Subcommittee on Spheres of Influence Municipal Service Reviews CALAFCO Annual Conference September 7, 2005

Subcommittee Report Spheres of Influence - Municipal Service Reviews 27 of 58 LAFCO’s responded (47%) Survey covered many issues: Purpose of MSR’s Effectiveness and Results Reaction to MSR’s Written Determinations MSR Methodology Timing A taste of the results

1 Strongly Disagree 5 Strongly Agree SURVEY SCALE

PURPOSE of MSR’s

Purpose 1-1: MSRs, in general, are helpful for LAFCO to accomplish its overall purposes and responsibilities. 43% 30% 26%

Purpose 1-2: Are LAFCO’s MSRs are accomplishing this purpose. 35% 35% 17% 13%

EFFECTIVENESS of MSR’s

Effectiveness 2-1a: MSRs effectively inform LAFCO about agencies, services, and issues. 52% 39% 9%

Effectiveness 2-1b: MSRs effectively inform the public about agencies, services, and issues. 35% 26% 22% 9% 9%

Effectiveness 2-1d: MSRs encourage agencies to collaborate on growth and/or service issues. 43% 17% 17% 13% 4%

Effectiveness 2-1h: MSRs provide valuable information to support SOI updates. 48% 43% 9%

Effectiveness 2-2b: MSRs are too general or too broad in scope. 48% 30% 9% 13%

Effectiveness 2-2d: MSRs are not clearly linked to spheres of influence 35% 22% 17% 13% 13%

REACTION TO MSR’s

Reaction to MSR 3-1: Our Commissioners find MSRs to be useful and effective. 38% 24% 19% 14% 5%

Reaction to MSR 3-2: The agencies find MSRs to be useful and effective. 43% 29% 14% 9% 5%

Reaction to MSR 3-3: The public finds MSRs to be useful and effective. 29% 29% 19% 19% 4%

WRITTEN DETERMINATIONS

DETERMINATIONS Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

DETERMINATIONS: Should the determinations be combined?

DETERMINATIONS: Should SOI (56425) and MSR (56530) determinations be combined?

METHODOLGY

Methodology: Is your LAFCO adopting the MSR and SOI concurrently or separately?

TIMING

Timing: Should MSR’s be completed every 5 years?

Timing: Should MSR’s be completed in conjunction with SOI Updates?

Subcommittee Report Spheres of Influence - Municipal Service Reviews I. MAINTAIN FLEXIBILITY II. CLEARLY DEFINE TERMINOLOGY III. GOVERNMENT CODE REVISIONS IV. FUNDING

FACTOR CHANGE 1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies No Change 2. Growth and population 3. Financing Constraints opportunities combine with 4 and 5 4. Cost avoidance opportunities Delete, combine with 3 5. Opportunities for rate restructuring Delete, Combine with 3 6. Opportunities for shared facilities Change wording 7. Government structure options Combine with 8 and 9 8. Evaluation of management efficiencies Delete, Combine with 7 9. Local accountability and governance

Subcommittee Report Spheres of Influence - Municipal Service Reviews Proposed Factors 1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 2. Growth and population projections for affected area 3. Financial ability of agencies to provide services 4. Status of and opportunities for shared facilities 5. Accountability for community service needs, including government structure and operational efficiencies