (operation of the Freeman Diversion project) is the next largest expenditure category, at approximately $2.7 million or 28% of the total. Recreation expenditures are approximately $1.1 million per year, and electric operations are a very small operational expenditure component of approximately $100,000 per year. This District has a variety of funding sources, including taxes, user fees, grant revenues and water sales. In 1998, the District issued a revenue bond of $84,553 for capital improvements related to recreation. The bond matures in 2008; per the FY 2002 State Controller’s report, the District had an outstanding balance of $62,128. While the District has strong net revenues and solid reserves, it also has a relatively high debt service responsibility which is the primary reason expenditures have exceeded revenues in two of the last three years. In 2003 the debt service coverage ratio on all debt from net revenues was 0.92. As a general rule a debt service ratio of 1.25 is considered very adequate. The District received $1.96 million in a grant in 2002 for construction of a new boat ramp; the boat ramp will be operational in late 2004. 1 Provided by District on MSR questionnaire. Final 29 March 16, 2005 III. District Review The District establishes its rates for use of the Recreation Area based on a comparison with rates charged at other parks. Both day use and camping fees have increased in the past two years. The current day use fee is $7.50 per vehicle and a campsite with electric hookup is $27 per night. The District also charges a $7.00 reservation fee per transaction for camping. Annual passes are available for vehicles and boats. Seniors receive a $10 discount off an annual vehicle pass. The continuing decrease shown above in the Lake Piru Recreation Fund is after non-cash depreciation is added back in. This may indicate that revenue generated by the Recreation Area is not sufficient to meet expenditures, and may require rate restructuring to reduce the annual operating loss. F. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES, OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES AND GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS MMaannaaggeemmeenntt EEffffiicciieenncciieess All of the agencies included in this review, except for the non-functioning County Service Area No. 33, are achieving some level of management efficiency for their operations. Audits were current and unqualified for five of the six agencies as shown in Table III-9. In addition, the agencies indicated that they have regular reviews of the various statutory requirements for Board members such as the Brown Act and Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) requirements. Compensation of Board members, including expense reimbursement , travel and per diem rates, is consistent with applicable laws. TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--99 AAggeennccyy AAuuddiitt SSuummmmaarryy LAST AUDIT AUDIT AGENCY AUDIT SUBMITTED TO NEXT AUDIT COMMENT CYCLE COUNTY DUE S AUDITOR Casitas Municipal Water District 1 yr. June '03 Jun '04 Unqualified Conejo Recreation and Park District 1 yr. June '04 Jun ’05 Unqualified CSA #33 NA NA NA NA Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park 1 yr. June ‘03 Jun ‘04 Unqualified District Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District 1 yr. June ‘03 Jun ‘04 Unqualified United Water Conservation District 1 yr. June ‘03 Jun ‘04 Unqualified For this review, the Rancho Simi RPD provided a list of 54 action items that have been implemented since August 2003 (or are in the process) related to improving management efficiencies. This effort was initiated in anticipation of upcoming funding constraints and the District’s desire to maintain existing service levels to the greatest extent possible. The changes range from staff reorganization to efficiency improvements and service outsourcing. Table III-10 on the following page summarizes the recreation and park services staffing levels by agency. No significant issues were noted for management efficiencies. March 16, 2005 30 Final III. District Review TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--1100 AAggeennccyy SSttaaffffiinngg ffoorr RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk SSeerrvviicceess PARKS RECREATION AGENCY TOTAL REGULAR* SEASONAL REGULAR* SEASONAL Casitas MWD 4.5 10 5.0 75 94.5 Conejo RPD 59 4 239 103 405 CSA #33 NP NP NP NP NP Pleasant Valley RPD 22 0 29 30 81 Rancho Simi RPD 53 1-3 72 300-400 426-528 United Water CD 0 0 8 15 23 * includes contract instructors and other contract employees; NP = not provided. One goal for park and recreational services is to provide aesthetically pleasing, well maintained and preserved parks. By comparing the cost to maintain each acre of developed parkland, agencies can compare funding allocated to park maintenance. The Figure III-1 illustrates the maintenance cost per acre for developed parkland for the districts, but this type of comparison does not reflect the differences in developed parkland facilities held by each agency, in management philosophy or in the desires for services as shown by residents. FFIIGGUURREE IIIIII--11 MMAAIINNTTEENNAANNCCEE CCOOSSTT PPEERR DDEEVVEELLOOPPEEDD AACCRREE OOFF PPAARRKKLLAANNDD 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - Casitas United Conejo RPD CSA #33 Pleasant Rancho MWD Water CD Valley RPD Simi RPD Agencies Final 31 March 16, 2005 ercA rep tsoC Cost per Acre III. District Review SShhaarreedd FFaacciilliittiieess The use of shared facilities can be indicative of management efficiency as well as cost-effective service. The agencies noted the following shared facility arrangements and opportunities: • The Casitas Municipal Water District uses contract services for mechanical maintenance, accounting and park systems. • The Conejo RPD noted that it has several joint powers agreements (JPAs) and intergovernmental agreements with agencies to leverage agency resources toward a common public purpose. Through this cooperative approach, public service gaps are identified and closed efficiently and cost-effectively. The agencies include the cities of Thousand Oaks and Westlake Village, Conejo Valley Unified School District, County of Ventura, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Rancho Simi RPD. The agreements are both programmatic and facility-related. Perhaps the most notable of the JPAs are the one with the City of Thousand Oaks for the operation of the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency (COSCA), an agency that owns and manages thousands of acres of open space lands, and the JPA with Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a State Agency, and Rancho Simi RPD for the operation of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA). In addition, the District provides a summer recreation program for Westlake Village by contract and also provides administrative and financial services for the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority. • The Pleasant Valley RPD jointly funded a gymnasium with the Pleasant Valley School District and both agencies share the facility. The Pleasant Valley RPD also noted that it participates in a Joint Powers Authority for insurance. • The Rancho Simi RPD shares facilities such as the gym, pool, parks and athletic fields with the Simi Valley Unified School District (SVUSD), Oak Park Unified School District, and the Boys & Girls Club. In addition, the District has a shared purchasing agreement with SVUSD and participates in an insurance pool for liability and workers compensation. Also, the District, along with the Conejo RPD and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservation Authority, is a party to the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) JPA. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt SSttrruuccttuurree OOppttiioonnss WWaatteerr DDiissttrriiccttss No government structure options were identified for the Casitas Municipal Water District or the United Water Conservation District related to recreation and park services. Both agencies provide recreation services due to the available opportunity associated with the lake that is part of their water storage system. They directly operate and contract services out in relation to these facilities, and provide opportunities for concessions at the snack bars. Because of the Districts’ primary mission and goals, and due to security and water quality concerns, it is essential that these Districts maintain operational control of the recreational facilities within the lake areas. RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriiccttss There are three government structure options that might be considered for the three independent Recreation and Park special districts: March 16, 2005 32 Final III. District Review 1) Reorganization of the Recreation and Parks Districts and Cities. • Conejo Recreation and Park District with the City of Thousand Oaks • Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District with the City of Camarillo • Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District with the City of Simi Valley This option is similar for all three independent Recreation and Park Districts and, as such, the following discussion is applicable to each of the agencies. A reorganization would dissolve the Recreation and Park Districts with the appropriate city becoming the successor agency for the services provided by the Recreation and Park District. An advantage of any of the three potential reorganizations might include a simplification of boundaries and of service providers. However there are several disadvantages that seem to outweigh the advantages of any reorganization. First, each of the Districts serves areas outside incorporated areas and there is no other entity at present that could serve the unincorporated areas. While Ventura County owns and operates regional parks, due to sever budget constraints, County funding for parks is extremely low and in recent times the County has turned control of local parks over to other agencies. Also, as noted, County Service Area No. 33 that was originally formed to provide parks service to unincorporated areas is not funded and is non-functional. Residents outside the boundaries of the cities who currently enjoy access to recreational programs and local parks might find that their level of service would decline. Due to the State budget act of 2004, the amount of property tax revenues available to Recreation and Park Districts as well as cities will decline for at least the next two years. Municipalities will be increasingly challenged to adequately fund public safety and other “essential” services and levels of service for “non-essential” services such as recreation/parks are expected to temporarily decline as general fund monies are stretched. Since the voters within the three special districts have clearly stated their preference for improved recreation and park services by their approval of special assessments, it would seem that a reorganization of any of the Recreation and Park Districts with a city might be unpopular with residents, would not result in any significant costs savings and could result in a decline in the level of service provided. Finally, no issues regarding the recreation and park agencies were noted which might be improved by a reorganization. The Districts work closely with the cities, with numerous joint use facilities and agreements governing their operations. 2) Merge the three special districts into one large district: This option would include a reorganization of the three districts into one single district. However, it is highly probable that a single large district would create a bureaucracy that would reduce the value of any benefits derived from the change. There is a point of decreasing returns based on size and a single district could actually be too large to realize any economies of scale. In addition, there are service related issues pertaining to district assets, headquarters and existing intergovernmental agreements that would be difficult to address. 3) No change: This option would leave the districts with their existing spheres of influence and service areas. The three recreation and park districts are integral to the communities they serve, have support from their constituents, and provide facilities and services that improve the quality of life in their communities. Funding will continue to be an issue, especially in the next two years as property tax revenues are shifted to the State, but the districts attempt to responsibly balance service demands with resources and maximize efficiencies. Thus, maintaining the existing governmental structure of the districts is the preferred option. Final 33 March 16, 2005 III. District Review CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa ##3333 County Service Area #33 is a non-functional, dependent special district. The District was initiated by the Board of Supervisors in December of 1991 and formed, after LAFCO approval, in the same month. The Board of Supervisors stated purpose for forming CSA #33 was to provide “enhanced funding for local parks and recreational facilities in the unincorporated areas.” The District includes all unincorporated area in the County except areas within the Conejo, Pleasant Valley and Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks Districts, and except for offshore islands. However, since 1995 the District has been non-functional and no financial reports have been prepared. No revenue has been received or expenses incurred on behalf of the District. The County’s General Services Agency, which administers the County parks, has not used the CSA’s functions or governing structure and does not plan to in the future. It is recommended that the Ventura LAFCO encourage the County to initiate the dissolution of CSA #33 or consider taking unilateral action to initiate the dissolution of this District. SSpphheerreess ooff IInnfflluueennccee There are a number of “special study areas” areas for each of the three Recreation and Park Districts that will require additional analysis when completing sphere of influence updates. These special study areas are described briefly in Table III-11, Table III –12, and Table III-13, and shown on the corresponding maps for each Recreation and Park District. No similar special study areas were noted for the recreation and park services provided by either Casitas Municipal Water District or United Water Conservation District. March 16, 2005 34 Final III. District Review This Page Intentionally Left Blank Final 35 March 16, 2005 III. District Review TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--1111 CCoonneejjoo RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt SSppeecciiaall SSttuuddyy AArreeaass ((MMaapp IIIIII--77)) SPECIAL DESCRIPTION STUDY AREA Approximately 151.7 acres south of Santa Rosa Road on both sides of Hill Canyon Road – Approximately 98.3 acres of this area are owned by the City of Thousand Oaks, with a small area of approximately 0.6 acres being within the boundary of the City of Thousand Oaks and the Thousand Oaks City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). The County of 1 Ventura owns the remainder of this area. Because of the existing partnership relationships between the Conejo Recreation and Park District and the City of Thousand Oaks, this area and adjoining public property should be considered to be included in the District’s sphere of influence. Approximately 14.8 acres consisting of portions of 4 lots accessed from Rocky High Road south of Santa Rosa Road – The District’s boundary and sphere of influence splits 4 2 privately owned lots in this area that are located outside the boundaries of the City of Thousand Oaks and the Thousand Oaks CURB. The District should consider initiating a detachment of this area and it should be removed from the District’s sphere of influence. Approximately 10.2 acres located between two segments of Moorpark Road – This area is owned by Southern California Edison and used for transmission lines. The area is outside the boundaries and sphere of the Conejo RPD and outside the boundaries and sphere of influence of the City of Thousand Oaks. However, according to maps provided by the City 3 of Thousand Oaks, the area is within the Thousand Oaks CURB. LAFCO and the District should confer with the City of Thousand Oaks about this discrepancy and the City’s intentions before updating the District’s sphere of influence. If the City expects to include this area in the City in the future it should be included in the District’s sphere of influence. Approximately 8 acres north of Sunset Hills Boulevard between Windridge Avenue and Woodley Avenue – This area is owned by the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency (COSCA), but is outside the Conejo RPD’s boundary and sphere of influence. The area is in the boundary of the City of Thousand Oaks and the Thousand Oaks CURB. The area is also currently in the boundary and sphere of influence of the Rancho Simi RPD, and is 4 reflected as special study area 2 in Table III-13 and Map III-9 for the Rancho Simi RPD. Because both the Conejo RPD and the City of Thousand Oaks control the COSCA JPA, the Conejo RPD and the City of Thousand Oaks should work with the Rancho Simi RPD about detaching this area from Rancho Simi RPD, removing it from the Rancho Simi RPD sphere of influence, and adding it to the Conejo RPD sphere of influence and annexing it into Conejo RPD. Approximately 0.9 acres in open space northerly of Oakbrook Regional Park – This small area is part of a much larger property owned by the City of Thousand Oaks. It is within the boundary of the City of Thousand Oaks and the Thousand Oaks CURB. Current maps reflect it as being outside the boundary and sphere of influence of the Conejo RPD. However, current maps indicate that this area is in the boundary and sphere of influence of 5 the Rancho Simi RPD, and it is noted as special study area 1 in Table III-13 and Map III-11 for Rancho Simi RPD. Both the Conejo RPD and the Rancho Simi RPD should work with LAFCO to identify if this is a mapping error. If not, the area should be removed from the Rancho Simi RPD sphere of influence, detached from Ranch Simi RPD, and included in the Conejo RPD’s sphere of influence and annexed into the Conejo RPD. Approximately 323.4 acres southerly of Portero Road across from Rancho Dos Vientos Drive – This area is owned by the Mountain Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA). Part of the area is used for the Two Winds Stables and the remainder is public 6 open space. The area is outside the boundary of the City of Thousand Oaks and the Thousand Oaks CURB. However, because the Conejo RPD is a joint venture partner in MRCA, this area should be included in the District’s sphere of influence so that it could be annexed into the District in the future. March 16, 2005 36 Final III. District Review Map III-7: Conejo Recreation and Park District – Special Study Areas Final 37 March 16, 2005 III. District Review TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--1122 PPlleeaassaanntt VVaalllleeyy RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt SSppeecciiaall SSttuuddyy AArreeaass ((MMaapp IIIIII--88)) SPECIAL DESCRIPTION STUDY AREA Approximately 152 acres south of Highway 101, north of the Camarillo Airport and west of Wood Road – This area is in the Camarillo City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) 1 and, therefore, can potentially be developed. As such, it should be included in the Pleasant Valley RPD sphere of influence. Approximately 3.6 acres north of Central Avenue and west of W. Ponderosa Drive – This area is a portion of a larger parcel that is outside the boundaries of the City of Camarillo and the Camarillo CURB. It is outside the boundary of the Pleasant Valley 2 RPD, but current maps show the area as being in the District’s sphere of influence. The District should work with LAFCO to identify if this is a mapping error. If not, the area should be removed from the District’s sphere of influence. Approximately 18.4 acres north of Las Posas Road southerly of Antonio Avenue– This area includes St. John’s Medical Center and some medical office buildings. The area is 3 in the City of Camarillo but outside the boundary and sphere of influence of the Pleasant Valley RPD. This area should considered for inclusion in the District’s sphere so that it could be annexed to the District in the future. Approximately 13 acres north of Las Posas Road and east of Fieldgate Drive – This area is the site of the new Camarillo library and includes part of the right-of-way of Las Posas Road. It was annexed into the City of Camarillo in 2003, but is outside the Camarillo 4 CURB. Because of Conejo RPD’s relationships with the City of Camarillo, this area should be considered for inclusion in the District’s sphere of influence so that it could be annexed to the District in the future. Approximately 2.4 acres northeast of St. johns Seminary – This property is owned by the City of Camarillo and includes a water tank that is part of the City’s water system. It is in 5 the City, but is outside the boundary and sphere of influence of the Pleasant Valley RPD. For boundary consistency, this area should be considered for inclusion in the District’s sphere of influence so that it could be annexed to the District in the future. March 16, 2005 38 Final III. District Review Map III-8: Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District- Special Study Areas Final 39 March 16, 2005 III. District Review TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--1133 RRaanncchhoo SSiimmii RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt SSppeecciiaall SSttuuddyy AArreeaass ((MMaapp IIIIII--99)) SPECIAL DESCRIPTION STUDY AREA Approximately 0.9 acres in open space northerly of Oakbrook Regional Park – This small area is part of a much larger property owned by the City of Thousand Oaks. It is within the boundary of the City of Thousand Oaks and the Thousand Oaks CURB. Current maps reflect it as being in the boundary and sphere of influence of Rancho Simi 1 RPD. This area is the same as special study area 5 in Table III-11 and Map III-7 for the Conejo RPD. Both the Rancho Simi RPD and the Conejo RPD should work with LAFCO to identify if this is a mapping error. If not, the area should be removed from the Rancho Simi RPD sphere of influence, detached from Ranch Simi RPD, and included in the Conejo RPD’s sphere of influence and annexed into the Conejo RPD. Approximately 8 acres north of Sunset Hills Boulevard between Windridge Avenue and Woodley Avenue – This area is owned by the Conejo Open Space Recreation Agency (COSCA) but is in the boundary and sphere of influence of the Rancho Simi RPD. The area is in the boundary of the City of Thousand Oaks and the Thousand Oaks CURB, but is outside the Conejo RPD’s boundary and sphere of influence. The area is the same as 2 special study area 4 in Table III-11 and Map III-7 for the Conejo RPD. Because both the Conejo RPD and the City of Thousand Oaks control the COSCA JPA, the Conejo RPD and the City of Thousand Oaks should work with the Rancho Simi RPD about detaching this area from Rancho Simi RPD, removing it from the Rancho Simi RPD sphere of influence, and adding it to the Conejo RPD sphere of influence and annexing it into Conejo RPD. Approximately 7 acres southerly of Olsen Road, immediately behind the Calleguas Municipal Water District administration building – This area is owned by Calleguas Municipal Water District. The Calleguas administration building is in the boundary of the City of Thousand Oaks and in the Thousand Oaks CURB, but this adjoining area is outside the boundary of the City of Thousand Oaks and is within the City of Simi 3 Valley’s CURB. The area is also outside the boundary and sphere of influence of the Rancho Simi RPD. Because all other territory within the City of Simi Valley’s CURB is within the boundary of the Rancho Simi RPD, this area should considered for inclusion in Rancho Simi RPD’s sphere of influence so that it could be annexed to the District in the future. March 16, 2005 40 Final III. District Review Map III-9: Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District Special Study Areas Final 41 March 16, 2005 III. District Review In addition to the special study areas noted in Table III-1, Table III-12 and Table III-13, the following additional items should be considered as a part of the sphere of influence updates for the Conejo RPD and the Rancho Simi RPD: • The Conejo RPD owns approximately 0.25 acres of land in Los Angeles County. The Conejo RPD also provides services to the Westlake Village area located in Los Angeles County, even though no property tax revenues are received for this out of agency service area. All property owned by and all areas served by the Conejo RPD should be noted and mapped as a part of the sphere of influence review and update process. • LAFCO should discuss the Ahmanson Ranch CSD when updating the Rancho Simi RPD’s sphere of influence. The Ahmanson Ranch CSD was originally formed in anticipation of its eventual development but since the Ranch has been designated as permanent open space, and is now is owned by public agencies, LAFCO should investigate the possibility of dissolving the Ahmanson Ranch CSD when updating the Rancho Simi RPD sphere of influence. • The Bell Canyon CSD is surrounded by the Rancho Simi RPD and there are trails used by the residents of Bell Canyon that extend into the service area of the Rancho Simi RPD. It may be appropriate for LAFCO to include the Bell Canyon CSD within the sphere of influence of the Rancho Simi RPD to encourage the continued cooperation of the two agencies. G. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The independent special districts are governed by locally elected boards. CSA #33 is governed by the County’s Board of Supervisors. The board members of each district, their terms of office and compensation are shown in the following tables: TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--1144 CCaassiittaass MMuunniicciippaall WWaatteerr DDiissttrriicctt:: BBooaarrdd MMeemmbbeerrss aanndd TTeerrmmss TERM OF BOARD MEMBER TITLE COMPENSATION OFFICE James Word President 12/08 $171.06* per mtg Bill Hicks Vice President 12/06 $171.06* per mtg Peter Kaiser Secretary 12/08 $171.06* per mtg Russ Baggerly Director 12/08 $171.06* per mtg Charles Bennett Director 12/06 $171.06* per mtg * Maximum per month = $1,710.60 In addition to compensation for meetings, the directors receive up to $965.21 per month in medical insurance benefits and $85.26 per month in dental insurance. Meetings of the Casitas Municipal Water District Recreation Committee are held on the third Thursday of each month starting at 3:00 pm; general Board meetings are the second and fourth Wednesday of each month starting at 3:00 pm at the District office at 1055 Ventura Avenue in the unincorporated community of Oak View. Public notice is provided through mail and posting at the administrative office as well as on the District’s website. March 16, 2005 42 Final III. District Review TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--1155 CCoonneejjoo RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt:: BBooaarrdd MMeemmbbeerrss aanndd TTeerrmmss BOARD MEMBER TITLE TERM OF OFFICE COMPENSATION Susan Holt Director 11/06 $100 per mtg.* Michael Berger Chair 11/06 $100 per mtg.* Mark Jacobsen Director 11/08 $100 per mtg.* Joe Gibson Vice-Chair 11/06 $100 per mtg.* George Lange Director 11/08 $100 per mtg.* * Directors are limited to a maximum of $500 per month in compensation The District directors do not receive any insurance benefits. Meetings of the Conejo Recreation and Park District are held on the first and third Thursday of each month at 7:30 pm at the District offices at 403 West Hillcrest in Thousand Oaks. Notification of the public is through mailing and posting at the meeting location, on the District’s website, and at all District facilities. TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--1166 CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa ##3333:: BBooaarrdd MMeemmbbeerrss aanndd TTeerrmmss BOARD MEMBER TITLE TERM OF OFFICE COMPENSATION Steve Bennett Chair (District 1) 03/08 NA* Linda Parks Supervisor (District 2) 03/06 NA* Kathy Long Supervisor (District 3) 03/08 NA* Judy Mikels Supervisor (District 4) 03/06 NA* John Flynn Supervisor (District 5) 03/08 NA* * County Supervisors receive no additional compensation for CSA responsibilities The Board of Supervisors generally meets at 8:30 a.m. each Tuesday throughout the year. The Board may also meet at other times and places as decided by the Board. Notices are posted on bulletin boards at least ten days in advance of any public hearing at three locations, are published in local newspapers and are posted on the County’s website. The County’s website includes reports, agendas and other documents that improve public access. Final 43 March 16, 2005 III. District Review TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--1177 PPlleeaassaanntt VVaalllleeyy RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt:: BBooaarrdd MMeemmbbeerrss aanndd TTeerrmmss BOARD MEMBER TITLE TERM OF OFFICE COMPENSATION Jim Reser Chair 2006 $100 per mtg.* Nancy Bush Vice-Chair 2006 $100 per mtg.* Bob Stallings Board Member 2008 $100 per mtg.* Patty Hamm Board Member 2008 $100 per mtg.* Paul Rockenstein Board Member 2008 $100 per mtg.* * Board members are limited to a maximum of $500 per month in compensation Board members are eligible to participate in the District’s medical, dental and vision insurance programs at their own cost. The District reported that currently two board members receive medical insurance and all members receive dental and vision insurance. The individual Board members pay all costs for their own insurance. Meetings of the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District are held on the first Wednesday of each month starting at 7:00 pm at the District offices at 1605 E. Burnley in Camarillo. Notification of the public is through posting at the meeting location, on the District’s website, mailings (including email) and in the newspaper. TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--1188 RRaanncchhoo SSiimmii RReeccrreeaattiioonn aanndd PPaarrkk DDiissttrriicctt:: BBooaarrdd MMeemmbbeerrss aanndd TTeerrmmss BOARD MEMBER TITLE TERM OF OFFICE COMPENSATION Elaine Freeman Chair 12/08 $100 per mtg.* Gene Hostetler Vice Chair 12/06 $100 per mtg.* Mark Johnson Director 12/08 $100 per mtg.* Kate O’Brien Director 12/08 $100 per mtg.* Jim Meredith Director 12/06 $100 per mtg.* * Board members are limited to a maximum of $500 per month in compensation The directors receive $25,000 coverage in life insurance, $725 per month towards medical insurance premiums, $1,440 per year in dental reimbursements, and $332 per year in vision reimbursements. Meetings of the Rancho Simi District are held on the first and third Thursday of each month. The District has two locations and times for its Board meetings. When the Board meetings are held in Simi Valley, they begin at 6:30 p.m. at 1692 Sycamore Drive, which is the District headquarters. When the meetings are held in the Oak Park community, they begin at 7:00 p.m. and are held at 1000 N. Kanaan Road. Notification of the public is through posting at the meeting location (both locations), on the District’s website and mailings. March 16, 2005 44 Final III. District Review TTAABBLLEE IIIIII--1199 UUnniitteedd WWaatteerr CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn DDiissttrriicctt:: BBooaarrdd MMeemmbbeerrss aanndd TTeerrmmss BOARD MEMBER TITLE TERM OF OFFICE COMPENSATION Sheldon Berger President $121.50 per mtg* Roger Orr Vice-Chair $121.50 per mtg* Bruce Dandy Secretary/Treasurer $121.50 per mtg* Robert Eranio Director $121.50 per mtg* Lynn Maulhardt Director $121.50 per mtg* Daniel Naumann Director $121.50 per mtg* F.W. Richardson Director $121.50 per mtg* * Board members are limited to a maximum of $1,215 per month in compensation The District directors do not receive any insurance benefits. Meetings of the United Water Conservation District are held the second Wednesday of each month starting at 1:00 pm at the District offices at 106 N. 8th Street in Santa Paula. Notification of the public is through posting at the meeting location, on the District’s website, mailings (including email) and in the newspaper. SSuummmmaarryy Generally no significant issues regarding local accountability and governance were noted for any of the agencies included in this service review report. The governing boards appear to be locally accountable and all have current audits. Public access was evaluated by regularly scheduled meetings and locations and by the use of legally required notices. All agencies reported using the legally required means of giving notice of meetings. Final 45 March 16, 2005 IV. Determinations This Page Intentionally Left Blank March 16, 2005 46 Final IV. Determinations IIVV.. DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Determinations are based on data provided by the districts. H. CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. The Casitas Municipal Water District assesses its current and future infrastructure needs and deficiencies for its recreational services through its budget and annual Capital Improvement Program process. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. Population projections for the recreation and park services provided by the Casitas Municipal Water District are not relevant; the District bases the need for services on usage of current facilities. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. The Casitas Municipal Water District prepares a comprehensive annual budget. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. The Casitas Municipal Water District noted that it ensures that its recreational programs are self-supporting. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. The rates and fees of the Casitas Municipal Water District are set through a public process. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. None were noted and no information was provided by the agency. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. None were noted; no information was provided by the agency. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. The Casitas Municipal Water District noted that since 1989 it has decreased staff by 30%. 2. The District has adequate reserves for its recreation and park services. 3. The District is achieving management efficiencies related to recreation services through the Recreation Committee that oversees operations, capital expenditures and revenue, and provides recommendations to the Board. • Local accountability and governance 1. The Board members of the Casitas Municipal Water District are elected. 2. The District holds regularly scheduled meetings and has a website where information related to Lake Casitas recreational facilities is posted. 3. The District is locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information. Final 47 March 16, 2005 IV. Determinations I. CONEJO RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. The Conejo Recreation and Park District assesses its current and future infrastructure needs and deficiencies for its recreational services through its Master Plan (adopted in 1992), budget and annual Capital Improvement Program process. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. The Conejo Recreation and Park District relies on the population projections of the City of Thousand Oaks and other regional agencies. The City projects an ultimate population of 143,000; current population is approximately 121,000. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. The Conejo Recreation and Park District prepares a comprehensive annual budget. The District’s revenue sources are primarily comprised of property taxes, special assessments as allowed by Proposition 218, fees and grants. 2. The impact of a reduction in property taxes will affect the agency and could result in a reduction of services; however, reserves are adequate and the agency could request additional assessments from residents. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. The Conejo Recreation and Park District has an extensive set of agreements with other public and private agencies to ensure the maximum use of facilities and to avoid costs. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. The rates and fees of the Conejo Recreation and Park District are set through a public process; residents have approved special assessments for the purposes of providing higher levels of park and recreational services. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. The Conejo Recreation and Park District has an extensive set of agreements with other public and private agencies to ensure the maximum use of facilities and public property. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. The Conejo Recreation and Park District has considered reorganizations with other Recreation and Park Districts as well as with the City of Thousand Oaks. The benefits from the reorganizations were not considered to outweigh the costs and no reorganizations were initiated. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. The Conejo Recreation and Park District has a variety of mechanisms, agreements and joint uses to ensure maximum management efficiency. • Local accountability and governance 1. The Board members of the Conejo Recreation and Park District are elected and hold regularly scheduled meetings. The District has a website and posts copies of their budget and other appropriate information for residents and other interested parties. The District is locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information. March 16, 2005 48 Final IV. Determinations J. VENTURA COUNTY SERVICE AREA #33 • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. County Service Area #33 has no facilities and is not currently providing services. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. The growth and population within County Service Area #33 is based on the population projections of the County’s General Plan, VCOG and SCAG. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. County Service Area #33 has not received any revenue or incurred expenses since 1995.No financial reports have been prepared since that time. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. County Service Area #33 is non-functional and has no cost avoidance opportunities. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. County Service Area #33 does not charge any fees or service charges. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. County Service Area #33 is non-functional and has no opportunities to share facilities. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. County Service Area #33 is non-functional, does not provide any services and does not receive any revenue. The County’s General Services Agency does not plan to use the functions or structure of this dependent special district in the future for the provision of recreation and park services in unincorporated areas. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors should initiate the dissolution of CSA #33 or LAFCO should consider taking unilateral action to initiate the dissolution of this District. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. County Service Area #33 is non-functional and there are no current management requirements. • Local accountability and governance 1. County Service Area #33 is governed by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. The Board 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. Final 49 March 16, 2005 IV. Determinations K. PLEASANT VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. The Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District assesses its current and future infrastructure needs and deficiencies for its recreational services through its Master Plan, its budget and its annual Capital Improvement Program process. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. The Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District relies on the population projections of the City of Camarillo, VCOG and SCAG. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. The Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District prepares a comprehensive annual budget. The District’s revenue sources are primarily comprised of property taxes and special assessments as allowed by Proposition 218. 2. The impact of a reduction in property taxes will affect the agency and could result in a reduction of services; however, reserves are adequate and the agency could request additional assessments from residents. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. The Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District uses contractors and outside vendors for services when determined to be cost effective. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. The rates and fees of the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District are set through a public process; residents have approved special assessments for the purposes of providing higher levels of park and recreational services. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. The Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District has agreements with other public and private agencies to ensure the maximum use of facilities. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. The Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District has considered reorganizations with other Recreation and Park Districts. The benefits from the reorganizations were not considered to outweigh the costs and no reorganizations were initiated. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. The Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District uses outside vendors and contracting agencies to provide more efficient services; it increases management efficiencies through numerous arrangements with other agencies. • Local accountability and governance 1. The Board members of the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District are elected and hold regularly scheduled meetings. The District has a website and posts appropriate information on it for their customers. The District is locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information. March 16, 2005 50 Final IV. Determinations L. RANCHO SIMI RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District assesses its current and future infrastructure needs and deficiencies for its recreational services through its Master Plan (adopted in 1986), its budget and its annual Capital Improvement Program process. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District relies on the population projections of the City of Simi Valley and other regional agencies. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District prepares a comprehensive annual budget. The District’s revenue sources are primarily comprised of property taxes and service charges with some revenue from special assessments as allowed by Proposition 218. 2. The impact of a reduction in property taxes will affect the agency and could result in a reduction of services; however, reserves are adequate and the agency could request additional assessments from residents. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District began a process in August 2003 as part of its ongoing efforts to reduce costs and has saved approximately $1.2 million to-date through acting on direct cost avoidance opportunities. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. The rates and fees of the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District are set through a public process; residents have approved special assessments for the purposes of providing higher levels of park and recreational services. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District has agreements with other public and private agencies to ensure the maximum use of facilities. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District has considered reorganizations with other Recreation and Park Districts. The benefits from the reorganizations were not considered to outweigh the costs and no reorganizations were initiated. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District uses internal monitoring and evaluation to ensure maximum management efficiency. • Local accountability and governance 1. The Board members of the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District are elected and hold regularly scheduled meetings. The District has a website and posts appropriate information for residents and users. The District is locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information. Final 51 March 16, 2005 IV. Determinations M. UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. The United Water Conservation District has a draft Master Plan prepared in 1997 that addresses anticipated recreational facility needs at Lake Piru. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. The United Water Conservation District bases growth and population projections on SCAG, VCOG, Ventura County and municipal population projections and reports. 2. Population projections for the recreation and park services provided by the District are not relevant; the District bases the need for services on usage of current facilities. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. The United Water Conservation District adjusts recreational fees annually to ensure that recreational programs are self-supporting. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. The United Water Conservation District uses outside vendors and contractors for services when shown to be cost effective. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. The rates and fees of the United Water Conservation District are set through a public process. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. The United Water Conservation District currently participates in numerous common facilities and services with other agencies. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. The government structure options for the United Water Conservation District recreational services are limited. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. The United Water Conservation District uses outside vendors and contracting agencies to provide more efficient services; it increases management efficiencies through numerous arrangements with other agencies. 2. The District is achieving management efficiencies related to recreation services through the Recreation Committee that is responsible for revenue, expenditures and capital needs of the Lake Piru Recreation Area. • Local accountability and governance 1. The United Water Conservation District Board 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. 2. The United Water Conservation District holds regularly scheduled meetings at a time and place that encourages public participation. March 16, 2005 52 Final