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

2. 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

3. 1
Strongly Disagree 5
Strongly Agree
SURVEY SCALE

4. PURPOSE of MSR’s

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

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

7. EFFECTIVENESS of MSR’s

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. REACTION TO MSR’s

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

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

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

18. WRITTEN DETERMINATIONS

19. DETERMINATIONS
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree

20. DETERMINATIONS: Should the determinations be combined?

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

22. METHODOLGY

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

24. TIMING

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

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

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

28. 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

29. 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