LAFCO
Municipal Service Review: S Ventura LAFCO
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
VVEENNTTUURRAA LLOOCCAALL AAGGEENNCCYY FFOORRMMAATTIIOONN CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN
WWAATTEERR AANNDD WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR
MMUUNNIICCIIPPAALL
SSEERRVVIICCEE RREEVVIIEEWW RREEPPOORRTT
January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................1
II BACKGROUND TO SERVICE REVIEWS..............................................................5
II.1 Service Review Process..........................................................................................5
II.2 Federal, State and Local Regulatory Requirements...............................................8
III CALLEGUAS CREEK WATERSHED..................................................................13
III.1 Calleguas Creek Watershed Executive Summary................................................13
III.2 Public Agency Profiles...........................................................................................15
III.3 Growth and Population..........................................................................................20
III.4. Infrastructure..........................................................................................................21
III.5. Financing Constraints and Opportunities..............................................................28
III.6 Cost Avoidance Opportunities...............................................................................35
III.7 Rate Restructuring.................................................................................................48
III.8 Opportunities for Shared Facilities........................................................................48
III.9 Government Structure Options..............................................................................51
III.10 Evaluation of Management Efficiencies................................................................55
III.11 Local Accountability and Governance...................................................................57
IV OJAI-SAN BUENAVENTURA WATERSHED......................................................61
IV.1 Ojai-San Buenaventura Executive Summary........................................................61
IV.2 Public Agency Profiles...........................................................................................63
IV.3 Growth and Population..........................................................................................67
IV.4 Infrastructure..........................................................................................................69
IV.5 Financing Constraints and Opportunities..............................................................72
IV.6 Cost Avoidance Opportunities...............................................................................78
IV.7 Rate Restructuring.................................................................................................87
IV.8 Opportunities for Shared Facilities........................................................................89
IV.9 Government Structure Options..............................................................................90
IV.10 Evaluation of Management Efficiencies................................................................96
IV.11 Local Accountability and Governance...................................................................98
January 2004 Page i
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
V SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED..............................................................101
V.1 Santa Clara River Executive Summary...............................................................101
V.2 Public Agency Profiles.........................................................................................103
V.3 Growth and Population........................................................................................107
V.4. Infrastructure........................................................................................................109
V.5. Financing Constraints and Opportunities............................................................114
V.6 Cost Avoidance Opportunities.............................................................................120
V.7 Rate Restructuring...............................................................................................136
V.8 Opportunities for Shared Facilities......................................................................137
V.9 Government Structure Options............................................................................139
V.10 Evaluation of Management Efficiencies..............................................................141
V.11 Local Accountability and Governance.................................................................143
Page ii January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
LIST OF TABLES
III CALLEGUAS CREEK WATERSHED
III.1 Calleguas Creek Service Review Area Population Projections............................20
III.2 Population Projections for Calleguas MWD Service Area....................................21
III.3 Agency Projections of Current Population.............................................................21
III.4 Master Plans and CIPs..........................................................................................23
III.5 Water System Information.....................................................................................24
III.6 Wastewater Agency Information............................................................................28
III.7 2001-2002 Property Tax Revenue........................................................................31
III.8 Estimated 3-Month Reserves................................................................................35
III.9 Special Study Areas...............................................................................................37
III.10 Summary – Use of Contractors.............................................................................47
III.11 Water Rates ..........................................................................................................48
III.12 Wastewater Agency Rates....................................................................................48
III.13 Joint Service Agreements......................................................................................49
III.14 2001 Ventura LAFCO Special District Study.........................................................51
III.15 Employee Information............................................................................................57
III.16 Compensation for Elected Officials.......................................................................59
IV OJAI-SAN BUENAVENTURA WATERSHED
IV.1 Ojai-San Buenaventura Service Review Area Population Projections.................67
IV.2 Agency Projections of Current Population.............................................................68
IV.3 Regional Housing Objectives for Unincorporated Areas.......................................69
IV.4. Master Plans and CIPs..........................................................................................70
IV.5 Water System Information.....................................................................................71
IV.6 Wastewater Agency Information............................................................................72
IV.7 2001-2002 Property Tax Revenue........................................................................75
IV.8 Estimated 3-Month Reserves................................................................................78
IV.9 Special Study Areas...............................................................................................79
IV.10 Summary – Use of Contractors.............................................................................87
IV.11 Wastewater Agency Rates ...................................................................................88
IV.12 Water Rates (af).....................................................................................................88
IV.13 Water Rate Comparison........................................................................................88
IV.14 Joint Service Agreements......................................................................................89
IV.15 2001 Ventura LAFCO Special District Study.........................................................91
IV.16 Employee Information............................................................................................97
IV.17 Compensation for Elected Officials.......................................................................99
January 2004 Page iii
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
V SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED
V.1 Santa Clara River Service Review Area Population Projections........................107
V.2 Agency Projections of Current Population...........................................................108
V.3 Housing Element Compliance Review................................................................109
V.4. Master Plans and CIPs........................................................................................110
V.5 Water System Information...................................................................................111
V.6 Wastewater Agency Information..........................................................................113
V.7 2001-2002 Property Tax Revenue......................................................................116
V.8 Estimated 3-Month Reserves..............................................................................120
V.9 Special Study Areas.............................................................................................121
V.10 Summary – Use of Contractors...........................................................................135
V.11 Wastewater Agency Rates .................................................................................136
V.12 Water Rates (AF).................................................................................................136
V.13 Water Rate Comparison......................................................................................137
V.14 Joint Service Agreements....................................................................................138
V.15 2001 Ventura LAFCO Special District Study.......................................................140
V.16 Employee Information..........................................................................................143
V.17 Compensation for Elected Officials.....................................................................145
Page iv January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
LIST OF FIGURES
III CALLEGUAS CREEK WATERSHED
III.1 Calleguas Creek Watershed Service Review Area...............................................19
III.2 City of Camarillo Water District..............................................................................38
III.3 City of Simi Valley..................................................................................................39
III.4 City of Thousand Oaks..........................................................................................40
III.5 Calleguas Municipal Water District........................................................................41
III.6 Camarillo Sanitation District...................................................................................42
III.7 Camrosa Water District..........................................................................................43
III.8 Pleasant Valley County Water District...................................................................44
III.9 Triunfo Sanitation District.......................................................................................45
IV OJAI-SAN BUENAVENTURA WATERSHED
IV.1 Ojai-San Buenaventura Service Review Area......................................................65
IV.2 Meiners Oaks County Water District.....................................................................80
IV.3 Montalvo Municipal Improvement District..............................................................81
IV.4 Ojai Valley Sanitation District.................................................................................82
IV.5 City of San Buenaventura......................................................................................83
IV.6 Ventura River County Water District......................................................................84
V SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED
V.1 Santa Clara River Service Review Area.......................................................106
V.2 City of Fillmore.....................................................................................................122
V.3 City of Oxnard...................................................................................................123
V.4 City of Port Hueneme ......................................................................................124
V.5 City of Santa Paula ..........................................................................................125
V.6 Channel Islands Beach Community Services District ................................126
V.7 Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency........................................127
V.8 Ocean View Municipal Water District............................................................128
V.9 United Water Conservation District...............................................................129
V.10 Ventura County Service Area No. 30............................................................130
V.11 Ventura County Waterworks District No. 16 ................................................131
January 2004 Page v
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
LIST OF EXHIBITS
II.1 Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Agencies.................................7
III CALLEGUAS CREEK WATERSHED
III.1 Calleguas Creek Watershed Service Review Agencies.......................................18
III.2 2003 Calleguas MWD Water Sales.......................................................................26
III.3 Calleguas MWD Facilities......................................................................................27
III.4 2001 – 2002 Agency Revenue Comparison.........................................................29
III.5 2001 – 2002 Aggregate Sources of Agency Revenue..........................................30
III.6 2001 – 2002 Agency CIP Comparison..................................................................31
III.7 2001 – 2002 Agency Reserve Comparisons.........................................................33
III.8 Aggregate Reserves By Category.........................................................................34
IV OJAI-SAN BUENAVENTURA WATERSHED
IV.1 Ojai-San Buenaventura Service Review Agencies...............................................66
IV.2 2001 – 2002 Agency Revenue Comparison.........................................................73
IV.3 2001 – 2002 Aggregate Sources of Agency Revenues........................................74
IV.4 2001 – 2002 Agency CIP Comparison..................................................................75
IV.5 2001 – 2002 Agency Reserve Comparisons.........................................................76
IV.6 Aggregate Reserves By Category.........................................................................77
V SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED
V.1 Santa Clara River Watershed Service Review Agencies....................................105
V.2 2001 – 2002 Agency Revenue Comparison.......................................................115
V.3 2001 – 2002 Aggregate Sources of Agency Revenue........................................116
V.4 2001 – 2002 Agency CIP Comparison................................................................117
V.5 2001 – 2002 Agency Reserve Comparisons.......................................................118
V.6 Aggregate Reserves By Category.......................................................................119
Appendices
A Summary of Agency Financial Information
B. Determinations
Page vi January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
II.. EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY
The service review process for the water and wastewater agencies in Ventura County started in
January of 2003 and was completed in December of 2003 with the adoption of determinations
for the 21 agencies located in the Ojai-San Buenaventura and Santa Clara service review
areas. Determinations for the 15 agencies in the Calleguas Creek service review area were
adopted by the Ventura LAFCO Commission in September of 2003.
The Ventura LAFCO service review process was designed to not only comply with the
requirements of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 but
also to produce a useful end result for Ventura LAFCO. As part of the service review process, a
database was developed which contains information about each of the 36 water and wastewater
agencies as well as templates for service review information for all agencies in Ventura County.
The information in the database will be used for other service reviews and subsequent LAFCO
studies.
In addition, the service review process verified and corrected mapping information for all water
and wastewater agencies and identified specific special study areas where additional analysis
may be required. This information can be used by Ventura LAFCO to develop annual work
programs and to prioritize LAFCO’s allocation of staff resources.
All the 36 agencies addressed by the service review reports are listed in the following table. Of
those agencies, 24 provide only water and/or wastewater services, have now completed the
service review process and can be scheduled for sphere of influence studies. Eighteen (18) of
the 24 agencies have few or no sphere issues and it is expected that their sphere updates will
proceed with a minimal level of effort on the part of the Ventura LAFCO staff. The remaining six
agencies have sphere issues and may require more analysis on the part of LAFCO staff.
Eleven (11) of the 36 agencies provide more services than just water and wastewater and will
require subsequent service reviews. However, the database contains information that can be
used for portions of those studies.
The law for service reviews requires LAFCO’s to make determinations regarding potential
governmental structure options for the agencies. Some water and wastewater agencies in
Ventura County might reach greater economies of scale if they were to reorganize with another
agency at some point in the future and the service review process identified eight (8) possible
government structure options which are listed by letter in the following table.
Legal, economic, political and service barriers to each option were noted in the individual
service review reports. One substantial obstacle is the level of analysis required to fully address
each option on the part of the LAFCO and agency staff. For example, one potential government
structure option included a reorganization of the five public agency water providers in the Ojai
Valley area. A reorganization involving multiple agencies would require substantial effort on the
part of the agencies and LAFCO staff. As an alternative, the service review report for the Ojai-
San Buenaventura area suggested that Ventura LAFCO initiate the reorganization of the
agencies, refer the proposal to a committee or request that the public agency water providers
form a reorganization committee and return to LAFCO with a report and recommendations.
Reorganization committees could be used with other potential governmental structure options.
January 2004 Page 1
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Another alternative suggested in the service review reports was that Ventura LAFCO consider
adopting a policy allowing a “zero” sphere of influence designation for those agencies that
eventually should reorganize with another service provider. According to the policy, if
developed, changes in boundaries for an agency with a zero sphere of influence might be
prohibited or might require more in-depth analysis than for other spheres of influence. The
intent of a zero sphere of influence designation is to encourage agency staffs and boards to
work with potential successor agencies prior to a formal application to LAFCO. The agencies
with a suggested zero sphere of influence are also listed in the following table.
AGENCY POSSIBLE ZERO POSSIBLE
SPHERE REORGANIZATION
OPTION
SERVICE REVIEW PROCESS COMPLETE
MINOR SPHERE ISSUES
Camrosa WD Option A
Hidden Valley MWD
Lake Sherwood CSD
Meiners Oaks CWD X Option B
Montalvo MID X Option C
Ocean View MWD X Option D
Ojai Basin Groundwater MA X Option B
Ojai Water CD X Option B
Pleasant Valley CWD
Saticoy SD X Option C
CSA # 29
CSA # 30
CSA # 32
Waterworks # 1 X Option E
Waterworks # 16
Waterworks # 17
Waterworks # 19
Ventura Regional SD
SPHERE ISSUES
Calleguas MWD
Camarillo SD Option A
Fox Canyon Groundwater MA
Ojai Valley SD
Triunfo SD X Option G
Waterworks # 8 Option F
Page 2 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
SUBSEQUENT SERVICE REVIEW STUDIES REQUIRED
City of Camarillo Option A
City of Fillmore
City of Oxnard Option D and H
City of Port Hueneme Option H
City of San Buenaventura Option C
City of Santa Paula
City of Simi Valley Option F
City of Thousand Oaks
Casitas MWD X Option B
Channel Islands Beach CSD X Option H
United Water CD Option D
Ventura River CWD X Option B
Option A includes the City of Camarillo, Camarillo SD and Camrosa WD. A discussion of the issues can be found in the Calleguas
Creek service review report on page 47.
Option B includes the Casitas MWD, Meiners Oaks CWD, Ojai Groundwater MA, Ojai Water CD and Ventura River CWD. A
discussion of the issues can be found in the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review report on page 39.
Option C includes the Montalvo MID, Saticoy SD and City of San Buenaventura. A discussion of the issues can be found in the
Ojai-San Buenaventura service review report on page 42.
Option D includes the Ocean View MWD, United Water CD and City of Oxnard. A discussion of the issues can be found in the
Santa Clara service review report on page 48.
Option E includes Waterworks District #1 and the City of Moorpark. A discussion of the issues can be found in the Calleguas Creek
service review report on page 48.
Option F includes Waterworks District #8 and the City of Simi Valley. A discussion of the issues can be found in the Calleguas
Creek service review report on page 48.
Option G includes the Triunfo SD. A discussion of the issues can be found in the Calleguas Creek service review report on page
49.
Option H includes the Channel Islands Beach CSD and the Cities of Port Hueneme and Oxnard. A discussion of the issues can be
found in the Santa Clara service review report on page 41.
The service review process also identified areas of improvement that were beyond the scope of
Ventura LAFCO’s authority. Projections of population growth are critical for efficient planning for
future water and wastewater service delivery and in Ventura County those projections are
provided by a variety of agencies including the Department of Finance (DOF), Ventura Council
of Governments (VCOG), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Ventura
County and the individual water and wastewater providers. While there is some coordination
among the agencies in the source and methodology, the service review found fluctuations in
population projections which make estimates of future service demands more difficult. In
addition, population estimates for the boundaries of special districts are rarely provided by
regional agencies. Agencies such as SCAG and Ventura County should be encouraged to
develop standard protocols for projections as well as prepare population projections for special
district boundaries and for municipalities.
It was also noted that agencies could avoid some costs by exploring the merger of separate
agency Geographic Information System (GIS) systems. It was suggested that agencies
participate jointly in special GIS systems such as that being developed for watershed data in the
Calleguas Creek service review area and for Ventura LAFCO boundary and sphere maps.
Another issue that is beyond the scope of LAFCO to address is the need to have a source of
easily obtainable information about private/mutual water purveyors. The service review process
is only applicable to public water purveyors that come under the purview of LAFCO. The
January 2004 Page 3
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Ventura County Public Works Agency is in the process of updating a the 1996 “Inventory of
Public and Private Water Purveyors in Ventura County.” This inventory provides valuable
information regarding the full range of public and private water purveyors, but comprehensive
water planning in Ventura County might be improved with the increased dissemination of
information about private/mutual water companies.
Another related issue is the presence of private wells that are a significant source of water in
Ventura County. Several agencies have data regarding wells within their boundaries but there
is no single source of information that could be used for regional planning purposes. Planning
for Ventura County’s future infrastructure needs and deficiencies must also include appropriate
data about wells.
Few areas of existing infrastructure deficiencies among the water and wastewater agencies
were noted, however several agencies may face challenges in financing future infrastructure
upgrades. The Cities of Fillmore and Santa Paula each face a significant issue of infrastructure
deficiency and financing constraints, until there are more definitive plans for developing
additional wastewater capacity,
Agencies generally had well-established budget processes and procedures that fully utilize
opportunities to reduce or avoid costs. Some opportunities for future shared facilities and
avoidance of costs were noted in the individual service review reports.
Similar financing opportunities and constraints were noted for all water and wastewater
agencies. The cost to provide water and wastewater service will continue to increase as a
result of greater demand and increased federal and state regulations. The largest single source
of revenue (FY 2001-2002) for all the agencies was service charges/fees which represented
approximately 85% of total revenues. The total amount of property tax received by the agencies
(FY 2001-2002) was $8.3 million. The largest category of aggregate reserve funds was
designated for capital projects with amounts closely correlated to the agency’s capital
improvement plans. Operating and restricted debt reserves were the second and third largest
categories of reserves, respectively.
Comparing rates among the diversity of agencies involved in the service review was difficult.
The method of comparing rates used in the service review questionnaire did not yield useful
information and the database will be revised using a standardized and equitable means of
comparing water and wastewater rates.
Management efficiencies, local accountability and governance were also found to be efficient
among most of the agencies. Meetings are typically held after normal working hours and are
regularly scheduled and noticed. However, approximately 30% of the agencies do not maintain
web sites which are an effective means of disseminating information, complying with
environmental justice requirements and improving accountability to customers. No other
significant issues were noted.
After adoption by the Ventura LAFCO of determinations for all 36 water and wastewater
providers, this final report was prepared. This report consists of two separate documents. The
first document includes this Executive Summary, each of the three service review reports, final
determinations and financial summaries of each agency. The second document includes each
agency’s responses to the Ventura LAFCO service review questionnaire. Both documents can
be used by Ventura LAFCO to complete spheres of influence for the agencies involved.
Page 4 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
IIII.. BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD TTOO SSEERRVVIICCEE RREEVVIIEEWWSS
II.1 SERVICE REVIEW PROCESS
a) LAFCO’s Responsibilities, Spheres of Influence and Municipal Service Reviews
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California
Government Code §56000 et seq.) mandates that each LAFCO conduct service reviews prior to
or in conjunction with Sphere of Influence (SOI) studies and updates. LAFCOs are also
required to review and update the SOI for all agencies not less than once every five years.
The statutory authority (§56430) for service reviews states that LAFCO must prepare an
analysis and a written statement of determinations regarding 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
· Local accountability and governance
Service reviews are intended to result in options and future studies which will promote more
efficient service patterns, identify areas where service improvement is needed and assess the
adequacy of service provision in relation to SOIs. Service reviews are not intended to directly
change how services are provided; they are a tool to comprehensively review the major
services, the delivery of those services, any issues with the efficient provision of service and
potential actions by LAFCO that might address these issues, if any.
b) Description of Public Participation Process
The Ventura LAFCO water and wastewater service review process started in January 2003 with
the preparation of a draft questionnaire. An initial kick-off meeting with all agencies involved in
the water and wastewater service review was held to discuss issues and the draft questionnaire.
The final questionnaire, which was distributed to all 36 agencies, was divided into three parts.
The first part asked for quantitative data and addressed the agency‘s services, finances and
governance structure. Part I formed the basis of the subsequent database. The second part
included questions based on the service review determinations and was intended to give the
agencies an opportunity to provide qualitative responses.
The third part of the service review questionnaire consisted of a map with the agency‘s
boundaries and SOI. Each agency was asked to note locations of facilities, overlapping areas of
service and any illogical boundaries.
January 2004 Page 5
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Follow-up interviews with most agencies were conducted; some agencies requested that
interviews/meetings be held, if necessary, later in the process. All 36 agencies returned
questionnaires although the format, quantity and quality of information returned varied
significantly among the agencies. All information collected from the questionnaires was entered
into the database, which contains more than 15,000 separate entries and will be used for future
SOIs studies, service reviews and LAFCO reports. Due to the variation in information received
from the agencies, improvements and refinements to the database are continuing throughout
the process. To ensure accurate information, database reports for each agency were sent to all
agencies for verification and correction.
Due to the diversity of agencies, services and issues, Ventura County was divided in three sub-
regional areas roughly based on watershed boundaries. Agencies were included in only one
sub-region although there might be overlap in service areas and issues. A separate, stand-
alone service review report will be prepared for each sub-regional area.
Addressing service reviews on a sub-regional basis not only permitted a more focused analysis
but also reduced the need for agencies to allocate staff resources to follow the LAFCO process.
The agencies included within each service review sub-region are as follows. The service each
agency provides is included in Exhibit II.1, Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Agencies.
Calleguas Creek Watershed Service Review Area (15 agencies)
· City of Camarillo
· City of Simi Valley
· City of Thousand Oaks
· Calleguas Municipal Water District
· Camarillo Sanitary District
· Camrosa Water District
· Hidden Valley Municipal Water District
· Lake Sherwood Community Services District
· Pleasant Valley County Water District
· Triunfo Sanitation District
· Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1
· Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
· Ventura County Waterworks District No. 17
· Ventura County Waterworks District No. 19
· Ventura Regional Sanitation District
Ojai/Ventura Service Review Area (11 agencies)
· City of San Buenaventura
· Casitas Municipal Water District
· Meiners Oaks County Water District
· Montalvo Municipal Improvement District
· Ojai Groundwater Management Agency
· Ojai Valley Sanitary District
· Ojai Water Conservation District
· Saticoy Sanitary District
· Ventura County Service Area No. 29
Page 6 January 2004
EXHIBIT II.1
WATER AND WASTEWATER MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AGENCIES
Agency
SECIVRES
RETAW
retaW
elbatoP
citsemoD
liateR
retaW
elaselohW
tnemtaerT
retaW
retaW
demialceR-delcyceR
retaW
larutlucirgA
tnemeganaM
retawdnuorG
tnemhsinelpeR
retaW
noitavresnoC
retaW
SECIVRES
RETAWETSAW
noitcelloC
reweS
yratinaS
tnemtaerT
reweS
yratinaS
ecnanetniaM
&
gnirotinoM
metsyS
citpeS
Calleguas Creek Watershed
City of Camarillo X D D
City of Simi Valley C X D D
City of Thousand Oaks X D C D X D D
Calleguas Municipal Water District X D D D D D D D
Camarillo Sanitary District X D D
Camrosa Water District X D D D D D D D X D D
Hidden Valley Municipal Water District X D
Lake Sherwood Community Service District X D
Pleasant Valley County Water District X C
Triunfo Sanitation District X C C X C C
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 X D D D D D D X D D
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 X D D C D D D
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 17 X D D
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 19 X D D D
Ventura Regional Sanitation District X D X D C
Ojai/Ventura Agencies
City of San Buenaventura X D D D D D X D D
Casitas Municipal Water District X D D D D D D D D X D
Meiners Oaks County Water District X D D
Montalvo Municipal Improvement District X D D
Ojai Groundwater Management Agency X D
Ojai Valley Sanitary District X D D
Ojai Water Conservation District X D D D
Saticoy Sanitary District X D D
Ventura County Service Area No. 29 X D D
Ventura County Service Area No. 32 X D
Ventura River County Water District X D D
Santa Clara Watershed
City of Fillmore X D D D X D D
City of Oxnard X D D D D X D D
City of Port Hueneme X D C C C D X D C
City of Santa Paula X D D D D X D C
Channel Islands Beach Community Services Dist. X D C D D X D C
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency X C
Ocean View Municipal Water District X D
United Water Conservation District X D D D D D D
Ventura County Service Area No. 30 X D D
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 16 X D D
SERVICES PROVIDED = X (D=Direct, C=Contracted)
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
· Ventura County Service Area No. 32
· Ventura River County Water District
Santa Clara Watershed Service Review Area (10 agencies)
· City of Fillmore
· City of Oxnard
· City of Port Hueneme
· City of Santa Paula
· Channel Islands Beach Community Services District
· Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
· Ocean View Municipal Water District
· United Water Conservation District
· Ventura County Service Area No. 30
· Ventura County Waterworks District No. 16
A copy of each service review report and agency determinations was given to Ventura LAFCO
staff and their recommended changes were incorporated into a draft report. The draft municipal
service review report was distributed to each agency in the service review area. The final draft
report incorporated recommendations and corrections from the affected agencies.
The Ventura LAFCO Commission completed the water and wastewater service review process
in December of 2003. After adoption of the determinations by the Ventura LAFCO Commission,
Ventura LAFCO staff will begin to schedule the updates of the SOIs for the agencies.
II.2 FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
This background section is a brief overview of the current regulations for water and wastewater
systems and is intended to provide basic information for those who may be unfamiliar with the
complex and detailed regulatory requirements.
Numerous federal, state and local laws and agencies regulate water and wastewater. Some of
the state and regional plans and policies build upon the federal legislation. In other instances,
federal acts have established broad goals, which are to be achieved through implementation at
the state and/or local levels. Finally, there are some regulations that are unique to California.
There can be considerable and confusing overlap among the agencies, regulations and
associated acronyms. The following section identifies a few of the major federal, state and local
regulatory bodies and requirements for both water and wastewater programs.
a) Federal Laws and Regulations
The Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1972, and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
enacted in 1974, are the two major federal laws that regulate the nation's water resources. A
brief overview of relevant portions of the CWA is provided below1:
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Clean Water Act or CWA)
The CWA, with its amendments, is the principal law governing the nation’s streams, lakes, and
estuaries. It contains regulatory provisions that impose progressively more stringent
1 Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan, 2003. The Rick Alexander Company.
Page 8 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
requirements on industries and cities to reduce pollution and meet the goal of zero discharge of
pollutants.
The CWA established as national goals the elimination of pollutant discharges to the navigable
waters and the assurance that all navigable waters would be fishable and swimable. It also
established the following regulatory standards:
· No one has the right to pollute the navigable waters of the United States. Dischargers are
required to obtain permits.
· Permits shall set limits on the concentration of the pollutants being discharged. A violation of
the limits carries a penalty of fines or imprisonment.
· The best technology available shall be used to control the discharge of pollutants.
Other applicable sections of the CWA include:
1. Section 303(d) – Impaired Waters List and Total Maximum Daily Loads
2. Section 319 – Non-point Source Management Program
3. Section 401 – State Water Quality Certification Program
4. Section 402 (p) – The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
5. Section 404 – Permits for Dredged or Fill Materials
CWA Section 303(d) – Impaired Waters List and Total Maximum Daily Loads
This requires each state to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards after
application of technologically-based controls. Applicable water quality standards include
designated beneficial uses and adopted water quality objectives. Waterways are identified as
designated Water Quality Limited Segments (WQLSs) and are prioritized for purposes of
developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and establishing Waste Load Allocations
(WLAs) as well as Load Allocations (LAs). The TMDL is the sum of waste load allocations
(WLAs) for point sources of pollution, load allocations (LAs) for non-point sources of pollution
and natural background sources. Essentially the TMDL is the amount of a pollutant that can be
discharged into a water body and still maintain water quality standards.
CWA Section 319 – Non-point Source Management Program
Section 319 regulates non-point source pollutants, which enter water from diffuse sources.
Non-point source pollutants are often chemicals from lawns, automobile residues or urban
runoff that enter the wastewater stream and water supply in large quantities and sudden surges,
largely due to storms. Although California adopted a Non-point Source Management Plan
(NPSMP) in 1988, cities and counties have only recently begun adopting local implementing
rules and regulations. Control of this type of pollution has proven to be difficult and is expected
to require costly upgrades in existing facilities and permit costs, particularly for wastewater
facilities with high rates of infiltration.
CWA Section 401 – State Water Quality Certification Program
Prior to the issuance of federal CWA permits, the State Water Resources Control Board,
through the regional boards, certifies the quality of surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act. Section 401 requires that activities/facilities discharging pollutants into
waters must obtain a state water quality certification permit proving that the activity complies
with all applicable water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions.
January 2004 Page 9
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
CWA Section 402 – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Municipalities, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), and most industries in the United
States are now required to obtain an NPDES permit for discharges, including storm water
runoff. NPDES permits regulate discharge of “pollutants from point sources to waters of the
United States” to ensure that the discharges do not adversely affect surface water quality or
beneficial uses. NPDES permits are authorized by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and
Section 13370 of the California Water Code and the California Code of Regulations, Title 23,
Chapters 3 and 4. The responsibility for issuing NPDES permits in California has been
delegated to the regional water quality control boards, subject to review and approval by the
Regional Administrator (US EPA Region IX, San Francisco).
CWA Section 404 – Permits for Dredged or Fill Materials
Clean Water Act Section 404 permits are issued for the placement of dredged or fill materials
into water including wetlands. The Section 404 permitting process is designed to ensure that the
chemical, physical, and biological functions of the waters are protected. It includes mandatory
measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts. The Section 404 permitting process is
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Coastal Zone Act: Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) Section 6217 (g)
The US EPA has identified measures to protect coastal waters from non-point source pollutants
from agriculture. Specifically, the measures address erosion from cropland, application of
nutrients/pesticides, confined animal facilities, grazing land, and cropland irrigation.
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA)
The SDWA required the EPA to identify potentially harmful contaminants in drinking water and
to specify a maximum contaminant level for each contaminant. Water supply systems must
meet these standards by using the best technology that is economical, available and
technologically feasible.
The SDWA was amended in 1996 to require states to identify potential contamination threats
and determine the security of drinking water sources. The amendment also required that
qualified professionals operate water systems although California had already established a
certification program. Other requirements include the following:
Consumer Confidence Reports
Since 1999, public water systems must provide their customers with an annual water quality
report providing data about the quality of the local drinking water, compliance with EPA's safety
standards, sources of any contaminants, and potential health risks. The annual reports are
included with water bills for systems with more than 10,000 customers; for smaller systems the
information can be posted at a central location or published in local newspapers.
Water Conservation Plans
In 1998, the EPA issued guidelines for water conservation plans for public water systems. Now
states may require a water system to submit a water conservation plan consistent with the EPA
guidelines as a condition of receiving a loan.
Page 10 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Groundwater Standards
California vs. Federal Regulations
Most Americans rely on groundwater as
their source of drinking water and tap Rules
water and several SDWA rules regulate California is fully authorized to administer the National
groundwater protection. It protects Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for
wastewater dischargers and follows federal standards for
underground sources of drinking water
most effluent discharges and has procedures for obtaining
under the Underground Injection Control
wastewater discharge variances.
(UIC) program.
Administration and Enforcement
Regional WQCBs are responsible for the administration and
Proposed Arsenic Standard
enforcement of the water pollution control regulations in
The EPA established the maximum California.
allowable limit for arsenic in drinking
Wastewater Permits
water from 50 parts per billion (ppb)
California has established its own fee structure for
down to 5 ppb. Arsenic can produce a wastewater discharges into surface waters and storm water
variety of health-related problems, discharge permitting plans.
including cancer, cardiovascular
Monitoring
disease, neurological damage, and
California requires monitoring of both surface water and
diabetes. Many water supplies in
groundwater and has established extensive recordkeeping
California are significantly higher than requirements.
the 5 ppb level and would not meet the
Operating Standards and Requirements
proposed standard without additional
California has established effluent limitations, standards for
(and possibly very costly) treatment.
pretreatment and thermal discharge standards. Some
industries and publicly owned treatment works may be
b) California Laws and Regulations affected by additional monitoring requirements (California
Toxics Rule).
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of
Variances
1970
The State also has procedures in place for dischargers to
The California Water Code (CWC) is the obtain alternate permit limitations.
principal state regulation governing the
Noncompliance
use of water resources within the State
California has significant penalties for violations of its water
of California. This law controls water
pollution control regulations.
rights, the construction and
management of dams and reservoirs, flood control, conservation, development and utilization of
state water resources, water quality protection and management, and management of water-
oriented agencies. The water quality provisions set forth in the CWC have been written to
supplement provisions of the Health and Safety Code, Public Resources Code, Fish and Game
Code, Food and Agriculture Code, Government Code, Harbors and Navigation Code, California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California Endangered Species Act.
Division 7 of the CWC, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970, California 13000
to 14958, regulates water quality and pollution issues within California by protecting water
quality and beneficial uses of all state waters. The Porter-Cologne Act is administered regionally
by the State Water Resources Control Board and California Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCB). While administration occurs at a regional level, regulations are promulgated
on a statewide level to provide consistency. Aspects of the Porter-Cologne Act are similar to
federal water quality regulations and programs.
The SWRCB and regional offices have broad powers and implement the CWA through the
adoption of plans and policies, the regulation of discharges, the regulation of waste disposal
January 2004 Page 11
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
sites and the cleanup of hazardous materials and other pollutants. It also requires reporting of
unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil/petroleum product.
Proposition 65
California’s Safe Drinking Water Act, Proposition 65, regulates water facilities with 10 or more
employees that manufacture, package, or operate in California or sell products in California. The
Act prohibits these facilities from deliberately discharging listed chemicals into sources of
drinking water.
Cal-Fed Water Program
The Cal-Fed is a multi-agency cooperative water program that was created to address water
issues and disputes in the State of California. Program participants include a wide range of
special interests.
Page 12 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
IIIIII.. CCAALLLLEEGGUUAASS CCRREEEEKK WWAATTEERRSSHHEEDD
III.1 CALLEGUAS CREEK WATERSHED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Municipal service reviews are a new requirement for LAFCOs and were intended to promote
more efficient services, to identify areas of improvement and to assess service provision in
relation to boundaries and spheres of influence (SOI). Service reviews do not directly change
the provision of service but are sources of comprehensive information LAFCO can use in future
actions.
LAFCO must conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with the mandated five-year
schedule for updating SOIs. The service review report must include an analysis of the issues
and written determinations for each of the following:
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies;
· Growth and population projections for the affected area;
· Financing constraints and opportunities;
· Cost avoidance opportunities;
· Opportunities for rate restructuring;
· Opportunities for shared facilities;
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation
or reorganization of service providers;
· Evaluation of management efficiencies; and
· Local accountability and governance.
The service review process for the water and wastewater agencies in Ventura County started in
January of 2003 and will be completed in November of 2003. It began with a meeting of the
agencies to discuss issues and to receive input on a three-part draft questionnaire. The
questionnaire, which was sent to all 36 agencies, requested data on quantitative, qualitative and
boundary issues. All the agencies were contacted individually and approximately 80 hours of
interviews with staff and board members were conducted.
To ensure more focused analysis on service issues, Ventura County was divided into three sub-
regional areas which were roughly based on watershed boundaries. The three sub-regional
service review areas are the Calleguas Creek, Santa Clara and Ojai-San Buenaventura areas.
Each of the 36 agencies was placed in only one subregional area although service issues might
overlap into more than one sub-regional area. This service review report addresses the
agencies located within the Calleguas Creek watershed and includes the following fifteen
agencies:
· City of Camarillo · Pleasant Valley County Water District
· City of Simi Valley · Triunfo Sanitation District
· City of Thousand Oaks · Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1
· Calleguas Municipal Water District · Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
· Camarillo Sanitary District · Ventura County Waterworks District No. 17
· Camrosa Water District · Ventura County Waterworks District No. 19
· Hidden Valley Municipal Water District · Ventura Regional Sanitation District
· Lake Sherwood Community Services
District
January 2004 Page 13
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
A database was designed with Ventura LAFCO staff and the each agency’s response to the
questionnaire was entered into it. The database, which currently has approximately 15,000
entries, will be used for subsequent service reviews, sphere of influence studies and other
Ventura LAFCO studies and analysis. The database can be changed and modified as the need
and use for information becomes more focused.
The mapping information submitted by the agencies identified areas outside each agency’s
boundaries where service was currently being provided, areas of overlap with other agencies
and illogical service boundaries. These areas were mapped and have been labeled as “special
study areas” for use in subsequent sphere of influence studies.
Service issues and associated improvements identified during the process are addressed in
more detail in the body of this report and are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs.
While some suggested improvements are beyond the purview of LAFCO, they have been
included to provide a comprehensive overview of the provision of water and wastewater
services in Ventura County.
Infrastructure needs and deficiencies are assessed on a regular basis by agencies. However,
some agencies with voter-approved urban limit lines have water and wastewater master plans
which could be updated to reflect revised growth projections. There are numerous private and
mutual service providers in Ventura County and information regarding their infrastructure needs,
services, facilities, rates and budgets should be integrated into the public planning process.
While including this information is beyond the scope of this service review and of LAFCO, it
remains critical for comprehensive and regional water and wastewater planning.
Population and growth projections used by the agencies in the service review were generally
similar. However, to more accurately predict future regional service needs, developing a
generally accepted, consistent source and methodology for projecting future growth and
population would be invaluable.
To avoid costs and increase shared facilities, sharing information and data among each
agency’s GIS systems, as is currently being studied by the Calleguas Creek Water
Management Plan, could also improve regional water and wastewater planning. For example,
some discrepancies between maps of SOIs and jurisdictional boundaries developed by
agencies and those used by Ventura LAFCO were noted. It is suggested that the LAFCO GIS
system be used as the “official” source of SOI and boundary information in Ventura County to
avoid inconsistencies in mapping.
It was difficult to find a means of comparing rates from the diversity of agencies involved in the
service review in order to provide meaningful information. The database is being revised to
compare water rate information based on size of meters, connection fees or other more
appropriate data. Data from the State Water Resources Control Board comparing wastewater
rates was used in this service review report.
Some of the water and wastewater agencies in Ventura County might reach greater economies
of scale if they were to reorganize with another agency at some point in the future and it is
suggested that Ventura LAFCO consider adopting a policy allowing a “zero” sphere of influence
designation for such agencies. A zero SOI would not lead to an immediate reorganization of the
agency but would indicate that in the future an agency that shares boundaries, services and/or
other facilities with another agency might want to consider if efficiencies can be gained through
a reorganization. While there may be legal, economic and service provision issues that could
Page 14 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
prevent a reorganization, the discussion of service provision, overlapping boundaries and future
reorganizations is a central part of any sphere of influence update. In the Calleguas Creek
watershed service review area, a zero sphere designation might be considered for Waterworks
District # 1, which primarily serves the City of Moorpark, Waterworks District #8, which primarily
serves the City of Simi Valley, and the Triunfo SD.
Some of the water and wastewater agencies had no issues associated with provision of
services or boundaries and updating their spheres of influence will require relatively little
analysis. Two agencies may require more analysis by the Ventura LAFCO staff--the City of
Camarillo and the Camarillo SD have several areas of discrepancy between CURB limits,
service areas and spheres. The Calleguas MWD service area/SOI and its relation to the service
areas of the City of Oxnard and to the service area of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
may also require additional analysis.
Based on the service review process, it can be concluded that the agencies addressed in the
Calleguas Creek watershed service review area are providing efficient, cost-effective services.
All the agencies are effectively pursuing management efficiencies, cost avoidance opportunities
and shared facilities. Local accountability and governance were also found to be efficient.
However, the Triunfo SD should examine the possibility of having an additional board member
elected to improve their accountability to local ratepayers. Such a change in the governance
structure might require legal review to ensure that any change is consistent with the agency’s
enabling legislation.
III.2 PUBLIC AGENCY PROFILES
a) Subregional Areas and Agencies
Of the fifteen public agencies in the Calleguas Creek watershed service review area, eight
provide water service, one provides wastewater service and six provide some form of water and
wastewater services. Most agencies provide service directly although some agencies contract
for water and wastewater services with other entities. One agency, the Triunfo SD, does not
provide either water or wastewater service directly but contracts for all services through joint
powers agreements (JPAs) or similar arrangements. Ten of the fourteen water agencies
provide potable water directly to customers and one agency, the Calleguas MWD, provides
wholesale water service to retail water purveyors. While historically the Calleguas MWD has
served solely as a water supply wholesaler, the agency is authorized to provide retail service.
Each agency’s services and service area are described below. Exhibit III.1, Calleguas Creek
Watershed Service Review Agencies, shows the services each agency provides in a tabular
format.
Calleguas Watershed Sub-regional Service Review Area
· Calleguas MWD
The Calleguas MWD supplies potable water on a wholesale basis to public, private and mutual
water purveyors located in the communities of Camarillo, Moorpark, Oak Park, Oxnard, Port
Hueneme, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks as well as unincorporated areas in southwestern
Ventura County. The agency also distributes recycled water and participates in regional
conservation and power programs. As a regional wholesaler, the Calleguas MWD plays a
unique role in providing water service to retail agencies and as such the agency’s operations
January 2004 Page 15
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
and fiscal standing are not directly comparable to the retail water purveyors discussed in this
report.
· Camarillo SD
The Camarillo SD provides wastewater collection and treatment and industrial waste
pretreatment programs to a service area located in and around the City of Camarillo. The
Camarillo SD is a dependent district with the City of Camarillo City Council acting as the
governing board for the agency.
· Camrosa WD
The Camrosa WD provides potable water, water reclamation/distribution, wastewater
collection/treatment and power generation. Its service area encompasses approximately 31
square miles and includes the Tierra Rejada and Santa Rosa Valleys, the eastern portion of the
City of Camarillo and the California State University, Channel Islands, campus.
· City of Camarillo
The City of Camarillo provides potable water service and water conservation programs to its
residents.
· City of Simi Valley
The City of Simi Valley provides wastewater service to city residents and to nearby
unincorporated areas. Water service is administered through Waterworks District #8 and
Southern California Water Company, a private water company.
· City of Thousand Oaks
The City of Thousand Oaks provides water services to approximately 40% of the City and to
small portions of the surrounding unincorporated community and wastewater service to
approximately 90% of the City as well as portions of the surrounding unincorporated area.
· Hidden Valley MWD
The Hidden Valley MWD monitors growth and development, water demand and water supplies
for 37 ranches served potable water by more than 100 private wells. The agency does not
provide direct water service.
· Lake Sherwood CSD
The Lake Sherwood CSD provides potable water and all related administrative services to the
community of Lake Sherwood. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors is the governing body
of the agency.
· Pleasant Valley CWD
The Pleasant Valley CWD provides irrigation water to approximately 11,000 acres located on
the Oxnard Plain.
· Triunfo SD
The Triunfo SD provides potable water, sewage collection, and pumping of reclaimed water to
approximately 50 square miles in the southeastern portion of Ventura County. The agency
provides service through a contract with the Ventura Regional Sanitation District and through a
JPA with the Las Virgenes MWD.
Page 16 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
· Waterworks District #1
The Ventura County Waterworks District #1 provides water and wastewater services, including
all related administrative functions, to the City of Moorpark and unincorporated areas to the
north and east. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors is the governing body of the agency.
· Waterworks District #8
The Ventura County Waterworks District #8 provides water service, including all administrative
functions, to portions of the City of Simi Valley and unincorporated areas of Ventura County.
The City Council of Simi Valley is the governing board for Waterworks District #8.
· Waterworks District #17
The Ventura County Waterworks District #17 provides water service, including all related
administrative functions, to customers in the unincorporated community of Bell Canyon and
contiguous areas to the north. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors is the governing body
of the agency.
· Waterworks District #19
The Ventura County Waterworks District #19 provides water service, including all related
administrative functions, to customers in the unincorporated community of Somis and
surrounding areas. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors is the governing body of the
agency.
· Ventura Regional SD
The Ventura Regional SD provides support services to various water and wastewater agencies
in Ventura County.
Figure II.1, Calleguas Creek Watershed Service Review Area, shows the regional location and
general boundaries of the service review area addressed in this report.
January 2004 Page 17
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Exhibit III.1
Calleguas Creek Watershed Service Review Agencies
Calleguas Creek Watershed
Page 18 January 2004
SECIVRES
RETAW
retaW
elbatoP
citsemoD
liateR
retaW
elaselohW
tnemtaerT
retaW
retaW
demialceR-delcyceR
retaW
larutlucirgA
tnemeganaM
retawdnuorG
tnemhsinelpeR
retaW
noitavresnoC
retaW
SECIVRES
RETAWETSAW
noitcelloC
reweS
yratinaS
tnemtaerT
reweS
yratinaS
ecnanetniaM
&
gnirotinoM
metsyS
citpeS
City of Camarillo X D D
City of Simi Valley C X D D
City of Thousand Oaks X D C D X D D
Calleguas Municipal Water District X D D D D D D D
Camarillo Sanitary District X D D
Camrosa Water District X D D D D D D D X D D
Hidden Valley Municipal Water District X D
Lake Sherwood Community Service District X D
Pleasant Valley County Water District X C
Triunfo Sanitation District X C C X C C
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 X D D D D D D X D D
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 X D D C D D D
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 17 X D D
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 19 X D D D
Ventura Regional Sanitation District X D X D C
Services Provided = X (D= Direct, C=Contracted)
Kern County
Santa Barbara
County
Ventura
County
Los Angeles
County
Santa
Susana
Mountains Ridgeline
River
Clara
Santa
Pacific Ocean
Ventura LAFCO
LEGEND
Calleguas Creek Watershed
Calleguas Creek Watershed Service Area
Service Review Area
0 4 Miles 8 Miles
Figure III.1
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 7/28/03
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
III.3 GROWTH AND POPULATION
With 1,864 square miles, Ventura County is in the median range for size among California’s 58
counties, but ranks 11th in population with a Census 2000 count of 753,000. The County’s
median household income is just under $60,000, which is higher than both the State average
and that of nearby counties.
The urban density in Ventura County rose from 7.61 people per acre in 1990 to 7.75 in 2000,
which mirrors the statewide trend of increasing urban densities. From 1990 to 2000, the
County’s population grew by 11.2% while the amount of urbanized land increased by
approximately 9%.
One of the fastest growing areas in Ventura County is the "East County," which includes the
cities of Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley and Moorpark, one of the fastest growing cities in the
state.2
Using data from the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG), the following table (Table III.1,
Calleguas Creek Service Review Area Population Projections) has been developed:
TABLE III.1 CALLEGUAS CREEK SERVICE
REVIEW AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Population 392,442 410,331 423,425 441,545 452,694
Dwelling Units (DU) 135,213 143,040 147,252 153,168 157,090
Countywide Total 796,387 836,186 874,881 915,005 951,080
DOF Totals for
818,600 877,400 934,000 1,007,200
Ventura County
Department of Finance population projections were included as a comparison to VCOG data.
The Calleguas MWD, which is the primary water supplier for more than 70 percent of the
residents of Ventura County, prepared a nexus study for its fee structure in 2002. Information in
Table III.2, Population Projections for the Calleguas MWD Service Area, is taken from that
study. Overall, these projections show a 23 percent increase for Calleguas MWD service area
over the next 20 years. Much of the growth is concentrated in the cities of Camarillo, Moorpark
and Simi Valley.
2
“SMART GROWTH IN ACTION, PART 2: CASE STUDIES IN HOUSING CAPACITY AND DEVELOPMENT FROM VENTURA
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA”. William Fulton, Susan Weaver, Geoffrey F.Segal, Lily Okamura. June 2003
Page 20 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE III.2
POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR CALLEGUAS MWD SERVICE AREA
COMMUNITY 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
City of Camarillo 75,056 82,809 89,084 93,014 96,949
Las Posas 3,547 3,666 3,788 3,911 4,034
City of Moorpark 30,904 31,777 32,561 33,346 42,108
Oak Park 12,544 13,541 13,541 13,541 13,541
City of Simi Valley 116,172 131,099 135,621 140,994 145,700
City of Thousand Oaks 125,426 129,550 135,736 138,619 139,213
Total 365,651 394,449 412,343 425,442 443,567
Data source: Calleguas MWD Nexus Study; Ventura Council of Governments 2000 Forecast Data
Agencies included in the service review were asked to provide the estimated population as of
1/2003 for their existing service area. The data is summarized in Table III.3, Agency Projections
of Current Population. Discrepancies between existing population estimates for the Calleguas
MWD service area and as provided by agencies are primarily the result of differences in service
areas.
TABLE III.3
All agencies answering the question “How does your
AGENCY PROJECTIONS OF
agency determine the projected growth within its
CURRENT POPULATION
current boundaries including sphere of influence?”
ESTIMATED
referenced using the population projections prepared
AGENCY POPULATION
by the Southern California Association of
1/2003
Governments (SCAG), the Ventura Council of
Camarillo* 60,546
Governments (VCOG) and Ventura County. The
population projections provided by the agencies Simi Valley 115,000
varied and although they are relatively consistent, the Thousand Oaks 109.000
differences can become significant. The differences
Camrosa WD 35,000
seem to be the result of agencies using different
Hidden Valley MWD 120
sources and methods for projections.
Lake Sherwood CSD 1,450
During interviews with the water and wastewater Pleasant Valley CWD 2,000
agencies in Ventura County, the lack of a generally
Triunfo SD 30,000
accepted, consistent source and methodology for
Waterworks #17 1,927
projecting future growth and population projections
was noted. While this can be a significant issue when Waterworks #19 2,252
agencies are coordinating plans for regional service Total 248,404
delivery, it is a problem common to many counties in
* Estimate from both the City of Camarillo and the
California. No other significant issues were noted. Camarillo SD
III.4 INFRASTRUCTURE
The legislation requiring service reviews provided little direction to LAFCOs for evaluating
infrastructure needs and deficiencies. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
developed draft Service Review Guidelines in 2003 but as of the date of this report the
Guidelines were still in draft form. The Draft OPR Guidelines included twelve suggested factors
January 2004 Page 21
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
LAFCOs could use in identifying an agency’s infrastructure needs and deficiencies. Several of
the factors, including governmental structure options, duplicative facilities and locations of
facilities, have been addressed in other portions of this report.
The Ventura LAFCO service review questionnaire used the presence and frequency of master
plans as well as an annual capital improvement (CIP) budget as a means of assessing an
agency’s process of evaluating infrastructure needs and deficiencies. Master plans and CIPs,
as plans for future service needs, are public documents reviewed the governing body, other
affected agencies and the public. Agencies that are small, provide limited service, or are fully
built-out may not have master plans; however, most public agencies prepare annual CIP
budgets as a means of meeting current and future service needs.
Agencies were asked to report the date of the current master plan and previous master plan.
While there are no established standards for the frequency of preparation, typically master plans
for water and wastewater agencies are prepared every 5-10 years. The type of service area
(i.e., level of development, rate of growth or presence of growth control initiatives) can also
affect the frequency of preparation.
Four agencies (Hidden Valley MWD, Pleasant Valley CWD, Ventura Regional SD and the
Triunfo SD) reported no formal master plans. The Hidden Valley MWD is a small agency
encompassing approximately 5,000 acres. The 37 ranches in the agency receive water from
more than 100 private wells. Since the agency does not provide direct water service to the
residents, there is no need for a master plan. While the future need for service is limited, the
District is working with the County to document and map active wells within their boundaries in
order to maintain accurate records of groundwater usage. The Hidden Valley MWD is also
discussing the possibility of developing an emergency back-up water supply with adjacent
private and public water purveyors.
Private wells and their impact on groundwater supplies is an ongoing concern throughout
Ventura County. Not all active wells in Ventura County are metered and this is a significant
obstacle to accurately gauging groundwater supply. It is suggested that the Hidden Valley
MWD as well as all other water purveyors in Ventura County encourage the metering of all wells
to provide comprehensive data which can be collected and used for regional water projections.
The Pleasant Valley CWD serves 39 retail and 118 agricultural customers in a service area of
approximately 11,000 acres. As territory develops, it is typically detached from the agency. The
District uses its annual CIP program to address existing infrastructure needs and deficiencies.
The Triunfo SD noted that while the agency does not have a water master plan, per se, it is a
member of the California Urban Water Conservation Council. It includes annual Best
Management Practices reports in its Urban Water Management Plan, which is updated every
five years and filed with the State of California. Also while the Triunfo SD does not have an
individual wastewater master plan, it was included in the 2000 master plan prepared by its joint
venture partner, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District.
The Ventura Regional Sanitation District provides staff and support through contracts to other
agencies and relies on the master plans of those agencies to determine infrastructure needs
and deficiencies.
Table III.4, Master Plans and CIPs, shows the agencies and information regarding master plans
and capital improvements budgets. One issue noted during the service review is that some
Page 22 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
agency master plans have not been updated since voters approved the urban limit lines for a
majority of Ventura County cities. Since the urban limit lines significantly affect the rate and
location of growth, agencies should consider updating and coordinating master plans to be
consistent with the mandates of the voter approved urban limit lines.
TABLE III.4
MASTER PLANS AND CIPS
WATER
CIP WASTEWATER CIP
MASTER DATE DATE
BUDGET MASTER PLAN BUDGET
PLAN
Camarillo In progress 1999 Yes NA NA NA
Simi Valley NA NA NA Yes 1985 Yes
In
Thousand Oaks Yes Yes Yes 2002 Yes
progress
Calleguas MWD Yes 1999 Yes NA NA NA
Camarillo SD NA NA NA Yes 1999 Yes
Camrosa WD In progress 1990 Yes In progress 1990 Yes
Hidden Valley MWD No NA NA NA NA NA
Lake Sherwood CSD Yes 1994 Yes NA NA NA
Pleasant Valley CWD No NA Yes NA NA Yes
Triunfo SD No NA Yes No NA Yes
Waterworks #1 Yes 1992 NA Yes 1992 Yes
Waterworks #8 Yes 1986 Yes NA NA NA
Waterworks #17 Yes 1986 Yes NA NA NA
Waterworks #19 Yes 1985 Yes NA NA NA
Ventura Regional SD No NA NA NA NA NA
The service review questionnaire also asked for a wide range of information regarding the
capacity, age, storage, peak demand and sources of water. The information was gathered to
allow Ventura LAFCO to adopt the legally required determinations for service reviews while also
building a database of information that could be used to analyze and update spheres of
influence.
Table III.5, Water System Information, depicts data obtained from responses to the service
review questionnaire regarding number of customers, capacity and the system/facilities of the
retail systems. Information for the Calleguas MWD, as a wholesale agency, and for wastewater
agencies and departments is described separately.
January 2004 Page 23
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE III.5
WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION
TOTAL # ESTIMATED PEAK ESTIMATED PEAK
MILE OF STORAGE (IN PERMITS
OF DEMAND CAPACITY
LINES DAYS) CURRENT
CONNECTIONS (MGD) (MGD)
Camarillo 11,473 150 2.1 14 30 Yes
Thousand Oaks 16,123 272 2.5 17.7 35 Yes
Camrosa WD 10,382 139 1 20 33 Yes
Hidden Valley
NA NA NA NA NA NA
MWD*
Lake Sherwood
570 17.72 7.14 1.60 5 Yes
CSD
Pleasant Valley
118 37 75 CFS 70 AFD 70AFD Yes
CWD
Triunfo SD 4,733 41.03 2 6.2 9 Yes
Waterworks #1 9,248 121 2.39 18 19.16 Yes
Waterworks #8 22,968 400 1 Variable 40 Yes
Waterworks #17 642 14.5 2.96 2.31 3 Yes
Waterworks #19 1,025 54.62 2.46 2.95 3.19 Yes
* The sole source of water for the 37 separate ranches in the Hidden Valley MWD comes from more than 100 private wells.
No significant areas of infrastructure deficiencies were noted and the future need for new and/or
upgraded infrastructure has been addressed by the agencies through master plans and/or
annual CIP budgets and plans. All water agencies have current permits and 2003 water quality
reports.
A common concern among all agencies was the uncertain and diminishing supply of water. This
is a problem common to all of Southern California and is being addressed on the regional, state
and federal level.
A related issue specific to Ventura County is the presence of private and mutual water
companies and their impact on water supply and demand. Although private water service
providers, both investor-owned and mutual, are outside LAFCO’s jurisdiction, they serve
important roles in the provision of service. Some of the larger private and mutual water
agencies are virtually indistinguishable from public agencies; they plan for present and future
infrastructure needs, meet all regulatory requirements and have adequate financial resources.
However, some of the small ones, like smaller public agencies, have difficulty reaching
economies of scale. LAFCO’s involvement with private and mutual water purveyors is limited to
changes in the public governmental structure which affect private and mutual water purveyors,
i.e., when a public agency acquires a private water company and must annex the area.
Currently, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates investor-owned water
and sewer system utilities only (sole proprietorship, partnership or corporation). It also sets
rates and enforces standards for safety. Mutual water utilities (corporations in which each
customer owns one share of stock) or private companies owned by homeowner associations
are exempt if they serve only their stockholders or members (no outside parties).
Page 24 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
During the service review the following private or mutual water service companies were
identified as providing service in the Calleguas Creek watershed service review area:
· California Water Service Company (Thousand Oaks)
· California-American Water Company (Thousand Oaks)
· Southern California Water Company (Simi Valley)
· Pleasant Valley Mutual Water Company
· Oak Park Water Service Company (the potable water agency for the Triunfo SD)
· Brandeis Mutual Water Company (Simi Valley)
It is sometimes difficult for local agencies and customers to obtain rate, capacity and other
information about private/mutual water purveyors. Planning for Ventura County’s future
infrastructure needs and deficiencies must include appropriate information from all water
agencies. Since Ventura County and the wholesale water agencies work closely with these
private concerns, information about private water purveyors could be gathered from the CPUC,
Department of Health Services, Ventura County and the Calleguas MWD. It is suggested that
the Ventura LAFCO database be expanded to include information regarding private and mutual
water companies in order to more accurately assess present and probable service demand and
supply.
a) Wholesale Water
The Calleguas MWD is the wholesale agency for the service review area. It imports, stores,
treats and distributes potable water. The District also distributes reclaimed water from other
agencies. The District's entire drinking water supply, provided by the California State Water
Project, is treated and conveyed through 130 miles of pipeline to local water agencies for
delivery. Exhibit III.2, Calleguas MWD Water Sales, shows the volume sales of Calleguas
through June of 2003 and Exhibit III.3, Calleguas MWD Facilities, the facilities and capacity of
the agency. The Calleguas MWD has prepared master plans and numerous studies addressing
the issue of infrastructure needs and deficiencies for wholesale water in the service review area.
January 2004 Page 25
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Exhibit III.2
2003 CALLEGUAS MWD WATER SALES
Page 26 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
b) Wastewater Agencies
Wastewater agencies and departments were asked a similar series of questions about the
capacity of their facilities. Responses and additional information taken from the State Water
Resources Control Board “Wastewater User Charge Survey Report FY 2001-02” are
summarized in the Table III.6, Wastewater Agency Information.
TABLE III.6
WASTEWATER AGENCY INFORMATION
RATED
TOTAL # OF ADWF* TREATMENT MILES OF PERMIT
CAPACITY
CONNECTIONS (MGD) LEVEL LINES VIOLATIONS
(MGD)
Simi Valley 33,712 12.5 9 Tertiary 500 No
Thousand Oaks 36,435 12 10.9 Tertiary 532 Infrequent
Camarillo SD 12,489 6.75 3.75 Secondary 150 No
Camrosa WD 7,364 1.5 1.25 Tertiary 40 No
None
Triunfo SD 12,250 4.7 2.85 Tertiary 255
Reported
Advanced
Waterworks #1 8,301 3 2.2 91 No
Secondary
Total 110,551 35.75 29.95 NA NA NA
*Average Dry Weather Flow
All of the wastewater agencies except the Triunfo SD have master plans and use their annual
CIP program to address existing and future infrastructure needs and deficiencies. The Triunfo
SD noted that while it does not have an individual master plan, it is included in the master plan
prepared by the Las Virgenes MWD, with which it co-owns the Tapia Water Reclamation Facility
and Rancho Las Virgenes Composting Facility. The figures for the Triunfo SD represent its
share of those facilities.
III.5 FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
A series of questions was included in the service review questionnaire as a means of evaluating
financial constraints and opportunities in relation to existing and projected service needs.
Information collected addressed total revenues and expenditures, bond ratings, reserve levels
and the presence of audits.
Agencies were also asked to identify any financing constraints and opportunities that affect the
service provided and the infrastructure needs. Beyond existing legislative, political and
governmental regulations, few agencies identified any additional financing constraints except for
the cost of infrastructure and of insurance. Agencies noted that their governing board looked at
rates annually to ensure a balance between rates and capital needs. Maintaining reasonable
rates for customers was cited as a self-imposed financing constraint.
The service review questionnaire asked agencies to provide total revenues, revenue sources,
CIP budget and reserves for the previous three fiscal years. That information is summarized for
each agency in Appendix A.
Page 28 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
No significant issues were noted for any of the agencies in relation to financing opportunities
and constraints. Exhibit III.4, Agency Revenue Comparison, and Exhibit III.5, Aggregate
Sources of Agency Revenue, compare total revenues for all agencies and aggregate sources of
revenues. Data from FY 2001-2002 was used to compare actual numbers.
Generally revenues for all agencies are proportional to their size and service area. The revenue
for the Calleguas MWD is higher than other agencies due to the high volume of its imported,
wholesale water sales.
Exhibit III.4
2001-2002 AGENCY REVENUE COMPARISON
$74M
$19.7M $18.8M
$10.7M $11.5M $11.8M
$9.1M $9.2M
$7.1M
$5.1M
$1.8M $1.9M $1.5M $1.8M
$40,564
Calle g uas M W D Ca mari C ll o ity S o D f Ca maril C l o a mr os d a e W n D Valley M L W ak D e S her w P o le o a d sa nt Valley Si mi V T h al o l e u y sa n d Oaks Tri u n V f e o nt ura R S D W W D #1 W W D #8 W W D #17 W W D #19
d
Hi
January 2004 Page 29
2002-1002
,euneveR
latoT
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
As enterprise activities, the primary revenue source for all water and wastewater agencies
comes from service charges and fees directly related to the provision of services. Other income
generally comes from interest from various funds. Exhibit III.5, 2001-2002 Aggregate Sources
of Agency revenues, shows that water and wastewater agencies, as enterprise funds, derive
most of their revenue from fees and charges.
Exhibit III.5
2001-2002 AGGREGATE SOURCES OF AGENCY REVENUES
100%
90%
78%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
11%
7%
10%
1% 0% 2% 1% 0%
0%
Pr o p ert y T a x e s S p e ci al T a x e s
S
er vi c e C h ar g e s F e e
s
A s s e s s m e
S
nt
t
s
a
n d- b y C h ar g e s Gr a nt
s
Ot h
er
Page 30 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Data about agency reserve levels was collected as part of the service review. The issue of
reserve levels was raised as a general statewide concern in the 2000 Little Hoover Commission
report on special districts. That report concluded that some agency reserves appear
unreasonably large, are not integrated into infrastructure planning and are obscure. Data
collected for this service review did not find that the agencies in the Calleguas Creek watershed
service review area showed evidence of the concerns noted by the Little Hoover Commission
for agencies in other parts of California.
Ventura LAFCO asked agencies to report reserves in the categories of operating, capital, rate
stabilization, restricted and other for the previous three fiscal years. Exhibit III.7, 2001-2002
Agency Reserve Comparison compares aggregate reserve amounts.
Setting specific levels of reserves for the diversity of agencies addressed in this service review
report is impracticable. The different services, service areas, customer bases, condition of
infrastructure, capital improvement programs and other issues require reserve levels specific to
each agency. Agencies with large reserves typically have major, long-term capital improvement
projects. For example, the City of Thousand Oaks and the Calleguas MWD both have, in
relation to other agencies, a high level of reserves. However, both agencies have major, multi-
year capital improvement projects in progress to meet increased regulatory requirements
regarding water quality and to increase the use of reclaimed water.
In addition, the City of Thousand Oaks also has a state loan to fund infrastructure
improvements. The Calleguas MWD noted that insurance for its facilities, which include a dam
and a reservoir, is prohibitively expensive. Consequently, it maintains sizable reserves, in part,
as a form of self-insurance.
The Triunfo SD noted that it inadvertently failed to report investments restricted as debt service
reserve on the service review questionnaire. It added that as of 6/30/02,
“….these restricted debt service reserves were just under $2.1 million. Also, while TSD
does not have funds specifically set aside as operations or rate stabilization reserves, it
maintains significant working capital (averaging about $6 million) for cash flow
purposes.”
All reserve levels reported by the agencies were clearly segregated into the uses for the
reserves—operating and rate stabilizations, restricted debt reserves and capital reserves funds.
Page 32 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Exhibit III.7
2001-2002 AGENCY RESERVES COMPARISON
$40.3M
$33.8M
$16.1M
$15M
$11.2M
$0 $0 $6K $899K $451K $0 $0 $1.2M $1.3M $1.8M
C all e g u a s M W C D a m a C ril i l t o y S o D f C a m aril C l o a mr d o e s n a V W a D ll e y M L W a k D e S h er w P o l e o a d s a nt V all e y Si mi T V h a o ll e u y s a n d O a k s Tri u V n e f n o t ur a R S D W W D # 1 W W D # 8 W W D # 1 7 W W D # 1 9
d
Hi
January 2004 Page 33
2002-1002
,sevreseR
latoT
Exhibit III.8, Aggregate Reserves by Category, supports the link between capital improvement
projects and reserve levels. Almost 70% of the reserves were earmarked for capital reserve
funds. High capital reserve levels indicate an agency’s need to maintain adequate reserves for
planned infrastructure improvements/upgrades, meet expected demand and to comply with
stricter regulatory requirements.
In the service review questionnaire, agencies were asked to report operating reserves and
operating/rate stabilization reserves separately. Operating reserves were defined as
unallocated general reserves that are set-aside for budgetary shortfalls or for purposes not
specifically designated. Operating and rate stabilization funds were defined funds used to
temper short-term fluctuations in delivery costs and to maintain constant and predictable rates
to customers. Due to an error in the service review questionnaire, these definitions were not
clear and most agencies noted in their responses that the two categories were typically
considered the same. Therefore in Exhibit III.8, Aggregate Reserves by Category, the two
categories of reserves, Operating and Operating/Rate Stabilization, were combined.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Exhibit III.8
AGGREGATE RESERVES BY CATEGORY
80%
70% 67%
60%
50%
40%
30% 25%
20%
10%
3% 2% 3%
0%
Operating Capital Operating & Restricted Other
Reserves Reserve Fund Rate Debt Reserves
Stabilization Reserves
Fund
The combined reserve categories of Operating/Operating and Rate Stabilization represent
approximately 28% of total reserves. As mentioned previously, there are no generally accepted
levels for operating reserves. However, the Little Hoover Commission report noted that the
International City Managers Association recommends, as one criteria of solvency, that a city
government have three months of operating expenses in reserves. Using that criterion, Table
II.8, Estimated Three Month Reserves, shows the estimated monthly and three month total of
operating expenses for each agency, the combined amount of Operating/Operating and Rate
Stabilization reserves and the number of months of operating reserves reported by the
agencies. In general, special districts have more than three months operating reserves due to
fluctuations in costs and the absence of other reserves often held by municipalities.
Page 34 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE III.8
ESTIMATED 3-MONTH RESERVES
NUMBER OF
ESTIMATED THREE
ESTIMATED MONTHLY
MONTH
TOTAL OPERATING MONTHS OF
OPERATING EXPENSES RESERVES OPERATING
OPERATING EXPENSES
RESERVES
Camarillo $674,175 $2,022,525 $4,033,642 6
Simi Valley $775,733 $2,327,200 $2,462,755 3
Thousand Oaks $1,658,638 $4,975,916 $2,513,100 1.5
Calleguas MWD $5,656,237 $16,968,713 $40,304,342 7
Camarillo SD $556,257 $1,668,773 $3,371,798 6
Camrosa WD $842,626 $2,527,878 None Noted NA
Hidden Valley MWD $2,827 $8,483 $6,631 2
Lake Sherwood CSD $128,159 $384,477 $200,000 1.5
Pleasant Valley CWD $179,750 $539,250 $477,270 2.6
Triunfo SD $730,272 $2,190,816 None Noted NA
Waterworks #1 $1,161,568 $3,484,705 $5,677,500 4.8
Waterworks #8 $1,623,283 $4,869,850 $541,000 0.3
Waterworks #17 $134,804 $404,412 $501,300 3.7
Waterworks #19 $124,890 $374,669 $884,679 7
Ventura Regional SD $499,849 $1,499,549 None Noted NA
In comments received on the draft Calleguas Creek service review report, the Triunfo SD noted
that it maintains approximately $6,000,000 as “working capital” for operational/rate stabilization
reserves. It also noted that since it collects sewer service charges on the tax rolls, it maintains
at least 6 months of operating capital.
III.6 COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES
In evaluating cost avoidance opportunities, Ventura LAFCO examined current practices used by
the agencies to reduce or avoid costs including the use of outside vendors and contractors.
Overlapping or inefficient service boundaries were also examined as a means that Ventura
LAFCO can use to encourage efficiently provided water and wastewater services and avoid
costs. As part of the service review process, all water and wastewater agencies were given
LAFCO generated maps of their jurisdictional and sphere of influence boundaries. Agencies
were asked to note on the maps:
· Areas of duplication of planned or existing facilities with another agency
· Areas better served by another agency
· Areas better served by the responding agency
· Areas outside the agency’s boundaries which currently receive service
· Areas difficult to serve or with illogical boundaries
Ventura LAFCO and the consulting team then mapped the changes noted by the agencies and
labeled them as “special study areas”. In addition, areas where the existing sphere of influence
or jurisdictional boundary varied from any voter approved urban limit/growth line were also
January 2004 Page 35
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
mapped and labeled as special study areas. During interviews, the staff of some agencies
noted areas with service issues. These areas were also mapped. Finally, existing island areas
in Ventura County, as noted in an annexation policy approved by the Ventura Commission in
April of 2003, were mapped as special study areas. The policy requires the annexation of the
following islands as a condition of approval for proposals involving a change of organization or
reorganization of 40 acres or more.
Camarillo
Approximately 35-acre island north of Las Posas Road and Lantana Street
Simi Valley/Waterworks District #8
Approximately 13-acre island near Vista Lago Drive
Approximately 49.49 acres in two separate unincorporated islands near Avenida
Simi and Anderson Drive
Approximately 54.51-acre island adjacent to Ditch Road
39.8-acre island between Faxton Court and Felix Avenue.
Thousand Oaks
5 separate islands totaling 39.8-acres near Lynn Road and Kelly Lane.
The service provision issues of the special study areas were not studied in depth as part of this
report. The purpose of the mapping was to develop a GIS-based system that Ventura LAFCO
could use for future sphere of influence studies or other studies. It can also be used as a means
of ranking subsequent sphere studies. For example, several of the agencies included within the
Calleguas Creek watershed service review area did not note any service issues with their
boundaries or spheres of influence and subsequent interviews and analysis confirmed the
information. These agencies are expected to have few or no issues with updating their current
sphere of influence. Of the fifteen agencies included within this service review report, nine are
considered to have either no issues with their SOI update or minor issues requiring little
additional research and analysis.
Table III.9, Special Study Areas, lists the agencies included within the Calleguas Creek
watershed service review area with special study areas and SOI issues. Maps for those
agencies with issues or special study areas are included in the body of this report. Revised
maps for all agencies with suggested study areas are part of the updated Ventura LAFCO GIS
system.
Three agencies, the City of Simi Valley, the Triunfo SD and Waterworks District #8, will require
some additional analysis of areas that are outside the agency boundaries or SOI, that represent
islands or that have discrepancies between the agency SOI and existing urban limit lines. The
sphere of influence for cities should be consistent with voter-approved urban limit lines since the
municipality would typically not extend services beyond the voter-approved growth boundary.
The issue of the special districts that overlap agencies with voter approved growth limit
boundaries should be also be considered during the SOI process.
Only three agencies are considered to have more complex boundary issues, which may require
more extensive research or analysis. The City of Camarillo and the Camarillo SD have
discrepancies between the service areas of both agencies, the CURB limits and areas receiving
or requiring service. While not complex, the analysis must deal with these discrepancies. The
Calleguas MWD SOI and service area will also require extensive analysis primarily due to the
large service area and the possibility of reorganizing the agency with smaller agencies within its
boundaries.
Page 36 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE III.9
SPECIAL STUDY AREAS
SPECIAL ESTIMATED LEVEL
STUDIES SUMMARY OF ISSUE OF ANALYSIS
AREAS REQUIRED
1) Discrepancies between SOI and High
SOAR
Camarillo Yes 2) Areas outside agency getting service
3) Areas within agency on septic
systems
1) Island areas Moderate
2) Discrepancies between SOI and
Simi Valley Yes CURB
3) Future service issues in Santa
Susana Knolls
Thousand Oaks Yes 1) Islands Low
1) Islands High
2) SOI and relationship to other
Calleguas MWD Yes
agencies’ SOI
3) Pending development areas
1) Areas outside agency getting service High
Camarillo SD Yes
2) Pending development areas
Camrosa WD Yes 1) Facilities/service outside agency Low
Hidden Valley MWD None noted None noted Low
Lake Sherwood CSD None noted None noted Low
1) Areas no longer used for agricultural Low
Pleasant Valley CWD Yes uses should be detached from the
agency
1) Discrepancies between SOI and Moderate
Triunfo SD Yes
agency boundaries
Waterworks #1 Yes 1) Island areas Low
1) Island areas Moderate
Waterworks #8 Yes 2) Future service to Santa Susana
Knolls
Waterworks #17 Yes None noted Low
Waterworks #19 None noted None noted Low
Ventura Regional SD None noted None noted Low
Finally, it is a reasonable assumption that some wastewater and water agencies in Ventura
County will or should, at some point in the future, consider a reorganization with another service
provider to gain efficiencies or economies of scale. The reasons for potential reorganizations
are varied and may be linked to the size of the agency, the location of its facilities, regional
growth patterns or the cost of stricter regulatory requirements. Some agencies currently serve
limited areas, do not directly provide services or have spheres coterminous with their agency
boundaries. A coterminous SOI indicates that it is not expected that there will be a future need
for the agency’s services beyond the existing boundaries.
January 2004 Page 37
LEGEND
City of Camarillo Sphere
City of Camarillo Ventura LAFCO
City of Camarillo Water District Service Area
City of Camarillo Water District
Special Study Areas
Areas Outside Agency Boundary/Served by Agency
Areas Outside Agency, Sphere, and CURB/
Served by Agency 0 3000' 6000'
Proposed or Pending Development
City of Camarillo CURB Boundary
Figure III.2
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 7/28/03
LLooss AAnnggeelleess
CCoouunnttyy
LEGEND
City of Simi Valley Water District Sphere
Waterworks District #8 Sphere Ventura LAFCO
Waterworks District #8
City of Simi Valley
City of Simi Valley Water District
Areas Ourside District, Sphere, and CURB
Served by District
Special Study Areas 0 4200' 8400'
City of Simi Valley CURB Boundary
Figure III.3
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 8/21/03
LLooss AAnnggeelleess
CCoouunnttyy
LEGEND
Ventura LAFCO
City of Thousand Oaks Sphere
City of Thousand Oaks City of Thousand Oaks
Special Study Areas
City of Thousand Oaks CURB Boundary
0 5000' 10000'
Figure III.4
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 7/28/03
Los Angeles County
LLooss AAnnggeelleess
CCoouunnttyy
Pacific Ocean
LEGEND
Ventura LAFCO
Calleguas Municipal Water District Sphere
Calleguas Municipal Water District Calleguas Municipal Water District
Special Study Areas
0 14000' 28000'
Figure III.5
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 7/28/03
LEGEND
Camarillo Sanitation District Sphere Ventura LAFCO
Camarillo Sanitation District
Special Study Areas Camarillo Sanitation District
Areas Outside Agency Boundary/Served by Agency
Areas Outside Agency, Sphere, and CURB/
Served by Agency
Proposed or Pending Development 0 3000' 6000'
City of Camarillo CURB Boundary
Figure III.6
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 7/28/03
LEGEND Ventura LAFCO
Camrosa Water District Sphere
Camrosa Water District
Camrosa Water District
Special Study Areas
0 5000' 10000'
Figure III.7
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 7/28/03
LEGEND Ventura LAFCO
Pleasant Valley Water District Sphere
Pleasant Valley County Water District
Pleasant Valley Water District
Special Study Areas
0 2600' 5200'
Figure III.8
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 7/28/03
LLooss AAnnggeelleess
CCoouunnttyy
Ventura LAFCO
LEGEND
Triunfo Sanitation District
Triunfo Sanitation District Sphere
Triunfo Sanitation District
Special Study Areas
0 4900' 9800'
Figure III.9
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 7/28/03
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
It is suggested that Ventura LAFCO consider developing a policy allowing a “zero” sphere of
influence designation for these agencies. Annexations to an agency with a zero sphere might
require more in-depth analysis or might be prohibited according to the policy developed. A
“zero” sphere designation could ensure more efficient planning for future service. In the
Calleguas Creek watershed service review area, a zero sphere designation could be considered
for Waterworks District # 1, which primarily serves the City of Moorpark, Waterworks District # 8,
which serves the City of Simi Valley, and the Triunfo SD.
During the mapping, another potential opportunity for cost avoidance was noted which involved
duplicate GIS systems. Many of the water and wastewater agencies, including Ventura County,
have GIS systems. While beyond the scope of LAFCO’s authority, Ventura County agencies
should consider a closer coordination of all the GIS systems as a means of reducing costs.
While it might be infeasible for one agency to maintain all GIS data, a designated agency for
specific type of data might reduce costs. For example, the agencies participating in the
Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan are currently working together to develop a
more regional GIS system for watershed data. Ventura LAFCO has accurate information on the
boundaries and SOIs of agencies. It is suggested that the Ventura LAFCO, in conjunction with
other agencies, use its GIS system as the “official” regional source of information for the
boundaries and SOIs of all Ventura County agencies.
All agencies reported well-established budget processes and procedures, which use internal
cost/benefit studies to find and utilize opportunities to reduce or avoid costs. As part of the
questionnaire, agencies were asked to note services that were currently provided by other
agencies or private contractors, the estimated annual cost savings and excess capacity,
facilities or staff that could be made available. Table III.10, Summary-Use of Contractors,
illustrates each agency’s use of outside contractors; if an agency did not respond, NR is listed.
Page 46 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE III.10
SUMMARY – USE OF CONTRACTORS
EXCESS
SERVICES PROVIDED ESTIMATED
SERVICES PROVIDED BY CAPACITY,
BY PRIVATE
OTHER AGENCIES
ANNUAL CO ST
FACILITIES OR
CONTRACTORS SAVINGS
STAFF
Landscaping/pest
Camarillo NR Not Calculated NR
control/maintenance
Simi Valley NR NR NR NR
Thousand Oaks Maintenance Maintenance Not Calculated None
Calleguas MWD NR NR NR NR
Video inspection of
Camarillo SD None Not Calculated None
lines/equipment painting
Source control/collection
Meter
system maintenance and
Camrosa WD reading/construction/li Not Calculated None
emergency services/backflow
ne maintenance
inspection and certification
Hidden Valley MWD NR NR NR NR
Lake Sherwood CSD NR NR NR NR
Pleasant Valley CWD Sampling/Lab Work NR NR None
Triunfo SD Manhole raising Staff NR None
Waterworks #1 Public works NR None None
Waterworks #8 NR Back flow inspections NR NR
Waterworks #17 NR NR NR NR
Waterworks #19 NR NR NR NR
Management,
finance, water
Ventura Regional SD As requested NR NR
and wastewater
professionals
January 2004 Page 47
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
III.7 RATE RESTRUCTURING
The service review questionnaire asked agencies to list current rates for water and wastewater
service, rates changes in the previous two years, anticipated rate changes and any difference in
rates charged to customers outside agency boundaries. Twelve out of the fifteen agencies
reported rate increases during the previous two years with rate increases ranging from 2%-10%
increase. Eight agencies anticipated rate changes in the next two years. Of those agencies
that serve territory outside their boundaries, a majority of them reported charging higher rates to
those customers. All agencies reported reviewing rates
Table III.11
regularly to maintain a revenue stream adequate to cover
Water Rates
costs and fully fund infrastructure upgrades and
improvements. AGENCY WATER RATES AF
Camarillo $523
The agencies were asked to list current rates in terms of
Thousand Oaks $693
acre-feet and million gallons per day (mgd), for water and
wastewater respectively, in order to have a uniform basis Calleguas MWD $482
of comparing rates from diverse agencies. Table III.11, Camrosa WD $622
Water Rates, includes a partial comparison of rates per
Hidden Valley MWD N/A
acre-foot as requested by the service review questionnaire.
Residents of the Hidden Valley MWD pay a $10.00 per Lake Sherwood CSD $618
acre standby charge although the agency does not provide Pleasant Valley CWD $75
water directly. Wells in the Hidden Valley MWD are
Triunfo SD $747
private.
Waterworks #1 $563
The State Water Resources Control Board publishes a
Waterworks #8 $563
wastewater users survey report which was used to
Waterworks #17 $719
develop, Table III.12, Wastewater Agency Rates, and
provide a comparison of the rates of the wastewater Waterworks #19 $541
agencies in the Calleguas Creek watershed service review
area.3
Using acre-feet and mgd for water and
Table III.12
wastewater services, respectively, did not yield
Wastewater Agency Rates
useful information. Most retail water purveyors
AGENCY
MONTHLY USER
CONNECTION FEE use HCF as a measurement of water cost. In
CHARGE
addition, the information in Table III.11, Water
Camarillo SD $21.08 $2,364
Rates, does not reflect tiered water rates. With
Camrosa WD $16.00 $2,000 tiered water rates, the cost of water per HCF
Simi Valley $20.50 $3,375 increases as usage increases beyond a base
amount. For example, both the City of
Thousand Oaks $21.85 $7,371
Camarillo and Waterworks District #1 have
Triunfo SD $40.00 $8,525 tiered rates which approximately double from
Waterworks #1 $14.50 $2,500 Tier 1 to Tier 3. This would significantly
increase the cost of water per AF.
Since the agencies differ in the billing period (monthly, bimonthly or quarterly), the unit of
measurement used to calculate rates, the rate structure (flat or tiered rates), connection fees,
3 State Water Resources Control Board “Wastewater User Survey Report, FY 2001-2002” May 2002.
Page 48 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
the class of user (residential, agricultural and industrial/commercial), the database is being
revised to reflect the variability among the agencies while still permitting a meaningful
comparison of costs for the benefit of the public, the elected officials and the agencies. A
revised format for collecting data on rates from water and wastewater agencies has been
submitted to Ventura LAFCO.
III.8 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
As part of the service review questionnaire, agencies were asked to identify ways that they
currently cooperate with other agencies to maximize opportunities for sharing facilities.
Agencies were asked to list current joint activities with other agencies which are shown in Table
III.13, Joint Service Agreements. Of the 15 agencies within the Calleguas Creek watershed
sub-regional area, nine either did not reference any joint activities or did not respond. The
remaining agencies noted joint activities, which increase opportunities for shared facilities.
TABLE III.13
JOINT SERVICE AGREEMENTS
AGENCY JOINT AGREEMENTS NOTED
Calleguas Creek Watershed Plan; agreements with Triunfo SD, City of Simi
Calleguas MWD
Valley, Metropolitan WD; JPA for insurance.
MOU with California Urban Water Conservation Council
Camarillo Purchasing agreement for water meters and fire hydrants
Insurance pool JPA
Agreement with Ventura Regional Sanitation District for equipment painting
Camarillo SD and CCTV inspection
Insurance pool JPA
MOU with Ventura County for disaster operations/emergency system
Service agreements with CSUCI, Camarillo Sanitary District, Ventura County
and Pleasant Valley CWD
Purchase agreements with Calleguas MWD and the City of Thousand Oaks
Camrosa WD Insurance pool JPA
ACWA benefit package
Joint funding with State Water Resources Board and Calleguas MWD
Groundwater management plan-City of Thousand Oaks
Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan
Joint venture with Las Virgenes MWD for Tapia WRF SD—Agreement with
Ventura Regional Sanitation District for staff MOU with California Urban Water
Triunfo SD
Conservation Council Member of California Sanitation Risk Management
Agency
Service and purchasing agreements, equipment sharing and other joint service
Waterworks #1
with Ventura County
Service agreements with Triunfo SD, Camarillo SD, Camrosa WD, CSU
Channel Islands, Montalvo MID, Rio Manor Mutual Water, Saticoy SD,
Ventura Regional SD Thacher School, Thomas Aquinas College, United Water Conservation District,
the County of Ventura, and the cities of Fillmore, Oxnard, Thousand Oaks and
Ventura; Member of California Sanitation Risk Management Agency
January 2004 Page 49
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
a) Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan4
A majority of the agencies in the Calleguas Creek service review area are also participants in
the Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan (WMP). The agencies involved in the
Calleguas Creek WMP and in this service review are:
· City of Camarillo
· Calleguas Municipal Water District
· City of Simi Valley
· Camarillo Sanitary District
· City of Thousand Oaks
· Camrosa Water District
· Pleasant Valley County Water District
· United Water Conservation District
· Ventura County Waterworks District #1 (City of Moorpark)
· Ventura County Waterworks District #8
· Ventura County Waterworks District #19
The WMP, which was started in late 1996, is a public-private coalition developing an integrated
strategy for the watershed and its resources. The purpose of the WMP is to produce a long-
range comprehensive water resources plan for the watershed, which is cost-effective and
provides benefits for all participants. The WMP, if approved, significantly increases sharing of
facilities, avoid costs in the future and ensures that expenditures are closely tied to local
conditions.
The WMP was started by agencies in the watershed that recognized that consensus was
critical. They were being required to implement a court-ordered water quality compliance
schedule and consent decree, which was developed without local participation. The consent
decree, which was developed to meet water quality regulations on a constituent-by-constituent
basis over a 13-year period, enforces the provisions of the Clean Water Act requiring allocation
plans, or Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), to limit pollution entering surface water.
The Calleguas Creek watershed agencies continued to develop the watershed plan but the
water quality regulators prepared to implement the consent decree. The Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) prepared a draft TMDL in December 2001 but it was
opposed by some agencies participating in the Calleguas Creek WMP for various scientific,
economic and environmental reasons.
In response the LARWQCB stopped implementation of the draft TMDL levels and offered local
public agencies an opportunity to propose an alternative plan that is comprehensive, responsive
to local watershed priorities, grounded in sound science, and consistent with the requirements
of the Clean Water Act. All parties are now trying to work together to produce a mutually
satisfactory water quality plan. The Calleguas Creek WMP agencies believe that a locally
developed, comprehensive watershed plan will provide the most efficient use of public funding
and will avoid duplicative and unnecessary costs.
4 Draft Calleguas Creek Water Management Plan, Alexander & Associates, 2003.
Page 50 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
III.9 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS
Functional reorganizations within agencies, amending or updating SOIs and other changes in
the jurisdictional boundaries of the water and wastewater agencies were noted in Section III.6,
Cost Avoidance Opportunities. This section addresses efficiencies that might be gained through
other governmental structure options.
The initial step in evaluating governmental structure options was a review of recommendations
from the “Ventura LAFCO 2001 Special Districts Study. These recommendations are included
in this service review report as information about potential government structure options
considered by Ventura LAFCO over the previous 20 years. Table III.14, 2001 Ventura LAFCO
Special District’s Study, summarizes those recommendations: In the service review responses,
none of the agencies reported having submitted or been included in a reorganization proposal
before Ventura LAFCO within the previous two years.
TABLE III.14
2001 VENTURA LAFCO SPECIAL DISTRICT STUDY
AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
Camarillo None noted
Simi Valley None noted
Thousand Oaks None noted
Calleguas MWD Agency should consider a reorganization with smaller water districts
Camarillo SD None noted
Agency should consider assuming responsibility for all service within
Camrosa WD
City of Camarillo
Hidden Valley MWD None noted
Lake Sherwood CSD None noted
Pleasant Valley CWD None noted
Triunfo SD None noted
Waterworks #1 None noted
Waterworks #8 None noted
Waterworks #17 None noted
Waterworks #19 None noted
Ventura Regional SD None noted
One of the purposes of the service review is to list all possible government structure options
including advantages and disadvantages of potential reorganizations. For this purposes of this
service review report, a reorganization is defined as two or more changes of organization (i.e.,
consolidation, merger, dissolution, annexation and/or detachment) which are initiated in a single
proposal before LAFCO. It should be noted that the different requirements for each type of
change of government structure, as contained in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local
Government Reorganization Act of 2000, may present obstacles to a potential reorganization. It
is suggested that the Ventura LAFCO Commission, in conjunction with the agencies involved,
discuss the potential benefits that might accrue from reorganizations of the following agencies.
January 2004 Page 51
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
1) City of Camarillo, the Camarillo Sanitary District and the Camrosa Water District
Options include merging the Camarillo SD with the City or reorganizing the Camarillo SD, the
City’s water service department and the Camrosa WD to allow the Camrosa WD to provide
service to the entire City. Potential advantages include simplification of service delivery,
reduced costs and increased economies of scale. Disadvantages include resistance from
elected officials and the public, the loss of water and wastewater service specific to the City of
Camarillo and the complexities of combining separate water and wastewater systems.
During the review of the draft service review report, the agencies noted that while the adjacent
service areas might appear to offer opportunities for reorganization, the Calleguas Creek, which
forms the boundary between the two agencies, presents significant technical disadvantages to
an interconnection of the facilities. Political opposition was also cited as a significant
disadvantage.
The Camrosa WD noted that it is exploring cooperative opportunities in conjunction with the City
and the Camarillo SD to improve reliability and affordability of services. Non-potable water
delivery is being considered as part of an agreement that would deliver recycled, treated effluent
from the Camarillo SD plant to the Camrosa WD. This would allow the City to avoid some costs
associated with increased environmental regulation for disposal of effluent in Conejo Creek
while also making a new source of irrigation water available.
A related service issue that is beyond the purview of LAFCO involves on-site sewage systems.
The highlands area of the City of Camarillo primarily uses on-site wastewater systems but is
within the SOI of the Camarillo Sanitation District. The District and the City have worked with
residents to encourage them to annex into the District to provide more efficient service, protect
groundwater and water quality resources and to reduce costs of annexation. Residents have
typically resisted annexation unless forced to by failing on-site systems. The result has been
piecemeal annexations and irregular boundaries.
In addition, the possibility of on-site systems polluting ground waters was cited as a concern in
the Calleguas Creek WMP. While the rate of failures in the highlands area was not noted as
significant enough to create public health issues, it is suggested that Ventura County, the
Camarillo Sanitary District and City of Camarillo work together to review the Ventura County
Guidelines for Orderly Development. These Guidelines, which provide direction for the level of
development, lot size and conditions for public sewer connection, should be reviewed to
determine if more stringent guidelines for on-site systems are warranted.
2) City of Simi Valley and Waterworks District #8
Water service in Simi Valley is currently provided through two suppliers of water: Southern
California Water Company and Ventura County Waterworks District #8. Approximately 60% of
the area is served by the Waterworks District, which is managed by the City with the City
Council serving as the Board of Directors for the District. The Southern California Water
Company is a private company, which provides water service to the other 40% of the area.
This potential government structure option includes the reorganization of the water and
wastewater functions of the City of Simi Valley and Waterworks District #8 so that one agency
provided water and wastewater services to residents. During interviews, the coordination for
future service needs among the City, Waterworks #8 and the Southern California Water
Company was cited as being complicated and occasionally confusing. In addition, differences
in rates between the two water purveyors have sometimes created issues with residents. While
Ventura LAFCO has the statutory authority to analyze the potential reorganization of the City of
Page 52 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Simi Valley and Waterworks District #8, no other issues were noted by either public agency
during the service review.
Potential advantages include simplification of service delivery and increased economies of
scale. However, the Southern California Water Company would still provide water service to a
significant portion of the City. LAFCO has no authority to reorganize private or mutual water
companies; however, simplification of service delivery and service areas might be increased if
the City also assumed responsibility for the area served by the private water company.
Disadvantages include: resistance from elected officials and the public; the complexities of
combining separate water and wastewater systems; and, revision of the existing legal
agreement between the City and Waterworks #8. It is unclear if cost savings would result from
the reorganization. The City of Simi Valley has noted that extensive analysis would be needed
to determine the potential benefits.
As stated previously, the reorganization of private water purveyors is beyond the scope of this
service review and of LAFCO. However, the issues of different rates and coordination of
activities between private and public service providers were cited during interviews in the
Calleguas Creek service review area as well as in other portions of Ventura County. It is
suggested that Ventura LAFCO work with Ventura County and other agencies to collect
appropriate rate information on private and mutual water purveyors.
3) City of Moorpark and Waterworks District #1
This government structure option would involve the merger of the City of Moorpark and
Waterworks District # 1 to allow the City provided water and wastewater services to its
residents. Potential advantages include simplification of service delivery and increased
economies of scale. However, no issues were noted during the service review with the
provision of water and wastewater service and it is uncertain if service delivery would be
simplified. Disadvantages include resistance from elected officials and the public, the
complexities of combining separate governmental agencies and future provision of service to
unincorporated areas currently served by the agency. Potential cost savings are unknown. A
1988 feasibility study recommended that all wastewater and water services within Waterworks
#1 be transferred to the City of Moorpark. The study should be reviewed and updated to reflect
changing growth and financial conditions.5
4) Triunfo Sanitation District
The Triunfo SD does not provide direct services to its customers but provides them through
contracts with other agencies. Reorganization with another agency might eliminate a layer of
government, reduce costs and simplify/improve service provision. Disadvantages include the
complexity of replacing the Triunfo SD’s existing contracts with new agreements and uncertain
cost savings.
During interviews and in subsequent research the following additional potential governmental
structure option was noted.
5) Calleguas MWD
One potential governmental structure option involves the Calleguas MWD service area/SOI.
Currently the District’s SOI and service area include portions of the City of Oxnard. With minor
exceptions the agency’s boundaries are coterminous with its SOI. As areas annex to the City
5 “A Feasibility Study for Moorpark and the County of Ventura for Transferring Water and Wastewater Utilities
from the County of Ventura to Moorpark”, Arthur Young Consulting. March, 1988.
January 2004 Page 53
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
and require water service, they are required to annex to the Calleguas MWD and to the
Metropolitan Water District (MWD), which allows the developing parcels to receive imported
water. When territory annexes to a member agency, MWD’s Administrative Code requires
concurrent annexation.
The cost of requiring concurrent annexation has proven to be an obstacle to the provision of
efficient services. In addition to the fee and charges of the City of Oxnard and of Ventura
LAFCO, the fixed fee for annexation to Calleguas MWD and MWD are approximately $4,500
per acre are which are paid by the property owner. The annexations in the City of Oxnard have
been sporadic and piecemeal as individual or small groups of property owners request
annexation. The unintended result has been service boundaries which are sometimes
confusing and which do not always assist regional water and wastewater planning goals and
objectives.
There have been several attempts to provide a more comprehensive approach to annexation in
the area. Ventura LAFCO has tried to encourage a more logical and phased annexation
program and the Calleguas MWD has studied the economics of an annexation program.
Developing a program of phased annexation could save time and money for both property
owners and agencies.
One obstacle to annexation and the creation of more logical boundaries is the reluctance of
many property owners to initiate annexation proposals. Government Code Section §57075
requires that the proceedings for annexation to be terminated if more than 50% of the registered
voters or landowners protest. The impact is that some property owners and agencies do not
initiate annexations that could result in more logical boundaries and improve service delivery.
Another obstacle is the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Virtually all annexation proposals are subject to CEQA review and the legal and financial
obstacles of preparing the required CEQA documents are formidable. However, CEQA does
allow for the exemption of planning studies and it is suggested that Ventura LAFCO consider
studying a phased annexation program for this area as part of the update of the Calleguas
MWD SOI. The program could provide incentives for the timely and cost-efficient annexation of
areas not now within Calleguas MWD service area and/or SOI.
Another issue with the Calleguas MWD is the consistency of the District’s SOI and the potential
service area as established by MWD. The MWD's Annexation Policy Briefing Book, published
December 1995, includes the following 1931 General Policy Statement describing
Metropolitan's ultimate service area as follows6:
"Those portions of the Coastal Plain to which the aqueduct system can economically
deliver water are regarded as the ultimate area that should be included within the
Metropolitan Water District."
Additionally, the Coastal Plain is described as follows:
"That part of Los Angeles County southerly from the Santa Susana and the San Gabriel
or Sierra Madre Mountains; that part of San Bernardino County south of the San Gabriel
or Sierra Madre Mountains, and south and west of the San Bernardino Mountains
extending easterly to the summit of San Gorgonio Pass; that part of Riverside County
6 Personal Communication, Cy Johnson, Calleguas MWD.
Page 54 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
west of the San Jacinto Mountains; that part of Orange County west and north of the
Santa Ana Mountains."
Referring to the above quotations, Metropolitan's report entitled 1976 Analysis of Annexation
Policy of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California states the following:
"Although the two quoted portions indicate an intention to consider applications from any
part or all of the designated coastal areas, the limitations set up were not subsequently
looked upon and absolute, but were treated as indicative of the area within which
Metropolitan expected to operate. They constituted no legal prohibition against wide
expansion and implied no obligation to attempt to serve the whole area included in the
description. In fact, certain areas within the prescribed limits were later declared not to
be acceptable, and careful study was made of proposed annexations in Ventura and
Santa Barbara Counties."
In 1931 Metropolitan's service area did not include San Diego or Ventura Counties.
No official description has been located for the ultimate service area boundary in Ventura
County and various historical documents show conflicting information. A letter dated July 29,
1976 from Metropolitan's General Manager to the City of Ventura's Director of Public Works
contained in the following statement:
"In the early 1960's when the State water contracts were being negotiated, the City of
Oxnard and Calleguas MWD were in the process of annexation to Metropolitan, and
there was an informal understanding that MWD would serve the area south of the Santa
Clara River and that the County of Ventura would serve the area north of the river".
However, there are various MWD maps which show the Ventura County service area as that
portion of Ventura County located south of a line that generally follows the crest of the Santa
Susana mountains (approximately the existing northern boundary of Calleguas MWD) to a point
where the westernmost foothills approach the Santa Clara River, and thence along the river to
the sea. There is also a map that was attached to a May 5, 1962 letter from the General
Manager to the Board of Directors addressing general annexation policy, which shows
Metropolitan's service area as including the City of Ventura. Because of the undefined nature of
the boundary in Ventura County, MWD's ultimate service area boundary in Ventura County is
not clearly defined along the eastern county line, the Santa Clara River, and the northern
boundary of the City of Ventura. It is suggested that the Calleguas MWD work with both MWD
and Ventura LAFCO to clarify a SOI consistent with the MWD service area for the District.
III.10 EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES
Reviewing management efficiencies has generally been an internal function of a public agency
with limited oversight by external entities such as some state and federal regulatory agencies or
a Grand Jury. The draft OPR service review guidelines suggested factors that could be used
when evaluating management efficiencies, but many of them relate to internal practices which
are difficult to measure and whose correction is outside the purview of LAFCO authority. Some
of the factors the OPR Guidelines recommend for evaluating management efficiencies have
been addressed in other sections of this report. The Ventura LAFCO questionnaire included
questions about master plans, recent litigation and/or Grand Jury inquiries and number of
employees as a means of evaluating management efficiencies.
January 2004 Page 55
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
The presence of master plans, as described in Section III.4, Infrastructure, can be viewed as
indicative of managerial efficiency in long range planning. However it should be noted that
some small agencies and agencies which are close to built-out may use other means of
predicting and preparing for long-term service needs.
Frequent litigation or inclusion in a Grand Jury report can also be used as a proxy measure for
managerial efficiency. If an agency is frequently involved in litigation, it can indicate that the
staff and/or Board resort to the courts for resolution of issues which might be addressed through
other less expensive means. Occasionally inclusion in a Grand Jury investigation might mean
that complaints about the administration have been received.
Only the Triunfo SD noted recent litigation regarding the provision of service; the lawsuit was
settled by mediation in 2003. One other agency, Pleasant Valley CWD, noted that it had been
asked to respond to Grand Jury questions in the previous two years. The Grand Jury report
was obtained and no significant, negative conclusions were noted.
Agencies were also asked to report the number and categories of employees dedicated to the
provision of service. The 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury report, “An Examination of
Special Districts Providing Water Service to Ventura County” used the agency’s administrative
expense as a percentage of the operating revenue for the district. The Grand Jury’s report
noted that:
“Most districts enjoy administrative overhead percentages of less than 15%....dependent
districts enjoy low overhead through their sharing of management, facilities and staff.
Smaller, independent districts, however, pay the largest overhead penalty.”
The service review questionnaire did not specifically request that agencies provide
administrative overhead percentages although in future service reviews this measurement
should be considered. If future service reviews continue to require an assessment of
management efficiencies, Ventura LAFCO should consider requesting this information or
developing performance measures, benchmarks or some other means to allow for a meaningful
comparison of management practices and efficiencies among diverse agencies.
As another means of assessing managerial efficiencies, the following table provides the number
of administrative, professional/support and operational employees and the ratio of the number of
professional/support and operational employees to administrative staff. The 1999-2000 Grand
Jury conclusion that dependent districts, which share staff and facilities with a larger
organization, have the lowest overhead seems to be consistent with the ratios expressed in
Table III.15, Employee Information.
To account for the practice of allocating a portion of the total administrative expenses by
transferring enterprise funds to general fund, cities and dependent districts were asked the
amount of the enterprise fund budget transferred to the general fund. The City of Simi Valley
transferred approximately $850,000 in 2000-01, $900,000 in 2001-02 and $1,000,000 in 2002-
03. The City of Thousand Oaks transferred approximately $200,000 in all three fiscal years.
Waterworks District #8, which is governed by the City Council of Simi Valley, transferred
approximately $1,000,000 in 2000-01, $1,100,000 in 2001-02 and $1,200,000 in 2002-03. Prop
218 and subsequent legal opinions discourage the transfer enterprise funds to the general fund
unless there is a clear nexus between the transfer and the cost of services. Most public
agencies have completed these nexus studies.
Page 56 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE III.15
EMPLOYEE INFORMATION
RATIO OF WATER WASTEWATER
EXECUTIVE
STAFF TO EXECUTIVE PROF. AND OPERA- EXECUTIVE PROF. AND OPERA-
PROF. AND AND MGT. SUPPORT. TIONAL AND MNGT. SUPPORT. TIONAL
OPER.
Camarillo* NA 0 3 13
Simi Valley* 1:9 6 7 47.5
1
Thousand Oaks* NA 0 12 0 5 30
(supervisor)
Calleguas MWD 1:7 7 16 34
Camarillo SD 1:4 3 11
Camrosa WD 1:5 3 7 9
Hidden Valley MWD NA 1
1:6 w
Lake Sherwood CSD* 7 18 27 6 18 7
1:4 ww
Pleasant Valley CWD 1:4 1 4
Triunfo SD NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
1:6 w
Waterworks #1* 6 18 20 6 19 7
1:4 ww
Waterworks #8* 1:13 2 13 26
1:6 (w)
Waterworks #17* 6 18 20 6 18 7
1:4 (ww)
1:6 w
Waterworks #19* 6 18 20 6 19 7
1:4 ww
Ventura Regional SD 1:17 4 24 43
*Agencies with water/wastewater responsibility and some Waterworks Districts, as dependent districts, share employees.
No significant inefficiencies in management were noted among the agencies in the Calleguas
Creek watershed service review area.
III.11 LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
No significant issues regarding local accountability and governance were noted for any of the
agencies within the Calleguas Creek watershed service review area. The governing boards of
the agencies appear to be locally accountable through adherence to applicable government
code sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information and
encouragement of participation in their election process. However, only eight of the agencies
provide copies of their agency’s budget on their website7; it is suggested that the remaining
agencies post budgets on their websites. In the case of smaller agencies who do not have
websites, it is also suggested that they provide them to increase accountability to customers.
The service review questionnaire asked each agency to provide current information about the
governing board, the expiration date of each member’s term and whether any recently elected
governing board members ran unopposed. This information was entered into the database and
will be used to maintain current and accurate information. Data about compensation, review
7 The eight agencies providing copies of their budgets on their website were: Camarillo SD, Camrosa WD, City of Camarillo, Lake Sherwood
CSD, the City of Thousand Oaks, Waterworks District #1, #17 and #19.
January 2004 Page 57
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
sessions of the Brown Act/FPPC requirements and violations of either regulation within the
previous two years was collected.
In addition, agencies were asked to indicate if the governing body was elected or appointed,
whether recently elected officials ran unopposed and to provide the amount of compensation set
for elected officials. Only three agencies within the Calleguas Creek watershed service review
area noted appointed directors—the Pleasant Valley County Water District (CWD), the Triunfo
Sanitation District (SD) and the Ventura Regional Sanitation District (SD).
The Pleasant Valley County Water District encompasses 11,000 acres but serves an estimated
population of less than 2,000. It has five directors all of whom were listed as being appointed.
The board of the Ventura Regional Sanitation District has nine directors, all of whom are
appointed. Eight of the board members, all city council persons, are appointed by their
respective City Councils. The ninth member, which represents independent special districts, is
selected by the Ventura Regional SD Board.
The board of the Triunfo SD has two elected board members and three appointed board
members. Appointed board members include representatives from the Ventura County Board of
Supervisors, the City of Thousand Oaks and the Ventura Regional SD. The Ventura Regional
SD board is itself comprised of appointed members from the cities and independent special
districts. While the Ventura Regional SD Board has, in the past, selected its special district
member to serve on the Triunfo SD Board, that member generally represents an area of
Ventura County not within the Triunfo SD service area. While no issues with this arrangement
were reported, local accountability might be improved if the Triunfo SD considered the
possibility of having an additional board member elected. This would increase accountability to
ratepayers within the Triunfo SD. The Ventura Regional SD could maintain a member of the
Triunfo SD board to continue the coordination of efforts and information and to provide a board
member experienced in special districts. The suggested change in Triunfo Board composition
might require a legislative change.
Compensation of elected and appointed officials reported is shown in Table III.16,
Compensation for Elected Officials:
A majority of the agencies reported that regular review sessions of the requirements of the
Brown Act, FPPC and public disclosure laws were scheduled; a few agencies noted that
sessions were scheduled on as as-needed basis. None of the agencies noted any violations
within the previous two years.
Public access was evaluated by regularly scheduled meetings and locations, by compliance
with ADA and by the use of legally required notices. All but one agency noted the time and
place of regularly scheduled meetings. During agency review of this report, the Triunfo SD
added that their “…Board meetings are held at 5:15 p.m. on the fourth Monday of each month at
a published location within the District—usually the Oak Park Unified School District.”
Most agencies held meetings after working hours when they would be more accessible to
residents. Only the agencies governed by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors and the
Pleasant Valley CWD held meetings during working hours. All agencies stated that their
meeting locations were easily accessible to the public and compliant with the requirements of
ADA. All agencies reported compliance with the legal requirements for posting of meetings.
Page 58 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE III.16
COMPENSATION FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
BASIC STIPEND
LIMIT ON
BENEFITS OTHER
STIPEND
Life, medical, dental, Reimbursable limit--
Camarillo $750/month* $750/month
vision and retirement $300/month (mayor)
Life, medical, dental, Expense account limit--
Simi Valley $959/month* $959/month
vision and retirement $404/month
Medical, EAP, dental, $150 monthly limit on
Thousand Oaks $1,309/month*
vision and retirement mileage
Life, medical, dental, Actual costs and $0.36
Calleguas MWD $200/mtg $2,000/month
vision and retirement per mile
Life, medical, dental, Reimbursable limit--
Camarillo SD $100/mtg $600/month
vision and retirement $300/month
Medical, dental, and Actual costs and $0.36
Camrosa WD $143/mtg $1, 430/month
vision per mile
Hidden Valley MWD None None E&O insurance None
Lake Sherwood CSD $7,083/month* * * *
Pleasant Valley CWD $100/mtg None reported None reported None reported
$50/perdiem meals and
Triunfo SD $198/mtg 6 mtgs/month Retirement (457 plan)
$0.36 per mile
Waterworks #1 $7,083/month* * * *
Waterworks #8 ** ** ** **
Waterworks #17 $7,083/month* * * *
Waterworks #19 $7,083/month* * * *
$972/month plus $50/perdiem meals and
Ventura Regional SD $162/mtg None
reimbursable 4) 0.36 per mile
*Compensation for City Council or Board of Supervisors; no additional compensation for dependent district
**Compensation for City Council of Simi Valley; no additional compensation for dependent district
All agencies have public budget processes and reported that adopted budgets are made
accessible to the public. Most agencies also post budgets on their website; six agencies do not
(Calleguas MWD, Hidden Valley MWD, Pleasant Valley CWD, City of Simi Valley, Triunfo SD
and the Ventura Regional SD). All agencies reported unqualified audits in 2002.
January 2004 Page 59
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
This Page intentionally Left Blank
Page 60 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
IIVV.. OOJJAAII--SSAANN BBUUEENNAAVVEENNTTUURRAA WWAATTEERRSSHHEEDD
IV.1 OJAI-SAN-BUENAVENTURA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Municipal service reviews are a new requirement for LAFCOs and were intended to promote
more efficient services, to identify areas of improvement and to assess service provision in
relation to boundaries and spheres of influence (SOI). Service reviews do not directly change
the provision of service but are sources of comprehensive information LAFCO can use in future
actions.
LAFCO must conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with the mandated five-year
schedule for updating SOIs. The service review report must include an analysis of the issues
and written determinations for each of the following:
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies;
· Growth and population projections for the affected area;
· Financing constraints and opportunities;
· Cost avoidance opportunities;
· Opportunities for rate restructuring;
· Opportunities for shared facilities;
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation
or reorganization of service providers;
· Evaluation of management efficiencies; and
· Local accountability and governance.
The service review process for the water and wastewater agencies in Ventura County started in
January of 2003 and will be completed in December of 2003. It began with a meeting of the
agencies to discuss issues and to receive input on a three-part draft questionnaire. The
questionnaire, which was sent to all 36 agencies, requested data on quantitative, qualitative and
boundary issues. All the agencies were contacted individually and approximately 80 hours of
interviews with staff and board members were conducted.
To ensure more focused analysis on service issues, Ventura County was divided into three sub-
regional areas, which were roughly based on watershed boundaries. The three sub-regional
service review areas are the Calleguas Creek, Santa Clara and Ventura River (Ojai-San
Buenaventura) areas. Each of the 36 agencies was placed in only one subregional area
although service issues might overlap. This service review report addresses the agencies
located within the Ventura River (Ojai-San Buenaventura) watershed and includes the following
eleven agencies:
· City of San Buenaventura · Ojai Valley Sanitary District
· Casitas Municipal Water District · Ojai Water Conservation District
· Meiners Oaks County Water District · Saticoy Sanitary District
· Montalvo Municipal Improvement District · Ventura County Service Area No. 29
· Ojai Basin Groundwater Management · Ventura County Service Area No. 32
Agency · Ventura River County Water District
January 2004 Page 61
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
A database was designed and each agency’s response to the questionnaire was entered into it.
The database, which currently has approximately 15,000 entries, will be used for subsequent
service reviews, sphere of influence studies and other Ventura LAFCO studies and analysis.
The database can be changed and modified as the need and use for information becomes more
focused.
The mapping information submitted by the agencies identified areas outside each agency’s
boundaries where service was currently being provided, areas of overlap with other agencies
and any illogical service boundaries. These areas were mapped and have been labeled as
“special study areas” for use in subsequent sphere of influence studies. Service issues and
associated improvements identified during the process are addressed in more detail in the body
of this report and are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs.
In general, it can be concluded that the agencies in the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review
area are providing efficient services although there are areas where improvements may
increase efficiency.
In the responses for the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area, estimates of current
population provided by the agencies were not consistent with regional estimates or not
provided. While some agencies may not have had the opportunity to provide complete
answers, the lack of consistent growth and population projections should be examined.
No significant infrastructure deficiencies were noted for any of the agencies during the service
review. Infrastructure needs are assessed regularly by most of the agencies although the lack
of response from some agencies is of concern. Easily accessible data regarding private and
mutual water companies and their impact on water and wastewater service provision should be
maintained.
In the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area, nine of the eleven agencies had no
significant special studies areas or SOI issues noted and updating the SOIs for these agencies
should not require extensive analysis. There are discrepancies among the SOI, the
SOAR/HVPA limits and parcel lines for the City of San Buenaventura, which should be
reconciled. Several special study areas were identified for the Ojai Valley SD where the service
area of the District and its current SOI are different. The SOI update for the Ojai Valley SD is
expected to need more in-depth analysis by the Ventura LAFCO staff including CEQA review of
potential growth inducing impacts.
However, there are government structure options, which might be considered by LAFCO prior to
updating any of the SOIs for agencies in the Ojai Valley service review area. In the past
Ventura LAFCO has recommended that the agencies involved form a committee to study the
reorganization of public water purveyors in the region. However there are no records of any
substantial action by the agencies or of the proposed committee. It is suggested that the
Ventura LAFCO Commission reconsider the reorganization of water providers in the Ojai Valley
either through initiating a reorganization proposal or by encouraging the agencies to reconsider
the issue.
As with the water agencies in the Ojai Valley, it is suggested that government structure options
for the City of San Buenaventura, the Montalvo MID and the Saticoy SD be considered. Since
service and boundary issues among these agencies are more complex, it is additionally
suggested that, prior to a reorganization proposal, that the three agencies work together to
develop a plan for future service provision.
Page 62 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Ventura LAFCO might consider adopting a policy for “zero” spheres of influence and applying
that designation for the water providers in the Ojai Valley until the possible reorganization of the
agencies can be addressed. It is also suggested that Ventura LAFCO consider a zero SOI for
the Montalvo MID and Saticoy SD.
Agencies answering the service review questionnaire reported well-established budget
processes and procedures, which use internal cost/benefit studies to fully utilize opportunities to
reduce or avoid costs. A significant opportunity for future shared facilities and avoidance of
costs is in the expanded use of water reclamation in the Ojai Valley. The agencies involved in
the various Ventura River studies related to the steelhead trout may want to consider the
benefits of developing additional sources of reclaimed water.
No significant issues regarding local accountability and governance were noted for the agencies
within the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area. The governing boards of the agencies
appear to be locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code sections,
open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information and encouragement of
participation.
Rates are generally similar for the water and wastewater agencies responding to the service
review questionnaire. All agencies reported unqualified audits in 2002. No significant issues
for any of the agencies were noted regarding management efficiency, rate restructuring
opportunities or financing constraints.
The final version of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Service Review
Guidelines was published in August of 2003, and included information on addressing
environmental justice concerns. Generally the agencies involved in the service review have
already implemented many of OPR’s recommendations. However, only three of the agencies
(Casitas MWD, Ojai Valley SD and the City of San Buenaventura) have websites that include
copies of their budgets. It is suggested that the other agencies develop websites to increase
dissemination of information, compliance with environmental justice issues and accountability to
customers. Most of the agencies hold meetings at times that maximize public participation but
agencies may want to investigate ways of translating documents to ensure that information is
available in languages other than English. No other significant environmental justice issues
were noted.
IV.2 PUBLIC AGENCY PROFILES
a) Subregional Areas and Agencies
Of the eleven public agencies in the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area, five provide
some form of wastewater services; two provide retail water service, and two are involved with
groundwater issues. The City of San Buenaventura provides potable and reclaimed water as
well as wastewater services to its residents. The Casitas MWD is primarily a wholesale water
agency; however, it also provides recreational services some retail water and limited
wastewater collection for portable sanitary facilities located in its recreational areas.
Each agency’s services and service area are described below. Exhibit IV.1, Ojai-San
Buenaventura Service Review Agencies, shows the services each agency provides in a tabular
format.
January 2004 Page 63
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Ojai-San Buenaventura Service Review Area
· Casitas MWD
The Casitas MWD supplies wholesale water, potable water to some areas, recreational services
and water conservation programs. It also provides limited wastewater collection services for
portable wastewater facilities.
· City of San Buenaventura
The City of San Buenaventura treats and distributes potable and reclaimed water as well as
collects and treats wastewater.
· Meiners Oaks CWD
The Meiners Oaks CWD provides potable water to a service area encompassing approximately
1,300 acres.
· Montalvo MID
The Montalvo MID provides wastewater treatment and collection.
· Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency
The Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency monitors the quality and quantity of
groundwater in the Ojai area. The agency does not provide direct water service.
· Ojai Valley Sanitary District
The Ojai Valley Sanitary District provides wastewater collection and treatment to the Ojai Valley
north of the City of San Buenaventura.
· Ojai Water Conservation District
The Ojai Water Conservation District monitors the recharge of groundwater in the Ojai Valley
area. The agency does not provide direct water service.
· Saticoy SD
The Saticoy SD provides wastewater collection and treatment to the unincorporated community
of Saticoy.
· County Service Area #29 (North Coast)
Ventura County Service Area #29 operates and maintains a sewer system serving the coastal
communities of Solimar Beach, Faria Beach, Mussel Shoals and Seacliff. The Ventura County
Board of Supervisors is the governing body of the agency.
· County Service Area # 32
Ventura County Service Area #32 permits and inspects on-site septic systems throughout
Ventura County. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors is the governing body of the
agency.
· Ventura River CWD
The Ventura River CWD provides domestic water and fire protection services to approximately
2,200 acres.
Figure IV.1, Ojai-San Buenaventura Service Review Area, shows the regional location and
general boundaries of the service review area addressed in this report.
Page 64 January 2004
Kern County
Santa Barbara
County
Ventura
County
Los Angeles
County
Santa
Susana
Mountains Ridgeline
River
Clara
Santa
Pacific Ocean
Ventura LAFCO
LEGEND
Ojai/Ventura Watershed
Ojai/Ventura Watershed Service Review Area
Service Review Area
0 4 Miles 8 Miles
Figure IV.1
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 7/28/03
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Exhibit IV.1
Ojai-San Buenaventura Service Review Agencies
Ojai-San Buenaventura Agencies
Page 66 January 2004
SECIVRES
RETAW
retaW
elbatoP
citsemoD
liateR
retaW
elaselohW
tnemtaerT
retaW
retaW
demialceR-delcyceR
retaW
larutlucirgA
tnemeganaM
retawdnuorG
tnemhsinelpeR
retaW
noitavresnoC
retaW
SECIVRES
RETAWETSAW
noitcelloC
reweS
yratinaS
tnemtaerT
reweS
yratinaS
ecnanetniaM
&
gnirotinoM
metsyS
citpeS
Casitas Municipal Water District X D D D D D D D D X D
City of San Buenaventura X D D D D D X D D
Meiners Oaks County Water District X D
Montalvo Municipal Improvement District X D D
Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency X M
Ojai Valley Sanitary District X D D
Ojai Water Conservation District X M M M
Saticoy Sanitary District X D D
Ventura County Service Area No. 29 X D D
Ventura County Service Area No. 32 X D
Ventura River County Water District X D D
Services Provided = X (D=Direct, C=Contracted, M-Monitoring/Studies)
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
IV.3 GROWTH AND POPULATION
With 1,864 square miles, Ventura County is in the median range for size among California’s 58
counties, but ranks 11th in population with a Census 2000 count of 753,000. The County’s
median household income is $59,600, which is higher than both the State average and that of
nearby counties. The median income in both the Ojai and San Buenaventura areas was slightly
below the countywide median income and was estimated by the 2000 Census to be $44,593
and $52,298, respectively.
The urban density in Ventura County rose from 7.61 people per acre in 1990 to 7.75 in 2000,
which mirrors the statewide trend of increasing urban densities. The City of San Buenaventura
had an estimated urban density of 7.5 people per acre while the City of Ojai’s urban density is
substantially lower at approximately 3 people per acre. From 1990 to 2000, the Countywide
population grew by 11.2%, City of Ojai by 3% and the City of San Buenaventura by 8%.
Using data from the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG), the following table (Table IV.1,
Ojai-San Buenaventura Service Review Area Population Projections) has been developed:
TABLE IV.1
OJAI-SAN BUENAVENTURA
SERVICE REVIEW AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Population 262,947 274,440 286,436 297,289 308,059
Dwelling Units (DU) 100,911 104,424 108,205 111,800 115,395
Countywide Total 796,387 836,186 874,881 915,005 951,080
DOF Totals for
818,600 877,400 934,000 1,007,200
Ventura County
VCOG’s figures project population growth of approximately 4% during the five-year increments.
Population projections from the State of California department of Finance (DOF) have been
included as a comparison to VCOG data. The DOF projections for Ventura County project an
increase in population of approximately 6%-7% during the same five–year periods.
Agencies included in the service review were asked to provide the estimated population as of
1/2003 for their existing service area. The data is summarized in Table IV.2, Agency
Projections of Current Population. Agencies that either did not answer the question or did not
know the population of their agency are entered as “None Reported”. The population estimates
provided by the agencies are obviously incomplete; it is unrealistic to expect that the service
review area, which has only a 10% increase in population over the previous decade, would have
a 50% increase in the next two years. Accurate population projections are critical for predicting
future service demands and the lack of a generally accepted, consistent source and
methodology for projecting future growth and population projections is an issue in the Ojai- San
Buenaventura service review area.
January 2004 Page 67
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Of the agencies that answered the question “How does
your agency determine the projected growth within its
TABLE IV.2
current boundaries including sphere of influence?” four
AGENCY PROJECTIONS OF
agencies (Casitas MWD, Meiners Oaks CWD, Montalvo
CURRENT POPULATION
MID and Saticoy SD) noted that the service area was
ESTIMATED
built-out and no growth was expected. While this may
AGENCY POPULATION
be accurate for the Meiners Oaks CWD, Montalvo MID
1/2003
and Saticoy SD, it seems inconsistent with VCOG and
Casitas MWD 67,785
DOF population estimates for the Casitas MWD service
area. San Buenaventura 106,848
Meiners Oaks CWD 4,000
The City of San Buenaventura noted that their
Montalvo MID 1,200
population projections were based on their General Plan.
None
CSA #29 uses population projections prepared by the Ojai Basin GMA
Reported
Southern California Association of Governments
None
Ojai Valley SD
(SCAG), the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG) Reported
and Ventura County. None
Ojai Water CD
Reported
The Ventura River CWD has a computerized system that Saticoy SD 1,000
can accurately locate parcels within its agency
CSA #29 1,053
boundaries that might be expected to develop. The
CSA #32* *
District also noted that it expected that there would be
more increased service demands from lot splits and Ventura River CWD 5,988
ancillary units than from growth. Total 120,089
*The service area of CSA#32 encompasses
Ventura County
The final OPR Guidelines for Municipal Service Reviews recommended that service review
reports address environmental justice issues, including the provision of affordable housing.
Housing affordability is an increasingly important issue in Ventura County, with a significant
number of households in the region paying more than 40% of the household’s total income for
housing. Of the 11 agencies included within the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review report,
only the City of San Buenaventura provides both water/wastewater services and has
responsibility for meeting regional “fair share” housing goals. Affordable housing information
from both the City of San Buenaventura and Ventura County, for the unincorporated areas, is
summarized in the following paragraphs. Ventura County’s Housing Element has been
approved by the Housing and Community Development Department of the State of California;
the City’s is being reviewed.
The Ventura County General Plan (2001) establishes housing objectives for the unincorporated
area for the period from 1998 to 2005. The affordable housing objectives were assigned to the
County by SCAG and are shown in Table IV.3, Regional Housing Objectives for Unincorporated
Areas.
Page 68 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE IV.3
REGIONAL HOUSING OBJECTIVES FOR UNINCORPORATED AREAS
% OF NEEDS BY % OF HOUSING
INCOME SCAG HOUSING ANNUAL
INCOME OBJECTIVES
CATEGORY OBJECTIVES HOUSING NEEDS
CATEGORY BEING MET
Upper 690 41% 92 70%
Moderate 334 20% 45 115%
Low 250 15% 33 160%
Very Low 404 24% 54 70%
TOTAL 1,678 100% 224 92%
Source: SCAG - May 2, 2000
Housing prices and rents for apartments are relatively high in the City of San Buenaventura. In
2000, the median sales price of new and existing single-family homes was $239,000 for a two-
bedroom unit and as of January 2001, the average apartment rent was $879 for a one-bedroom
unit with vacancy rates averaging approximately 2%.
Economic studies for the City project employment to grow from between 10,000 to 15,000 jobs
generating demand for additional housing for a wide range of income levels. However, a
significant portion of the City’s workforce is employed in lower-paying occupations (i.e., retail
workers, service employees, and agricultural workers) that are in particular need of housing
assistance.
The City has adequate land to address its remaining regional housing needs of 1,230 new units
through 2005 although over 40% of this development is dependent on intensification of
underutilized sites.
In terms of environmental justice concerns, the agencies that responded to service review
questionnaire do not discriminate between economic or ethnic groups in terms of rates of
service delivery. Most water and wastewater providers have programs to help customers
reduce costs. No other significant issues were noted.
IV.4 INFRASTRUCTURE
The legislation requiring service reviews provided little direction to LAFCOs for evaluating
infrastructure needs and deficiencies. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
developed Service Review Guidelines, which were finalized in August of 2003, included twelve
suggested factors LAFCOs could use in identifying an agency’s infrastructure needs and
deficiencies. Several of the factors, including governmental structure options, duplicative
facilities and locations of facilities, have been addressed in other portions of this report.
The Ventura LAFCO service review questionnaire used the presence and frequency of master
plans as well as an annual capital improvement (CIP) budget as a means of assessing an
agency’s process of evaluating infrastructure needs and deficiencies. Master plans and CIPs,
as plans for future service needs, are public documents reviewed the governing body, other
affected agencies and the public. Agencies that are small, provide limited service, or are fully
built-out may not have master plans; however, most public agencies prepare annual CIP
budgets as a means of meeting current and future service needs.
January 2004 Page 69
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Agencies were asked the date of the current master plan and previous master plan. While there
are no established standards for the frequency of preparation, typically master plans for water
and wastewater agencies are prepared every 5-10 years. The type of service area (i.e., level of
development, rate of growth or presence of growth control initiatives) can also affect the
frequency of preparation. Table IV.4, Master Plans and CIPs, shows the agencies and
information regarding master plans and capital improvements budgets.
TABLE IV.4
MASTER PLANS AND CIPS
WATER CIP WASTEWATER CIP
DATE DATE
MASTER PLAN BUDGET MASTER PLAN BUDGET
None None Yes
Casitas MWD
Reported Reported
San Yes 1993 Yes Yes 1997 Yes
Buenaventura
Meiners Oaks None None None
CWD Reported Reported Reported
Montalvo MID No NA Yes
Ojai Basin GMA Yes 1994 No
Ojai Valley SD No NA Yes
Ojai Water CD NA NA NA
Saticoy SD No NA Yes
CSA #29 No NA No
CSA #32 NA NA NA
Ventura River No NA Yes
CWD
.
The service review questionnaire also asked for a wide range of information regarding the
capacity, age, storage, peak demand and sources of water. The data was collected to allow
Ventura LAFCO to adopt the legally required determinations for service reviews while also
building a database of information that could be used to analyze and update spheres of
influence and future annexation/detachment proposals.
Table IV.5, Water System Information, depicts data obtained from responses to the service
review questionnaire regarding number of customers, capacity and the system/facilities of the
retail systems.
Page 70 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE IV.5
WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION
TOTAL # ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
MILE OF PERMITS
OF STORAGE PEAK DEMAND PEAK CAPACITY
LINES CURRENT
CONNECTIONS
Casitas MWD 2,958 91 26 mg 100 cfs 100 cfs Yes
City of San
29,200 400 60 mg 22,503 AF 26,500 AF Yes
Buenaventura
None None None None None
Meiners Oaks MID 1,266
Reported Reported Reported Reported Reported
Ventura River
2,108 2.5 days 1,400 gpm 2,200 gpm Yes
CWD
Infrastructure needs and deficiencies were adequately addressed by the City of San
Buenaventura through its master plans, Biennial Water Supply and Urban Water Management
Plans. Of the agencies that reported being built-out with no growth expected, Montalvo MID,
Saticoy SD and the Ventura River CWD have annual CIP programs, which address
infrastructure needs and deficiencies. The Meiners Oaks CWD and Ojai Water Conservation
District did not report master plans, annual CIP programs or include budgeted amounts for
capital improvements.
The Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency provided a copy of their 2002-2003 Annual
Report. The Ojai Water Conservation District, which is a member of the Ojai Basin GMA, noted
that demands for additional water from Lake Casitas for steelhead trout habitat could result in
rationing of water for agricultural use and in the subsequent increased reliance on ground water.
The Ojai Water CD suggested that the Ojai Basin GMA study the storage capacity of the basin.
This issue is especially important since groundwater supplies more than 50% of the total water
used in the Ojai Basin service area. There are currently 111 active wells (out of 174 recorded
wells) in the Ojai Basin GMA service area with approximately 4,000 af extracted annually. 45
wells are dedicated to agricultural use which also accounts for approximately 54% of the total
amount of groundwater used. In 2002, approximately 5,000 af of groundwater was extracted.
The future use of groundwater in the Ojai Valley area is an issue for the service review area.
A related issue specific to Ventura County and important in the Ojai-San Buenaventura service
review area is the presence of private and mutual water companies and their impact on water
supply and demand. Although private water service providers, both investor-owned and mutual,
are outside LAFCO’s jurisdiction, they serve important roles in the provision of service. Some of
the larger private and mutual water agencies are virtually indistinguishable from public agencies;
they plan for present and future infrastructure needs, meet all regulatory requirements and have
adequate financial resources. In the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area, several of the
private and mutual water companies participate in regional groups such as the Ojai Basin
Groundwater Management Agency and the Ventura River Habitat Conservation Plan. However,
other small private and mutual water companies may difficulty reaching economies of scale and
may have issues with water quality, water supply and/or infrastructure.
It is sometimes difficult for local agencies and customers to obtain rate, capacity and other
information about private/mutual water purveyors. Planning for Ventura County’s future
infrastructure needs and deficiencies must include appropriate information from all water
agencies. It is suggested that the Ventura LAFCO database be expanded to include information
January 2004 Page 71
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
regarding private and mutual water companies in order to more accurately assess present and
probable service demand and supply.
a) Wholesale Water
The Casitas MWD is the wholesale agency for the service review area.
b) Wastewater Agencies
Wastewater agencies and departments were asked a similar series of questions about the
capacity of their facilities. Agency responses and additional information taken from the State
Water Resources Control Board report, “Wastewater User Charge Survey Report FY 2001-02”,
are summarized in the Table IV.6, Wastewater Agency Information.
TABLE IV.6
WASTEWATER AGENCY INFORMATION
RATED
TOTAL # OF ADWF* TREATMENT MILES OF PERMIT
CAPACITY
CONNECTIONS (MGD) LEVEL LINES VIOLATIONS
(MGD)
San Buenaventura 24,657 14 9.3 Tertiary 375 Yes
Montalvo MID 1,280 0.36 0.300 Secondary 8 No
Ojai Valley SD 7,500 3 1.950 Tertiary 120 Yes
Saticoy SD 817 0.25 0.100 Primary 3 No
None
CSA # 29 317 ** 0.085 Secondary No
Reported
Total 34,571 12.9 10.8
*Average Dry Weather Flow; **CSA#29 discharges wastewater to the City of Oxnard system.
Of the agencies providing wastewater services, one (City of San Buenaventura) currently
provides reclaimed water, one (Saticoy SD) is currently working with two other jurisdictions to
provide water reclamation and one (Ojai Sanitary District) is considering the provision of
reclaimed water. There may be possibilities for increasing water reclamation in the Ojai Valley,
which have been discussed in Section IV.8 Opportunities for Shared Facilities.
IV.5 FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
To evaluate financial constraints and opportunities in relation to existing and projected service
needs, the service review questionnaire collected data regarding total revenues and
expenditures, bond ratings, reserve levels and the presence of audits.
Agencies were also asked to identify any financing constraints and opportunities that affect the
service provided and the infrastructure needs. The intent was to find any specific constraints or
opportunities beyond existing legislative, political and governmental regulations. Few agencies
identified any additional financing constraints except for the limits placed on them by their size
and by increased regulations. Most agencies noted that their governing board looked at rates
annually to ensure a balance between rates and capital needs.
The service review questionnaire asked agencies to provide total revenues, revenue sources,
CIP budget and reserves for the previous three fiscal years, which is summarized in tables
contained in Appendix A.
Page 72 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
No significant financial opportunities and constraints were noted for the agencies. However,
some of the smaller agencies in the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area cannot always
find economies of scale or may not be ale to use some financing mechanisms available to larger
agencies.
Exhibit IV.2, Agency Revenue Comparison, and Exhibit IV.3, Aggregate Sources of Agency
Revenue, compare total revenues for all agencies and aggregate sources of revenues. Data
from FY 2001-2002 was used to compare actual numbers. The information for the City of San
Buenaventura includes both water and wastewater revenues.
Exhibit IV.2
2001-2002 AGENCY REVENUE COMPARISON
$70M
$11.4M
$530K $464K $34K $4.6M $681K $359K $15K $960K
$5K
S a n B u e n a v e nt ur a Casita M s e M i n W er D O a k s Ct y W D M o nt al v o M O I D jai Basi n G M A Oj ai V all e y S D Ojai W C D S ati c o y S D C S A 2 9 V C e S n A t u 3 r a 2 Ri v er C W D
January 2004 Page 73
2002-1002
,euneveR
latoT
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
As enterprise activities, the primary revenue source for all water and wastewater agencies
comes from service charges and fees directly related to the provision of services. Other income
generally comes from interest from various funds. Exhibit IV.3, 2001-2002 Aggregate Sources
of Agency revenues, shows that water and wastewater agencies, as enterprise funds, derive by
far the majority of their income from service charges and fees. Approximately 50% of the total
aggregate revenue in the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area came from the Casitas
MWD’s water sales and charges; Casitas also received a $3,000,000 grant during the same
fiscal year.
Exhibit IV.3
2001-2002 AGGREGATE SOURCES OF AGENCY REVENUES
46%
39%
3%
6% 6%
0% 0.1%
Pr o p ert y T a x e s S p e ci al T a x e s er vi c e C h ar g e s F e e
s
A s s e s s m e nt s Gr a nt
s
Ot h
er
S
Page 74 January 2004
seuneveR
latoT
fo
egatnecreP
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
The amount of property tax revenue each agency received during FY 2001-2002 is shown in
Table IV.7, 2001-2002 Property Tax Revenue. Property tax revenue for the City of San
Buenaventura was not included in this report; it was assumed that property taxes are not used
by the City to fund enterprise activities.
TABLE IV.7
2001-2002 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
PROPERTY TAX
REVENUE
Casitas MWD $880,000
San Buenaventura
Meiners Oaks CWD $23,967
Montalvo MID $178,169
Ojai Basin GMA 0
Ojai Valley SD $187,900
Ojai Water CD $3,911
Saticoy SD $16,000
CSA #29 0
CSA #32* $1,920
Ventura River CWD $19,358
TOTAL $1,311,225
A comparison of the capital improvement budgets for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 is shown in
Exhibit IV.4, 2001-2002 Agency CIP Comparisons. As with revenues, the CIPs for the water
and wastewater departments of the City of San Buenaventura have been combined.
Exhibit IV.4
2001-2002 AGENCY CIP COMPARISON
$40M
$14.3M
$2M
n/a $127K n/a n/a $509K $28K $0 $482K
S a n B u e n a v e nt ur a C a sit e a i s n e M r W O a D k s Ct y W D M o nt al v o M O I j D ai B a si n G M A Oj ai V all e y S D Oj ai W C D S ati c o y S D C S A 2 9 V e n C t u S r A a R 3 2 i v er C W D
M
January 2004 Page 75
2002-1002
,serutidnepxE
PIC
latoT
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Data about agency reserve levels was also collected as part of the service review. The issue of
reserve levels was raised as a general statewide concern in the 2000 Little Hoover Commission
report on special districts. That report concluded that some agency reserves appear
unreasonably large, are not integrated into infrastructure planning and are obscure. Data
collected for this service review did not find that the agencies in the Ojai-San Buenaventura
service review area showed evidence of the concerns noted by the Little Hoover Commission
for agencies in other parts of California.
Ventura LAFCO asked agencies to report reserves in the categories of operating, capital, rate
stabilization, restricted and other for the previous three fiscal years. Exhibit IV.5, 2001-2002
Agency Reserve Comparison, compares combined reserve amounts.
Setting specific levels of reserves for the diversity of agencies addressed in this service review
report is impracticable. The different services, service areas, customer bases, condition of
infrastructure, capital improvement programs and other issues require reserve levels specific to
each agency. Agencies with large reserves typically have major, long-term capital improvement
projects. For example, the Ojai Valley Sanitary District apparently has substantial reserves;
however, their reserves are earmarked for collection systems improvements (20%), treatment
plant upgrades/expansions (40%) and restricted reserves for bonds (30%). All reserve levels
reported by the agencies were clearly segregated into the uses for the reserves—operating and
rate stabilizations, restricted debt reserves and capital reserves funds.
Exhibit IV.5
2001-2002 AGENCY RESERVES COMPARISON
$16.3M
$14.2M
$2M
$1.2M
n/a $5K n/a $0 $223K $198K $320K
S a n B u e n a v e nt ur a C a sit a e s i n M e W r O D a k s Ct y W D M o nt al v o M O I D j ai B a si n G M A Oj ai V all e y S D Oj ai W C D S ati c o y S D C S A 2 9 V e C n S t u A r a 3 2 Ri v er C W D
M
Page 76 January 2004
2002-1002
,sevreseR
latoT
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
In the service review questionnaire, agencies were asked to report operating reserves and
operating/rate stabilization reserves separately. Operating reserves were defined as
unallocated general reserves that are set-aside for budgetary shortfalls or for purposes not
otherwise specifically designated. Operating and rate stabilization funds were defined as funds
used to temper short-term fluctuations in delivery costs and to maintain constant and predictable
rates to customers. Due to an error in the service review questionnaire, these definitions were
not clear and some agencies noted in their responses that the two categories were typically
considered the same. Therefore in Exhibit IV.6, Aggregate Reserves by Category, the two
categories of reserves, Operating and Operating/Rate Stabilization, were combined.
Exhibit IV.6
AGGREGATE RESERVES BY CATEGORY
45%
40%
40%
35%
31%
30%
25%
20%
15%
13%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Operating Capital Reserve Restricted Debt Other Reserves
Reserves Fund Reserves
January 2004 Page 77
sevreseR
etagerggA
fo
%
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
As mentioned previously, there are no generally accepted levels for operating reserves.
However, the Little Hoover Commission report noted that the International City Managers
Association recommends, as one criteria of solvency, that a city government have three months
of operating expenses in reserves. Using that criterion, Table IV.8, Estimated Three Month
Reserves, shows the estimated monthly and three month total of operating expenses for each
agency, the combined amount of Operating/Operating and Rate Stabilization reserves and the
number of months of operating reserves reported by the agencies. In general, special districts
have more than three months operating reserves due to fluctuations in costs and the absence of
other reserves often held by municipalities.
TABLE IV.8
ESTIMATED 3-MONTH RESERVES
NUMBER OF
ESTIMATED THREE
ESTIMATED MONTHLY TOTAL OPERATING MONTHS OF
MONTH
OPERATING EXPENSES RESERVES OPERATING
OPERATING EXPENSES
RESERVES
Casitas MWD $1,465,154 $488,384 $2,987,913 6
San Buenaventura $2,144,139 $6,432,417 ** NA
Expenses Not Expenses Not $251,000*
Meiners Oaks CWD
Reported Reported
Montalvo MID $33,879 $101,639 $400,000 12
$2,682 $8,047 None
Ojai Basin GMA
Reported
Ojai Valley SD $400,468 $1,201,403 $1,792,704 4
$419 None
Ojai Water CD $1,258
Reported
$27,436 None 0
Saticoy SD $82,310
Reported
CSA #29 $27,436 $82,319 $70,000 3
CSA #32* $2,626 $7,879 $8,944 3
Ventura River CWD $59,984 $179,953 $320,000 5
* Operating reserves for FY 2000-2001
** The City did not report actual reserve amounts but noted that in FY 2000-2001 the reserves were 11% and 8% for the water and
wastewater funds respectively.
IV.6 COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES
In evaluating cost avoidance opportunities, Ventura LAFCO examined current practices used by
the agencies to reduce or avoid costs including the use of outside vendors and contractors.
Overlapping or inefficient service boundaries were also examined as a means that Ventura
LAFCO can use to encourage efficiently provided water and wastewater services and avoid
costs.
As part of the service review process, all water and wastewater agencies were given LAFCO-
generated maps of their jurisdictional and sphere of influence boundaries. Agencies were
asked to note on the maps:
• Areas of duplication of planned or existing facilities with another agency
• Areas better served by another agency
Page 78 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
• Areas better served by the responding agency
• Areas outside the agency’s boundaries which currently receive service
• Areas difficult to serve or with illogical boundaries
Ventura LAFCO and the consulting team mapped the changes noted by the agencies and
labeled them as “special study areas”. During interviews, the staff of some agencies also noted
areas with service issues, which were also mapped. The service provision issues of the special
study areas were not studied in depth as part of the service review. The purpose was to update
the Ventura LAFCO GIS-based maps so staff could use them for future studies as well as a
means of ranking subsequent SOI studies
Table IV.9, Special Study Areas, lists the agencies included within the Ojai-San Buenaventura
service review area with special study areas and SOI issues. Maps for those agencies with
issues or special study areas are also included and labeled as:
(cid:145) Figure IV.2 Meiners Oaks MWD
(cid:145) Figure IV.3 Montalvo MID
(cid:145) Figure IV.4 Ojai Valley SD
(cid:145) Figure IV.5 City of San Buenaventura
(cid:145) Figure IV.6 Ventura River CWD
Revised maps for all agencies with suggested study areas are included in the updated Ventura
LAFCO GIS system.
TABLE IV.9
SPECIAL STUDY AREAS
ESTIMATED LEVEL
SPECIAL
SUMMARY OF ISSUE OF ANALYSIS
STUDIES AREAS
REQUIRED
None
Casitas MWD NA Low
Noted
1) Discrepancies between SOAR, HVPA Moderate
San Buenaventura Yes
and SOI
Meiners Oaks CWD Yes 1) Agency facilities outside boundaries Low
!) Discrepancy between SOI and current Low
Montalvo MID Yes
service area
None
Ojai Basin GMA NA Low
Noted
1) Areas outside agency receiving High
services
Ojai Valley SD Yes
2) Areas within agency but outside SOI
3) SOI issues
None
Ojai Water CD NA Low
Noted
None Low
Saticoy SD NA
Noted
None
CSA #29 NA Low
Noted
None
CSA #32 NA Low
Noted
1) Areas not in current SOI or requiring Low
Ventura River CWD Yes
service
January 2004 Page 79
LEGEND
Meiners Oaks County Water District Sphere Ventura LAFCO
Meiners Oaks County Water District
Meiners Oaks County Water District
Possible Sphere-of-Influence Change
Special Study Areas
0 1300' 2600'
Figure IV.2
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 8/21/03
LEGEND
Ventura LAFCO
Montalvo Municipal Improvement District Sphere
Montalvo Municipal Improvement District Montalvo Municipal
MMID Facilities Improvement District
Areas Outside Sphere and District, but
Served by MMID
Areas the MMID Could Serve
(currently using septic systems) 0 750' 1500'
Special Study Areas
Figure IV.3
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 8/21/03
LEGEND
Ojai Valley Sanitary District Sphere
Ojai Valley Sanitary District
Ventura LAFCO
Possible Sphere-of-Influence Change
Areas inside sphere/outside agency
Ojai Valley Sanitary District
Areas outside sphere and agency,
but served by Ojai Valley Sanitary District
Ojai Valley Sanitary District Facilities
0 4000' 8000'
Special Study Areas
Ventura SOAR/HVPA Boundary Figure IV.4
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the Ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 9/22/03
Pacific Ocean
LEGEND
City of San Buenaventura Sphere of Influence
Possible Sphere of Influence Change Ventura LAFCO
City of San Buenaventura
City of San Buenaventura
SOAR/HVPA Boundary
SOAR Area
HVPA Area 0 4250' 8500'
Special Study Areas
Figure IV.5
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 9/3/03
LEGEND
Ventura River County Water District Sphere
Possible Sphere of Influence Change
Ventura River County Water District Ventura LAFCO
New VRCWD Facility
Ventura River County Water District
Areas Inside Sphere, Outside District, Served by Others
Served by Others, Better Served by VRCWD
Areas Outside District, Served by District
0 2000' 4000'
Areas Outside Sphere, Outside District
Special Study Areas Figure IV.6
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 8/21/03
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
In the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area, six of the eleven agencies (Casitas MWD,
Ojai Basin GMA, Ojai Water CD, Saticoy SD, CSA #29 and CSA #32) had no special studies
areas and updating the SOIs for these agencies should not require extensive analysis. While
three other agencies—Meiners Oaks CWD, Montalvo MID and the Ventura River CWD—have
special study areas identified, updating SOIs for these agencies is not expected to require
extensive analysis. The special study areas for these three agencies include parcels where
facilities are outside the existing agency boundaries or where future service may be needed.
Two agencies, the City of San Buenaventura and the Ojai Valley SD, have special study areas
or have SOI issues, which are discussed in subsequent paragraphs.
However, there are other issues, addressed in Section IV.9, Government Structure Options,
which should be considered by LAFCO prior to updating any of the SOIs for the agencies in the
Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area. In that section of this service review report, it is
suggested that Ventura LAFCO either initiate a reorganization of water providers in the Ojai
Valley or encourage the agencies to return to LAFCO with a reorganization proposal. While it is
reasonable to allow the water agencies in the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area
adequate time to consider reorganizing, the schedule for updating the SOIs for Ventura County
agencies may not permit an extensive period of time to examine all the potential government
structure options. Therefore, it suggested that Ventura LAFCO consider adopting a policy for
“zero” sphere of influence designations and consider applying that designation to the water
providers in the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area until a possible reorganization can
be addressed. Annexations to an agency with a zero sphere might require more in-depth
analysis or might be prohibited according to the policy developed.
It is also suggested that Ventura LAFCO consider a zero SOI for the Montalvo MID and Saticoy
SD. The service provision issues for these agencies have also been addressed in Section IV.9,
Government Structure Options.
a) City of San Buenaventura
The SOI for the City of San Buenaventura has discrepancies between the SOAR/HVPA lines
and the SOI as determined by LAFCO. While it is possible that not all the territory designated
by the City’s SOAR/HVPA should be included in the SOI, it is expected that updating the SOI
will require a moderate level of time and effort on the part of the Ventura LAFCO staff. There
are also some discrepancies between the parcel lines in the GIS systems of LAFCO and the
City and, while reconciling the two systems may not be complex, it will also require additional
effort.
b) Ojai Valley SD
The Ojai Valley SD has boundary and SOI issues, which will need more analysis by the Ventura
LAFCO staff. The District was formed in May 1985 as a result of the consolidation of the
Ventura Avenue, Oak View, and Meiners Oaks Sanitary Districts, and the Sanitation
Department of the City of Ojai. The predecessor agencies were formed in the early 1960's in
conjunction with construction of the Oak View Treatment Plant. During the reorganization of the
four agencies a service area that included the Ojai Valley between ridgelines was opposed at
LAFCO. As a result, the final agency and SOI boundaries were not always consistent with
service provision.
A possible SOI has been suggested for the Ojai Valley SD as part of this service review. The
suggested SOI includes areas which currently receive service from the District but which are
January 2004 Page 85
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
outside the agency boundaries and/or SOI or areas that have a potential to be developed
consistent with existing SOAR and greenbelt lines. The suggested SOI primarily addresses
three major areas, which are:
Creek Road
The District currently has a sewer line in Creek Road. The suggested SOI includes some areas,
which currently receive wastewater service but are not within the SOI. Typically SOI lines follow
property lines but some properties along Creek Road that currently receive sewer service are
zoned either Agricultural Exclusive or Open Space. These land use designations limit the future
demand for sewer service. For example, a portion of the winery/vineyard located along Creek
Road currently receives sewer service but the remainder of the property, consisting of
agricultural uses and hillsides, is not expected to need service in the future. The suggested SOI
includes only that part of the winery/vineyard receiving service but does not follow the property
line.
Western Area and Live Oaks Acres
In these areas properties currently receiving wastewater service or expected to need it within
the next 10-15 years have been included in the suggested SOI. The Ojai Valley SD currently
has sewer lines in the area.
Eastern Area
The District has a sewer line in Ojai Avenue that ends at St Joseph Hospital and in Grand
Avenue that ends at Orange. While not currently receiving wastewater service, the areas might
require sewer service within the next 10-15 years and should be considered for inclusion in the
Ojai Valley’s SOI.
c) Other Cost Avoidance Opportunities
During the mapping, another potential opportunity for cost avoidance was noted which involved
duplicate GIS systems. Many of the water and wastewater agencies, including Ventura County,
have GIS systems. While beyond the scope of LAFCO’s authority, Ventura County agencies
should consider a closer coordination of all the GIS systems as a means of reducing costs.
While it might be infeasible for one agency to maintain all GIS data, a designated agency for
specific type of data might reduce costs.
Finally agencies answering the service review questionnaire reported well-established budget
processes and procedures, which use internal cost/benefit studies to find and utilize
opportunities to reduce or avoid costs. As part of the questionnaire, agencies were asked to
note services that were currently provided by other agencies or private contractors, the
estimated annual cost savings and excess capacity, facilities or staff that could be made
available. Table IV.10, Summary-Use of Contractors, illustrates each agency’s use of outside
contractors.
Page 86 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE IV.10
SUMMARY – USE OF CONTRACTORS
EXCESS
SERVICES PROVIDED ESTIMATED
SERVICES PROVIDED BY OR CAPACITY,
BY PRIVATE
TO OTHER AGENCIES
ANNUAL CO ST
FACILITIES OR
CONTRACTORS SAVINGS
STAFF
Large capital
improvement projects Agreement with Carpinteria WD None None
Casitas MWD
and environmental to provide water Reported Reported
services
Engineering, 1) JPA for CSA$29 (North
environmental Coast) Not None
San Buenaventura
permitting, 2) JPA for McGrath State Calculated reported
construction Beach Park
None None None None
Meiners Oaks CWD
Reported Reported Reported Reported
1) Operations, maintenance
and other services provided by
None Ventura regional SD None None
Montalvo MID
Reported 2) Wastewater service to areas Reported Reported
with the City of San
Buenaventura
None None None None
Ojai Basin GMA
Reported Reported Reported Reported
1) Insurance through California
Sanitation Risk Management
Construction, audits Authority Not None
Ojai Valley SD
and accounting 2) Laboratory, mechanical and Calculated reported
source control on as–needed
basis
None None None None
Ojai Water CD
Reported Reported Reported Reported
1) Administration, operations,
None and engineering provided by Not None
Saticoy SD
Reported Ventura regional SD Calculated reported
1) Ventura County self-
Not None
CSA #29 Construction insurance pool and other
Calculated reported
services service
None 1) Shares services and None
CSA #32 Not Calculated
Reported facilities with Ventura County Reported
1) Provides staff, equipment
Leak repair and other None
Ventura River CWD and materials to other agencies Not Calculated
services as needed Reported
as needed
IV.7 RATE RESTRUCTURING
The service review questionnaire asked agencies to list current rates for water and wastewater
service, rates changes in the previous two years, anticipated rate changes and any difference in
rates charged to customers outside agency boundaries. The Ojai Basin GMA reported a rate
decrease of $1.00 per AF. Three agencies (Meiners Oaks MWD, Montalvo MID and the Ojai
Valley SD) did not report rate increases over the previous two years. The remaining agencies
all reported rate increases ranging from 3% to approximately 10%. The Ventura River CWD,
which has three water service zones, reported a “pass-through” rate increase of 3% only in
Zone 3, which is served potable water by the Casitas MWD through agreement.
The agencies were also asked to list current rates in terms of acre-feet and million gallons per
day (mgd), for water and wastewater respectively, in order to have a uniform basis of comparing
rates from diverse agencies. No data has been included for either the Ojai Basin Groundwater
January 2004 Page 87
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Management Agency or the Ojai Water Conservation District. The rates for the Ojai Basin
Groundwater Management Agency are set at $5.00 per AF of groundwater pumped and the Ojai
Water Conservation District primarily relies on its share of property taxes as the agency’s
source of revenue. CSA #32, which permits on-site wastewater systems, has established a flat
rate of $285.00 per applicant.
Table IV.11
Using acre-feet and mgd for water and
Wastewater Agency Rates
wastewater service rates, respectively, did not
yield useful information. Therefore, the AGENCY MONTHLY USER CONNECTION FEE
CHARGE
database is being revised and other sources San Buenaventura $23.67 $1,738
were used to compare rates. Montalvo MID $13.00 $625
Ojai Valley SD $26.43 Variable
Saticoy SD $16.00 $800
The State Water Resources Control Board
CSA #29 $77.44 $1,700
publishes a wastewater users survey report,
which was used to develop, Table IV.11, Wastewater Agency Rates, and provide a comparison
of the rates of the wastewater agencies in the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area.8
Table IV.12, Water Rates, includes a partial comparison of rates per acre-foot as requested by
the service review questionnaire. The Ventura River CWD has three separate zones of service
and information has been included for each zone.
Table IV.12
Water Rates (AF) Since the agencies differ in the billing period (monthly,
bimonthly or quarterly), the unit of measurement used
AGENCY WATER PER AF
Casitas MWD $704 to calculate rates, the rate structure (flat or tiered
City of San rates), connection fees, the class of user (residential,
$614
Buenaventura agricultural and industrial/commercial), the database is
Meiners Oaks CWD $372
being revised to reflect the variability among the
Zone 1 $559
agencies while still permitting a meaningful comparison
Ventura River CWD Zone 2 $596
Zone 3 $665 of costs for the benefit of the public, the elected
officials and the agencies. Table IV.13, Water Rate
Comparison, was developed using the revised format being considered by the Ventura LAFCO
staff.
TABLE IV.13
WATER RATE COMPARISON
CASITAS MWD
CITY OF SAN MEINERS OAKS VENTURA RIVER
BUENAVENTURA CWD CWD
Zone 1 $18.12
I” Meter/Service Charge
$12.42 $17.11 $8.00 Zone 2 $21.72
(residential)
Zone 3 $21.72
Zone 1 $0.84
Water Usage
$1.07 $1.41 $0.80 Zone 2 $0.93
(residential/HCF)
Zone 3 $1.08
None $3,900 plus actual
1” Meter Connection Fee $6,207 $1,645
Reported installation cost
Zone 1 $41.02
Estimated Monthly
$39.46 $79.11 $43.20 Zone 2 $43.92
Residential Water Bill*
Zone 3 $49.73
* Estimated water use for a family of five—one af/year; excludes irrigation use. Actual bills may vary depending on size of agency,
land uses and other factors.
8 State Water Resources Control Board “Wastewater User Survey Report, FY 2001-2002” May 2002.
Page 88 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
IV.8 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
As part of the service review questionnaire, agencies were asked to identify ways that they
currently cooperate with other agencies to maximize opportunities for sharing facilities.
Agencies were asked to list current joint activities with other agencies, which are shown in Table
IV.14, Joint Service Agreements. Of the 11 agencies within the Ojai-San Buenaventura service
review area, five either did not reference any joint activities or did not respond. The remaining
agencies noted joint activities, which increase opportunities for shared facilities.
TABLE IV.14
JOINT SERVICE AGREEMENTS
AGENCY JOINT AGREEMENTS NOTED
Casitas MWD Agreement with Carpinteria Valley WD for retail water service.
Joint Powers Agreements (JPA) for the CSA #29 (North Coast) and with the
City of San
California State Department of Parks and Recreation for McGrath State Beach
Buenaventura
Park
Meiners Oaks CWD None Reported
Agreements with the City of San Buenaventura for commercial uses located on
Montalvo MID
Victoria Avenue
Agreement to allow Southern California Water Company to export groundwater
Ojai Basin GMA
to Casitas MWD for temporary, alternative water supplies.
Ojai Valley SD None reported
Ojai Water CD None reported
Saticoy SD None reported
CSA #29 Shared services and staff and insurance through Ventura County.
Some shared services and staff through the Ventura County Real Estate
CSA #32
Services Division.
Emergency sharing of facilities, staff and equipment as the need arise. Also
Ventura River CWD the Ventura River CWD adapted existing software to be used as an electronic
meter reading, which was subsequently used by the Meiners Oaks CWD.
The 1999-2000 Ventura Grand Jury report recommended that the Ventura County Clerk
maintain a list of JPAs operating within Ventura County. The database designed by Ventura
LAFCO has a list of JPAs reported by the water and wastewater agencies.
Other shared activities among the agencies in the service review area also are occurring, in
particular with the on-going concerns regarding the Ventura River. The following agencies
involved in the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review are cooperating in a Habitat Conservation
Planning (HCP) process for the Ventura River watershed:
¬ Casitas Municipal Water District
¬ City of San Buenaventura
¬ Meiners Oaks County Water District
¬ Ojai Basin Ground Water Management Agency
¬ Ojai Valley Sanitary District
¬ Ventura River County Water District.
A significant opportunity for future shared facilities is in the expanded use of water reclamation
in the Ojai Valley. The steelhead trout was listed as an endangered species under federal
January 2004 Page 89
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
statutes in 1998. Agencies involved in the protection plan agreed to build a fish ladder on the
Robles Diversion dam in the Ventura River to help the trout spawn. As part of the agreement,
the Casitas MWD is required to ensure a flow of water through the ladder. The Casitas MWD
has argued that 800 AF per year is adequate; officials with resource agencies believe that 2,000
AF is needed. While the Casitas MWD has an overall safe yield of 21,500 AF, the diminishing
supply and increasing cost of water is a significant concern to the District and its customers.
The increased use of reclaimed water could be considered as source for the fish ladder.
Currently the Ojai Valley SD has a treatment plant located at the southerly end of its service
area. It would be impractical to pump recycled water back to the point in the Ventura River
where it is needed for the steelhead trout ladder or for other uses, such as golf courses in the
City of Ojai. However, the Ojai Valley SD staff has informally noted two possible locations in the
easterly portion of its service area where small “package” wastewater treatment plants might be
located to provide recycled water as a means of increasing the overall water supply and
possibly reducing costs.
There are obstacles to increasing water recycling. The Ojai Valley SD is currently meeting its
wastewater demands and there is no current water quality, infrastructure or financial reason for
the District to expend additional funds. Another obstacle is the requirement for CEQA review.
The residents of the Ojai Valley are concerned with the preservation of the existing community
character and quality of life in the region and land use agencies have adopted policies,
procedures and regulations in support of that goal. Consequently, the potential for growth
inducing impacts resulting from increased wastewater capacity might require environmental
studies.
IV.9 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS
Functional reorganizations within agencies, amending or updating SOIs and other changes in
the jurisdictional boundaries of the water and wastewater agencies were noted in Section VI.6,
Cost Avoidance Opportunities. This section addresses efficiencies that might be gained through
other governmental structure options.
The initial step in evaluating governmental structure options was a review of recommendations
from the “Ventura LAFCO 2001 Special Districts Study. These recommendations are included
in this service review report as information about potential government structure options
considered by Ventura LAFCO as part of Special District Studies completed in 1972, 1985,
1993 and 2001. Table IV.15, 2001 Ventura LAFCO Special District’s Study, summarizes those
recommendations. In the service review responses, none of the agencies reported having
submitted or been included in a reorganization proposal before Ventura LAFCO within the
previous two years.
Page 90 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE IV.15
2001 VENTURA LAFCO SPECIAL DISTRICT STUDY
AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
1972 recommendation that the agency appoint a representative to a
committee to study unification of retail water service in the Ventura
Casitas MWD
River Valley; no recommendations from subsequent Special District
Studies.
San Buenaventura Not included in Ventura LAFCO Special Districts Studies.
1972 recommendation that the agency appoint a representative to a
committee to study unification of retail water service in the Ventura
Meiners Oaks CWD River Valley; 2001 recommendation that the agency consider
consolidating with Ventura River CWD or the Casitas MWD; no
recommendations from other Special District Studies.
1972 recommendation that Montalvo MID, City of San Buenaventura
and Ventura Regional SD study the feasibility of a reorganization;
Montalvo MID 2001 recommendation that a merger with the City of San
Buenaventura be considered; no recommendations from other
Special District Studies.
Ojai Basin GMA None noted.
None noted regarding governmental structure options after
Ojai Valley SD successful consolidation of smaller wastewater agencies, forming
current Ojai Valley SD, in 1985.
1972 recommendation that the agency appoint a representative to a
committee to study unification of retail water service in the Ventura
Ojai Water CD
River Valley; no recommendations from subsequent Special District
Studies.
1972 recommendation that Montalvo MID, City of San Buenaventura
Saticoy SD and Ventura Regional SD study the feasibility of a reorganization; no
recommendations from subsequent Special District Studies.
CSA #29 None noted.
CSA #32 None noted.
1972 recommendation that the agency appoint a representative to a
committee to study unification of retail water service in the Ventura
Ventura River CWD River Valley. 2001 recommendation that the District consider
consolidating with the Meiners Oaks CWD; no recommendations
from other Special District Studies.
One of the purposes of the service review is to list all possible government structure options
including advantages and disadvantages of potential reorganizations. For this purposes of this
service review report, a reorganization is defined as two or more changes of organization (i.e.,
consolidation, merger, dissolution, annexation and/or detachment) which are initiated in a single
proposal before LAFCO.
The various options for governmental restructuring in the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review
area can be divided into two service areas—water provision in the Ojai Valley and wastewater
provision in and near the City of San Buenaventura.
January 2004 Page 91
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
a) Water Service in the Ojai Valley
Water service in the Ojai Valley is provided by six public agencies as well as private and mutual
water companies. In 1972 Ventura LAFCO recommended that the agencies involved form a
committee to study the reorganization of public water purveyors in the region. Two of the
agencies formally appointed representatives to such a committee, however there are no records
of any further action or of any activities of the proposed committee. It is suggested that the
Ventura LAFCO Commission reconsider the reorganization of water providers in the Ojai Valley.
There are three ways that proposals for the reorganization of special districts can be legally
submitted to LAFCO—by petition of the landowner/voters (Government Code §56864-56871),
by resolution of an affected agency (Government Code §56654) or by the LAFCO Commission
(Government Code §56375). Since there has been little evidence of widespread dissatisfaction
among the citizens of the Ojai Valley with current public agency water service providers, it is not
expected that either landowners or by registered voters would submit a petition to reorganize
public agency water purveyors. Similarly, since 1972 there has apparently been little effort
among the water agencies to study the issue and it is again doubtful that the one of the affected
agencies would initiate a reorganization.
However, LAFCO can initiate proposals for the consolidation, dissolution, merger or
reorganization of special districts if it is consistent with a study or the conclusions of a service
review report. It is suggested that Ventura LAFCO consider initiating a proposal to reorganize
the water agencies in the Ojai Valley. The benefits that might result from a reorganization
include: more logical local government boundaries; simpler water service provision for citizens;
increased economies of scale; lower rates; more regional coordination of water service,
elimination of some duplicative efforts; and increased efficiencies. The disadvantages primarily
include the additional expense in time and resources from all the affected agencies.
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act also allows the LAFCO Commission (Government Code
§56826 et seq) to refer a reorganization proposal, including one initiated by the LAFCO
Commission, to a reorganization committee. It is also suggested that the Ventura LAFCO
Commission form a reorganization committee comprised of representatives from each of the
affected agencies governing body as well as representatives from other entities as the
Commission deems appropriate. By having governing body representatives on the
reorganization committee, it is sometimes possible to reduce the effort required of staff.
As an alternative, it is also possible for the water agencies in the Ojai Valley to form a
reorganization committee and present a report to the Ventura LAFCO Commission. This could
achieve the same benefits as a reorganization proposal initiated by LAFCO and might have the
additional benefit of having more support from the affected agencies. However, the lack of any
serious effort toward reorganization during the previous 30 years is also a future obstacle.
Some of the possible governmental structure options that might be considered as part of a
reorganization of water providers are listed below. Not all the possible government structure
options have been included in the following discussion. For example, private and mutual water
companies also serve the Ojai Valley area and a thorough analysis of the water service should
include them, in particular those that may have problems with infrastructure or service provision.
In addition, representatives from the City of Ojai and the Ojai Valley SD should be included in a
discussion of the water service provision to ensure that their concerns and issues can also be
addressed; however, it is not suggested that either agency be included in any possible
governmental structure options.
Page 92 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Meiners Oaks County Water District/ Ventura River County Water District
The Meiners Oaks CWD operates a retail water system for 1,263 customers with an estimated
population in its service area of approximately 4,000 people. The agency’s only source of water
is from four wells although it has an agreement for emergency water services with the Casitas
MWD. The agency has 3.5 employees and their budget in FY 2002-2003 was approximately
$520,000 with 74% of the total revenue coming from service charges and nearly 15% from
property taxes and from interest.
The Ventura River CWD operates a retail water system for 2,107 customers with an estimated
population of 6,000. The agency’s source of water is also from four wells although it also has
an agreement with the Casitas MWD for purchase of water when drought reduces the ability of
the agency’s wells to meet demand. The agency has four employees and their budget in 2002-
2003 was approximately $900,000 with 97% of the total revenue derived from service charges.
The agency has a five-year CIP and has approximately 2.5 days in storage capacity.
Both agencies’ service areas are adjacent and both have developed independent and
occasionally duplicative facilities. For example, the boundary between the two agencies is in
the centerline of Rice Road and each agency has a pipeline along one side of Rice Road.
There are no inter-ties between the two systems although the agencies do share material and
staff on an emergency basis.
One government structure option is the consolidation of the Meiners Oaks CWD with the
Ventura River CWD. If consolidated, one advantage is the relative ease of consolidating two
agencies formed under the same enabling legislation. The consolidation could also pool
resources, manpower, facilities and technology and could streamline the provision of service for
both agencies. The Meiners Oaks CWD also has an unused well facility in close proximity to
the Ventura River CWD’s facilities. The water from this facility could be blended with Ventura
River CWD water to bring it into compliance with water quality standards and then could be
used throughout both systems. A reorganization could reduce costs and duplicative facilities,
simplify the local governmental structure and allow a larger agency to reach greater economies
of scale.
One disadvantage is the potential reluctance of the residents in the Meiners Oaks CWD service
area. The citizens served by the Meiners Oaks CWD participate in the activities of the agency
and seek to preserve a sense of community. While community based organizations are
important and necessary, the issue of whether a small organization can provide water service
most efficiently and participate in regional water service issues should be discussed.
Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency/Ojai Water Conservation District
The Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency was formed by legislation signed by the
governor in 1991 before the Ojai Valley developed any specific groundwater problems. It was
formed to preserve the quantity and quality of groundwater in the Ojai Basin and to protect and
maintain the long-term water supply for all the water users in the Basin. Its service area
includes the City of Ojai and the east end of the Ojai Valley. Four agencies (City of Ojai, the
Casitas MWD, the Ojai Water Conservation District and the Southern California Water
Company) each appoint one Board member and the fifth is chosen from the governing bodies of
the Senior Canyon, Siete Robles or Hermitage Mutual Water Companies. The agency’s budget
in 2002-2003 was approximately $30,000.
January 2004 Page 93
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
The Ojai Water Conservation District is authorized to monitor the use of groundwater, acquire
water rights, store/spread water, and construct dams or other water facilities. The agency’s
2002-2003 budget was approximately $5,000 with 75% of the revenue derived from property
taxes. The Ojai Water Conservation Districts’ service area overlaps that of the Ojai Basin
Groundwater Management Agency.
The advantages of reorganizing the two agencies include the elimination of apparently
duplicative services, the possibility for reduction in costs and the simplification of local
governmental boundaries.
The most logical governmental structure option would seem to be the dissolution of the Ojai
Water Conservation District with the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency being
named the successor agency. The primary disadvantage would be the legal complexity of the
reorganization due to the structure of the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency.
The California Legislature enacted statutes establishing several groundwater management
agencies across the State in order to enact local ordinances to regulate the amount and place of
use of groundwater. The legislature enacted the statutes since it is not authorized by the
California State Water Code to manage groundwater. While California landowners have a
correlative right to extract as much groundwater as they can beneficially use, in some basins the
right to the water has been defined by a court. Since the Ojai Basin GMA was formed by the
legislature and its mission involves complex water rights issues, it may be infeasible to dissolve
the District. Two other potential methods of reorganizing the Ojai Basin GMA may also be
available—either Water Code Section 10750 et seq, which allows certain existing local agencies
to manage groundwater, or through city and county ordinances. The legal issues associated
with this governmental structure option would need to be researched.
Other Government Structure Options
While not explored in this section of the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review report, other
combinations of government structure options are possible although considered less likely to
succeed. The four agencies mentioned in preceding paragraphs could be reorganized as one
agency, all the water agencies in the Ojai Valley (including the Casitas MWD) could be
reorganized as a single agency, private and mutuals companies could be included or the City of
Ojai could assume responsibility for some service. These government structure options were
considered less likely to be implemented or beyond the purview of LAFCO and are not
addressed. In addition several agencies noted that a reorganization that involved all the water
agencies in the Ojai Valley would require significant analysis, review and effort and might not be
cost-effective.
b) Wastewater Service—The City of San Buenaventura/Montalvo Municipal
Improvement District/Saticoy Sanitary District
As with the water agencies in the Ojai Valley, the option for some type of reorganization
between the City of San Buenaventura, the Montalvo MID and the Saticoy SD was
recommended during the 1972 Ventura LAFCO Special District Study. The 1985 and 1993
Special District Studies did not include recommendations for a reorganization. The 2001
Special Districts Study did recommend that the Montalvo MID consider merging with the City.
Services issues between the two agencies have become multifaceted. The Montalvo MID was
formed in 1955 to provide wastewater service to unincorporated areas. As the City of San
Buenaventura grew and annexed territory, the District’s service area grew smaller and its
Page 94 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
financial health was jeopardized. With LAFCO acting as a mediator, an agreement to determine
respective service areas was adopted by both the City and the District. That agreement,
however, should be revisited since its usefulness was undermined by a dispute between the two
agencies over pavement repair. The District also had a separate agreement with the City
regarding wastewater provision to an automotive center which was served more efficiently by
the District. Generally, the areas south of Highway 101 are served wastewater by the District.
As an example of the complexity of service provision issues, recently there were complaints
about odors in the vicinity of the Montalvo’s treatment plant. The Cities of San Buenaventura
and Oxnard as well at the Montalvo MID and the Ventura Regional Sanitation District have
facilities or provide service in the area. Both Cities were contacted and both Cities, in turn,
contacted the Montalvo MID. The Montalvo MID used a consulting firm to study the source of
odors which were eventually traced back to a pump station that was managed by the Ventura
Regional Sanitation District.
Boundary issues are also complicated. Currently, a majority of the District is within the city; the
remainder remains unincorporated. The Montalvo MID treatment plant is located within the 100-
year flood plain as designated by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While the
treatment plant has some flood protection, it is unclear if the level of flood protection is
consistent with current standards of the Army Corps of Engineers or other regulatory agencies.
The City’s SOAR/HVPA also restricts the City’s ability to extend services to certain types of land
uses; if these areas have failing septic systems and need sewer service, the District may be the
most efficient agency to serve them. As a result of the location of the treatment plant, land
uses/service extensions, the SOAR/HVPA lines, there are underlying land use conflicts between
the Montalvo MID and the City of San Buenaventura.
The service and boundary issues between the City and the Saticoy SD are similar if only slightly
less complicated. The Saticoy SD is within the City of San Buenaventura’s SOI although it is
not an island as defined by the Cortese-Knox-Hetzberg Act. The Saticoy SD recently received
several grants from the United States Department of Agricultural and the California Clean Water
Program to upgrade the plant. The Saticoy SD service area does include some sections of
lower income residents and any reorganization proposal would have to also address
environmental justice issues.
The Saticoy SD is now working with the Cities of San Buenaventura and Oxnard on a
wastewater reclamation project. The joint effort would treat 0.8 mgd of wastewater from the City
of San Buenaventura at the Saticoy treatment plant and recharge the recycled water into the
Oxnard Forebay. The current treatment plant capacity is 0.25mgd. The increase in capacity
and in the collection/distribution system is expected to cost between $6 and $8 million. Since a
majority of the area east and north of the current Saticoy SD service area could be sewered
through gravity lines, the Saticoy treatment plant may help to reduce the City’s costs.
Analyzed solely from a viewpoint of logical governmental boundaries and the orderly
development of local governmental agencies, both the Montalvo MID and the Saticoy SD should
be dissolved and the City named as the successor agency. However, as shown in the
preceding discussion, the service and boundary issues are complicated. It has been proposed
in other sections of this report to consider a zero SOI designation for both the Montalvo MID and
the Saticoy SD, it is also suggested that the three agencies work together to develop a plan for
future service.
January 2004 Page 95
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
IV.10 EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES
Reviewing management efficiencies has generally been an internal function of a public agency
with limited oversight by external entities such as some state and federal regulatory agencies or
a Grand Jury. The OPR service review guidelines suggested factors that could be used when
evaluating management efficiencies, but many of them relate to internal practices which are
difficult to measure and whose correction is outside the purview of LAFCO authority. Some of
the factors the OPR Guidelines recommend for evaluating management efficiencies have been
addressed in other sections of this report. The Ventura LAFCO questionnaire included
questions about master plans, recent litigation and/or Grand Jury inquiries and number of
employees as a means of evaluating management efficiencies.
The presence of master plans, as described in Section VI.4, Infrastructure, can be viewed as
indicative of managerial efficiency in long range planning. However, it should be noted that
some small agencies and agencies which are close to built-out may use other means of
predicting and preparing for long-term service needs such as a CIP.
Frequent litigation or inclusion in a Grand Jury report can also be used as a proxy measure for
managerial efficiency. If an agency is frequently involved in litigation, it can indicate that the
staff and/or Board resort to the courts for resolution of issues which might be addressed through
other less expensive means. Occasionally inclusion in a Grand Jury investigation might mean
that complaints about the administration have been received.
Of the eleven agencies within the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area only one, the Ojai
Basin Groundwater Management Agency, noted being the subject of a 1999-2000 Ventura
County Grand Jury investigation. The Grand Jury, however, only included basic information
about the agency and did not include it in its analysis. One agency, the Ventura River CWD,
noted that it had been involved in litigation within the previous two years. The litigation involved
the an inverse condemnation suit and did not involve service provision.
Agencies were also asked to report the number and categories of employees dedicated to the
provision of service. In the same 1999-2000 Grand Jury report, “An Examination of Special
Districts Providing Water Service to Ventura County” the Grand Jury used an agency’s
administrative expense as a percentage of the operating revenue for the district. The Grand
Jury’s report noted that:
“Most districts enjoy administrative overhead percentages of less than 15%....dependent
districts enjoy low overhead through their sharing of management, facilities and staff.
Smaller, independent districts, however, pay the largest overhead penalty.”
The service review questionnaire did not specifically request that agencies provide data on
administrative overhead percentages although it is suggested that future service reviews
collecting this data as a means of analyzing management efficiency. If future service reviews
continue to require an assessment of management efficiencies, Ventura LAFCO might also
consider developing performance measures or benchmarks to allow for a meaningful
comparison of management practices and efficiencies among diverse agencies.
As another means of assessing managerial efficiencies, Table IV.16, Employee Information,
provides the number of administrative, professional/support and operational employees and the
ratio of the number of professional/support/operational employees to administrative staff. For
the agencies reporting the ratio of administrative staff to professional/operational were similar.
Page 96 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
The Montalvo MID and the Saticoy SD both use contract staff, primarily from the Ventura
Regional Sanitation District, to operate the agencies. Neither agency has employees but both
provided direct services to customers. The Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency has
three part-time employees and the Ojai Water CD has one part-time employee; neither agency
provides direct service to customers.
The City of San Buenaventura did not report any executive/management staff, but did report
that in FY 2002-2003 a total of $2,069,382 ($1,218,689 for water and $850,693 for wastewater)
was transferred to the City General Fund. Typically municipalities transfer a portion of
enterprise funds to the General Fund to cover administrative expenses. This can be significant
since Prop 218 and subsequent legal opinions discouraged the transfer of enterprise funds to
the general fund unless there is a clear nexus between the transfer and the cost of services.
Most public agencies have completed these nexus studies.
TABLE IV.16
EMPLOYEE INFORMATION
RATIO OF WATER WASTEWATER
EXECUTIVE
STAFF TO EXECUTIVE PROF. AND OPERA- EXECUTIVE PROF. AND OPERA-
PROF. AND AND MGT. SUPPORT. TIONAL AND MNGT. SUPPORT. TIONAL
OPER.
Casitas MWD 1:20 1 10 26**
See None None
San Buenaventura 5.5 45 3.5 41
Discussion Reported Reported
Meiners Oaks CWD 1:2.5 1 1.5 1
See None None None
Montalvo MID
Discussion Reported Reported Reported
1:2
Ojai Basin GMA See 1* 2* 0
Discussion
Ojai Valley SD 1:5 3 4 12
1
Ojai Water CD See 1 0 0
Discussion
See None None None
Saticoy SD
Discussion Reported Reported Reported
CSA #29 1:4 6 18 7
CSA #32 1:5 1 4.5 0
Ventura River CWD 1:3 1 1 2
* All employees of the Ojai Basin GMA are part-time.
** Five employees of the 26 positions are assigned to recreational services. The Casitas MWD also has approximately 45 part-time,
summer employees associated with recreational services.
No significant inefficiencies in management were noted among the agencies
January 2004 Page 97
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
IV.11 LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
No significant issues regarding local accountability and governance were noted for any of the
agencies within the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area. The governing boards of the
agencies appear to be locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code
sections, open and accessible meetings, dissemination of information and encouragement of
participation in their election process. Some agencies did not fully complete the service review
questionnaire and evaluating their local accountability was difficult.
Only three of the agencies (Casitas MWD, Ojai Valley SD and the City of San Buenaventura)
have websites and provide copies of their budget on their website; the two dependent agencies
(CSA#29 and #32) use the Ventura County website. It is suggested that the remaining
agencies develop websites to increase dissemination of information, compliance with
environmental justice issues and accountability to customers. The eight agencies that did not
note the presence of websites did note that copies of the budget are made available to the
public. All agencies reported unqualified audits in 2002.
The service review questionnaire asked each agency to provide current information about the
governing board, the expiration date of each member’s term and whether any recently elected
governing board members ran unopposed. This information was entered into the database and
will be used to maintain current and accurate information. Data about compensation, review
sessions of the Brown Act/FPPC requirements and violations of either regulation within the
previous two years was collected.
In addition, agencies were asked to indicate if the governing body was elected or appointed,
whether recently elected officials ran unopposed and to provide the amount of compensation set
for elected officials. Only two agencies, the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency and
the Ojai Water Conservation District, have Board members that are appointed. Four agencies
reported that some board members ran unopposed.
A majority of the agencies reported that regular review sessions of the requirements of the
Brown Act, FPPC and public disclosure laws were scheduled; a few agencies noted that
sessions were scheduled on as as-needed basis. None of the agencies noted any violations
within the previous two years.
Public access was evaluated by regularly scheduled meetings and locations, by compliance
with ADA and by the use of legally required notices. All agencies reported that their meeting
locations were in compliance with the requirements of ADA and listed the legally required
means of giving notice of meetings.
The final OPR Service Review Guidelines suggested that to satisfy environmental justice
concerns agencies hold meetings at a time and place that maximize public participation. A
majority of the agencies within the Ojai-San Buenaventura service review area hold meetings
after normal working hours. Three agencies (Ojai Water Conservation District, CSA #29 and
CSA#32) do not have regularly scheduled meetings. The Casitas MWD holds regularly
scheduled meetings at 3:00 pm.
Compensation of elected and appointed officials reported is shown in Table IV.17,
Compensation for Elected Officials:
Page 98 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE IV.17
COMPENSATION FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
BASIC STIPEND
LIMIT ON
BENEFITS OTHER
STIPEND
$1,710/month Medical, dental and Actual costs and $0.36
Casitas MWD $171/mtg
(ten mtgs) retirement per mile
$40/day meals and
$700 $700
$0.36 per mile;
(mayor)/month (mayor)/month
San Buenaventura 0 maximum $300
$600 $600
(mayor)/month and $200
(council)/month (council)/month
(council)/month
Meiners Oaks CWD $150/mtg. None Reported None Reported None Reported
$150/mtg and
Workers Compensation
Montalvo MID $30/hr for assigned $900/month NA
and retirement
mtgs
Ojai Basin GMA 0 0 0 0
$43/day meals and
Ojai Valley SD $100/mtg $600/month 0
$0.36 per mile
Ojai Water CD 0 0 0 0
Workers Compensation
Saticoy SD $80/mtg None Reported None Reported
and Social Security
CSA #29* $7,083 * * *
CSA #32* $7,083 * * *
President $100/travel
maximum
Ventura River CWD $100/day $1,000/month 0
Board $50/month travel
maximum
*Total compensation for Board of Supervisors; no additional compensation for acting as governing body of dependent district
January 2004 Page 99
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 100 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
VV.. SSAANNTTAA CCLLAARRAA RRIIVVEERR WWAATTEERRSSHHEEDD
V.1 SANTA CLARA RIVER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Municipal service reviews are a new requirement for LAFCOs and were intended to promote
more efficient services, to identify areas of improvement and to assess service provision in
relation to boundaries and spheres of influence (SOI). Service reviews do not directly change
the provision of service but are sources of comprehensive information LAFCO can use in future
actions.
LAFCO must conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with the mandated five-year
schedule for updating SOIs. The service review report must include an analysis of the issues
and written determinations for each of the following:
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies;
· Growth and population projections for the affected area;
· Financing constraints and opportunities;
· Cost avoidance opportunities;
· Opportunities for rate restructuring;
· Opportunities for shared facilities;
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation
or reorganization of service providers;
· Evaluation of management efficiencies; and
· Local accountability and governance.
The service review process for the water and wastewater agencies in Ventura County started in
January of 2003 and will be completed in December of 2003. It began with a meeting of the
agencies to discuss issues and to receive input on a three-part draft questionnaire. The
questionnaire, which was sent to all 36 agencies, requested data on quantitative, qualitative and
boundary issues. All the agencies were contacted individually and approximately 80 hours of
interviews with staff and board members were conducted.
To ensure more focused analysis on service issues, Ventura County was divided into three sub-
regional areas, which were roughly based on watershed boundaries. The three sub-regional
service review areas are the Calleguas Creek, Santa Clara and Ventura River (Ojai-San
Buenaventura) areas. Each of the 36 agencies was placed in only one subregional area
although service issues might overlap. This service review report addresses the agencies
located within the Santa Clara River watershed and includes the following ten agencies:
· City of Fillmore · Fox Canyon Groundwater Management
· City of Oxnard Agency
· City of Port Hueneme · Ocean View Municipal Water District
· City of Santa Paula · United Water Conservation District
· Channel Islands Beach Community · Ventura County Service Area No. 30
Services District · Ventura County Waterworks District No 16
A database was designed and each agency’s response to the questionnaire was entered into it.
The database, which currently has approximately 15,000 entries, will be used for subsequent
January 2004 Page 101
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
service reviews, sphere of influence studies and other Ventura LAFCO studies and analysis.
The database can be changed and modified as the need and use for information becomes more
focused.
The mapping information submitted by the agencies identified areas inconsistent with adopted
CURBs, outside each agency’s boundaries where service was currently being provided, areas
of overlap with other agencies and any illogical service boundaries. These areas were mapped
and have been labeled as “special study areas” for use in subsequent sphere of influence
studies. Service issues and associated improvements identified during the process are
addressed in more detail in the body of this report and are briefly summarized in the following
paragraphs.
Planning for future demand for service is hampered, particularly for smaller agencies and for
special districts, by the lack of a consistent source and methodology of projecting population.
Agencies such as SCAG and Ventura County should be encouraged to prepare population
projections for special district boundaries as well as for municipalities. It may also be possible
for agencies to avoid some costs by examining if there is an unnecessary duplication of GIS
systems. This has been noted in all three service review reports.
One issue related to infrastructure needs and deficiencies is the need for easily obtainable
information about the rates, capacity and service information for private/mutual water purveyors.
Having a readily available source for this type of information would help to ensure more
comprehensive water planning in Ventura County.
Another related issue is the presence of private wells. In Ventura County there are
approximately 9,000 wells with approximately 3,500 active, 3,800 inactive and 2,000 abandoned
ones. Not all of the active wells are metered and it is estimated that there may be as many as
400-500 unregistered wells operating in Ventura County. Planning for Ventura County’s future
infrastructure needs and deficiencies must include appropriate data about wells. It is suggested
that the Ventura LAFCO database be expanded to include information regarding wells in order
to more accurately assess present and probable water supplies.
Until more definitive plans for increasing the capacity of the existing wastewater facilities or
constructing a new wastewater facility are known, the Cities of Fillmore and Santa Paula face a
significant issue of infrastructure deficiency and financing constraints.
In terms of financing constraints, the Fox Canyon GMA is limited to charging a fee of $3.00 per
acre-foot of ground water pumped from wells within their boundaries. Since pumping fees are
the sole source of income for the Fox Canyon GMA, rising annual costs may, at some point in
the near future, exceed income.
The United Water CD noted that the cost of unfunded mandates for improving water quality, the
need to replace infrastructure and the State’s shifting of property tax from local agencies to the
State makes the District’s efforts to balance rates and achieve its objectives increasingly
difficult. This concern was echoed by other agencies.
Finally, the Cities of Fillmore, Oxnard and Santa Paula as well as CSA #30 and Waterworks
District #16 have a customer base that includes lower income residents and environmental
justice concerns must be addressed when rates are set. All of these agencies struggle with
financing constraints. No other financing opportunities and constraints were noted.
Page 102 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Establishing efficient boundaries can maximize cost avoidance opportunities. Special study
areas for several agencies within the Santa Clara River watershed service review area have
been mapped to make subsequent planning by Ventura LAFCO and other agencies more
efficient. Several agencies have no issues with their boundaries or SOIs and updating their
spheres is expected to require less analysis. It is suggested that Ventura LAFCO adopt a “zero”
sphere policy and apply that designation to the Channel Islands Beach CSD.
The only government structure option noted during the Santa Clara River watershed service
review was the potential reorganization of the Ocean View MWD.
No significant issues in management efficiency, local accountability and governance, shared
facilities and rate restructuring were noted.
V.2 PUBLIC AGENCY PROFILES
a) Subregional Areas and Agencies
Of the ten public agencies in the Santa Clara River watershed service review area, six provide
both water and wastewater, one agency provides wastewater services only and three agencies
only provide water service. Each agency’s services and service area are described below.
Exhibit V.1, Santa Clara River Watershed Service Review Agencies, shows the services each
agency provides in a table.
Santa Clara River Watershed Service Review Area
· City of Fillmore
The City of Fillmore provides comprehensive municipal services including water, wastewater,
and a full range of other city services.
· City of Oxnard
The City of Oxnard provides comprehensive municipal services to residents including water,
wastewater and a full range of other city services.
· City of Port Hueneme
The City of Port Hueneme provides comprehensive municipal services including water and
wastewater services and a full range of other city services.
· City of Santa Paula
The City of Santa Paula provides comprehensive municipal services to residents including water
and wastewater and a full range of other city services.
· Channel Islands Community Services District
The Channel Islands CSD provides water, sewer, trash/recycling and other community services.
· Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency monitors the quality and quantity of
groundwater in the Fox Canyon aquifer. The agency does not provide direct water service.
· Ocean View Municipal Water District
The Ocean View MWD provides agricultural water service to 50 customers along Hueneme
Road.
January 2004 Page 103
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
· United Water Conservation District
The United WCD provides water conservation of both surface and groundwater resources,
groundwater replenishment, wholesale water delivery and recreational services at Lake Piru.
· Ventura County Service Area #30
Ventura County Service Area #30 (CSA #30) provides sanitation services to the unincorporated
community of Nyeland Acres. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors is the governing body
of the agency.
· Ventura County Waterworks District #16
Ventura County Waterworks District Service Area #16 provides potable water and sanitation
services to the unincorporated community of Piru. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors is
the governing body of the agency
Figure V.1, Santa Clara Watershed Service Review Area, shows the regional location and
general boundaries of the service review area addressed in this report.
Page 104 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Exhibit V.1
Santa Clara River Watershed Service Review Agencies
Santa Clara River Watershed Agencies
January 2004 Page 105
SECIVRES
RETAW
retaW
elbatoP
citsemoD
liateR
retaW
elaselohW
tnemtaerT
retaW
retaW
demialceR-delcyceR
retaW
larutlucirgA
tnemeganaM
retawdnuorG
tnemhsinelpeR
retaW
noitavresnoC
retaW
SECIVRES
RETAWETSAW
noitcelloC
reweS
yratinaS
tnemtaerT
reweS
yratinaS
ecnanetniaM
&
gnirotinoM
metsyS
citpeS
City of Fillmore X D D D X D D
City of Oxnard X D D D D X D D
City of Port Hueneme X D C C C D X D C
City of Santa Paula X D D D D X D C
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District X D C D D X D C
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency X D
Ocean View Municipal Water District X D
United Water Conservation District X D D D D D D
Ventura County Service Area No. 30 X D D
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 16 X D X D D
Services Provided = X (D=Direct and C=Contracted)
Kern County
Santa Barbara
County
Ventura
County
Los Angeles
County
Santa
Susana
Mountains Ridgeline
River
Clara
Santa
Pacific Ocean
Ventura LAFCO
LEGEND
Santa Clara Watershed
Ojai/Santa Clara Watershed Service Review Area
Service Review Area
0 4 Miles 8 Miles
Figure V.1
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 7/28/03
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
V.3 GROWTH AND POPULATION
With 1,864 square miles, Ventura County is in the median range for size among California’s 58
counties, but ranks 11th in population with a Census 2000 count of 753,000. Using data from
the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG), the following table (Table V.1, Santa Clara River
watershed Service Review Area Population Projections) has been developed:
TABLE V.1 SANTA CLARA RVER WATERSHED
SERVICE REVIEW AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Population 251,784 265,510 281,991 298,364 317,525
Dwelling Units (DU) 76,225 81,180 87,229 93,583 100,086
Countywide Total 796,387 836,186 874,881 915,005 951,080
DOF Totals for
818,600 877,400 934,000 1,007,200
Ventura County
Since the boundaries of the service review area are the boundaries and SOI of the water and
wastewater agencies, the projected population growth in Table V.1 is approximately 10% higher
than both the Countywide totals and the DOF projections. Most population projections prepared
by regional agencies are not segregated by the service areas of special districts.
The difference in projected population figures among agencies has been cited in other reports.
For example, the City of Oxnard’s January 2003 “Water System Master Plan” (Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants) noted that, based on Census data, the City of Oxnard’s population grew by 20% in
the 1990s. However, the City of Oxnard’s Planning Department, using data from the DOF,
showed a population growth during most of the 1990s as approximately 6%. The difference in
assessing past growth and projecting future increases in the City of Oxnard is used to illustrate
the point made in previous service review reports that a consistent source and methodology of
projecting population is needed.
Agencies included in the service review were asked to provide the estimated population as of
1/2003 for their existing service area. The data is summarized in Table V.2, Agency Projections
of Current Population. Agencies that either did not answer the question or did not know the
population of their agency are entered as “None Reported”. Accurate population projections
are critical for predicting future service demands and the lack of a generally accepted,
consistent source and methodology for projecting future growth and population projections is as
important of an issue in the Santa Clara River watershed service review area as has been noted
in the previous water and wastewater service review reports.
January 2004 Page 107
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Agencies were asked “How does your agency determine
the projected growth within its current boundaries
TABLE V.2 AGENCY
including sphere of influence?” in the service review
PROJECTIONS OF CURRENT
questionnaire. The sources consistently cited were the
POPULATION
General Plans of the four cities (Fillmore, Oxnard, Port
ESTIMATED
Hueneme and Santa Paula) and from SCAG, Ventura
AGENCY POPULATION
County or the DOF. The figures have not been totaled
1/2003
since both the Fox Canyon GMA and the United Water
City of Fillmore 13,643
CD service areas include portions of the two previous
service review reports. City of Oxnard 160,035
City of Port Hueneme 21,868
The final OPR Guidelines for Municipal Service Reviews
City of Santa Paula 29,100
recommended that service review reports address
Channel Islands
environmental justice issues, including the provision of 5,973
Beach CSD
affordable housing. Ventura County is ranked 114th out
Fox Canyon GMA 310,000
of 125 metropolitan areas for housing affordability in the
Ocean View MWD 10,000
United States with the cost of living 15% higher than the
average U.S. city. The rise in single-family home sales United Water CD 310,000
prices has kept ownership out of reach for many of CSA #30 1,652
Ventura County’s residents. The percentage of
Waterworks District
households able to afford a median price home in for 1,792
#16
Ventura County is 47%, indicating that over half of
County residents cannot qualify for homeownership. The County’s average income per capita
varies from a low of $13,632 in Santa Paula and Fillmore to $32,932 in Thousand Oaks. In
terms of income per household of a family of four, Santa Paula's is $35,565 compared to
Moorpark's $83,282. The average household income in Fillmore is $47,499. In Oxnard the per
capita income is $16,032 and income per household is $46,000 and in Port Hueneme the per
capita income was $17,757 and household income was $41,281.
There is a direct correlation between the cost and availability of housing, and a community's
ability to sustain economic vitality. The fact that the available housing units cannot provide for
the needs of additional entry level and non-skilled workers is a concern to Ventura County’s
business community. Many people working in Ventura County’s industries earn significantly less
than the median income. This creates a significant problem for Ventura County. As the local
economy continues to thrive, the number of traditional and non-traditional households is on the
rise and the gap between housing demand and supply widens. If local policies and priorities
continue to focus on job growth and economic expansion without addressing the pressing needs
of affordable housing, Ventura County’s economic growth could be slowed. If local businesses
are forced to recruit commuters from other areas in order to meet their workforce needs, the
County may also face considerable increased traffic congestion, and the corresponding air
pollution.
Of the 10 agencies included within the Santa Clara River watershed service review report, the
four cities and Ventura County provide both water/wastewater services and have responsibility
for meeting regional “fair share” housing goals.
State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of
housing. The City Councils of Fillmore, Oxnard, Port Hueneme and Santa Paula as well as
Ventura County are required to adopt a Housing Element as one of the seven mandated
elements of their General Plan. Housing element law, enacted in 1969, mandates that local
governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic
Page 108 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
segments of the community. The law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to
adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans
and regulatory systems which provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing
development. As a result, housing policy in California rests largely upon the effective
implementation of local general plans and housing elements.
Housing Elements must be updated regularly on a schedule established by California’s
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD reviews local housing
elements to determine their compliance with State law and reports its written findings to the
local government. In Table V.3, Housing Element Compliance Review, shows the schedule and
compliance status of each of the five agencies that are largely responsible for provision of
affordable housing.
TABLE V.3 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE STATUS
DATE
DATE
HOUSING HOUSING
HOUSING
AGENCY ELEMENT ELEMENT IN
ELEMENT
REVIEWED BY COMPLIANCE
ADOPTED
HCD
City of Fillmore 2003 2003 Yes
City of Oxnard 2000 2001 Yes
City of Port Hueneme 2001 2001 Yes
City of Santa Paula 2002 2002 Yes
Ventura County 2001 2001 Yes
In terms of environmental justice concerns, the agencies included in this service review report
do not discriminate among economic or ethnic groups in terms of rates of service delivery. Most
water and wastewater providers have programs to help customers reduce costs. No other
significant issues were noted.
V.4 INFRASTRUCTURE
The legislation requiring service reviews provided little direction to LAFCOs for evaluating
infrastructure needs and deficiencies. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
developed Service Review Guidelines, which were finalized in August of 2003, included twelve
suggested factors LAFCOs could use in identifying an agency’s infrastructure needs and
deficiencies. Several of the factors, including governmental structure options, duplicative
facilities and locations of facilities, have been addressed in other portions of this report.
The Ventura LAFCO service review questionnaire used the presence and frequency of master
plans as well as an annual capital improvement (CIP) budget as a means of assessing an
agency’s process of evaluating infrastructure needs and deficiencies. Master plans and CIPs,
as plans for future service needs, are public documents reviewed the governing body, other
affected agencies and the public. Agencies that are small, provide limited service, or are fully
built-out may not have master plans; however, most public agencies prepare annual CIP
budgets as a means of meeting current and future service needs.
January 2004 Page 109
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Agencies were asked the date of the current master plan and previous master plan. While there
are no established standards for the frequency of preparation, typically master plans for water
and wastewater agencies are prepared every 5-10 years. The type of service area (i.e., level of
development, rate of growth or presence of growth control initiatives) can also affect the
frequency of preparation. Table V.4, Master Plans and CIPs, shows the agencies and
information regarding master plans and capital improvements budgets.
TABLE V.4 MASTER PLANS AND CIPS
DATE OF DATE OF DATE OF
DATE OF CURRENT
CURRENT PREVIOUS CIP PREVIOUS CIP
WASTEWATER
WATER MASTER BUDGET MASTER BUDGET
MASTER PLAN
MASTER PLAN PLAN PLAN
City of None
2002 1987 Yes 1989 Yes
Fillmore Reported
None
City of Oxnard 2002 1986 Yes * Yes
Reported
City of Port
2002 NA Yes 2002 NA Yes
Hueneme
City of Santa None None None None None None
Paula Reported Reported Reported Reported Reported Reported
Channel
None None None
Islands Beach Yes * Yes
Reported Reported Reported
CSD
Fox Canyon
1985 NA NA
GMA
Ocean View
No NA NA
MWD
United Water None
No Yes
CD Reported
CSA #30 No NA Yes
Waterworks
No NA Yes No NA Yes
District #16
* Agencies reported having a wastewater master plan but did not give the date of that plan.
The service review questionnaire also asked for a wide range of information regarding the
capacity, age, storage, peak demand and sources of water. The data was collected to allow
Ventura LAFCO to adopt the legally required determinations for service reviews while also
building a database of information that could be used to analyze and update spheres of
influence and future annexation/detachment proposals.
Table V.5, Water System Information, depicts data obtained from responses to the service
review questionnaire regarding number of customers, capacity and the system/facilities of the
retail systems.
Page 110 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE V.5 WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION
ESTIMATED ESTIMATED DATE OF
TOTAL #
MILE OF PEAK PEAK WATER
OF STORAGE
LINES DEMAND CAPACITY QUALITY
CONNECTIONS
REPORT
City of None
3,671 47 2 4.4 mgd 8.5 mgd
Fillmore Reported
City of Oxnard None None
32,918 23.2 mgd 34.8 mgd 2002
Reported Reported
City of Port None
5,154 100 9 cfs 11 cfs 2002
Hueneme Reported
City of Santa None None None None None None
Paula Reported Reported Reported Reported Reported Reported
Channel
Islands Beach 1,779 16 * 1,890 gpm 1.8 mgd 2002
CSD
Fox Canyon
NA NA NA NA NA NA
GMA
Ocean View None None None
50 None **
MWD Reported Reported Reported
United Water 53, 75 and 55 53, 75 and 50
1,104 35 4.25 2002
CD*** cfs cfs
Waterworks None
8 2 **** 0.02 mgd ****
#16 Reported
* The Channel Islands Beach CSD noted that it has agreements with the Cities of Port Hueneme and Oxnard to supply water in
the event of a drop in pressure; therefore the need to construct storage facilities is minimized.
** The Ocean View MWD noted that the United Water CD provides its water quality reports.
*** The United Water CD has three separate systems; the total number of lines and storage capacity has been combined for use
in this table.
**** Water for Waterworks District #16 is provided by the Warring Water Company, which also provides operation and maintenance
to the District.
One related issue specific to Ventura County and important in the Santa Clara River watershed
service review area is the presence of private and mutual water companies and their impact on
water supply and demand. Although private water service providers, both investor-owned and
mutual, are outside LAFCO’s jurisdiction, they serve important roles in the provision of service.
Some of the larger private and mutual water agencies are virtually indistinguishable from public
agencies; they plan for present and future infrastructure needs, meet all regulatory requirements
and have adequate financial resources. It is sometimes difficult for local agencies and
customers to obtain rate, capacity and other information about private/mutual water purveyors.
Another related issue is the presence of private wells. In Ventura County there are
approximately 9,000 wells with approximately 3,500 of the 9,000 active, 3,800 inactive and
2,000 abandoned. Not all of the active wells are metered and it is estimated that there may be
as many as 400-500 unregistered wells operating in Ventura County; both factors contribute to
incomplete data on the availability of water supply. (It should also be noted that there are
several water agencies in Ventura County that have not metered all their customers.) In terms
of governmental regulation, if a well serves three or less connections, it is considered a private
well. Ventura County regulates wells with 4 to15 connections and the State regulates wells with
15 or more connections. While agencies such as the Fox Canyon Ground Water Management
Agency and the United Water Conservation District monitor wells, data is sometimes lacking.
January 2004 Page 111
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Planning for Ventura County’s future infrastructure needs and deficiencies must include
appropriate information from all water agencies, public and private, as well as complete data
about wells. It is suggested that the Ventura LAFCO database be expanded to include
information regarding private and mutual water companies in order to more accurately assess
present and probable service demand and supply.
a) Wholesale/Groundwater
The United Water CD provides a range of services including water conservation, groundwater
replenishment, water delivery and recreational facilities.
In terms of water conservation the agency owns and operates Santa Felicia Dam (Lake Piru)
which is the major reservoir for the agency’s groundwater recharges efforts. Its groundwater
replenishment includes the investment of more than $50 million in projects to increase the
supply of groundwater in the basin to help reverse the intrusion of saltwater. The intrusion from
saltwater into the basin has receded and water quality in intruded wells has improved.
The United Water CD also provides wholesale water delivery to three separate areas. One is
the Oxnard/Hueneme system located in the Oxnard/El Rio area which serves the City of
Oxnard, the Port Hueneme Water Agency (City of Port Hueneme, Channel Islands Beach CSD)
and the Navy bases at Point Magu and the Construction Battalion Center. A second pipeline
supplies water to the Pleasant Valley area from Oxnard to Camarillo. The third system serves
agricultural uses in the Oxnard Plain. The United Water CD also provides water to
private/mutual water companies and monitors groundwater, which is a critical resource in the
watershed. The District operates three by pipelines, which have a combined delivery of 31,200
AF per year.
As noted by the agency, cross-contamination of aquifers by leakage of near-surface waters
through abandoned wells appears to be the largest source of contamination besides saltwater
intrusion. There are at least one thousand abandoned wells on the Oxnard plain and priority has
been given to locating and properly sealing them up. The United Water CD is working with other
agencies to properly seal these wells.
b) Wastewater Agencies
Wastewater agencies and departments were asked a similar series of questions about the
capacity of their facilities. Agency responses and additional information taken from the State
Water Resources Control Board report, “Wastewater User Charge Survey Report FY 2001-02”,
are summarized in the Table V.6, Wastewater Agency Information.
The Cities of Santa Paula and Fillmore are considering a joint $63 million wastewater treatment
plant to serve the future needs of the residents of Santa Paula and Fillmore. In preliminary
discussions, the location of the facility would be west of Santa Paula. To serve current and
future residents, it is expected that the plant would consist of a treatment plant and percolation
ponds on approximately 60 acres with a 15-mile pipeline from Fillmore to the new plant.
Page 112 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE V.6 WASTEWATER AGENCY INFORMATION
RATED
TOTAL # OF ADWF* TREATMENT MILES OF PERMIT
CAPACITY
CONNECTIONS (MGD) LEVEL LINES STATUS
(MGD)
City of Fillmore 4,358 1.3 0.9 Secondary 29 In Process
City of Oxnard 32,946 31.7 22.5 Secondary 425 Current
City of Port
6,203 ** ** ** ** **
Hueneme
None None None
City of Santa Paula 2 Secondary In Process
Reported Reported Reported
Channel Islands
1,670 ** 0.32 Secondary 18 **
Beach CSD
CSA #30 510 ** 0.2 Secondary 8 **
Waterworks District
512 0.2 0.22 Secondary 7 In Process
#16
*Average Dry Weather Flow; **Agencies discharge wastewater to the Oxnard Regional Treatment Facility.
The joint facility is being studied since the current wastewater treatment plants in both
communities are aging and have been unable in the past to meet Federal and State guidelines.
The Fillmore plant was constructed in 1956 and Santa Paula’s plant was completed in 1939.
Since 1997, when the LARWQCB imposed new and stricter water quality conditions, the Santa
Paula plant has recorded more than 1,000 violations of water standards while the number of
violations for the Fillmore facility has numbered 76 during the same time period.
Private contractors operate both plants. In Santa Paula, the private contractor took over
operations in the late 1990s from the Ventura Regional Sanitation District. Currently the Santa
Paula plant is the subject of an investigation into alleged violations of environmental standards
at the plant but no charges have been filed as of the date of this report.
Recently the LARWQCB approved a revision of the discharge permit for the City of Fillmore that
allowed the plant to meet standards for the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) level. In 1992 the
LARWQCB had set a BOD level for the Fillmore plant, which was lower than the technological
capability of the plant. Since 1992 the City of Fillmore had spent nearly $1 million improving its
plant and raised rates by approximately 25% in an effort to meet the standards. The current
permit revision, while still complying with federal and state regulations, is more consistent with
the plant’s technology. It also results in additional capacity at the City’s wastewater plants,
which was previously operating with a moratorium against new connections. However, the
additional capacity is generally sufficient to only serve a proposed development, the Heritage
Valley development.
The cost to both cities of building a modern sewage plant in partnership is projected to cost
approximately $63 million which is estimated to reduce total costs approximately 7% when
compared to the cost of each jurisdiction building and operating their own facility. It is expected
that the two cities would form a JPA to oversee the operation and maintenance of the plant and
pipeline. It has been reported that the Cities of Fillmore and Santa Paula have agreed to divide
costs by assigning approximately 60% to the City of Santa Paula and 40% to the City of Fillmore
although no agreements were submitted to LAFCO as part of this service review report.
It has also been reported that the two cities have agreed that the treatment plant will be sized to
handle only development already contemplated in the General Plans of each city. The plant
January 2004 Page 113
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
would be built to accommodate the growth anticipated in the 20 year planning horizon and
designed to allow for increased capacity over its 75-year operational life if needed. However,
no copies of the agreement were submitted to LAFCO as part of this service review.
The joint wastewater project and alternatives will first undergo a complete environmental review
as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA). The Cities of Fillmore and Santa Paula recently hired a consulting firm,
P&D Consultants, Inc., to prepare the environmental impact report (EIR) as required by CEQA
and environmental impact statement (EIS) as required by NEPA. The consultant is under
contract and is just now beginning work on the documents with completion of the environmental
review process anticipated toward the end of 2004. The two Cities have reported that they are
currently participating in a feasibility study for construction of the plant and that study is
expected to be completed in the fall of 2003; again it is unclear if the feasibility study has been
started.
In the interim, the City of Fillmore hired an engineering firm to prepare a report to improve the
performance of the Fillmore plant to bring it into compliance with the current NPDES permit, as
recently approved by the LARWQCB, and to examine means of increasing the current treatment
plant capacity. The study concludes that approximately $800,000 in improvements would be
needed and it is assumed that the developer of the Heritage Valley development would fund a
major portion of the improvements. The report also concluded that:
“The City should, however, recognize that an old plant, where there may be many
constraining factors, which may not have become evident during this brief short-term
study, might not always under all flow and pollutant conditions produce the desired
effluent without major modifications to the plant…”
The provision of wastewater services is a significant service review issue and, until more
definitive plans for increasing the capacity of the existing facilities or constructing a new facility
are known, it represents an area of infrastructure deficiency.
V.5 FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
To evaluate financial constraints and opportunities in relation to existing and projected service
needs, the service review questionnaire collected data regarding total revenues and
expenditures, bond ratings, reserve levels and the presence of audits. Only two agencies, the
Cities of Fillmore and Santa Paula, noted that their audits were qualified due to an incomplete
fixed asset listing.
Agencies were also asked to identify any financing constraints and opportunities that affect the
service provided and the infrastructure needs. The intent was to find any specific constraints or
opportunities beyond existing legislative, political and governmental regulations. Several
agencies noted financing constraints unique to their agency. The legislation that formed the Fox
Canyon GMA limited its management fee to $3.00 per acre-foot of ground water pumped from
wells within their boundaries. Since pumping fees are the sole source of income for the Fox
Canyon GMA, rising annual costs may, at some point in the near future, exceed income.
The United Water CD noted that they must maintain its rates at or below levels that encourage
the use of our pipelines/facilities in lieu of increased pumping of groundwater and potential over
drafting of aquifers and subsequent increased seawater intrusion. However, the cost of
unfunded mandates for improving water quality, the need to replace infrastructure and the
Page 114 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
State’s shifting of property tax from local agencies to the State makes the District’s efforts to
balance rates and achieve its objectives increasingly difficult.
Finally, both CSA #30, which provides wastewater services to the community of Nyeland Acres,
and Waterworks District #16, which provides water and wastewater services to the community
of Piru, noted that their customer base includes lower income residents and that environmental
justice concerns must be addressed when rates are set. This is also true with the Cities of
Fillmore, Oxnard and Santa Paula where median income lags behind the rest of Ventura
County.
Few agencies identified any additional financing constraints except for the limits placed on them
by their size and by increased cost of unfunded mandates, primarily regarding water quality.
Most agencies noted that their governing board looked at rates annually to ensure a balance
between rates and capital needs.
The service review questionnaire asked agencies to provide total revenues, revenue sources,
CIP budget and reserves for the previous three fiscal years, which is summarized in the tables
contained in Appendix A.
Exhibit V.2, Agency Revenue Comparison, and Exhibit V.3, Aggregate Sources of Agency
Revenue, compare total revenues for all agencies and aggregate sources of revenues. Data
from FY 2001-2002 was used to compare actual numbers. In comparison with Exhibit V.4,
Agency CIP Comparisons, it is important to note the substantial capital improvements needs of
the Cities of Fillmore and Santa Paula in relation to the agency revenue.
Exhibit V.2
2001-2002 AGENCY REVENUE COMPARISON
$17.9M
$10.5M
$7.3M
$5.4M $6.3M
$890K
$394K $347K $282K $259K
Fill m ore Ox nar d P ort H ue ne me Sa nta Pa
n
u
e
la
l
Isla n ds B C S D
F
ox Ca ny o n G W A Ocea n Vie w M W D
U
nite d Water C D Ve nt ura # 30 Ventura # 16
n
ha
C
January 2004 Page 115
2002-1002
,euneveR
latoT
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
As enterprise activities, the primary revenue source for all water and wastewater agencies
comes from service charges and fees directly related to the provision of services. Other income
generally comes from interest from various funds. Exhibit V.4, 2001-2002 Aggregate Sources of
Agency Revenues, shows that water and wastewater agencies, as enterprise funds, derive by
far the majority of their income from service charges and fees.
Exhibit V.3
2001-2002 AGGREGATE SOURCES OF AGENCY REVENUES
85%
3% 6% 4%
1% 0.5% 0% 0%
Pr o p ert y T a x e s S p e ci al T a x e s
S
er vi c e C h ar g e s F e e s A s s e s s m e n
S
t
t
s
a
n d- b y C h ar g e s Gr a nt s Ot h er
Page 116 January 2004
seuneveR
latoT
fo
egatnecreP
The amount of property tax revenue each agency TABLE V.7 2001-2002 PROPERTY TAX
received during FY 2001-2002 is shown in Table REVENUE
V.7, 2001-2002 Property Tax Revenue. Property
PROPERTY
tax revenue for the four cities was not included; it
TAX REVENUE
is assumed that General Fund revenues are not
Channel Islands Beach CSD 0
used to support enterprise fund activities. The
Fox Canyon GMA 0
United Water CD noted that approximately
$600,000 annually has been shifted from the Ocean View MWD $754
agency to the State’s budget. The following
United Water CD $1,172,599
amount represents the current amount of property
tax received by the United Water CD. CSA #30 0
Waterworks District #16 $25,792
TOTAL $1,199,145
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
A comparison of the capital improvement budgets for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 is shown in
Exhibit V.4, 2001-2002 Agency CIP Comparisons.
Exhibit V.4
2001-2002 AGENCY CIP COMPARISON
$3.5M
$3.2M
$863K
$525K
$22K $85K $0 $0 $0 $39K
Fill m or e O x n ar P d ort H u e n e m e S a nt a P n e a l u I s l a l a n d s B C S F D o x C a n y o n G W O c A e a n Vi e w M W U D nit e d W at er C D V e nt ur a # 3 0 V e nt ur a # 1 6
n
a
h
C
January 2004 Page 117
2002-1002
,serutidnepxE
PIC
latoT
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Data about agency reserve levels was also collected as part of the service review. The issue of
reserve levels was raised as a general statewide concern in the 2000 Little Hoover Commission
report on special districts. That report concluded that some agency reserves appear
unreasonably large, are not integrated into infrastructure planning and/or are obscure. Data
collected for this service review did not find that the agencies in the Santa Clara River
watershed service review area showed evidence of the concerns noted by the Little Hoover
Commission for agencies in other parts of California.
Ventura LAFCO asked agencies to report reserves in the categories of operating, capital, rate
stabilization, restricted and other for the previous three fiscal years. Exhibit V.5, 2001-2002
Agency Reserve Comparison, compares combined reserve amounts.
Setting specific levels of reserves for the diversity of agencies addressed in this service review
report is impracticable. The different services, service areas, customer bases, condition of
infrastructure, capital improvement programs and other issues require reserve levels specific to
each agency. All reserve levels reported by the agencies were clearly segregated into the uses
for the reserves—operating and rate stabilizations, restricted debt reserves and capital reserves
funds. Information from the Cities of Fillmore and Oxnard was not available and has been listed
at zero in Exhibit V.5.
Exhibit V.5
2001-2002 AGENCY RESERVES COMPARISON
$9.2M
$7.4M
$2.3M
$0 $0 $350K $49K $251K $168K $190K
Fill m or e O x n ar d P ort H u e n e m e S a nt a P n a u el l a I sl a n d s B C S F D o x C a n y o n G W O A c e a n Vi e w M W D U nit e d W at er C D V e nt ur a # 3 0 V e nt ur a # 1 6
n
a
h
C
Page 118 January 2004
2002-1002
,sevreseR
latoT
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
In the service review questionnaire, agencies were asked to report operating reserves and
operating/rate stabilization reserves separately. Operating reserves were defined as
unallocated general reserves that are set-aside for budgetary shortfalls or for purposes not
otherwise specifically designated. Operating and rate stabilization funds were defined as funds
used to temper short-term fluctuations in delivery costs and to maintain constant and predictable
rates to customers. Due to an error in the service review questionnaire, these definitions were
not clear and some agencies noted in their responses that the two categories were typically
considered the same. Therefore in Exhibit V.6, Aggregate Reserves by Category, the two
categories of reserves, Operating and Operating/Rate Stabilization, were combined.
Exhibit V.6
AGGREGATE RESERVES BY CATEGORY
60%
53%
50%
40%
34%
30%
20%
10%
6% 7%
0%
Operating Capital Reserve Restricted Debt Other Reserves
Reserves Fund Reserves
January 2004 Page 119
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
As mentioned previously, there are no generally accepted levels for operating reserves.
However, the Little Hoover Commission report noted that the International City Managers
Association recommends, as one criteria of solvency, that a city government have three months
of operating expenses in reserves. Using that criterion, Table V.8, Estimated Three Month
Reserves, shows the estimated monthly and three month total of operating expenses for each
agency, the combined amount of Operating/Operating and Rate Stabilization reserves and the
number of months of operating reserves reported by the agencies. In general, special districts
have more than three months operating reserves due to fluctuations in costs and the absence of
other reserves often held by municipalities.
TABLE V.8 ESTIMATED 3-MONTH RESERVES
NUMBER OF
ESTIMATED THREE
ESTIMATED MONTHLY
MONTH
TOTAL OPERATING MONTHS OF
OPERATING EXPENSES RESERVES OPERATING
OPERATING EXPENSES
RESERVES
None
City of Fillmore $74,167 $222,500 NA
Reported
None
City of Oxnard $1,497.495 $4,492,486 NA
Reported
City of Port Hueneme $456,389 $1,369,168 * NA
City of Santa Paula $607,615 $1,822,845 $350,000 0.5
Channel Islands Beach
$522,546 $1,567.639 $600,000 1.1
CSD
Fox Canyon GMA $32,867 $98,601 $49,301 1.5
Ocean View MWD $28,972 $86,916 $251,297 9.0
United Water CD $873,536 $2,620.607 $5,411,505 6.0
CSA #30 $23,524 $70,574 $35,000 1.5
Waterworks District #16 $21,583 $64,751 $62,156 3.0
*The City of Port Hueneme only maintains capital improvement reserves for its enterprise activities.
V.6 COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES
In evaluating cost avoidance opportunities, Ventura LAFCO examined current practices used by
the agencies to reduce or avoid costs including the use of outside vendors and contractors.
Overlapping or inefficient service boundaries were also examined as a means that Ventura
LAFCO can use to encourage efficiently provided water and wastewater services and avoid
costs.
As part of the service review process, all water and wastewater agencies were given LAFCO-
generated maps of their jurisdictional and sphere of influence boundaries. Agencies were
asked to note on the maps:
· Areas of duplication of planned or existing facilities with another agency
· Areas better served by another agency
· Areas better served by the responding agency
· Areas outside the agency’s boundaries which currently receive service
· Areas difficult to serve or with illogical boundaries
Page 120 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Ventura LAFCO and the consulting team mapped the changes noted by the agencies and
labeled them as “special study areas”. During interviews, the staff of some agencies also noted
areas with service issues, which were also mapped. The service provision issues of the special
study areas were not studied in depth as part of the service review. The purpose was to update
the Ventura LAFCO GIS-based maps so staff could use them for future studies as well as a
means of ranking subsequent SOI studies
Table V.9, Special Study Areas, lists the agencies included within the Santa Clara River
watershed service review area with special study areas and SOI issues. Maps for the agencies
addressed by the Santa Clara River watershed service review report follow are included and
labeled as:
· Figure V.2 City of Fillmore
· Figure V.3 City of Oxnard
· Figure V.4 City of Port Hueneme
· Figure V.5 City of Santa Paula
· Figure V.6 Channel Islands Community Services District
· Figure V.7 Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
· Figure V.8 Ocean View Municipal Water District
· Figure V.9 United Water Conservation District
· Figure V.10 County Service Area # 30-Nyeland Acres
· Figure V.11 Ventura County Waterworks District #16-Piru
Revised maps for all agencies with suggested study areas are included in the updated Ventura
LAFCO GIS system.
TABLE V.9 SPECIAL STUDY AREAS
ESTIMATED LEVEL
SPECIAL
SUMMARY OF ISSUE OF ANALYSIS
STUDIES AREAS
REQUIRED
City of Fillmore Yes 1) Discrepancies between SOI and CURB High
1) Discrepancies between SOI and CURB Moderate
City of Oxnard Yes
2) Potential annexation areas
City of Port Low
None Noted NA
Hueneme
1) Possible SOI change
City of Santa Paula Yes 2) Discrepancy between SOAR, boundary High
and SOI
Channel Island 1) Discrepancies between developed
Moderate
Beach CSD Yes portions of harbor and agency boundaries
1) Possible SOI amendment Moderate
Fox Canyon GMA Yes 2) Possible annexation/SOI change—
aquifer outcrop area
None
Ocean View MWD NA Low
Noted
None Low
United Water CD NA
Noted
None
CSA #30 NA Low
Noted
Waterworks District None
NA Low
#16 Noted
January 2004 Page 121
LEGEND
City of Fillmore Sphere Ventura LAFCO
Proposed City of Fillmore Sphere
City of Fillmore
City of Fillmore
Special Study Areas
City of Fillmore CURB Boundary 0 1400' 2800'
Figure V.2
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the Ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 10/20/03
LEGEND
City of Oxnard Sphere Ventura LAFCO
City of Oxnard
City of Oxnard
Pending Development
Special Study Areas
City of Oxnard CURB Boundary 0 5000' 10000'
Figure V.3
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the Ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 10/20/03
Pacific Ocean
LEGEND Ventura LAFCO
City of Port Hueneme Sphere
City of Port Hueneme
City of Port Hueneme
0 2200' 4200'
Figure V.4
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the Ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 10/20/03
LEGEND
City of Santa Paula Sphere Ventura LAFCO
City of Santa Paula
City of Santa Paula
Special Study Areas
City of Santa Paula CURB Boundary
0 2500' 5000'
Figure V.5
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the Ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 10/20/03
Ventura LAFCO
LEGEND
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District Sphere Channel Islands Beach
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District
Community Services District
Special Study Areas
0 800' 1600'
Figure V.6
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the Ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 10/20/03
Los Angeles
County
Pacific Ocean
LEGEND Ventura LAFCO
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Sphere
Fox Canyon Groundwater
Possible Sphere of Influence Change
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
Management Agency
Special Study Areas
0 10000' 20000'
Figure V.7
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the Ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 10/20/03
Pacific Ocean
LEGEND Ventura LAFCO
Ocean View Municipal Water District Sphere
Ocean View Municipal Water District
Ocean View Municipal Water District
0 2200' 4200'
Figure V.8
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the Ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 10/20/03
LEGEND Ventura LAFCO
United Water Conservation District Sphere
United Water Conservation District
United Water Conservation District
0 23000' 46000'
Figure V.9
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the Ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 9/22/03
LEGEND Ventura LAFCO
Ventura County Service Area #30 Sphere
Ventura County Service Area #30
Ventura County Service Area #30
0 1600' 3200'
Figure V.10
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the Ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 9/22/03
LEGEND Ventura LAFCO
Ventura County Waterworks #16 Sphere
Ventura County Waterworks #16
Ventura County Waterworks #16
0 1200' 2400'
Figure V.11
Copyright 2002 by County of Ventura. Design. maps. index and text of this map are copyrighted.
It is unlawful to copy or reproduce, either in digital or paper form, any part thereof for personal use or resale.
Warning: This map was created by the Ventura County Computer Aided Mapping System (CAMS),
which is designed and operated soley for the concenience of the County and related
public agencies. The County does not warrant the accuracy of this map and no decision
involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in relation thereon.
Accurate as of 9/22/03
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
In the Santa Clara River watershed service review area, five of the ten agencies (City of Port
Hueneme, Ocean View MWD, United Water CD, CSA #30 and Waterworks District #16) had no
special studies areas and updating the SOIs for these agencies should not require extensive
analysis. Three of the five remaining agencies—City of Oxnard, Channel Islands CSD and the
Fox Canyon GMA--have special study areas or possible SOI changes identified and updating
SO Is for these agencies is not expected to require extensive analysis. The special study areas
identified for the City of Oxnard are primarily discrepancies between the City’s existing SOI and
its adopted CURB as well as potential areas of annexation. The Channel Islands Beach CSD
boundaries encompasses the water portions of the Channel Islands Harbor; during development
of the harbor some areas were filled and have been developed but were never removed from
the CSD’s district boundaries. These areas have been labeled as special study areas. Finally,
the Fox Canyon GMA has some possible areas of adjustment to their SOI.
The special study areas for the Cities of Fillmore and Santa Paula are similar to other
municipalities with voter approved urban limit lines. There were discrepancies between the
CURB/SOAR limits and the previously adopted LAFCO SOI and it has been one of the goals of
this service review to map such areas where the two lines may not coincide.
· For the City of Fillmore there are special studies areas noted along their boundaries where
the SOI exceeds the CURB line or where the CURB is larger than the existing SOI.
Updating the SOI for a majority of these areas is not expected to require an extensive level
of analysis on the part of the LAFCO staff.
However, along the southern boundary, there are areas, which are within the City and
CURB but outside the adopted SOI. There are some service provision issues since these
areas are either in or across the Santa Clara River and providing urban level services may
be difficult or unnecessary due to land uses and development patterns. It is expected that
due to the location of these special study areas, to the present and planned land uses and
to the present and planned need for municipal services, the areas south of the City of
Fillmore may require more analysis on the part of the LAFCO staff to determine if
detachment is needed.
The issue of adequate services, in particular the provision of wastewater service, is
significant when updating the SOI. There is adequate capacity to serve the proposed
annexation and Heritage Valley development. However, for subsequent annexations to
occur, the City would have to ensure that there is adequate wastewater capacity provided
concurrent with need. The suggested realignment of the City’s CURB and SOI would also
require a recalculation of the development potential within the SOI in relation to wastewater
service; the areas excluded from the SOI would not require wastewater service while areas
added to the SOI might place additional demands of the limited capacity of the current
wastewater plant. The infrastructure deficiencies in terms of wastewater service have been
described in Section VI, Infrastructure.
· For the City of Santa Paula, there are only two main areas labeled as special study areas.
The first is located in the southwestern portion of the City. There are parcels located within
the SOI and CURB but outside the City and a larger area inside the SOI but outside the
CURB. In the City’s map of its “Amended CURB Line” portions are labeled as an
“expansion area” and as “West Area 2”. The portions in the City’s CURB and SOI are
designated for light industrial and research and development land uses. However, there are
some areas located outside the CURB and still within the SOI where land ownership and
Page 132 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
possible development plans may overlap with the areas inside the CURB. Analysis of these
issues may require additional LAFCO time and effort.
The second special study area is Adams Canyon, an approximately 5,500-acre area located
to the northeast of the City. Adams Canyon is within the City’s existing SOI but is outside
the voter approved CURB. It is labeled as an “expansion area” on the City’s map of its
amended CURB contained in the General Pan. The City’s General Plan envisions 1,980
single family and 270 multi-family units, 150,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial
uses, 34 acres of parks, 380 acres of hotel/gold courses uses and 220 acres of open space.
Beyond the boundaries of Adams Canyon the Cities of Santa Paula and San Buenaventura
have a greenbelt agreement; generally land included within a greenbelt agreement is
outside a city’s SOI.
If development of Adams Canyon occurs, the most logical provider of urban level services
would be the City of Santa Paula. Development in the County, if permitted under the
“Guidelines for Orderly Development” could result in significant impacts to the City of Santa
Paula. However, as noted in the preceding discussion regarding the City of Fillmore, the
adequacy and availability of all urban level services; in particular wastewater should be
determined by LAFCO when updating the SOI and prior to approving any annexation.
Therefore this area has been labeled as a special study area and it is suggested that during
SOI updates that the City provide enough data to Ventura LAFCO so the Commission can
be assured that services will be provided concurrent with need.
It should also be noted that the City is working with landowners and developers on future
plans for the Fagan Canyon, which is located with the City’s SOI and CURB. When an
annexation application is submitted, it is expected that the City of Santa Paula would also
provide data to the Ventura LAFCO Commission regarding the capacity of their wastewater
plant.
• It is also suggested that Ventura LAFCO consider adopting a policy for “zero” sphere of
influence designations and consider applying that designation to the Channel Islands CSD.
There has been a considerable history of discussion about the provision of service to the
communities served by the CSD. Generally the issues could be classified as possible
boundary adjustments, service provision and the various governmental structure options.
The boundary issues are relatively simple. In the 1972 “Special Districts” study it was
recommended that the City of Oxnard initiate proceedings to detach overlapping areas
(areas within both the City of Oxnard and the District) from the Channel Islands Beach
Water District. It was also recommended that upon annexation to the City that areas be
detached from the Channel Islands CSD.
However, the Channel Islands CSD only serves the developed portions of the Channel
Islands Harbor. In the 1972 study it was also recommended that the Board of Supervisors
detach the water areas of the Channel Islands Harbor from the District. During the course of
this service review, areas that were developed and should be within the District or areas that
constitute the water portions and should be detached from the District have been mapped
and labeled as special study areas. The areas were created primarily by the continued
development of the Harbor since the previous SOI update.
Service provision issues are more complicated. The Channel Islands CSD provides trash,
water and wastewater service. Trash is provided by a contract with a private hauler. Water
January 2004 Page 133
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
is provided by the Port Hueneme Water Agency; the CSD distributes the water. While the
District’s water distribution system had had fire flow and other problems in the past, it is now
interconnected with the Cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme.
The Cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme provide wastewater services to the District; flows
from the District are transported to the Oxnard treatment plant through the two Cities.
Recently the City of Port Hueneme took legal steps to end its agreement with the District for
operation of wastewater services. The District currently does not have enough staff to
operate the system and it is currently investigating the possibility of contracting with the
Ventura Regional Sanitation District for operation of the system. However, economic
considerations may reach a tipping factor. As with all wastewater providers, the cost of
increased water quality regulations may, at some point in the future, make the provision of
wastewater service economically infeasible for smaller agencies.
The Port Hueneme Water Agency is currently considering participation in the GREAT
program, which would further regionalize water services and may duplicate the current
services provided by the Port Hueneme Water Agency. In addition, the status of past
agreements of the District with both the City of Port Hueneme and Oxnard regarding the
provision of both water and wastewater services is uncertain and without the Port Hueneme
Water Agency and existing agreements, it could become prohibitive for the Channel Islands
CSD to directly provide water service.
It would seem that service provision would be simplified and cost savings occur if the
services of Channel Islands Beach CSD would be provided by other agencies. Since the
Channel Islands CSD is completely surrounded by the Cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme,
the Cities would be the logical successor agencies.
However, the Channel Islands CSD serves an unincorporated area that has expressed little
interest in annexing to either municipality. Some residents have complained about higher
rates and other actions of the Channel Islands Beach CSD Board; other customers have
expressed concerns about annexation to either City as well as the loss of community
character. Since annexations can be terminated by a majority of residents, it would seem
impractical for Ventura LAFCO to initiate a reorganization of the Channel Islands Beach
CSD until such time as residents initiate reorganization or until a consensus among
residents is clearly evident.
Therefore, it is suggested that a zero SOI be adopted for the Channel Islands Beach CSD.
In the short-term a zero SOI would have little impact on the agency since minor growth or
annexation to the District is expected. However, a zero SOI would indicate to all the
agencies and residents involved that at some point in the future, when financial, service or
other issues reach the tipping point, that the Channel Islands Beach CSD should be
reorganized with another agency. It is further suggested that if the Ventura LAFCO
Commission adopts a zero SOI for the Channel Islands Beach CSD and that the SOIs for
the Cities of Port Hueneme and Oxnard be revised to include the District’s territory.
Addressed in Section V.9 Government Structure Options, is the issue of the future
governmental structure for the Ocean View MWD, which should be considered by LAFCO prior
to updating its SOI. In that section of this service review report, it is suggested that Ventura
LAFCO consider dissolving the Ocean View MWD and assign its responsibilities to another
agency.
Page 134 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Finally, agencies answering the service review questionnaire reported well-established budget
processes and procedures, which use internal cost/benefit studies to find and utilize
opportunities to reduce or avoid costs. As part of the questionnaire, agencies were asked to
note services that were currently provided by other agencies or private contractors, the
estimated annual cost savings and excess capacity, facilities or staff that could be made
available. Table V.10, Summary-Use of Contractors, illustrates each agency’s use of outside
contractors.
TABLE V.10 SUMMARY – USE OF CONTRACTORS
EXCESS
SERVICES PROVIDED ESTIMATED
SERVICES PROVIDED BY OR CAPACITY,
BY PRIVATE
TO OTHER AGENCIES
ANNUAL CO ST
FACILITIES OR
CONTRACTORS SAVINGS
STAFF
Operation of
wastewater treatment None None
City of Fillmore $75,000
plant; cleaning of Reported
pipes
Service agreements for water
None and wastewater services to None None
City of Oxnard
Reported other agencies; painting by Reported Reported
VRSD
JPA with City of Oxnard
(regional treatment plant);
City of Port service agreement with None None
Some sampling Channel Islands Beach CSD
Hueneme Reported
and Navy; sharing of pipes,
pumps and maintenance
equipment.
Wastewater treatment None None
City of Santa Paula JPA for insurance
plant management Reported Reported
JPA—Port Hueneme Water
Agency; service agreement
with Ventura County for water
provision to the Channel Island
Harbor; service agreement with
city of Oxnard for water and
Channel Islands Emergency water wastewater service to the None None
Channel Island Harbor and
Beach CSD system repairs Reported Reported
surrounding areas; ACWA
insurance; member of County
Emergency Operations Area;
agreement with City of Port
Hueneme to provide operations
and maintenance of
wastewater system
None None None None
Fox Canyon GMA
Reported Reported Reported Reported
Legal, accounting and None None None
Ocean View MWD
financial services Reported Reported Reported
Billing and collection; service
None None None
United Water CD agreement with City of Oxnard
Reported Reported Reported
for maintenance
As needed and
Ventura County self-insurance
through Ventura None None
CSA #30 pool and other services;
County bidding Reported Reported
agreement with City of Oxnard
process
As needed and Shares services and facilities
through Ventura with Ventura County; None None
Waterworks #16
County bidding agreement with Ventura Reported Reported
process Regional SD
January 2004 Page 135
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
V.7 RATE RESTRUCTURING
The service review questionnaire asked agencies to list current rates for water and wastewater
service, rates changes in the previous two years, anticipated rate changes and any difference in
rates charged to customers outside agency boundaries. Three agencies (City of Fillmore and
Oxnard and Waterworks District #16) reported rate increase during the past two years of 6%-
10%; they also anticipated rate increase during the next two years of 10%-20%. Two agencies
(City of Port Hueneme and the Ocean View MWD) did not increase rates in the previous two
years but both expect rates to increase by during the next two years. The Channel Islands CSD
noted no rate changes during the previous two years and reported not expecting to raise rates
during the next two years. Two agencies, the City of Santa Paula and CSA #30, did not answer
the question.
The agencies were also asked to list current rates in terms of million gallons per day (mgd) and
acre-feet, for wastewater and water respectively, in order to have a uniform basis of comparing
rates from diverse agencies. Using mgd for wastewater service rates did not yield useful
information. Therefore the State Water Resources Control Board “Wastewater Users Survey
Report” was used to develop Table V.11, Wastewater Agency Rates, and provide a comparison
of the rates of the wastewater agencies in the Santa Clara River watershed service review
area.9
Table V.11 Table V.12
Wastewater Agency Rates Water Rates
AGENCY MONTHLY USER CONNECTION FEE AGENCY WATER PER AF
CHARGE
None
City of Fillmore $13.92 $4,280 City of Fillmore
Reported
City of Oxnard $21.88 $3,539 City of Oxnard $788*
City of Port $16.50 $3,000 City of Port Hueneme $641
Hueneme
C Pa ity u la of Santa $11.35 $618 City of Santa Paula N Re o p n o e r ted
C Be h a a c n h n e C l SD Is lands $21.00 $5,610 Channel Islands CSD $ $ 1 1 , , 0 1 9 0 3 3 / / r c e o s m
CSA #30 $38.70 $3,939 Fox Canyon GMA $3.00
Waterworks Ocean View MWD $250
$21.47 $500
District #16
Referred to Fee
United Water CD
Ordinance
Waterworks #16 $516
Table V.12, Water Rates, includes a partial comparison of rates per acre-foot as requested by
the service review questionnaire. No data has been included for the Fox Canyon Groundwater
whose rates are set by its enabling legislation at $3.00 per AF of groundwater pumped.
Using acre-feet for a comparison of water rates is not the typical means of comparing water rate
information and did not yield useful information. However, comparing the various rate
ordinances among the agencies is difficult and does not permit the average citizen to have a
meaningful evaluation of their current rates as compared to other agencies.
Since the agencies differ in the billing period (monthly, bimonthly or quarterly), the unit of
measurement used to calculate rates, the rate structure (flat or tiered rates), connection fees,
the class of user (residential, agricultural and industrial/commercial), the database is being
9 State Water Resources Control Board “Wastewater User Survey Report, FY 2001-2002” May 2002.
Page 136 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
revised to reflect the variability among the agencies while still permitting a meaningful
comparison of costs for the benefit of the public, the elected officials and the agencies. Table
V.13, Water Rate Comparison, was developed using the revised format being considered by the
Ventura LAFCO staff. The Cities of Fillmore and Santa Paula did not provide copies of their
rate schedules. The United Water CD has different pumping charges for each of its three
service areas and associated pipelines; it was not possible to determine costs per acre-foot
since the demand for water for different types of agriculture varies.
Table V.13
Water Rate Comparison
Estimated Monthly
I” Meter/Service Water Usage 1” Meter
residential Water
Charge (residential) (residential/HCF) Connection Fee
Bill*
City of Fillmore None Reported None Reported None Reported None Reported
0-6 HCF/Mo.
$1.178
6-12 HCF/Mo.
City of Oxnard $9.33 $6,265** $58.53*
$1.292
Over 12
HCF/Mo. $1.824
$85.82* (metered)
$32.90 (meter) $25.00 initial
City of Port Hueneme $1.47 HCF $37.15*
$13.16 (unmetered) deposit
(unmetered)
City of Santa Paula None Reported None Reported None Reported None Reported
0-3 HCF/Mo.
$1.45
Channel Islands Beach 4-16 HCF/Mo.
$37.44 None Reported $79.68*
CSD $2.02
17 and over
HCF/Mo. $2.53
Waterworks #16 $48.58 $0.947 Actual Cost $82.67*
* Estimated water use for a family of five—one af/year; excludes irrigation use. Actual bills may vary depending on size of agency,
land uses and other factors.
** For new service/meter as part of GREAT program
V.8 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
As part of the service review questionnaire, agencies were asked to identify ways that they
currently cooperate with other agencies to maximize opportunities for sharing facilities.
Agencies were asked to list current joint activities with other agencies, which are shown in Table
V.14, Joint Service Agreements. For the 10 agencies within the Santa Clara River watershed
service review area, Table V.14, Joint Service Agreements, and the subsequent discussion
summarizes joint activities which increase opportunities for shared facilities.
The 1999-2000 Ventura Grand Jury report recommended that the Ventura County Clerk
maintain a list of JPAs operating within Ventura County. The database designed by Ventura
LAFCO has a list of JPAs reported by the water and wastewater agencies.
January 2004 Page 137
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE V.14
JOINT SERVICE AGREEMENTS
AGENCY JOINT AGREEMENTS NOTED
Uses private contractors for operation of wastewater treatment plant and
City of Fillmore cleaning of pipes; exploring regional wastewater treatment plant with the City
of Santa Paula
Numerous service agreements with other agencies; GREAT Program (see
City of Oxnard
below); contracts with Ventura Regional SD for painting
JPA with City of Oxnard for regional treatment plant; service agreement with
City of Port Hueneme Channel Islands Beach CSD and Navy; equipment sharing; private contractors
for some sampling and lab work; Port Hueneme Water Agency.
City of Santa Paula JPA for self-insurance; service agreements and purchasing pools
JPA with Port Hueneme Water Agency; service agreement with Ventura
County for provision of water to harbor and with Oxnard for water/wastewater
Channel Islands
to harbor and surrounding areas; insurance pools with ACWA/JPIA; private
Beach CSD
contracts for water system repairs; City of Port Hueneme provides
operation/maintenance to for wastewater
Fox Canyon GMA None reported
Service agreement with City of Oxnard for maintenance; contracts for legal,
Ocean View MWD
accounting, financial reporting, billing and collection.
United Water CD GREAT program; cost sharing programs with other agencies
Shared services and staff and insurance through Ventura County; service
CSA #16
agreement with City of Oxnard.
Waterworks District Some shared services and staff through Ventura County; service agreement
#30 with Ventura Regional SD for operations and maintenance.
The agencies within the Santa Clara River watershed service review area also participate in
several formal sharing arrangements. The first is the Hueneme Water Agency (PHWA), a Joint-
Powers Agency (JPA) that provides wholesale water to the City of Port Hueneme, NBVC
Construction Battalion Center and Point Mugu, and the Channel Islands Beach Community
Services District.
Another program encouraging a more regional approach to service delivery is the Groundwater
Enhancement and Treatment (GREAT) Program which was developed by the City of Oxnard to
address regional water needs. Participating agencies in the GREAT Program and other
regional programs include the City of Oxnard, the Port Hueneme Water Agency (PHWA), the
wholesale supplier for the City of Port Hueneme, the Channel Islands Community Services
District and two Naval bases, the United Water Conservation District (UWCD), the Fox Canyon
GMA and the Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD). GREAT has three major objectives:
· The construction of a new, regional groundwater desalination facility to serve Oxnard and
Port Hueneme Water Agency
· The building of a recycled water system to serve agricultural water users in the Pleasant
Valley area and protect water sources against seawater intrusion
· Conveying desalination concentrates through a new brine line to enhanced wetlands in the
Ormond Beach area.
In 1996 the PHWA, which serves a portion of the service review area, implemented a program
to meet its water supply requirements and improve water quality. This program allows for the
conjunctive use of desalinated groundwater provided by the United Water CD and imported
Page 138 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
water provided by the Calleguas MWD. A major component of the program is a 3 mgd Brackish
Water Reclamation Demonstration Facility (BWRDF), which desalinates local groundwater
supplied by United Water CD. The PHWA is currently planning its expansion in cooperation
with the Calleguas MWD.
To manage groundwater extractions from the Oxnard Plain aquifers, the Fox Canyon GMA has
been implementing staged reductions in the allowable amount of pumping by groundwater
users, including the United Water CD and Oxnard. To date, reductions of fifteen percent (15%)
from 1985-1989 pumping levels have been implemented and two additional five percent (5%)
reductions are scheduled for 2005 and 2010. Even with these reductions of groundwater
extractions, localized problems, including severely depressed groundwater levels in the
Pleasant Valley area remain to be addressed. Imported water deliveries are also approaching
the limits of the Calleguas MWD’s delivery system and costly capacity expansions will be
necessary.
As part of the GREAT Program, it has been agreed among the participating agencies that
groundwater for the desalination facility will be supplied by the United Water Conservation
District through its Oxnard-Hueneme Pipeline. Pumping allocations for the additional
groundwater extractions will be obtained by the Fox Canyon GMA through the exchange of
recycled water deliveries for agricultural pumping allocations and/or groundwater injection
credits gained as part of the seawater intrusion barrier element. Desalinated water will be
supplied to Oxnard and the PHWA through the existing water delivery system. Desalination
concentrates will be conveyed through a new brine line to proposed wetlands to be constructed
as part of Calleguas MWD Regional Salinity Management and Wetlands Enhancement
Program.
Recycled water will be obtained from the Oxnard Wastewater Treatment Plant. Filtration and
improved disinfection facilities will be constructed to allow direct use of recycled water for
landscape irrigation and agricultural irrigation of certain crops. In addition, because the PHWA
will receive high quality water from the proposed regional groundwater desalination facility, the
three (3) million gallons per day Brackish Water Reclamation Demonstration Facility will be
converted to recycled water use to allow aquifer recharge during winter months (i.e., non-
irrigation period). Recharged water could then be extracted during the summer months for
agricultural irrigation of crops with higher water quality requirements. Aquifer recharge will also
reduce saltwater intrusion by balancing injection and extraction.
V.9 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS
Functional reorganizations within agencies, amending or updating SOIs and other changes in
the jurisdictional boundaries of the water and wastewater agencies were noted in Section VIII,
Cost Avoidance Opportunities. This section addresses efficiencies that might be gained through
other governmental structure options.
The initial step in evaluating governmental structure options was a review of recommendations
from the Ventura LAFCO “Special Districts” studies from the years 1973, 1985, 1993 and 2001.
These recommendations are included in this service review report as information about potential
government structure options considered by Ventura LAFCO in the past. The purpose of the
service review is to list all possible government structure options, if any, that the Ventura
LAFCO Commission may want to examine in more depth in the future.
January 2004 Page 139
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Table V.15, 2001 Ventura LAFCO Special District’s Study, summarizes the recommendations
from the previous “Special District” studies. In the service review responses, none of the
agencies reported having submitted or been included in a reorganization proposal before
Ventura LAFCO within the previous two years.
TABLE V.15
2001 VENTURA LAFCO SPECIAL DISTRICT STUDY
AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
City of Fillmore None noted
City of Oxnard None noted
City of Port Hueneme None noted
City of Santa Paula None noted
Channel Islands Beach
See discussion Section V.6, Cost Avoidance Opportunities
CSD
Fox Canyon GMA None noted
Ocean View MWD 1972 and 1985 studies recommended dissolution
United Water CD None noted
CSA #30 None noted
Waterworks District #16 None noted
One of the purposes of the service review is to list all possible government structure options
including advantages and disadvantages of potential reorganizations. For this purposes of this
service review report, a reorganization is defined as two or more changes of organization (i.e.,
consolidation, merger, dissolution, annexation and/or detachment) which are initiated in a single
proposal before LAFCO.
a) Ocean View Municipal Water District
In the 1973 Ventura LAFCO Special Districts Study, the Ocean View MWD was identified as
one of the “defensive” districts ostensibly formed in the 1960s as a means of preventing the
expansion of the Calleguas MWD. While some of the conclusions in the 1973 report were
contradictory (the agency’s sole function was to retire bonded debt; the agency was formed to
prevent saltwater intrusion), the conclusion was that the Ocean View MWD should be dissolved.
The study noted that in 1967 the District, the United Water CD and the City of Oxnard entered
into an agreement that allowed the City of Oxnard to purchase the pipeline. The United Water
CD was a party to the agreement since the water is obtained for agricultural uses and at special
rates. The bonded indebtedness was retired in 1992.
In 1985, the “Special Districts” study reinforced the recommendation that the Ocean View MWD
be dissolved or consolidated but added that it might be appropriate for the change in
governmental structure to be delayed until the bonded indebtedness was retired. No
recommendation was included in the 1993 study.
The District currently serves approximately 50 customers located along Hueneme Road with
agricultural water. It is suggested that the Ventura LAFCO Commission initiate proceedings to
Page 140 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
dissolve the Ocean View MWD. The City of Oxnard and the United Water CD are two possible
successor agencies.
Portions of the Ocean View MWD are in and adjacent to the City of Oxnard and the City owns
the pipeline serving the area. However, the City’s ability to annex the service area of the Ocean
View MWD may be limited by its CURB boundaries and limitations. Government Code Section
§56133 states that a city can provide new or extended services by contract outside its
jurisdictional boundaries if approved by the LAFCO Commission. The LAFCO Commission can
also approve a contract for extending services outside an agency’s jurisdictional boundaries and
SOI if there is a threat to public health and safety. However, if the contract includes the transfer
of untreated or non-potable water or only involves the provision of surplus water to agricultural
lands including incidental residential structures, LAFCO is not required to approve the contract.
Therefore, the City of Oxnard might be able to extend service to the service area of the Ocean
View MWD through a contract; it is uncertain if LAFCO approval of the contract would be
needed. The Ventura LAFCO Commission could also consider the United Water CD as
another potential option as the successor agency to the Ocean View MWD.
V.10 EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES
Reviewing management efficiencies has generally been an internal activity of a public agency
with limited oversight by external entities such as state/federal regulatory agencies or a Grand
Jury. The OPR service review guidelines suggested factors that could be used when evaluating
management efficiencies, but many of them relate to internal practices which are difficult to
measure and whose correction is outside of LAFCO’s authority. Factors that the OPR
Guidelines recommend for evaluating management efficiencies were included in the Ventura
LAFCO questionnaire and have been addressed in other sections of this report. In addition,
data was collected about master plans, recent litigation and/or Grand Jury inquiries and number
of employees as a means of evaluating management efficiencies.
The presence of master plans, as described in Section VI, Infrastructure, can be an indication of
managerial efficiency in assessing long range planning needs. However, some small agencies
or those close to built-out may use other means of predicting and preparing for long-term
service needs such as a CIP.
Frequent litigation or inclusion in a Grand Jury report can also be used as a proxy measure for
managerial efficiency. If an agency is frequently involved in litigation, it can indicate that the
staff and/or Board resort to the courts for resolution of issues, which might be addressed
through other less expensive means. Occasionally inclusion in a Grand Jury investigation might
mean that complaints about the agency have been received.
Of the ten agencies within the Santa Clara River watershed service review area only one, the
City of Santa Paula, noted being the subject of a Ventura County Grand Jury investigation. The
Grand Jury in 1999-2000 examined the updated of the City’s SOI and focused on the role of
LAFCO. No significant conclusions regarding the City of Santa Paula were noted.
In 1999-2000, the Grand Jury also examined the Channel Islands Beach CSD to determine if
the agency could be eliminated or annexed to another agency, to determine if the rates charged
by the Channel Islands Beach CSD were fair to all customers and to determine the impact of a
contract between Ventura County and the Channel Islands Beach CSD.
January 2004 Page 141
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
Two agencies, the United Water CD and the Channel Islands Beach CSD, noted that their
agencies had been involved in litigation within the previous two years. The Channel Islands
Beach CSD only cited a court case, County of Ventura CV 217391, City of Port Hueneme vs.
Channel Islands Beach CSD, but did not provide specific information. None of the litigation
cited by the United Water CD directly involved the provision of service.
Agencies were also asked to report the number and categories of employees dedicated to the
provision of service. In the 1999-2000 Grand Jury report, “An Examination of Special Districts
Providing Water Service to Ventura County” the Grand Jury used an agency’s administrative
expense as a percentage of the operating revenue for the district. The Grand Jury’s report
noted that:
“Most districts enjoy administrative overhead percentages of less than 15%....dependent
districts enjoy low overhead through their sharing of management, facilities and staff.
Smaller, independent districts, however, pay the largest overhead penalty.”
The service review questionnaire did not specifically request that agencies provide data on
administrative overhead percentages although it is suggested that future service reviews
collecting this data as a means of analyzing management efficiency. If future service reviews
continue to require an assessment of management efficiencies, Ventura LAFCO might also
consider developing performance measures or benchmarks to allow for a meaningful
comparison of management practices and efficiencies among diverse agencies.
As another means of assessing managerial efficiencies, Table V.16, Employee Information,
provides the number of administrative, professional/support and operational employees and the
ratio of the number of professional/support/operational employees to administrative staff. For
the agencies reporting the ratio of administrative staff to professional/operational, ratios were
similar.
Cities and dependent districts (districts governed by a City Council or a Board of Supervisors)
were asked the amount of money transferred from the enterprise fund to the General Fund.
Some municipalities transfer a portion of enterprise funds to the General Fund to cover
administrative expenses. Proposition 218 and subsequent legal opinions have discouraged
these transfers unless there is a clear nexus between the transfer and the cost of services.
Most public agencies have completed these nexus studies.
Using information provided by three of the four cities, an average of the percent of enterprise
funds transferred to the General Fund for the past three fiscal years was determined. It should
be noted, however, that the service review questionnaire did not ask the agencies to specify the
use of the transferred funds; transferred funds may be used for other purposes than to cover
administrative expenses.
Of the four cities in the Santa Clara River watershed service review area, the City of Fillmore did
not respond to the question and it is unclear if no funds were transferred or if the question was
not answered. The City of Oxnard transferred an average of 15% of their enterprise funds to
the General Plan, the City of Port Hueneme approximately 20% and the City of Santa Paula 6%.
Page 142 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE V.16
EMPLOYEE INFORMATION
RATIO OF WATER WASTEWATER
EXECUTIVE
STAFF TO EXECUTIVE PROF. AND OPERA- EXECUTIVE PROF. AND OPERA-
PROF. AND AND MGT. SUPPORT. TIONAL AND MNGT. SUPPORT. TIONAL
OPER.
Contract
City of Fillmore 1:3 2 1 5 2 1
Staff
City of Oxnard* 1:14 5 4 32 * * *
City of Port 1:5 w
1 1 4 1 3 10
Hueneme 1:13 ww
None None None
City of Santa Paula 1:9 2 5 13
Reported Reported Reported
Channel Islands 1:1 Contract
3 0 4 3 3
Beach CSD Staff
Fox Canyon GMA 1:4 0.5 2 0
Ocean View MWD NA 0 0 0
United Water CD 1:4 8 12 24
1:6 w
CSA #30* 6 18 20 6 18 7
1:4 ww
1:6 w 6 18 20 6 18 7
Waterworks #16*
1:4 ww
*City of Oxnard reported a total of 67 wastewater employees but did not provide a breakdown into categories
**Staff shared with other CSAs and/or Waterworks entities
V.11 LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
Generally no significant issues regarding local accountability and governance were noted for
any of the agencies within the Santa Clara River watershed service review area. The governing
boards of the agencies appear to be locally accountable through adherence to applicable
government code sections, open and accessible meetings, dissemination of information and
encouragement of participation in their election process. Only two of the agencies (Channel
Islands Beach CSD and the Ocean View MWD) do not have websites; the two dependent
agencies (CSA#16 and Waterworks District #30) use the Ventura County website. It is
suggested that the Channel Islands Beach CSD develop a website to increase dissemination of
information, compliance with environmental justice issues and accountability to customers. The
Ocean View MWD is a small water agency serving 50 customers and developing a website
would not seem practical.
All agencies did note that copies of the budget are made available to the public. Eight of the ten
agencies reported unqualified audits in 2002. The Cities of Fillmore and Santa Paula both
noted that their latest audits were qualified due to listing of fixed assets. This type of
qualification in audits for public agencies happens as public agencies implement the
Governmental Standards Accounting Board directive 34 (GSAB 34), which established a whole
new framework or "financial reporting model" for state and local governments.
The service review questionnaire asked each agency to provide current information about the
governing board, the expiration date of each member’s term and whether any recently elected
governing board members ran unopposed. This information was entered into the database and
will be used to maintain current and accurate information. Data about compensation, review
January 2004 Page 143
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
sessions of the Brown Act/FPPC requirements and violations of either regulation within the
previous two years was collected.
In addition, agencies were asked to indicate if the governing body was elected or appointed,
whether recently elected officials ran unopposed and to provide the amount of compensation set
for elected officials. Only two agencies, the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
and the Ocean View MWD, have Board members that are appointed. The Fox Canyon GMA
has five board members chosen, one by each of the following: (1) Ventura County; (2) United
Water Conservation District; (3) the cities that at least partly overly the Fox Canyon basin; (4)
the special districts and mutual water companies that at least partly overly the Fox Canyon
Basin; (5) by the other four members. The Channel Islands Beach CSD reported that three
board members ran unopposed.
A majority of the agencies reported that regular review sessions of the requirements of the
Brown Act, FPPC and public disclosure laws were scheduled; a few agencies noted that
sessions were scheduled on as as-needed basis. None of the agencies noted any violations
within the previous two years.
Public access was evaluated by regularly scheduled meetings and locations, by compliance
with ADA and by the use of legally required notices. All agencies reported that their meeting
locations were in compliance with the requirements of ADA and listed the legally required
means of giving notice of meetings.
The final OPR Service Review Guidelines suggested that to satisfy environmental justice
concerns agencies hold meetings at a time and place that maximize public participation. A
majority of the agencies within the Santa Clara River watershed service review area hold
meetings after normal working hours. Four agencies (Fox Canyon GMA, United Water CD,
CSA #16 and Waterworks District #30) schedule their governing body meetings during normal
working hours. Only the Ocean View MWD does not hold regularly scheduled Board meetings;
meetings are scheduled on an as-needed basis.
Compensation of elected and appointed officials reported is shown in Table V.17,
Compensation for Elected Officials:
Page 144 January 2004
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
VENTURA LAFCO
TABLE V.17
COMPENSATION FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
LIMIT ON
BASIC STIPEND BENEFITS OTHER
STIPEND
None None None None
City of Fillmore
Reported Reported Reported Reported
None None None None
City of Oxnard
Reported Reported Reported Reported
Life, medical, dental
None None
City of Port Hueneme $682/month ($626/month for
Reported Reported
benefits) PERS
Life, medical, dental
$1,000 limit per fiscal
City of Santa Paula $300/month $300/month ($626/month for
year on travel
benefits) PERS
Channel Islands Beach Travel-$0.36/mile and
$100/month $600/month Worker’s Comp.
CSD actual costs
Fox Canyon GMA 0 0 0 0
Ocean View MWD $50/mtg 0 0 0
Travel costs according
10 mtgs per
United Water CD $115.75 mtg 0 to agency’s “Expense
month
reimbursement Policy”
CSA #16* $7,083 * * *
Ventura County
$7,083 * * *
Waterworks #30*
*Compensation for Board of Supervisors; no additional compensation for acting as governing body for dependent district
January 2004 Page 145
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX AA
FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL SSUUMMMMAARRIIEESS
District Name: Calleguas Municipal Water District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $72,036,110 $74,030,668 $63,630,265 Current Bond Rating: AAA
Expenses: $64,904,730 $67,874,855 $59,000,000 Source: Moody's and Standard & Poor's
Capital Improvements: $16,706,178 $23,386,906 $44,000,000
Reserves: $39,050,433 $40,304,342 $41,400,000
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources Notes:
Property Taxes: $0 $0 Calleguas categorizes Operating Revenue sources as follows:
Special Taxes: $0 $0 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003
Service Charges: $63,791,365 $65,842,170 $54,330,265 Water Sales $61,929,603 $64,738,989 $53,185,039
Fees: $2,751,667 $2,748,516 $2,750,000 Pumping Power Revenue $509,118 $646,881 $679,800
Assessments: $4,238,707 $3,935,776 $5,100,000 Readiness to Serve $2,751,667 $2,748,516 $2,750,000
Stand-by Charges: $1,254,371 $1,393,708 $1,450,000 Capital Construction Charge $4,238,707 $3,935,776 $5,100,000
Grants: $0 $0 $0 Water Standby Charge $1,254,371 $1,393,708 $1,450,000
Other: (Misc. offsets) $0 -$110,498 $0 Power Sales $1,352,644 $456,300 $465,426
Misc./Offsets $0 -$110,498 $0
Reserves Total: $72,036,110 $73,809,672 $63,630,265
Operating Reserves: $39,050,433 $40,304,342 $41,400,000
Capital Reserve Fund: $65,885,780 $54,259,996 $18,000,000 * $18,000,000 does not reflect planned bond issue.
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $104,936,213 $94,564,338 $59,400,000
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 146% 128% 93%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
District Name: Camarillo Sanitary District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $7,135,078 $7,133,100 $7,259,950 Current Bond Rating: A+
Expenses: $5,736,350 $6,675,091 $6,574,071 Source: Standard & Poors (as of 1-1-1999)
Capital Improvements: $1,267,080 $162,952 $52,850
Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $658,750 $689,050 $719,750
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $5,037,200
Service Charges: $4,856,400 $4,897,800 $603,000
Fees: $619,928 $876,250 $0
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: $1,000,000 $670,000 $900,000
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $2,817,169 $3,371,798 $3,540,388
Capital Reserve Fund: $11,056,493 $12,491,140 $10,323,761
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $1,318,082 $1,262,482 $1,253,334
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $15,191,744 $17,125,420 $15,117,483
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 213% 240% 208%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
District Name: Camrosa Water District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $10,496,800 $10,675,220 $11,404,500 Current Bond Rating: A2 A+
Expenses: $9,923,118 $10,111,511 $9,692,741 Source: Moody's Standard & Poors
Capital Improvements: $737,000 $1,401,000 $1,542,000
Reserves: $13,024,652 $11,190,417 $10,013,626
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $622,500 $634,950 $350,000
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $8,664,300 $8,950,270 $9,344,500
Fees: $330,000 $330,000 $330,000
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: $880,000 $760,000 $380,000
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Capital Reserve Fund: $10,402,176 $10,420,432 $8,408,626
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $250,000
Restricted Debt Reserves: $2,622,476 $769,985 $1,355,000
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $13,024,652 $11,190,417 $10,013,626
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 124% 105% 88%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
District Name: Casitas Municipal Water District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $9,073,980 $11,437,287 $14,150,685 Current Bond Rating: n/a
Expenses: $5,412,900 $5,860,618 $6,413,956 Source: n/a
Capital Improvements: $6,657,360 $14,373,004 $12,586,706
Reserves: $12,996,280 $ (8,796,335) $ ( 4,849,977)
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $1,011,000 $880,000 $1,090,000
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $60,000 $5,872,037 $117,460
Fees: $1,857,075 $1,759,650 $1,967,500
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $1,077 $2,925,600 $4,797,227
*Other: $5,068,683 $0 $6,178,498
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000
Capital Reserve Fund: $478,111 $636,089 $636,089
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $343,466 $487,913 $487,913
Restricted Debt Reserves: $5,854,572 $7,551,713 $4,649,442
Other Reserves: $2,650,000 $3,000,000 $3,113,000
Total Reserves: $11,826,149 $14,175,715 $11,386,444
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 130% 124% 80%
*
District Name: Channel Islands Beach Community Service District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $2,786,157 $6,270,555 $2,561,765 Current Bond Rating: BBB
Expenses: $2,236,440 $2,461,910 $2,374,773 Source: Standard & Poor's
Capital Improvements: $18,946 $84,892 $21,700
Reserves: $598,305 $1,783,305 $1,783,305
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $117,876 $88,407 $27,000
Fees: $2,277,541 $2,250,232 $2,280,000
Assessments: $230,281 $232,017 $176,545
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: $160,459 $99,899 $78,220
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
Capital Reserve Fund: $298,305 $1,183,305 $1,183,305
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $300,000 $300,000
Restricted Debt Reserves: $528,713 $539,232 $529,000
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $1,127,018 $2,322,537 $2,312,305
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 40% 37% 90%
District Name: City of Camarillo
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $8,690,500 $9,080,600 $8,751,000 Current Bond Rating: A+ (stable)
Expenses: $7,117,186 $8,090,099 $8,004,722 Source: Standard & Poor's as of 1-1-1999
Capital Improvements: $2,897,764 $218,992 $770,000
Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $7,368,500 $7,293,200 $7,542,000
Fees: $528,000 $1,187,400 $424,000
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: (interest income) $794,000 $600,000 $785,000
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $3,772,251 $4,033,642 $4,235,324
Capital Reserve Fund: $8,219,165 $10,116,260 $8,831,301
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $39,522 $39,522 $23,054
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $12,030,938 $14,189,424 $13,089,679
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 138% 156% 150%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
District Name: City of Filmore
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $890,038 $890,038 $867,000 Current Bond Rating:
Expenses: $876,904 $934,651 $874,632 Source:
Capital Improvements: $0 $525,524 $748,500
Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $788,310 $862,581 $847,000
Fees: $101,728 $13,430 $20,000
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: (interest) $0 $0 $1,500
Reserves
Operating Reserves:
Capital Reserve Fund:
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund:
Restricted Debt Reserves:
Other Reserves:
Total Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 0% 0% 0%
District Name: City of Oxnard
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $19,303,324 $17,969,945 $17,969,945 Current Bond Rating: A+
Expenses: $15,687,924 $14,779,095 $14,779,095 Source: Standard & Poor's
Capital Improvements: $3,615,400 $3,190,400 $3,190,400
Reserves: $0 $ - $ -
Transfers to General Fund $2,035,614 $2,869,865 $2,212,767
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $19,303,324 $17,969,945 $17,969,945
Fees: $0 $0 $0
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
*Other: $0 $0 $0
Reserves
Operating Reserves:
Capital Reserve Fund:
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund:
Restricted Debt Reserves:
Other Reserves:
Total Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 0% 0% 0%
District Name: City of Port Hueneme
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $5,805,852 $5,476,672 $5,180,500 Current Bond Rating: n/a
Expenses: $7,033,593 $5,965,632 $4,944,527 Source: n/a
Capital Improvements: $33,950 $22,579 $91,011
Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Transfers to General Fund $1,177,190 $1,160,321 $1,009,100
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $4,968,377 $5,391,059 $5,163,500
Fees: $0 $0 $0
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: (interest income) $837,475 $75,901 $17,000
Reserves
Operating Reserves:
Capital Reserve Fund: $6,699,616 $7,390,685 $7,450,000
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund:
Restricted Debt Reserves:
Other Reserves:
Total Reserves: $6,699,616 $7,390,685 $7,450,000
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 115% 135% 144%
District Name: City of San Buenaventura
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $39,455,052 $70,215,219 $71,728,558 Current Bond Rating: Aaaa and AAA
Expenses: $25,729,669 $27,895,986 $27,205,145 Source: Moody's and Standard & Poor's
Capital Improvements: $36,283,133 $39,370,219 $44,523,413
Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $11,563,900 $10,286,230 $12,022,051
Fees: $14,760,088 $15,668,605 $15,880,361
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $68,290 $181,982
Other: (Interest, Misc., Recoverable) $3,506,123 $2,727,751 $1,907,194
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Capital Reserve Fund: $0 $0 $0
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $2,579,879 $2,005,393 $2,002,725
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $2,579,879 $2,005,393 $2,002,725
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 7% 3% 3%
NOTE: All financial data is a summary of Wastewater and Water services combined.
District Name: City of Santa Paula
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $6,838,240 $7,291,380 $7,811,720 Current Bond Rating: AAA / A-A+
Expenses: $5,766,890 $6,608,926 $7,346,588 Source: Standard and Poor's
Capital Improvements: $820,000 $3,465,207 $5,207,724
Reserves: $350,000 $350,000 $350,000
Transfers to General Fund $0 $423,696 $445,840
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $6,695,000 $6,687,500 $7,183,800
Fees: $71,500 $348,000 $357,300
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: $71,700 $255,880 $270,620
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $350,000 $350,000 $350,000
Capital Reserve Fund:
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund:
Restricted Debt Reserves:
Other Reserves*:
Total Reserves: $350,000 $350,000 $350,000
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 5% 5% 4%
District Name: City of Simi Valley
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $8,540,500 $9,185,400 $8,921,400 Current Bond Rating: AAA
Expenses: $8,544,900 $9,308,800 $9,470,700 Source: Standard & Poor's
Capital Improvements: $1,565,600 $0 $5,599,000
Reserves: $18,472,089 $14,932,107 $10,755,256
Transfers to General Fund $851,400 $906,600 $1,066,500
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $7,747,600 $8,440,600 $8,469,100
Fees: $492,900 $444,800 $259,000
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: (interest income) $300,000 $300,000 $193,300
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $2,678,740 $2,462,755 $2,545,073
Capital Reserve Fund: $15,793,349 $12,469,352 $8,210,183
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $18,472,089 $14,932,107 $10,755,256
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 216% 163% 121%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
District Name: City of Thousand Oaks
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $17,972,500 $19,721,100 $20,017,800 Current Bond Rating: None
Expenses: $17,816,782 $19,903,662 $20,759,761 Source: N/A
Capital Improvements: $12,148,600 $12,502,793 $14,498,876
Reserves: $34,479,319 $33,783,729 TBD*
Transfers to General Fund $194,586 $195,429 $202,500
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $24,551,300 $25,166,700 TBD*
Fees: $221,800 $286,200 TBD*
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: $30,828,000 $19,030,400 TBD* *unknown until 02/03 books closed.
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $3,442,000 $2,513,100 n/a
Capital Reserve Fund: $24,551,900 $35,766,700 n/a
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 n/a
Restricted Debt Reserves: $1,502,000 $1,502,000 $1,502,000
Other Reserves: $5,885,400 $5,885,400 n/a
Total Reserves: $35,381,300 $45,667,200 $1,502,000
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 197% 232% 8%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
District Name: Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $484,364 $394,405n/a Current Bond Rating: n/a
Expenses: $305,655 $186,221n/a Source: n/a
Capital Improvements: $0 $0n/a
Reserves: $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 n/a
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes:
Special Taxes:
Service Charges:
Fees: $454,364 $354,965n/a
Assessments:
Stand-by Charges:
Grants:
Other: $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Reserves
Operating Reserves:
Capital Reserve Fund:
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund:
Restricted Debt Reserves:
Other Reserves: $150,000
Total Reserves: $60,546 $49,301 $150,000
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 13% 13%n/a
District Name: Hidden Valley Municipal Water District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $56,627 $40,564 $30,000 Current Bond Rating: N/A
Expenses: $12,093 $33,933 $25,000 Source: N/A
Capital Improvements: $0 $0 $0
Reserves: $44,534 $6,631 $5,000
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $6,417 $4,276 $0
Special Taxes: $77 $66 $0
Service Charges: $0 $0 $0
Fees: $0 $0 $0
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $34,090 $28,074 $15,055
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: $16,043 $8,148 $0
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $44,375 $6,628 $4,998
Capital Reserve Fund: $334,153 $340,784 $345,784
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $378,528 $347,412 $350,782
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 668% 856% 1169%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
District Name: Lake Sherwood Community Service District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $1,650,144 $1,788,540 $2,017,625 Current Bond Rating: N/A
Expenses: $1,565,648 $1,537,907 $2,834,140 Source: N/A
Capital Improvements: $33,026 $21,294 $422,000
Reserves: $685,672 $899,615 $1,136,196
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $825,827 $1,011,104 $875,500
Fees: $0 $0 $0
Assessments: $688,246 $647,879 $1,066,425
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: $136,071 $129,557 $75,700
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Capital Reserve Fund: $0 $118,735 $118,118
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $107,055 $200,000 $200,000
Restricted Debt Reserves: $579,617 $580,880 $589,313
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $228,765
Total Reserves: $686,672 $899,615 $1,136,196
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 42% 50% 56%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
District Name: Meiners Oaks County Water District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: --- --- --- Current Bond Rating: n/a
Expenses: --- --- --- Source: n/a
Capital Improvements: --- --- ---
Reserves: --- --- ---
Transfers to General Fund --- --- ---
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $70,386 $23,967 $70,000
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $0 $0 $0
Fees: $394,096 $431,709 $421,993
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: (interest income) $114,595 $74,056 $80,000
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $251,000 $0 $0
Capital Reserve Fund: $320,229 $0 $0
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Other Reserves: $200,000 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $771,229 $0 $0
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: --- --- ---
District Name: Montalvo Municipal Improvement District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $481,586 $464,456 $439,450 Current Bond Rating: n/a
Expenses: $402,607 $406,557 $512,260 Source: n/a
Capital Improvements: $223,525 $126,843 $87,338
Reserves:
Transfers to General Fund
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $170,697 $178,169 $149,000
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $211,806 $224,695 $244,800
Fees: $8,950 $9,150 $8,500
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other (rental interest, misc.): $90,133 $51,942 $68,600
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $400,000 $400,000 $400,000
Capital Reserve Fund: $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Other Reserves*: $700,000 $700,000 $700,000
Total Reserves: $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 249% 258% 273%
* Other Reserves includes Flood Protection Contingency.
District Name: Ocean View Municipal Water District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $373,245 $347,666 $381,350 Current Bond Rating: n/a
Expenses: $378,562 $406,044 $437,445 Source: n/a
Capital Improvements: $0 $0 $0
Reserves: $251,297 $192,920 $136,825
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $740 $754 700
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $365,601 $342,490 $375,250
Fees: $0 $0 $0
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: (interest income) $6,904 $4,222 $5,400
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $192,920 $251,297 $242,088
Capital Reserve Fund:
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund:
Restricted Debt Reserves:
Other Reserves:
Total Reserves: $192,920 $251,297 $242,088
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 52% 72% 63%
District Name: Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $2,331 $33,623 $29,946 Current Bond Rating: n/a
Expenses: $35,789 $32,189 $31,232 Source: n/a
Capital Improvements: $0 $0 $0
Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $2,331 $33,623 $29,946
Fees: $0 $0 $0
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: $0 $0 $0
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Capital Reserve Fund: $0 $0 $800
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Other Reserves: $0 $5,000 $5,000
Total Reserves: $0 $5,000 $5,800
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 0% 15% 19%
District Name: Ojai Valley Sanitary District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $4,345,344 $4,629,722 $4,176,380 Current Bond Rating: AAA and Aaa
Expenses: $3,294,405 $3,958,457 $2,711,913 Source: Standard & Poor's and Moody's
Capital Improvements: $0 $2,034,653 $120,000
Reserves: $900,000 $650,000 $925,695
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources Ojai VSD Reserve Categories: 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003LAFO Reserve Category
Property Taxes: $275,078 $187,900 $239,700 Deferred Compensation: $287,767 $236,017 $257,739Other Reserves:
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0 SRF Loan Payment Reserve: $962,380 $1,132,580 $2,499,680Restricted Debt Reserves:
Service Charges: $4,172,482 $4,147,488 $4,176,380 Collection System Replacement Reserve: $4,074,236 $3,085,553 $3,044,542Capital Reserve Fund:
Fees: $216,575 $136,582 $471,350 SDS Reserve: $219,984 $223,710 $124,627Other Reserves:
Assessments: $59,750 $60,175 $56,806 Collection System Capacity Reserve: $43,548 $71,759 $73,438Capital Reserve Fund:
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0 Equipment Replacement Reserve: $251,965 $282,502 $199,887Capital Reserve Fund:
Grants: $0 $0 $0 Treatment Plant Expansion Reserve: $2,342,376 $2,325,991 $2,021,765Capital Reserve Fund:
Other: $0 $0 $0 Vehicle Replacement: $5,135,480 $5,637,451 $119,064Capital Reserve Fund:
Treatment Plant Capital Replacement Reserve: $0 $0 $5,924,152Capital Reserve Fund:
Reserves Building Reserve $0 $0 $10,105Capital Reserve Fund:
Operating Reserves: $1,297,957 $1,792,704 $1,869,710 Bond Issue Cash- M.O.: $153,030 $133,243 $101,297Restricted Debt Reserves:
Capital Reserve Fund: $14,002,694 $12,836,971 $12,196,286 1927 Rehab Trustee Funds: $609,407 $644,734 $647,303Operating Reserves:
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $1 $2 1927 Rehab Payment Reserve: $688,550 $1,147,970 $1,222,407Operating Reserves:
Restricted Debt Reserves: $1,115,410 $1,265,823 $2,601,203 2003 Bond Reserve Fund: $0 $0 $226Restricted Debt Reserves:
Other Reserves: $507,751 $459,727 $382,366 Treatment Plant Upgrade Reserve: $2,155,088 $1,433,714 $803,332Capital Reserve Fund:
Total Reserves: $16,923,811 $16,355,226 $17,049,566 Total Reserved Cash: $16,923,811 $16,355,225 $17,049,564
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 389% 353% 408%
District Name: Ojai Water Conservation District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $4,302 $5,000 $5,000 Current Bond Rating: n/a
Expenses: $3,091 $5,035 $5,035 Source: n/a
Capital Improvements:
Reserves:
Transfers to General Fund
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $3,911
Special Taxes:
Service Charges:
Fees:
Assessments:
Stand-by Charges:
Grants:
Other: (interest income) $391
Reserves
Operating Reserves:
Capital Reserve Fund:
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund:
Restricted Debt Reserves:
Other Reserves:
Total Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 0% 0% 0%
District Name: Pleasant Valley County Water District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $1,619,000 $1,817,400 $2,169,600 Current Bond Rating: N/A
Expenses: $2,139,000 $2,157,000 $2,601,800 Source: N/A
Capital Improvements: $1,265,000 $111,500 $111,500
Reserves: $646,500 $451,100 $543,900
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $98,170 $107,500 $166,000
Special Taxes: $110,510 $129,000 $90,000
Service Charges: $1,442,490 $1,772,000 $1,868,000
Fees: $11,600 $8,880 $8,400
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: (interest income) $150,240 $114,000 $137,000
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $4,715,400 $4,772,700 $4,313,800
Capital Reserve Fund: $0 $0 $0
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $750,000 $750,000 $750,000
Restricted Debt Reserves: $80,600 $89,400 $79,400
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $5,546,000 $5,612,100 $5,143,200
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 343% 309% 237%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
District Name: Saticoy Sanitary District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $595,921 $681,264 $4,800,000 Current Bond Rating: n/a
Expenses: $89,374 $102,425 $4,878,000 Source: n/a
Capital Improvements: $239,326 $508,833 $4,660,000
Reserves:
Transfers to General Fund
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $16,000 $16,000 Note: Revenue sources submitted as an attachment
Special Taxes: not labeled for year. Revenue sources distribution
Service Charges: shown assumes "First Year of Full Operation"
Fees: $228,017 $204,500 is 2001 - 2002.
Assessments:
Stand-by Charges:
Grants:
Other: (interest income)
Reserves
Operating Reserves:
Capital Reserve Fund:
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund:
Restricted Debt Reserves:
Other Reserves:
Total Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 0% 0% 0%
District Name: Triunfo Sanitation District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $10,016,160 $11,552,611 $11,478,498 Current Bond Rating: A=; AAA
Expenses: $7,779,626 $8,763,265 $8,763,265 Source: Standard & Poor's
Capital Improvements: $1,977,000 $2,476,000 $3,893,981
Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $3,857,000 $3,810,000 $3,800,000
Fees: $5,963,000 $7,160,020 $7,100,000
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: (Interest income & other) $188,000 $577,000 $450,000
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Capital Reserve Fund: $1,984,240 $3,039,574 $2,726,452
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $1,984,240 $3,039,574 $2,726,452
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 20% 26% 24%
Water Rates:
District Name: United Water Conservation District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $8,935,453 $10,482,426 $14,243,195 Current Bond Rating: AAA
Expenses: $9,684,715 $9,491,591 $9,302,422 Source: Standard & Poor's
Capital Improvements: $992,812 $863,380 $5,281,676
Reserves: $6,846,147 $9,244,282 $6,618,570
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $1,088,821 $1,172,599 $1,249,740
Special Taxes: $53,748 $409,533 $548,768
Service Charges: $6,116,517 $7,210,247 $7,007,882
Fees: $0 $0 $0
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $69,097 $153,627 $4,045,464
Other: (interest income) $1,607,360 $1,536,420 $1,391,341
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $3,851,444 $5,411,565 $4,795,161
Capital Reserve Fund: $794,741 $1,732,150 $0
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $710,011 $710,011 $710,011
Other Reserves: $1,489,951 $1,390,465 $1,113,398
Total Reserves: $6,846,147 $9,244,191 $6,618,570
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 77% 88% 46%
District Name: Ventura County Service Area No. 29
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary**
Revenues: $358,068 $359,346 $355,300 Current Bond Rating: A and A2
Expenses: $275,082 $329,243 $445,740 Source: Moody's; Standard & Poor's
Capital Improvements: $0 $27,772 $40,000
Reserves: $182,639 $222,512 $250,416
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $334,871 $343,128 $345,200
Fees: $0 $0 $0
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $450 $450 $500
Grants: $0 $0 $0
*Other: $22,747 $15,768 $9,600
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Capital Reserve Fund: $132,639 $152,512 $170,416
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $30,000 $50,000 $60,000
Restricted Debt Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $58,140
Total Reserves: $182,639 $222,512 $308,556
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 51% 62% 87%
* Note: Other Revenue Source is interest income.
**Note: Bond Summary is for the County; District Bond Summary is N/A.
District Name: Ventura County Service Area No. 30
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $274,387 $282,297 $279,100 Current Bond Rating: A and A2
Expenses: $227,814 $228,810 $382,260 Source: Moody's; Standard & Poor's
Capital Improvements: $0 $0 $50,000
Reserves: $143,000 $168,593 $270,400
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $236,879 $241,098 $238,800
Fees: $0 $0 $0
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $390 $390 $400
Grants: $0 $16,210 $0
*Other: $25,118 $24,599 $39,900
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Capital Reserve Fund: $118,400 $133,593 $215,400
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $20,000 $30,000 $50,000
Restricted Debt Reserves: $0 $0 $49,860
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $143,400 $168,593 $320,260
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 52% 60% 115%
District Name: Ventura County Service Area 32
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $20,017 $15,093 $4,967 Current Bond Rating: AAAF
Expenses: $11,507 $31,520 $1,634 Source: Standard & Poor's
Capital Improvements: $0 $0 $0
Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $1,968 $1,920 $1,247
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $0 $0 $0
Fees: $4,221 $3,765 $1,995
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: $13,828 $9,408 $1,725
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $28,522 $8,944 $32,174
Capital Reserve Fund: $26,100 $26,100 $26,100
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Other Reserves: $150,972 $162,482 $141,201
Total Reserves: $205,594 $197,526 $199,475
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 1027% 1309% 4016%
District Name: Waterworks District #1
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $12,852,545 $11,854,958 $11,723,448 Current Bond Rating: N/A
Expenses: $16,759,989 $13,938,822 $23,512,476 Source: N/A
Capital Improvements: $7,534,525 $2,662,529 $9,144,000
Reserves: $10,091,084 $16,158,089 $20,609,442
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $95,034 $30,341 $29,098
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $9,609,076 $10,261,207 $9,687,500
Fees: $806,988 $758,770 $1,077,400
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $4,764 $5,559 $4,500
Grants: $545,668 $0 $0
Other: $1,791,015 $799,081 $924,950
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $821,200 $368,000 $500,000
Capital Reserve Fund: $4,027,934 $10,463,599 $13,127,905
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $5,156,600 $5,309,500 $5,500,000
Restricted Debt Reserves: $85,350 $16,990 $20,725
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $1,460,812
Total Reserves: $10,091,084 $16,158,089 $20,609,442
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 79% 136% 176%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
District Name: Waterworks District No. 8
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $16,676,900 $18,841,600 $18,284,600 Current Bond Rating: AAA
Expenses: $17,381,600 $19,479,400 $19,357,900 Source: Standard & Poors
Capital Improvements: $0 $2,370,000 $954,000
Reserves: $1,105,351 $1,200,859 $985,575
Transfers to General Fund $1,081,700 $1,144,200 $1,254,900
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $15,803,500 $18,262,900 $17,931,500
Fees: $87,000 $39,000 $25,000
Assessments: $17,600 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $8,300 $7,000
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: $768,800 $531,400 $321,100
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $851,314 $541,080 $47,279
Capital Reserve Fund: $5,522,443 $3,532,889 $1,794,591
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $0 $0 $0
Restricted Debt Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $6,373,757 $4,073,969 $1,841,870
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 38% 22% 10%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge: $24
Commodity charge: $1 0 to 55 BU per BU
$2 In excess thereof per BU
District Name: Ventura County Water Works District No. 16
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $204,567 $259,008 $2,224,327 Current Bond Rating: A and A2
Expenses: $174,905 $280,012 $2,434,994 Source: Moody's; Standard & Poor's
Capital Improvements: $0 $39,052 $2,025,000
Reserves: $246,428 $161,580 $181,656
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $16,309 $25,792 $2,827
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $155,258 $166,694 $16,429
Fees: $0 $2,500 $210,000
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $3,839 $3,418 $3,371
Grants: $438 $42,190 $210,000
Other: $28,723 $18,410 $1,827,700
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Capital Reserve Fund: $142,500 $105,900 $105,900
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $86,578 $62,156 $75,756
Restricted Debt Reserves: $17,350 $21,620 $0
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves: $246,428 $189,676 $181,656
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 120% 73% 8%
District Name: Waterworks District #17
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $1,459,008 $1,515,537 $1,323,900 Current Bond Rating: N/A
Expenses: $1,398,404 $1,617,652 $1,854,272 Source: N/A
Capital Improvements: $52,120 $106,101 $243,000
Reserves: $1,086,686 $1,260,558 $1,444,230
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $1,312,720 $1,409,883 $1,240,778
Fees: $0 $0 $0
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $16,546 $15,600 $14,922
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: $129,742 $90,054 $68,200
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $185,300 $115,300 $115,700
Capital Reserve Fund: $507,186 $759,258 $759,258
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $394,200 $386,000 $433,900
Restricted Debt Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $135,372
Total Reserves: $1,086,686 $1,260,558 $1,444,230
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 74% 83% 109%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
District Name: Waterworks District #19
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $1,670,678 $1,766,371 $1,429,800 Current Bond Rating: N/A
Expenses: $1,528,655 $1,498,677 $3,086,562 Source: N/A
Capital Improvements: $84,006 $97,838 $1,022,000
Reserves: $1,731,343 $1,784,274 $2,122,470
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $1,492,510 $1,597,598 $1,351,600
Fees: $10,000 $28,000 $4,000
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $33,681 $0
Other: $168,168 $117,092 $74,200
Reserves
Operating Reserves: $324,666 $295,579 $300,000
Capital Reserve Fund: $804,505 $883,300 $900,279
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund: $512,800 $589,100 $514,100
Restricted Debt Reserves: $89,372 $16,295 $16,518
Other Reserves: $0 $0 $391,573
Total Reserves: $1,731,343 $1,784,274 $2,122,470
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 104% 101% 148%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
District Name: Ventura Regional Sanitation District
Financial Summary
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Bond Summary
Revenues: $4,969,149 $5,113,311 $5,038,230 Current Bond Rating: N/A
Expenses: $4,969,149 $5,997,549 $523,667 Source: N/A
Capital Improvements: $67,885 $416,032 $62,309
Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Transfers to General Fund $0 $0 $0
Revenue Sources
Property Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Special Taxes: $0 $0 $0
Service Charges: $3,735,720 $4,042,311 $5,038,230
Fees: $1,233,429 $1,071,000 $0
Assessments: $0 $0 $0
Stand-by Charges: $0 $0 $0
Grants: $0 $0 $0
Other: $0 $0 $0
Reserves
Operating Reserves:
Capital Reserve Fund:
Operating and Rate Stabilization Fund:
Restricted Debt Reserves:
Other Reserves:
Total Reserves: $0 $0 $0
Total Reserves as % of Total Revenue: 0% 0% 0%
Water Rates for SFD Residential, 5/8th" to 1" Meters
Service charge:
Commodity charge:
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX BB
AAGGEENNCCYY DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
Determinations are based on data provided by agencies.
1) CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Calleguas MWD has a Water Master Plan, adopted in 1999, and an
Urban Water Management Plan.
2. That the Calleguas MWD bases its assessment of future water needs on water
demand projections forwarded by its member agencies. Current storage
capacity is 20 days of supply.
3. That the Calleguas MWD annually updates its list of infrastructure needs.
4. That the Calleguas MWD recognizes the regional need for managing water
resources.
5. That the Calleguas MWD is a participant in the Calleguas Creek Watershed
Management Plan which addresses long range comprehensive water resources.
6. That the Calleguas MWD currently has adequate water resources for member
agencies.
7. That ensuring that adequate water sources and supply will continue to be a major
concern of the Calleguas MWD and other agencies in Ventura County.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Calleguas MWD uses SCAG and Census data for population
projections.
2. That the Calleguas MWD also relies on land use decisions by local agencies for
population projections.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Calleguas MWD prepares a comprehensive annual budget and has
adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent
with need.
2. That the Calleguas MWD maintains reserve funds for infrastructure needs and
for insurance.
3. That the Calleguas MWD has issued bonds to finance some capital
improvements.
4. That the Calleguas MWD maintains a Capital Improvement Plan and identifies
potential sources of funding.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the budget process of the Calleguas MWD includes cost/benefit
assessment by staff, management and Board members to ensure costs are
avoided.
2. That the Calleguas MWD uses cost sharing programs with other agencies
wherever possible such as the watershed plan.
3. That the Calleguas MWD uses contractors for services when shown to be cost
effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Calleguas MWD are set through a public process.
2. That the Calleguas MWD has established a two-tiered rate structure and a
revision of the Capital Construction Charge both of which encourage
conservation of water resources.
January 2004 Page B-1
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
3. That the Calleguas MWD regularly examines the existing fee structure to ensure
fair and equitable rates.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Calleguas MWD currently participates in joint ventures and cooperatives
with other agencies such as MET and member agencies.
2. That the Calleguas MWD collaborates with agencies in a variety of planning,
conservation and watershed programs.
3. That the Calleguas MWD has identified increased reservoir capacity as a
potential opportunity for future shared facilities.
4. That the Calleguas MWD has identified and is implementing methods of
increasing reclaimed water use among member agencies.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Calleguas MWD imports water to member agencies and duplication of
its services does not exist; governmental structure options with other wholesale
water agencies have not been explored.
2. That the Calleguas MWD believes that consolidation of some of its retail
agencies within its service area might result in improvements in water quality,
financial efficiency and system reliability.
3. That the Calleguas MWD should analyze the economic and financial impacts of
charges for areas annexing into its service area and into the service area of
Metropolitan Water District (MET).
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the Calleguas MWD is adequate to
serve the present and future needs of the agency.
2. That the Calleguas MWD has current management, interdepartmental and inter-
agency practices and procedures appropriate to and efficient for its water
service.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Calleguas MWD 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. That the Board members of the Calleguas MWD are elected and only one
elected Board member ran unopposed during the last two election cycles.
3. That the agency has a website and posts information on it for their customers.
Page B-2 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
2) CAMARILLO SANITARY DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Camarillo SD has a Master Plan, adopted in 1999, which assesses the
infrastructure needs and deficiencies in the existing system and projects future
needs.
2. That the Camarillo SD bases its assessment of future wastewater needs on the
City’s General Plan, the Master Plan and on Community Development
Department totals of building activity.
3. That the Camarillo SD annually updates its list of infrastructure needs.
4. That the Camarillo SD has adequate wastewater resources for current and future
development.
5. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements will continue to be a
concern of the Camarillo SD and other agencies in Ventura County.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Camarillo SD bases growth and population projections on completed
and pending building activity and annexations.
2. That the Camarillo SD is limited by ordinance to adding 450 units per year.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Camarillo SD prepares a comprehensive annual budget and has
adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent
with need.
2. That the Camarillo SD maintains an annual Capital Improvement Plan and
identifies funding for projects.
3. That the Camarillo SD requires that new development pay appropriate fees and
charges to ensure cost recovery.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Camarillo SD uses contractors for services when shown to be cost
effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Camarillo SD are set through a public process.
2. That the Camarillo SD is currently analyzing the existing fee structure to ensure
fair and equitable rates.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Camarillo SD currently participates with the Camrosa WD for the use of
reclaimed water.
2. That the Camarillo SD collaborates with agencies in watershed programs.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Camarillo SD should investigate the potential benefits, if any, of a
reorganization of the District with the City of Camarillo and/or the Camrosa WD.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the Camarillo SD is adequate to serve
the present and future needs of the agency.
January 2004 Page B-3
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
2. That the Camarillo SD has current management, interdepartmental and inter-
agency practices and procedures appropriate to and efficient for its service.
3. That the Camarillo SD uses outside vendors and contracting agencies to provide
more efficient services.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Camarillo SD 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. That the Board members of the Camarillo SD are elected and no Board member
ran unopposed.
3. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
Page B-4 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
3) CAMROSA WATER DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Camrosa WD is currently revising its water and wastewater Master
Plans, adopted in 1990 and 1991 respectively, to assess the infrastructure needs
and deficiencies in the existing systems and project service demand.
2. That the Camrosa WD bases its assessment of future wastewater needs on the
land use policies and decisions of the City of Camarillo and Ventura County.
3. That the Camrosa WD annually updates its list of infrastructure needs.
4. That the Camrosa WD provides service to any requesting parcel, which meets
the connection criteria; the District has adequate water and wastewater
resources for current and future development.
5. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements will continue to be a
concern of the Camrosa WD and other agencies in Ventura County.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Camrosa WD bases growth and population projections on estimates
provided by the City of Camarillo, Calleguas MWD and Ventura County.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Camrosa WD prepares a comprehensive annual budget and has
adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure funds concurrent with need.
2. That the Camrosa WD maintains an annual Capital Improvement Plan and
identifies funding for projects.
3. That the Camrosa WD requires that new development pay appropriate fees and
charges to ensure cost recovery.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Camrosa WD uses its annual budget process to identify cost avoidance
opportunities.
2. That the Camrosa WD uses outside vendors and contractors for services when
shown to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Camrosa WD are set through a public process.
2. That the Camrosa WD annually analyzes the existing fee structure to ensure fair
and equitable rates.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Camrosa WD is currently investigating cooperative projects with the City
of Camarillo to reduce costs for wastewater treatment and reclaimed water.
2. That the Camrosa WD uses the Ventura Regional Sanitation District for some
staff functions and for maintenance of equipment and contracts with Ventura
County staff for backflow monitoring services.
3. That the Camrosa WD collaborates with other agencies as appropriate and as
deemed efficient, i.e., watershed programs.
January 2004 Page B-5
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Camrosa WD provides water and wastewater services to residents of
the City of Camarillo and to residents in the unincorporated areas of Ventura
County.
2. That the Camrosa WD should explore the potential benefits, if any, that might
result from a reorganization with the city of Camarillo and the Camarillo SD.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the Camrosa WD is adequate to serve
the present and future needs of the agency.
2. That the Camrosa WD has current management, interdepartmental and inter-
agency practices and procedures appropriate to and efficient for its service.
3. That the Camrosa WD uses outside vendors and contracting agencies to provide
more efficient services.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Camrosa WD 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. That all of the Board members of the Camrosa WD are elected and one Board
member ran unopposed in the previous election.
3. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
Page B-6 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
4) CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Casitas MWD assesses its current and future infrastructure needs and
deficiencies on its annual CIP program.
2. That adequate water sources and supply will continue to be a major concern of
the Casitas MWD.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. No information was provided.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Casitas MWD prepares a comprehensive annual budget.
2. That the Casitas MWD maintains reserve funds for infrastructure needs and for
insurance.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Casitas MWD noted that it sends projects over $35,000 through a public
bidding process.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Casitas MWD are set through a public process.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Casitas MWD should examine the possibility of developing reclaimed
water sources with other agencies in the Ojai Valley.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Casitas MWD should participate in a committee to study the potential
reorganization of water service providers in the Ojai Valley area.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the Casitas MWD noted that in the past year it has decreased staff by 30%,
has ensured that the provision of recreational services are self-supporting, has
built the largest treatment plant in Ventura County at 33% of the cost of a typical
plant, has saved adequate reserves for emergencies and has maintained funding
for ongoing maintenance and needed system upgrades.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Board members of the Casitas MWD are elected.
2. That the Casitas MWD holds regularly scheduled meetings.
3. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
4. No additional information regarding local accountability and governance was
provided by the Casitas MWD.
January 2004 Page B-7
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
5) CHANNEL ISLANDS BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Channel Islands Beach CSD is a participant in the Port Hueneme Water
Agency, which assesses infrastructure needs and deficiencies.
2. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements as well as ensuring an
adequate supply of water will continue to be a concern of the Channel Islands
Beach CSD.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. The District is nearly built-out and relies on the Channel Islands Harbor Master
Plan and the Ventura County Public Works plan to project future growth.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Channel Islands Beach CSD prepares an annual budget.
2. That the Channel Islands Beach CSD maintains an annual Capital Improvement
Plan and has adequate reserves.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Channel Islands Beach CSD uses contractors for services when shown
to be cost effective; currently it participates in the Port Hueneme Water Agency
as well as numerous other service agreements for the provision of water and
wastewater services.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Channel Islands Beach CSD are tiered to
encourage conservation.
2. That the Channel Islands Beach CSD annually analyzes the existing fee
structure.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Channel Islands Beach CSD currently is a participant in the Port
Hueneme Water Agency which is considering participation in the City of Oxnard’s
GREAT program.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Channel Island Beach CSD should participate in discussion with the
Cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme regarding cost-effective alternatives for
future provision.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the Channel Islands Beach CSD is
adequate at this time to serve the present needs of the agency.
2. That the Channel Islands Beach CSD uses outside vendors and contracting
agencies to provide more efficient services.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Channel Islands Beach CSD Board is locally accountable through
adherence to applicable government code sections, open and accessible
Page B-8 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
meetings, and dissemination of information and encouragement of participation
in their process.
2. That the Channel Islands Beach CSD holds regularly scheduled meetings at a
time and place that encourages public participation.
3. That the Board members of the Channel Islands Beach CSD are elected.
January 2004 Page B-9
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
6) CITY OF CAMARILLO
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the City of Camarillo prepared a water Master Plan in 1996 to assess the
infrastructure needs and deficiencies in the existing systems and project service
demand.
2. That the City of Camarillo bases its assessment of future water needs on the
General Plan and water Master Plan.
3. That the City of Camarillo annually updates its list of infrastructure needs.
4. That the City of Camarillo has adequate water resources for current and future
development.
5. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements and water needs will
continue to be a concern of the City of Camarillo and other agencies in Ventura
County.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the City of Camarillo bases growth and population projections on completed
and pending building activity and annexations.
2. That the City of Camarillo is limited by ordinance to adding 450 units per year.
3. That the City of Camarillo’s General Plan and Housing Element identifies
development potential for specific areas which is also used to project future
demand for water service.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the City of Camarillo prepares a comprehensive annual budget and has
adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent
with need.
2. That the City of Camarillo maintains an annual Capital Improvement Plan and
identifies funding for projects.
3. That the City of Camarillo requires that new development pay appropriate fees
and charges to ensure cost recovery.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the City of Camarillo uses contractors for services which are shown to be
cost effective.
2. That the City of Camarillo uses their budget process and internal cost/benefit
procedures to evaluate costs savings of programs and alternatives.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the City of Camarillo are set through a public process.
2. That the City of Camarillo annually analyzes the existing fee structure to ensure a
continued level of service and infrastructure maintenance.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the City of Camarillo collaborates with agencies as appropriate.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the City of Camarillo should explore the potential benefits, if any, of a
reorganization with the Camarillo SD and the Camrosa WD.
Page B-10 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the City of Camarillo is adequate to
serve the present and future needs of the agency.
2. That the City of Camarillo has current management, interdepartmental and inter-
agency practices and procedures appropriate to and efficient for its service.
3. That the City of Camarillo uses outside vendors and contracting agencies to
provide more efficient services.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the City of Camarillo City Council 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. That the City Council of the City of Camarillo is elected and no City Council
member ran unopposed.
3. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
January 2004 Page B-11
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
7) CITY OF FILLMORE
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the City of Fillmore has significant infrastructure issues with its wastewater
service provision.
2. That adequate water sources and supply will continue to be a major concern of
the City of Fillmore.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That there may be the potential for growth of the City’s population based on a
suggested revision of its sphere of influence.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the City of Fillmore prepares an annual budget.
2. That the continued implementation of regulations regarding water quality will
create financing constraints for the provision of wastewater services.
3. That the City of Fillmore maintains some reserve funds for infrastructure needs.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the City of Fillmore uses contractors for services when shown to be cost
effective; currently the wastewater treatment plant is operated by private
contractors.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the City of Fillmore are set through a public process.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the City of Fillmore should continue to pursue the possibility of developing
joint wastewater facilities with the City of Santa Paula or other means to ensure
that services are provide concurrent with need.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That government structure options for the City of Fillmore are limited regarding
the provision of water and wastewater services. The City is currently examining
the feasibility of a JPA with the City of Santa Paula.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the City of Fillmore currently has current a management structure adequate
at this time for the provision of water and wastewater.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the City Council of the City of Fillmore is elected.
2. That the City of Fillmore holds regularly scheduled meetings.
3. That the agency has a website and posts appropriate information on it for their
residents.
Page B-12 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
8) CITY OF OXNARD
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the City of Oxnard adopted a wastewater Master Plan and a water Master
Plan in 2003.
2. That the City recently completed a comprehensive and regional analysis of future
water service provision.
3. That the City of Oxnard bases its assessment of future service needs on its
General Plan.
4. That the City of Oxnard annually updates its list of infrastructure needs.
5. That meeting future regulatory requirements for water quality and ensuring an
adequate supply of water are ongoing concerns of the City of Oxnard.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the City of Oxnard bases growth and population projections on its General
Plan and zoning.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the City of Oxnard prepares a comprehensive annual budget and has
adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent
with need.
2. That the City of Oxnard maintains an annual Capital Improvement Plan and
identifies funding for projects.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the City of Oxnard uses contractors and outside vendors for services when
shown to be cost effective.
2. That the City of Oxnard uses their budget process and internal cost/benefit
procedures to evaluate cost savings of programs and alternatives.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the City of Oxnard are set through a public process.
2. That the City of Oxnard annually analyzes fees to ensure that funds are available
concurrent with need.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the City of Oxnard collaborates with agencies in multiple ways—through
existing agreements and facilities as well as providing for future opportunities
through its Groundwater Recovery Enhancement and Treatment (GREAT)
program.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the City of Oxnard should participate in a LAFCO study to examine the
dissolution of the Ocean View MWD.
2. That the City of Oxnard should participate in discussions regarding the Channel
Islands Beach CSD.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the City of Oxnard is adequate to
serve the present and future needs of the agency.
January 2004 Page B-13
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
2. That the City of Oxnard has current management, interdepartmental and inter-
agency practices and procedures appropriate to and efficient for its service.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the City of Oxnard City Council 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. That the City of Oxnard holds regularly scheduled meetings at a time and place
that encourages public participation.
3. That the City Council of the City of Oxnard is elected and no City Council
member ran unopposed.
4. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
Page B-14 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
9) CITY OF PORT HUENEME
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the City of Port Hueneme adopted a wastewater Master Plan in 2002 and a
water Master Plan in 2002.
2. That the City of Port Hueneme is a member of the Port Hueneme Water Agency
which works regional to ensure the efficient provision of water service.
3. That the City of Port Hueneme bases its assessment of future service needs on
its General Plan.
4. That the City of Port Hueneme annually updates its list of infrastructure needs.
5. That meeting future water quality requirements and ensuring an adequate supply
of water are ongoing concerns of the City of Port Hueneme.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the City of Port Hueneme bases growth and population projections on its
General Plan and zoning as well as DOF and SCAG projections.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the City of Port Hueneme prepares a comprehensive annual budget and
has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds
concurrent with need.
2. That the City of Port Hueneme maintains an annual Capital Improvement Plan
and identifies funding for projects.
3. That the City of Port Hueneme pursues grant funding wherever possible.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the City of Port Hueneme uses contractors and outside vendors for services
when shown to be cost effective.
2. That the City of Port Hueneme uses their budget process and internal
cost/benefit procedures to evaluate cost savings of programs and alternatives.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the City of Port Hueneme recently completed a water rate study that was
implemented in 2003.
2. That the City of Port Hueneme annually analyzes fees to ensure that funds are
available concurrent with need.
3. That the City is in the process of obtaining money to install water meters to help
encourage conservation and lower rates.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the City of Port Hueneme collaborates with agencies as appropriate
including the PHWA and the City of Oxnard as well as numerous other
agreements.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the City of Port Hueneme has limited government structure options open to
it.
2. That the City of Port Hueneme should participate in discussions regarding the
Channel Islands Beach CSD.
January 2004 Page B-15
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the City of Port Hueneme is adequate
to serve the present and future needs of the agency.
2. That the City of Port Hueneme has current management, interdepartmental and
inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate to and efficient for its service.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the City of Port Hueneme City Council 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. That the City of Port Hueneme holds regularly scheduled meetings at a time and
place that encourages public participation.
3. That the City Council of the City of Port Hueneme is elected and no City Council
member ran unopposed.
4. That the City has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
Page B-16 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
10) CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the City of San Buenaventura adopted a wastewater Master Plan in 1997
and a water Master Plan in 1993.
2. That the City of San Buenaventura bases its assessment of future service needs
on its General Plan.
3. That the City of San Buenaventura annually updates its list of infrastructure
needs.
4. That meeting future regulatory requirements and ensuring an adequate supply of
water are ongoing concerns of the City of San Buenaventura.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the City of San Buenaventura bases growth and population projections on
its General Plan and zoning.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. No information was provided by the City.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the City of San Buenaventura uses contractors and outside vendors for
services when shown to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the City of San Buenaventura are set through a public
process.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. No information was provided by the City.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the City of San Buenaventura should examine the potential advantages of
reorganizing with the Montalvo MID and the Saticoy SD.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. No information was provided by the City.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the City of San Buenaventura City Council 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. That the City of San Buenaventura holds regularly scheduled meetings at a time
and place that encourages public participation.
3. That the City Council of the City of San Buenaventura is elected and no City
Council member ran unopposed.
4. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
January 2004 Page B-17
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
11) CITY OF SANTA PAULA
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the City of Santa Paula has significant infrastructure deficiencies with its
current wastewater treatment system.
2. That meeting future regulatory requirements and ensuring an adequate supply of
water are ongoing concerns of the City of Santa Paula.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the City of Santa Paula bases growth and population projections on its
General Plan and zoning.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the City of Santa Paula prepares a comprehensive annual budget.
2. That the City of Santa Paula has financing constraints in upgrading current
wastewater facilities.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the City of Santa Paula uses contractors and outside vendors for services
when shown to be cost effective; currently its wastewater treatment plant is
operated by a private contractor.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the City of Santa Paula are set through a public
process.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the City of Santa Paula collaborates with agencies as appropriate; it is
considering the feasibility of a JPA with the City of Fillmore for the provision of
wastewater services.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the City of Santa Paula should aggressively continue to pursue the possible
development of a joint wastewater treatment plant with the City of Fillmore.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the City of Santa Paula is adequate to
serve the present needs of the agency.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the City of Santa Paula City Council 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. That the City of Santa Paula holds regularly scheduled meetings at a time and
place that encourages public participation.
3. That the City Council of the City of Santa Paula is elected and no City Council
member ran unopposed.
4. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
Page B-18 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
12) CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the City of Simi Valley prepared a wastewater Master Plan in 1985.
2. That the City of Simi Valley bases its assessment of future service needs on the
General Plan.
3. That the City of Simi Valley annually updates its list of infrastructure needs.
4. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements and service demands
will continue to be a concern of the City of Simi Valley.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the City of Simi Valley bases growth and population projections on the
General Plan and specific project plans.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the City of Simi Valley prepares a comprehensive annual budget and has
adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent
with need.
2. That the City of Simi Valley maintains an annual Capital Improvement Plan and
identifies funding for projects.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the City of Simi Valley uses contractors and outside vendors for services
when proven to be cost effective.
2. That the City of Simi Valley uses their budget process and internal cost/benefit
procedures to evaluate cost savings of programs and alternatives.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the City of Simi Valley are set through a public
process.
2. That the City of Simi Valley is currently analyzing water fees to ensure that funds
are available concurrent with need.
3. That the City of Simi Valley work with Ventura County Waterworks District #8 and
private water purveyors to ensure uniformity of rates to residents.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the City of Simi Valley collaborates with agencies as appropriate.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the City of Simi Valley should analyze the cost savings and potential
increase in efficiency that could be gained through a reorganization with
Waterworks District #8 and/or the Southern California Water Company.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the City of Simi Valley is adequate to
serve the present and future needs of the agency.
2. That the City of Simi Valley has current management, interdepartmental and
inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate to and efficient for its service.
January 2004 Page B-19
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the City of Simi Valley City Council 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. That the City Council of the City of Simi Valley is elected and no City Council
member ran unopposed.
3. That the agency has a website and posts information on it for their customers.
Page B-20 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
13) CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the City of Thousand Oaks prepared a wastewater Master Plan in 2002 and
is currently updating its water Master Plan.
2. That the City of Thousand Oaks bases its assessment of future service needs on
the General Plan.
3. That the City of Thousand Oaks annually updates its list of infrastructure needs.
4. That meeting future regulatory requirements is an ongoing concern of the City of
Thousand Oaks.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the City of Thousand Oaks bases growth and population projections on the
growth control ordinance and zoning.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the City of Thousand Oaks prepares a comprehensive annual budget and
has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds
concurrent with need.
2. That the City of Thousand Oaks maintains an annual Capital Improvement Plan
and identifies funding for projects.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the City of Thousand Oaks uses contractors and outside vendors for
services when shown to be cost effective.
2. That the City of Thousand Oaks uses their budget process and internal
cost/benefit procedures to evaluate cost savings of programs and alternatives.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the City of Thousand Oaks are set through a public
process.
2. That the City of Thousand Oaks recently analyzed water fees to ensure that
funds are available concurrent with need.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the City of Thousand Oaks collaborates with agencies as appropriate.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. None were noted.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the City of Thousand Oaks is
adequate to serve the present and future needs of the agency.
2. That the City of Thousand Oaks has current management, interdepartmental and
inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate to and efficient for its service.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the City of Thousand Oaks City Council is locally accountable through
adherence to applicable government code sections, open and accessible
January 2004 Page B-21
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
meetings, and dissemination of information and encouragement of participation
in their process.
2. That the City Council of the City of Thousand Oaks is elected and no City Council
member ran unopposed.
3. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
Page B-22 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
14) FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency’s Water Management
Plan lists prioritized goals and is intended to be consistent with Ventura County’s
General Plan and the Well Ordinance.
2. That the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency’s regulations have
priority over some local laws.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency bases growth and
population projections on Department of Finance and Ventura County figures.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That law limits the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency management
fee of $3.00/AF. Pump fees and penalties for over pumping are the only
additional source of income.
2. That the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency should analyze fees
and expected expenses to ensure that adequate funds are provided concurrent
with need and with responsibilities.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency has a staff of one full-
time and one shared position with limited opportunities for avoiding costs.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the pumping fees of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency are
set by its enabling legislation.
2. That the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency should begin the
process to raise its management fee to ensure that in the future adequate funds
are available for services.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency shares fiscal, legal,
facility space and personnel with Ventura County and collaborates with local
water retailers and cities as appropriate.
2. That the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency should explore sharing
resources with member agencies for special studies, conservation plans and
staffing.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency provides unique
services regarding groundwater and government structure options are limited.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency has current
management, interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures
appropriate to and efficient for its service.
January 2004 Page B-23
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency 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.
Page B-24 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
15) HIDDEN VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Hidden Valley Municipal Water District monitors growth and
development, water demand and water supplies to 37 ranches.
2. That the Hidden Valley Municipal Water District should begin to ensure that all
wells within the agency are metered, that accurate records of pumping are kept
and that an emergency water supply is identified.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Hidden Valley Municipal Water District bases growth and population
projections on Ventura County figures.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Hidden Valley MWD receives property tax but does not provide direct
service to residents.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the fees of the Hidden Valley Municipal Water District are set through a
public process and are adequate at this time.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. None were noted.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. None were noted.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. None were noted.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Hidden Valley Municipal Water 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. All Board members have been elected; none were appointed.
2. That the Hidden Valley MWD should provide an agency website for their
customers.
January 2004 Page B-25
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
16) LAKE SHERWOOD COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That a water master plan was prepared for the Lake Sherwood Community
Facilities District and that Ventura County ensures that all subsequent
development is consistent with the master plan.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Lake Sherwood Community Facilities District bases growth and
population projections on Ventura County and SCAG figures.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the Lake Sherwood Community Facilities District fees are set through a
public process and are adequate at this time.
2. That the Lake Sherwood Community Facilities District has a tiered rate structure,
which encourages water conservation.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Lake Sherwood Community Facilities District participates in water
conservation programs with other agencies as appropriate.
2. That the Calleguas MWD provides some administrative and management
support for the Lake Sherwood Community Facilities.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. None were noted.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. None were noted.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Lake Sherwood Community Facilities 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. All Board members have been elected; none
were appointed.
2. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
Page B-26 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
17) MEINERS OAKS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Meiners Oaks CWD provides potable water service to approximately
1,300 customers from four wells.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Meiners Oaks CWD uses population projections provided by Ventura
County.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Meiners Oaks CWD has an annual budget of approximately $600,000.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the fees of the Meiners Oaks CWD are set through a public process.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. None were noted.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Meiners Oaks CWD should participate in a committee to examine
potential governmental structure options for water and wastewater services in the
Ojai Valley.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. None were noted.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Meiners Oaks CWD Board is locally accountable.
2. That the Meiners Oaks CWD holds regularly scheduled meetings at a time and
place that encourages public participation.
3. That the Meiners Oaks CWD should provide an agency website for their
customers.
January 2004 Page B-27
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
18) MONTALVO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Montalvo MID provides wastewater service to unincorporated areas of
Ventura County.
2. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements will continue to be a
concern of the Montalvo MID.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Montalvo MID bases growth and population projections on SCAG, VOG
and Ventura County population projections.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Montalvo MID requires that new development pay fees and charges to
ensure cost recovery.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Montalvo MID uses outside vendors and contractors for services when
shown to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Montalvo MID are set through a public process.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Montalvo MID currently shares staffing with the Ventura Regional
Sanitation District.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Montalvo MID should analyze the economic and financial impacts of
reorganization with the City of San Buenaventura and the Saticoy Sanitary
District.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the Montalvo MID uses outside vendors and contracting agencies to provide
more efficient services.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Montalvo MID 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. That the Montalvo MID holds regularly scheduled meetings at a time and place
that encourages public participation.
3. That the Montalvo MID should provide an agency website for their customers.
Page B-28 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
19) OCEAN VIEW MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ocean View Municipal Water District provides agricultural water to
customers located along Hueneme Road.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Ocean View MWD does not project growth or population for its service
area.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the financing options for the District are limited by its small size.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That costs might be avoided through reorganization with other agencies
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the size of the Ocean View Municipal Water District, which has
approximately 50 agricultural users, limits opportunities for rate restructuring.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Ocean View Municipal Water District participates in water conservation
programs with other agencies as appropriate.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Ocean View Municipal Water District should work with Ventura LAFCO
to dissolve the District and identify an appropriate successor agency.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That many of the District’s services are provided by other agencies or by private
contractors.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ocean View Municipal Water District should hold regularly scheduled
meetings at a time and place that encourages public participation.
2. That the Ocean View Municipal Water District should provide an agency website
for their customers.
January 2004 Page B-29
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
20) OJAI BASIN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency monitors groundwater in
the Ojai Valley.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency bases growth and
population projections on Ventura County and SCAG figures.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency reduced rates by 20% in
the last year.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. None were noted
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency should participate in a
committee to examine the possible reorganization of water and wastewater
agencies in the Ojai Valley.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. None were noted.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency holds meetings at a time
and place that encourages public participation.
2. That the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency should provide an agency
website for their customers.
Page B-30 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
21) OJAI VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ojai Valley SD annually assesses its infrastructure needs and
deficiencies and projects future needs through its CIP process.
2. That the Ojai Valley SD has adequate wastewater resources for current needs.
3. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements will continue to be a
concern of the Ojai Valley SD.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. None were noted by the agency.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Ojai Valley SD prepares a comprehensive annual budget and has
adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure adequate funds concurrent
with need.
2. That the Ojai Valley SD maintains an annual Capital Improvement Plan and has
adequate reserves.
3. That the Ojai Valley SD requires that new development pay appropriate fees and
charges to ensure cost recovery.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Ojai Valley SD uses contractors for services when shown to be cost
effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Ojai Valley SD are set through a public process.
2. That the Ojai Valley SD annually analyzes the existing fee structure to ensure fair
and equitable rates.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Ojai Valley SD should examine the possibility of developing reclaimed
water sources with other agencies in the Ojai Valley.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. None were noted except for updating the agency’s SOI.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the Ojai Valley SD is adequate to
serve the present and future needs of the agency.
2. That the Ojai Valley SD has current management, interdepartmental and inter-
agency practices and procedures appropriate to and efficient for its service.
3. That the Ojai Valley SD uses outside vendors and contracting agencies to
provide more efficient services.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ojai Valley SD Board si locally accountable through adherence to
applicable government code sections, open and accessible meetings, and
dissemination of information and encouragement of participation in their process.
January 2004 Page B-31
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
2. That the Ojai Valley SD holds regularly scheduled meetings at a time and place
that encourages public participation.
3. That the Board members of the Ojai Valley SD are elected.
4. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
Page B-32 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
22) OJAI WATER CONSERVATION AGENCY
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ojai Water Conservation Agency monitors groundwater in the Ojai
Valley.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. None were noted by the agency.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. None were noted.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Ojai Water Conservation Agency participates in water conservation
programs with other agencies as appropriate.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Ojai Water Conservation Agency should participate in a committee to
examine the possible reorganization of water and wastewater agencies in the
Ojai Valley.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. None were noted.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ojai Water Conservation Agency should hold regularly scheduled
meetings at a time and place that encourages public participation.
2. That the Ojai Water Conservation Agency should provide an agency website for
their customers.
January 2004 Page B-33
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
23) PLEASANT VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Pleasant Valley County Water District provides water service for
agricultural uses only.
2. That the Pleasant Valley County Water District ensures that water supply and
demand are adequate and are consistent with the capacity and facilities of the
District.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Pleasant Valley County Water District bases growth and population
projections on City of Camarillo figures.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the Pleasant Valley County Water District fees are set through a public
process and are adequate at this time.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Pleasant Valley County Water District participates in water conservation
programs with agencies as appropriate.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. None were noted.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. None were noted.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Pleasant Valley County Water 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. That the Pleasant Valley CWD should consider developing a website to
disseminate information to the public.
Page B-34 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
24) SATICOY SANITATION DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Saticoy SD provides wastewater service to unincorporated areas of
Ventura County.
2. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements will continue to be a
concern of the Saticoy SD.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Saticoy SD bases growth and population projections on SCAG, VOG
and Ventura County population projections.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Saticoy SD requires that new development pay fees and charges to
ensure cost recovery.
2. That the Saticoy SD has applied for grants and loans for infrastructure upgrades
and improvements.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Saticoy SD uses outside vendors and contractors for services when
shown to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Saticoy SD are set through a public process.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Saticoy SD utilizes staff and expertise from the Ventura Regional
Sanitation District.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Saticoy SD should analyze the benefits of reorganization with the City of
San Buenaventura and the Montalvo MID.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the Saticoy SD uses outside vendors and contracting agencies to provide
more efficient services.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Saticoy SD 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. That the Saticoy SD holds regularly scheduled meetings at a time and place that
encourages public participation.
3. That the Saticoy SD should provide an agency website for their customers.
January 2004 Page B-35
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
25) TRIUNFO SANITATION DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Triunfo SD provides potable water service to unincorporated areas of
Ventura County and collection of wastewater as well as the distribution of
reclaimed water.
2. That the Triunfo SD does not have a Master Plan for either water or wastewater
which can assess the infrastructure needs and deficiencies in the existing
systems and project future needs.
3. That the Triunfo SD bases its assessment of future service needs on interviews
with local developers, regulators and appropriate agencies.
4. That the Triunfo SD should begin preparation of master plans, annual capital
improvement projects and funding in order to accurately project future service
needs.
5. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements will continue to be a
concern of the Triunfo SD and other agencies in Ventura County.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Triunfo SD bases growth and population projections on interviews with
local developers, regulators and appropriate agencies.
2. That the Triunfo SD should work closely with land use agencies to ensure an
accurate projection of growth and population projections.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Triunfo SD requires that new development pay fees and charges to
ensure cost recovery.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Triunfo SD uses outside vendors and contractors for services when
shown to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Triunfo SD are set through a public process.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Triunfo SD currently participates with the Ventura Regional Sanitation
District.
2. That the Triunfo SD collaborates with agencies in watershed programs.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Triunfo SD should analyze the economic and financial impacts of
reorganization with other providers in Ventura County.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the Triunfo SD uses outside vendors and contracting agencies to provide
more efficient services.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Triunfo SD Board adheres to applicable government code sections.
Page B-36 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
2. That three members of the Board of the Triunfo SD are appointed; two Board
members are elected.
3. That the Triunfo SD Board should investigate changing the structure of their
Board to ensure that all Board members elected.
4. That the Triunfo SD does have a website where it posts budgets and other
appropriate information about the agency.
January 2004 Page B-37
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
26) UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the United Water Conservation District has a strategic plan that addresses
water needs based on the pans of the District’s member agencies.
2. That meeting the District’s mission to protect and conserve water resources in
the Santa Clara watershed will continue to be a concern of the United Water
Conservation District.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the United Water Conservation District bases growth and population
projections on SCAG, VOG, Ventura County and municipal population
projections and reports
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the United Water Conservation District must balance lower rates to
encourage the use of its facilities, adequate replacement of facilities, the
continuing unfunded mandates and shifting of existing resources.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the United Water Conservation District uses outside vendors and
contractors for services when shown to be cost effective; it has founded that its
services are more effective with a staff of professional groundwater
management.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the United Water Conservation District are set through
a public process and are established to encourage conservation.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That 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. That the government structure options for the United Water Conservation District
are limited.
2. That the United Water Conservation District should participate in discussions
regarding the Ocean View MWD.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That 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.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That 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.
Page B-38 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
2. That the United Water Conservation District holds regularly scheduled meetings
at a time and place that encourages public participation.
January 2004 Page B-39
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
27) VENTURA COUNTY SERVICE AREA #29
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #29 provides wastewater service to
coastal communities in northwestern Ventura County.
2. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements and service demands
will continue to be a concern of the Ventura County Service Area #29.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #29 bases growth and population
projections on the General Plan, VCOG and SCAG projections.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #29 prepares an annual budget.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #29 uses contractors and outside vendors
for services when determined to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Ventura County Service Area #29 are set through
a public process.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #29 collaborates with agencies as
appropriate.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. None were noted.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the Ventura County Service Area #29
is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the agency.
2. That the Ventura County Service Area #29 has current management,
interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate to and
efficient for its service.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #29 Board (Ventura Board of Supervisors)
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.
Page B-40 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
28) VENTURA COUNTY SERVICE AREA # 30
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #30 provides wastewater service.
2. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements and service demands
will continue to be a concern of the Ventura County Service Area #30.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #30 bases growth and population
projections on the General Plan, VCOG and SCAG projections.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #30 prepares an annual budget.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #30 uses contractors and outside vendors
for services when determined to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Ventura County Service Area #30 are set through
a public process.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #30 collaborates with agencies as
appropriate.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That governmental structure options are limited by the location and size of the
Ventura County Service Area #30.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the Ventura County Service Area #30
is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the agency.
2. That the Ventura County Service Area #30 has current management,
interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate to and
efficient for its service.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #30 Board (Ventura Board of Supervisors)
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.
January 2004 Page B-41
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
29) VENTURA COUNTY SERVICE AREA # 32
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #32 provides permitting and inspection of
on-site wastewater systems to the unincorporated areas of Ventura County.
2. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements, in particular AB885, will
continue to be a concern of the Ventura County Service Area #32.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #32 bases growth and population
projections on the General Plan, VCOG and SCAG projections.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #32 prepares an annual budget.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #32 uses contractors and outside vendors
as needed for services when determined to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Ventura County Service Area #32 are set through
a public process.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. None were noted.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. None were noted.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the Ventura County Service Area #32
is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the agency.
2. That the Ventura County Service Area #32 has current management,
interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate to and
efficient for its service.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ventura County Service Area #32 Board (Ventura Board of Supervisors)
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.
Page B-42 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
30) VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT #1
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 provides potable water and
wastewater services to the City of Moorpark and unincorporated areas to north
and east.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 has a water and wastewater
Master Plan, adopted in 1992 and 1996 respectively, which is used to assess the
infrastructure needs and deficiencies in the existing systems and project future
needs.
3. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 is currently applying for permits
to increase the capacity of its wastewater treatment plant to 5 mgd and the
capacity of its reclamation system to 3 mgd.
4. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements will continue to be a
concern of the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 and other agencies in
Ventura County.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 bases growth and population
projections on the City of Moorpark and Ventura County General Plans and on
population projections from SCAG.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 also uses its master plans to
project growth and population.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 requires that new development
pay fees and charges to ensure cost recovery.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 prepares a comprehensive
annual budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure
adequate funds concurrent with need.
3. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 maintains an annual Capital
Improvement Plan and identifies funding for projects.
4. That the state and federal funding for water and wastewater systems is
structured and funded in a manner which limits opportunities for local agencies.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 uses outside vendors and
contractors for services when shown to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 are set
through a public process.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 has adopted a tiered water rate
structure to encourage water conservation. The tiered rate structure establishes
base allocations for customers with higher charges for water consumption above
the base allocation. Wastewater rates are also based on water consumption.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 currently participates with the
Calleguas MWD and other agencies on conservations programs.
January 2004 Page B-43
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 is a participant in the Calleguas
Creek Watershed Management Plan in order to find cost-effective methods to
meet treatment requirements.
3. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 shares equipment and staff
during emergencies.
4. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 is building a new office facility,
which could be used by other agencies as appropriate.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 should explore the possibility of
a reorganization with the City of Moorpark.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 uses outside vendors and
contracting agencies to provide more efficient services.
2. That the current management structure of the Ventura County Waterworks
District #1 is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the agency.
3. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 has current management,
interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate to and
efficient for its service.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 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. That the governing Board of the Ventura County Waterworks District #1 is
elected; none ran unopposed in the most recent election.
3. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
Page B-44 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
31) VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT #8
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 provides potable water service
to the City of Simi Valley and unincorporated areas of Ventura County.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 has a water Master Plan,
adopted in 1986, which is used to assess the infrastructure needs and
deficiencies in the existing systems and project future needs.
3. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 annually updates its list of
infrastructure needs.
4. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements and service demands
will continue to be a concern of the Ventura County Waterworks District #8.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 bases growth and population
projections on the General Plan and specific project plans.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 prepares a comprehensive
annual budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure
adequate funds concurrent with need.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 maintains an annual Capital
Improvement Plan and identifies funding for projects.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 uses contractors and outside
vendors for services when determined to be cost effective.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 uses their budget process and
internal cost/benefit procedures to evaluate costs savings of programs and
alternatives.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 are set
through a public process.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 is currently analyzing water fees
to ensure that funds are available concurrent with need.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 collaborates with agencies as
appropriate.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 should analyze the cost savings
and potential increases in efficiency that could be gained through a
reorganization/merger with the City of Simi Valley and/or the Southern California
Water Company.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the Ventura County Waterworks
District #8 is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the agency.
January 2004 Page B-45
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 has current management,
interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate to and
efficient for its service.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 (City of Simi Valley City Council)
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. That the Board of the Ventura County Waterworks District #8 (City of Simi Valley
City Council) is elected and no City Council member ran unopposed.
3. That the agency should post budgets and other information on the City of Simi
Valley website.
Page B-46 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
32) VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT # 16
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #16 provides water and wastewater
service to the community of Piru.
2. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements and service demands
will continue to be a concern of the Ventura County Waterworks District #16.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #16 bases growth and population
projections on the General Plan, VCOG and SCAG projections.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #16 prepares an annual budget.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #16 uses contractors and outside
vendors for services when determined to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Ventura County Waterworks District #16 are set
through a public process.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #16 collaborates with agencies as
appropriate.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That governmental structure options are limited by the location and size of the
Ventura County Waterworks District #16.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the current management structure of the Ventura County Waterworks
District #16 is adequate to serve the present and future needs of the agency.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #16 has current management,
interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate to and
efficient for its service.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #16 Board (Ventura Board of
Supervisors) 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.
January 2004 Page B-47
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
33) VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT #17
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 provides potable water to the
unincorporated area of Bell Canyon and additional territory to the north.
2. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements will continue to be a
concern of the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 and other agencies in
Ventura County.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 bases growth and population
projections on Ventura County General Plans and on population projections from
SCAG.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 requires that new development
pay fees and charges to ensure cost recovery.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 prepares a comprehensive
annual budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure
adequate funds concurrent with need.
3. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 maintains an annual Capital
Improvement Plan and identifies funding for projects.
4. That the funding for water systems is structured and funded in a manner, which
limits opportunities for local agencies.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 uses outside vendors and
contractors for services when determined to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 are set
through a public process.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 has adopted a tiered water rate
structure to encourage water conservation. The tiered rate structure establishes
base allocations for customers with higher charges for water consumption above
the base allocation.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 currently participates with the
Calleguas MWD and Metropolitan Water District on conservations programs.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 is a participant in the Calleguas
Creek Watershed Management Plan in order to find cost-effective methods to
meet treatment requirements.
3. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 shares equipment and staff
during emergencies.
4. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 shares facilities with other
agencies as appropriate.
Page B-48 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 and LAFCO should consider
the efficiencies that might be gained from a reorganization of the Ahmanson
Ranch CSD and the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 if the Ahmanson
Ranch development proceeds.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 contracts with the Calleguas
MWD for administrative and management support for conservation programs.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 contracts with other agencies
and outside vendors when shown to be cost-effective.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #17 Board (Ventura County Board
of Supervisors) 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. That the governing Board of the Ventura County Waterworks District #17
(Ventura County Board of Supervisors) is elected; none ran unopposed in the
most recent election.
3. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
January 2004 Page B-49
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
34) VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT #19
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 provides potable water to the
unincorporated community of Somis.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 has a water Master Plan,
adopted in 1985, which is used to assess the infrastructure needs and
deficiencies in the existing systems and project future needs.
3. That meeting current and future regulatory requirements will continue to be a
concern of the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 and other agencies in
Ventura County.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 bases growth and population
projections on Ventura County General Plans and on population projections from
SCAG.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 requires that new development
pay fees and charges to ensure cost recovery.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 prepares a comprehensive
annual budget and has adopted financial policies and procedures to ensure
adequate funds concurrent with need.
3. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 maintains an annual Capital
Improvement Plan and identifies funding for projects.
4. That the funding for water systems is structured and funded in a manner, which
limits opportunities for local agencies.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 uses outside vendors and
contractors for services when shown to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the rates and fees of the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 are set
through a public process.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 has adopted a tiered water rate
structure to encourage water conservation. The tiered rate structure establishes
base allocations for customers with higher charges for water consumption above
the base allocation.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 currently participates with the
Calleguas MWD and Metropolitan Water District on conservations programs.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 is a participant in the Calleguas
Creek Watershed Management Plan in order to find cost-effective methods to
meet treatment requirements.
3. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 shares equipment and staff
during emergencies.
4. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 shares facilities with other
agencies as appropriate.
Page B-50 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 should consider the efficiencies
that might be gained by reorganization with smaller mutual water companies.
2. That the presence of agricultural uses within the boundaries of the Ventura
County Waterworks District #19 is beneficial due to the lower rates which
encourage and support those uses.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 contracts with the Calleguas
MWD for administrative and management support for conservation programs.
2. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 contracts with other agencies
and outside vendors when shown to be cost-effective.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ventura County Waterworks District #19 Board (Ventura County Board
of Supervisors) 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. That the governing Board of the Ventura County Waterworks District #19
(Ventura County Board of Supervisors) is elected; none ran unopposed in the
most recent election.
3. That the agency has a website and posts copies of their budget and other
appropriate information on it for their customers.
January 2004 Page B-51
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
35) VENTURA REGIONAL SANITATION DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ventura Regional Sanitation District provides contract water and
wastewater services to agencies within Ventura County.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Ventura Regional Sanitation District uses growth and population
projections from contracting agencies and other land use agencies.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. That the Ventura Regional Sanitation District provides contract services to other
agencies when shown to be cost effective.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the charges of the Ventura Regional Sanitation District are set through a
public process and in conjunction with contracting agencies.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. That the Ventura Regional Sanitation District provides contract services to other
agencies when shown to be cost effective.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. None were noted.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. That the Ventura Regional Sanitation District provides cost-effective services to
contracting agencies.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ventura Regional Sanitation District Board adheres to applicable
government code sections.
2. That nine members of the Board of the Ventura Regional Sanitation District are
appointed.
3. That the agency does not post copies of their budget and other appropriate
information on a website.
Page B-52 January 2004
APPENDIX B AGENCY DETERMINATIONS
36) VEN TURA RIVER COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
· Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. That the Ventura River County Water District provides potable water service for
approximately 2,200 customers.
2. That the Ventura River County Water District ensures that water supply and
demand are adequate and are consistent with the capacity and facilities of the
District.
· Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. That the Ventura River County Water District bases growth and population
projections on estimates provided by the City of Ojai, SCAG and Ventura County.
· Financing constraints and opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Cost avoidance opportunities
1. None were noted.
· Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. That the Ventura River County Water District fees are set through a public
process and are adequate at this time.
· Opportunities for shared facilities
1. None were noted.
· Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
1. That the Ventura River CWD should participate in a committee to examine
possible governmental restructuring of the water and wastewater agencies in the
Ojai Valley.
· Evaluation of management efficiencies
1. None were noted.
· Local accountability and governance
1. That the Ventura River County Water 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. That the Ventura River County Water District holds regularly scheduled meetings
at a time and place that encourages public participation.
3. That the Ventura River County Water District should provide an agency website
for their customers.
January 2004 Page B-53