Municipal Service Review & Sphere of Influence...

Municipal Service Review &

Sphere of Influence Study

South Orange County

Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission

Municipal Service Review & Sphere of Influence Study for South Orange County (MSR 05-24) FINAL December 2005

Table of Contents - i -

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... I

SECTION 1: ................................................................................................................. 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1

SECTION 2: ................................................................................................................. 9

AGENCY PROFILES ............................................................................................................................ 9 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 10

SECTION 3: ...............................................................................................................25

GROWTH & PROJECTED POPULATION ..................................................................................... 25 A. REGIONAL SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 26 B. EXISTING & PROJECTED POPULATION ................................................................................ 27

SECTION 4: ...............................................................................................................31

INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS & DEFICIENCIES ........................................................................... 31 A. REGIONAL OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................... 32 B. ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT........................................................................ 33 C. FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ....................................................................... 35 D. WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................... 40 E. WASTEWATER ........................................................................................................................ 44 F. PARKS & RECREATION .......................................................................................................... 45 G. OPEN SPACE ........................................................................................................................... 48 H. ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES ............................................................................................... 49

SECTION 5: ...............................................................................................................51

FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS ..................................................................... 51 A. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 52 B. FINANCIAL SUMMARIES ........................................................................................................ 54


Municipal Service Review & Sphere of Influence Study for South Orange County (MSR 05-24) FINAL December 2005

Table of Contents - ii -

SECTION 6: ...............................................................................................................61

ECONOMIES OF SERVICE .............................................................................................................. 61 A. RATE RESTRUCTURING ......................................................................................................... 62 B. COST AVOIDANCE, SHARED FACILITIES AND MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES .................... 66

SECTION 7: ...............................................................................................................70

GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS ...................................................................................... 70 A. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 71 B. OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 72 C. RANCHO MISSION VIEJO ....................................................................................................... 77 D. UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ....................................................................................... 83 E. SPECIAL DISTRICTS ............................................................................................................... 88 F. CURRENT CITY SPHERES AND OPTIONS ............................................................................... 89

SECTION 8: ...............................................................................................................94

LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY & GOVERNANCE .......................................................................... 94 A. CITIES ..................................................................................................................................... 95 B. COUNTY OF ORANGE ............................................................................................................. 97 C. SPECIAL DISTRICTS ............................................................................................................... 98

APPENDIX A: ..........................................................................................................102

SCORE REPORT ............................................................................................................................... 102


Municipal Service Review & Sphere of Influence Study for South Orange County (MSR 05-24) DRAFT

December 2005

Section 1:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



December 2005

Section 1, Executive Summary - 2 -

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Background

In 1997, the State Legislature convened a special commission to study and make recommendations to address California’s rapidly accelerating growth. The Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century focused their energies on ways to empower the already existing County LAFCOs, originally established in 1963. One of the major new responsibilities of LAFCO is to conduct regional studies of municipal services (Municipal Service Reviews, or MSRs) every five years. MSRs are a way to assist agencies and residents by: (1) evaluating existing municipal services, and (2) identifying any future constraints or challenges that may impact service delivery in the future. MSRs are a prerequisite for completion of sphere of influence studies. The agencies and communities addressed by this MSR include:

City of San Clemente

City of San Juan Capistrano

City of Mission Viejo

City of Rancho Santa Margarita

Ladera Ranch

Coto de Caza

Rancho Mission Viejo

Santa Margarita Water District

Trabuco Canyon Water District

County of Orange



December 2005


The Orange LAFCO MSR process occurred in three interrelated phases. The first phase was the preparation of this document, the MSR report, by LAFCO staff. The MSR report, which is a LAFCO document, is only a starting point. The report is not intended to comprehensively analyze all options and issues discussed but rather to present a “high level” overview of the issues. The agencies and residents within the MSR study area will be required to complete detailed analyses (i.e., fiscal studies, etc.) prior to the implementation of any of the alternatives discussed in the MSR report.

The MSR report was instrumental as a starting place for discussions that took place in the second phase of the MSR process: the stakeholder working group (SWG) meetings. The SWG is a group comprised of a representative from each of the stakeholder agencies and communities. The SWG convened over a 3-month period of time to fulfill its two-fold purpose:

1) To assist LAFCO staff in the preparation of this MSR report – While the MSR report is a LAFCO document, the SWG was instrumental in the report’s development. The group collaborated with LAFCO staff and reviewed the draft MSR report throughout its development, providing missing data and proposing revisions/modifications when appropriate.

2) To discuss future governance options for the area – The end product of the stakeholder working group will be a “governance strategy” that summarizes the groups’ conclusions regarding future governance options and proposed spheres of influence. While the MSR report is a LAFCO document, the governance strategy, as approved by the SWG, is a separate document which will be forward to the Commission for consideration at the same time as this MSR report and sphere of influence study.

The third phase of the MSR process is the Commission’s consideration of the proposed agencies’ spheres of influence prepared by LAFCO staff, which will happen concurrently with the Commission’s review of this MSR report and the SWG’s governance strategy document. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 defines a “sphere of influence" as a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the commission. Before an area can be annexed, it must be within the annexing agency’s adopted sphere of influence.

The Commission will consider the MSR report, the SWG’s governance strategy document, and proposed spheres of influence at a noticed public hearing. At the hearing the Commission will receive and file the MSR report, consider and discuss the



December 2005


governance strategy, and adopt spheres of influence for the agencies. The Commission is not required to act on any of the “next steps” listed in the MSR report but may choose to implement any that fall within its purview.

Summary

The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that LAFCO review municipal services before updating the spheres of influence and to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to each of the following:

1) Infrastructure needs or deficiencies;

2) Growth and population projections for the affected area;

3) Financing constraints and opportunities;

4) Cost avoidance opportunities;

5) Opportunities for rate restructuring;

6) Opportunities for shared facilities;

7) Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers;

8) Evaluation of management efficiencies; and

9) Local accountability and governance.

The study area addressed in this report generally includes the South Orange County area from the northern boundaries of the Cities of Mission Viejo and San Juan Capistrano and sweeping south to the county line. It includes the cities and special districts providing essential services as well as the County of Orange. Three unincorporated communities included in the study area – Coto de Caza/Wagon Wheel, Ladera Ranch, and Las Flores – have matured and are at or near build-out. These communities are not currently within the sphere of influence of any city; the County is the primary municipal service provider.

The County of Orange has expressed its desire to eventually stop providing municipal level services so that it may focus more completely on regional services, such as courts, social services, health care, flood control, and housing and community development. Although the County continues to provide local municipal services to its unincorporated islands, having alternative service providers may prove more efficient and cost-effective.



December 2005


Governance options will require significant consideration in the future and is a major component of this MSR report as well as the focus of the SWG’s document. While identifying and evaluating all potential government structure options is one of the nine determinations LAFCO must consider in the MSR pursuant to Government Code Section §56430, it is important to note that neither the LAFCO nor the affected agencies are required to adopt or implement any of the potential government structure options identified. In considering government structure options within a regional context, LAFCO staff hopes that a “road map” can be established so that all communities are ultimately within incorporated area(s) and/or municipal level services are provided in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible.

The full range of potential government structure options for the cities and communities discussed in the MSR and by the Stakeholder Working Group are outlined below in Table ES.1. Each of these options has service, political and economic considerations that must be evaluated by the LAFCO Commission and the affected agencies within the context of the study area as a region.



December 2005


Table ES.1 – Government Structure Options

Table ES.1 Government Structure Options

Option Option Option Option



Form So County CSA, transition into CSD, then incorporate as new So County city

San Juan Capistrano annexes Planning Area 1

San Clemente annexes Planning Area 8

Status Quo

Unincorporated Communities

Coto de Caza & Wagon Wheel

Put in SOI of Rancho Santa Margarita;

annexation

Include in So County CSA and transition

to CSD; future incorporation as part

of new So County city

Maintain status quo

Ladera Ranch Put in SOI of Mission

Viejo; annexation

Put in SOI of San Juan Capistrano;

annexation

Include in So County CSA and transition to

CSD; future incorporation as part of

new So County city

Maintain status quo

Las Flores Put in SOI of Mission

Viejo; annexation


annexation



new So County city

Maintain status quo

Cities

Mission Viejo Expand SOI to

include Las Flores; annexation

Expand SOI to include Ladera

Ranch; annexation Maintain status quo

Rancho Santa

Margarita

Expand SOI to include Coto de

Caza/Wagon Wheel; annexation

Expand SOI to include Las Flores;

annexation Maintain status quo

San Juan Capistrano

Expand SOI to include RMV Plng

Area 1; annexation



San Clemente

Expand SOI to include RMV

Planning Area 8; annexation

Maintain status quo

Special Districts


Maintain status quo Reorganize with

TCWD

Resolve possible over- lapping spheres of

influence

Trabuco Canyon

Water District Maintain status quo

Reorganize with SMWD


influence

Transition to Incorporation

Eventual incorporation of the study area as one city or annexation into existing cities



December 2005


Beyond municipal service provision and governance considerations, LAFCO staff also noted that management of the areas parks may warrant further consideration. There are currently twelve regional and community parks in the area. LAFCO staff believes there may be benefit to forming a parks commission with representatives from the County and each of the cities and communities in the unincorporated area. With the financial constraints faced by agencies to maintain and improve facilities, the parks commission could provide input and coordination on a regional basis to assist the agencies in prioritizing capital improvements.



December 2005


Figure ES.2 – MSR Area Overview Map



December 2005

Section 2:

AGENCY PROFILES



December 2005

Section 2, Agency Profiles - 10 -

AGENCY PROFILES

Introduction

This municipal service review (MSR) and sphere of influence (SOI) study addresses the following service providers in South Orange County:





County of Orange



Orange County Fire Authority

Profiles of the agencies follow.

The government structure options section of this MSR report also addresses several unincorporated but distinct communities which are currently served by the County of Orange. They are:

Coto De Caza

Ladera Ranch

Las Flores

Wagon Wheel

The Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan will also become a distinct community but is still undeveloped. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department also provides service to the MSR area.



December 2005




Agency Information Service Area Information

Address: 200 Civic Center

Mission Viejo, CA 92691

Incorporated Area:

2005 Population: Projected Population:

2010 2015 2020

2025 2030

17.4 sq miles

98,197 100,945 103.069 104,191 104,706 104,706

Contact: Dennis Wilberg, City Manager

Phone: (949) 470-3051 (949) 859-1386 fax

Website: www.cityofmissionviejo.org

Financial Information (FY 2004-2005 budget) (in thousands)

Revenues: $60,219 Operating Budget:

$46,725 Capital Improvement

Budget:

$9,512 Reserves at Year

End:

$32,034

Service Summary

Law Enforcement Orange County Sheriff’s Department

Number of Patrol Units: 19

Personnel: Sworn/Non-Sworn: 56/9

Number of Priority 1 Service Calls 2004: 508

Fire Protection/ Emergency Orange County Fire Authority

Number of Stations: 3

Personnel: Commissioned / Civilian / Volunteers: 48/0/15

Number of Incidents 2004: 5,690

Water/Sewer Service Santa Margarita Water District

Number of Connections:

Other Providers: El Toro Water District and Moulton Niguel Water District

Parks and Recreation In-House

Number of Public Parks: 40

Acreage: Parks, Open Space, Medians, Slopes: 1,122

Number of Recreation and Community Centers: 8

Animal Control Mission Viejo Animal Services (serves Mission Viejo and Laguna Niguel)

Number of Shelters: 1 (in Mission Viejo)

Libraries Mission Viejo Library Services

Number of Libraries: 1

http://www.cityofmissionviejo.org/



December 2005




December 2005





Address: 22112 El Paseo

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Incorporated Area:


2010 2015 2020

2025 2030

12.3 sq miles

50,263 51,808 52,556 53,182 53,793 54,175

Contact: Steven E. Hayman, City Manager

Phone: (949) 635-1800 (949) 635-1840 fax

Website: www.cityofrsm.org



$12,511 Capital Improvement Budget:

$8,605 Reserves at Year End:

$8,919

Service Summary


Number of Patrol Units: 12 Patrol Cars and 9 Administration Cars/Other Vehicles

Personnel: Sworn / Non-Sworn: 28.5 / 21.33 (includes crossing guards)



Number of Stations: 1

Personnel: Sworn / Civilian / Reserve: 27 / 0 / 0


Water/Sewer Service Santa Margarita Water District

Number of Connections: 15,471 Water / 14,818 Sewer


Number of Connections: 3,069 water/29 sewer

Parks and Recreation In-House (SAMLARC/Other HOAs)

Number of Parks: 22 (not city owned)

Acreage: Parks, Open Space, Medians, Slopes: 139.48 (Parks) and 3,800 (Open Space; not city owned)

Number of Recreation and Community Centers: 1 (Regional Community Center)

Animal Control Orange County Animal Care Services

Number of Shelters: 0



December 2005




December 2005


City of San Clemente1



Address: 100 Avenida Presidio

San Clemente, CA 92672

Incorporated Area:


2010 2015 2020

2025

2030

sq miles

57,966 67,760 66,131 67,175 68,151

68,454

Contact: George Scarborough, City Manager

Phone: (949) 361-8200

Website: www.ci.san-clemente.ca.us


Revenues: Operating Budget:

Capital Improvement Budget:

Reserves at Year End:

Service Summary


Number of Patrol Units:

Personnel: Sworn / Non-Sworn:

Number of Priority 1 Service Calls 2004:


Number of Stations:

Personnel: Sworn / Civilian / Reserve:


City provides own ambulance service:

Water/Sewer Service (western portion of City only)

In-House

Number of Connections:

Water Supply:

Water Demand:

Average Dry Weather Flow:


Number of Parks:

Acreage: Parks, Open Space, Medians, Slopes:

Number of Recreation and Community Centers:

Animal Control Coastal Animal Services Authority

1 The City of San Clemente did not provide information for the MSR report.

http://www.ci.san-clemente.ca.us/



December 2005


(serves San Clemente and Dana Point)

Number of Shelters: 1 (in San Clemente)



December 2005





Address: 32400 Paseo Adelanto

San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

Incorporated Area:


2010 2015 2020

2025 2030

sq miles

36,900 38,877 39,373 39,750 40,105 40,233

Contact: Dave Adams, City Manager

Phone: (949) 493-1171 (949) 488-3874

Website: www.sanjuancapistrano.org


Revenues: Operating Budget:

Capital Improvement Budget:

Reserves at Year End:

Service Summary


Number of Patrol Units: 23

Personnel: Sworn / Non-Sworn: 28 / 2



Number of Stations:

Personnel: Sworn / Civilian / Reserve:


Water/Sewer Service In-House

Number of Connections: 2000: 10,560

Water Supply: 2000: 90% Imported; 7% Ground; 3% Recycled

Water Demand: 2000: 8,700 cfs/yr; 2020: 13,840 cfs/yr

Average Dry Weather Flow: 2000: 3.3 mgd; 2020: 4.1 mgd


Number of Parks: 19 Total Parks (5 Community, 7 Neighborhood, 7 Mini)

Acreage: Parks, Open Space, Medians, Slopes: 233 Acres

Number of Recreation and Community Centers: 1 Community Center

Animal Control Orange County Animal Care Services

Number of Shelters: 1 (in City of Orange)



December 2005




December 2005





Address: 26111 Antonio Parkway

Las Flores, CA 92688

Service Area:


2010 2015 2020

2025

2030

97 sq miles

Contact: John J. Schatz, General Manager

Phone: (949) 459-6400

Website: www.smwd.com



$37,696 Capital Improvement Budget:

$684 Reserves at Year End:

Service Summary

Serving Communities of: Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Las Flores, Coto de Caza, Ladera Ranch and rural areas east of San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente.

Water Service

Number of Water Service Connections: 56,765

Water Supply: 35,393 AF

Water Demand: 34,043 AF

Sewer Service

Number of Sewer Connections: 54,098

Average Dry Weather Flow: 12.4 MGD

Treatment Plants / Capacity: Total 17.04

Chiquita Water Reclamation Plant: 7.8 MGD

Oso Creek WRP: 3.0 MGD

SOCWA: 5.5 MGD

Los Alisos WRP: 0.7 MGD

Nichols WRP: 0.04



December 2005




December 2005





Address: 32003 Dove Canyon Drive

Trabuco Canyon, CA 92679

Service Area:


2010 2015 2020

2025 2030

14.2 sq miles

13,665 16,117 16,768 17,320 17,767 17,990

Contact: Don Chadd

Phone: (949) 858-0277

Website: www.tcwd.ca.gov

Financial Information (FY 2004-2005 budget) (in thousands)*

Revenues: $5,133,146 Operating Budget:

$5,031,527 Capital Improvement Budget:

$2,165,999 Reserves at Year End:

$2,550,159

Service Summary

Serving Communities of: Trabuco Canyon, Robinson Ranch, Trabuco Highlands, Walden, Rancho Cielo, a portion of Portola Hills, Santiago Canyon Estates, and Dove Canyon.

Water Service*

Number of Water Service Connections: 4,011

Water Supply: 58% Imported; 20% Ground; 22% Recycled

Water Demand: 2000: 3,551 af/yr; 2020: 6,272 af/yr

Sewer Service

Number of Sewer Connections: 3,538

Average Dry Weather Flow: 2000: 0.70 mgd; 2020: 0.90 mgd

Treatment Plants / Capacity: One wastewater treatment plant; 0.85 mgd capacity

*Regarding the water supply for 2004/05, the fiscal year was atypical due to heavy rains.



December 2005




December 2005





Address: 1 Fire Authority Road

Irvine, CA 92602

Service Area:


2010 2015 2020

2025 2030

551 sq miles

1.33 million 1.6 million

Contact: Gene Begnell, Battalion Chief

Phone: (714) 573-6000

Website: www.ocfa.org (

Financial Information (FY 2004-2005 budget)

Revenues: $200.7M Operating Budget:

$178.8M Capital Improvement Budget:

$18.8M Reserves at Year End:

$63.8M

Service Summary

Serving all South Orange County

Fire Protection/ Emergency Data for Division 3 only

Number of Stations: 18 in Division 3; 61 OCFA stations total

Personnel: Sworn / Civilian / Reserve: Division 3: 229 sworn, 67 reserves OCFA Total: 807 sworn, 302 civilian, 274 reserves (unable to breakdown civilian staff for Division 3)

Number of Incidents 2004: 19,936 in Division 3; 79,913 total for OCFA

Average Response Time – Priority 1 Calls: 6:07 receipt to on scene; 4:03 dispatch to on scene (Countywide for all core emergency calls only. OCFA does not use Priority 1.)

http://www.ocfa.org/



December 2005


County of Orange

County of Orange

Demographics

Demographics:

2003 Population: 2.98 million (150,000 population in unincorporated areas)

Projected 2020 Population: 3.5 million Size: 798 sq. miles

Governance

Governance: Formed in 1889 5-member Board of Supervisors elected by Supervisorial Districts to 4-year terms

Budget

Budget:

(FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Net:

$4.91B $4.91B $0

Infrastructure/Public Facilities

Infrastructure/Public Facilities:

Employees: 17,741 (FTE)

Regional Service Provision: Public health, environmental protection,

regional planning, social services, aviation, public safety/jails/district attorney, regional parks

General Government Services: Tax collection, County Assessor, County

Treasurer, County Auditor/Controller, County Clerk-Recorder, Registrar of Voters

Roadways: 304 miles Flood Control: 270 miles of flood control channels Parks & Recreation: 33,000 acres park, open space & recreation areas Aviation: 8.5 MAP (million annual passengers) 500-acre airport



December 2005

Section 3:

GROWTH &

PROJECTED

POPULATION



December 2005

Section 3, Growth & Projected Population - 26 -

GROWTH &

POPULATION

A. Regional Summary

The southern portion of Orange County has been a primary growth area. Over the past 30 years as the northern and mid-county areas developed, growth shifted south where there was more developable land. Large, master-planned communities, several of which incorporated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, account for the majority of the growth that has occurred in the region. This growth pattern is expected to continue over the next 25 years with the build-out of Ladera Ranch and Rancho Mission Viejo’s recently approved Ranch Plan.

The population projections used in this analysis are based on data from the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

Methodology

The Center for Demographic Research (CDR) has divided Orange County into ten regional statistical areas (RSAs) with each RSA comprised of a group of census tracts that are geographically or politically related. The RSAs are further divided into community analysis areas (CAAs), which are planning areas used to approximate cities, areas within a city, unincorporated communities, or special use areas (e.g., the former MCAS El Toro).

South Orange County is comprised of two RSAs, RSA C-43 and RSA D-40, which begin at the northern boundary of Lake Forest, Laguna Woods, and Laguna Beach and encompass all of the area south to the county line. The RSAs/CAAs included within this study area are shown in Exhibit 3.1 at the end of this chapter.

CDR has developed the Orange County Projections—2004 (OCP-2004), which includes existing and projected population through 2030 based on the 2000 US Census and general plans for the jurisdictions in the area. The Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) adopted the OCP-2004 in February 2004; the County Board of Supervisors adopted OCP-2004 in May 2004. SCAG uses the projections for regional



December 2005


planning purposes for three years until the next update of the regional projections is adopted. An update is currently underway for the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan.

B. Existing & Projected Population

The agencies in the MSR area all project population growth over the next 25 years. More growth will occur in the unincorporated areas as shown in Figure 3.2, particularly with the continued development of Ladera Ranch and Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan. The data for the CAAs include both the unincorporated and incorporated areas; the data for the cities only pertain to the incorporated area only.

Figure 3.2, Population Growth Projections

Specific projections for the CAAs and the cities are shown in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 respectively2. Growth within CAAs 58, 68, 69 and 70, which encompass most of the cities, is fairly consistent, while the highest growth is projected for CAAs 59 and 60, which encompass the Rancho Mission Viejo development. The five-year period between 2005 through 2010 represents the time span with the greatest projected increase in population.

2 The City of Mission Viejo noted that there was some discrepancy between the population numbers used by

LAFCO in the draft MSR report for the city and those published in the Orange County Progress report (July 2005

which was the source for the city’s data, per discussion with the CDR staff.

Figure 3.2

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

CAAs

Cities



December 2005


Table 3.3

Projected Growth By Community Analysis Area

Area 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Overall

Increase

CAA 68 Pop. 40,922 43,517 48,354 49,216 49,833 50,137 9,215 %

Change 6.34% 11.12% 1.78% 1.25% 0.61% 23%

CAA 69 Pop. 42,694 47,398 49,892 51,262 52,105 52,579 9,885 %

Change 11.02% 5.26% 2.75% 1.64% 0.91% 23%

CAA 58 Pop. 106,442 111,714 114,362 116,504 117,775 118,357 11,915 %

Change 4.95% 2.37% 1.87% 1.09% 0.49% 11%

CAA 59 Pop. 52,592 65,492 83,638 95,411 107,046 118,342 65,750 %

Change 24.53% 27.71% 14.08% 12.19% 10.55% 125%

CAA 60 Pop. 2,738 11,335 17,672 23,100 28,614 34,047 31,309 %

Change 313.99% 55.91% 30.72% 23.87% 18.99% 1143%

CAA 70 Pop. 24,710 26,057 31,107 32,354 32,968 33,288 8,578 %

Change 5.45% 19.38% 4.01% 1.90% 0.97% 35%

Total Pop. 270,098 305,517 345,026 367,848 388,341 406,750 136,652

%

Change 13.11% 12.93% 6.61% 5.57% 4.74% 51%

Source: Center for Demographic Research, 2004. (The Ranch Plan Draft EIR, Table 4.3-1) except as noted in footnote on

previous page.

The planned communities within unincorporated area have been approved with the following number of dwelling units and estimated population at build-out:

It should be noted that the 14,000 dwelling units proposed for Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan will include 6,000 units of senior housing. This represents a significant demographic group, which will affect public services. A review of the California

Table 3.4

Projected Population for Unincorporated Communities

Community

Approved

# Dwelling

Units

Est.

Population

(at build-out)

% built-out

in 2005

Coto de Caza &

Wagon Wheel 6,268 13,238 100%

Ladera Ranch 8,100 21,870 80%

Las Flores 2,500 4,336 100%

The Ranch 14,000 32,823 0%

TOTAL 30,868 72,267



December 2005


Department of Finance data on population growth indicates that the percentage of the Orange County population over 60 years of age will triple, making senior citizens account for up one quarter of the population. This population segment uses emergency services at a higher rate than the general public, and it is expected that this will have a significant impact on fire and emergency services for The Ranch.3

Based on 2004 projections adopted by the OCCOG and the County as well as the OCP-2004 and the Orange County Progress Report, SCAG is using the population projections shown in Table 3.5 for the incorporated cities within the study area. The most significant projected increase is in the City of San Clemente, with the addition of 18,202 residents by 2030. The five-year period between 2000 through 2005 represents the span of time with the highest growth rate.

Table 3.5, Existing and Projected Population-Cities

City 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Overall

Increase

Mission

Viejo

Pop. 98,197 100,945 103,069 104,191 104,706 104,706 6,509

% Change

4.65% 2.96% 1.37% 1.03% 0.95% 0.33% 11.76%

Rancho

Santa

Margarita

Pop. 50,263 51,808 52,556 53,182 53,793 54,175 6,664

% Change

5.79% 3.07% 1.44% 1.19% 1.15% 0.71% 14.03%

San

Clemente

Pop. 57,966 64,760 66,131 67,175 68,151 68,454 18,202

% Change

15.35% 11.72% 2.12% 1.58% 1.45% 0.44% 36.22%

San Juan

Capistrano

Pop. 36,900 38,877 39,373 39,750 40,105 40,233 6,184

% Change

8.37% 5.36% 1.28% 0.96% 0.89% 0.32% 18.16%

TOTAL 243,171 256,390 260,383 263,488 266,409 267,568 42,067

%

Change 7.84% 5.44% 1.56% 1.19% 1.11% 0.44% 18.65%

Source: SCAG 2004 projections

3 Orange County Fire Authority’s “Overview of Deployment in Orange County”



December 2005


Exhibit 3.1, RSAs/CAAs within MSR Area



December 2005

Section 4:

INFRASTRUCTURE

NEEDS &

DEFICIENCIES



December 2005

Section 4, Infrastructure Needs & Deficiencies - 32 -

INFRASTRUCTURE

NEEDS &

DEFICIENCIES

A. Regional Overview

Services addressed in this report are provided by the cities, special districts and the County as shown in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 South Orange County Services

Municipal Services and Providers

Po

lice P

ro

tecti

on

Fir

e/Em

ergen

cy M

ed

ical

Wate

r

Waste

wate

r

Parks a

nd

Recreati

on

Op

en

Sp

ace

An

imal C

on

trol

Lib

rari

es

Cities

City of Mission Viejo ● ● ●

City of Rancho Santa Margarita3 ●

City of San Clemente ● ● ●

City of San Juan Capistrano ● ●

Special Districts

Santa Margarita Water District ● ●

Trabuco Canyon Water District ● ●

Orange County Fire Authority ●

South Orange County Wastewater Authority1,2 ●

County of Orange

OC Sheriff’s Department2 ●

RDMD – Harbors, Beaches and Parks2 ●

Health Services Agency2 ● 1SOCWA is a joint powers authority 2The services provided by this agency are only addressed as they pertain to the study area; this report does

not include a comprehensive review of this agency or the services it provides

3The City provides limited parks and recreational services.



December 2005


B. Orange County Sheriff’s Department

The Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) is responsible for law enforcement in the unincorporated areas of the County and is contracted to serve the cities of Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) provides traffic enforcement and collision investigation services in the unincorporated area.

In the Western United States there were, on average, 2.4 full time law enforcement employees (sworn officers and civilians) for every 1,000 inhabitants and 1.7 sworn officers per 1,000 for cities with populations between 25,000 and 100,000. For planning purposes, OCSD uses a ratio of 0.9 sworn deputies to 1,000 people. However, other factors are also used to determine staffing needs and the ratio may change based on the characteristics and needs of the service area. OCSD uses other benchmarks to evaluate service levels, including response time, preventative patrol time, and workload.

OCSD’s South Operations is headquartered in Aliso Viejo. The South Operations service area encompasses the southern portion of Orange County (approximately 136 square miles) with a population of approximately 320,000 people. A staff of over 450 sworn and professional staff members serves the area.4 Staff is assigned to each of the contract cities; each city’s police department operates under the direction of an OCSD lieutenant who serves as chief of police services for the city. Police facilities, staffing and emergency call volumes are shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Law Enforcement Facilities, Staffing, & Emergency Call Volume

Agency # of Patrol

Units day/night

# of Sworn

Officers

2004 Emerg. Call

Volume

Avg. Response Times

(Priority 1 / Priority 2)

City of Mission Viejo 8/8 56 508 5:35/8:35

City of Rancho Santa

Margarita 5/6 2.85 186 4.32/7.43


City of San Juan Capistrano 12/11 28 259 4:11/7:10

4 The EIR for the Ranch Plan noted “Units assigned to the South Operations Area currently handle calls for service to the project

study area (the Ranch Plan PC). As of March 2004, the South operations Area headquarters had 17 deputies, ten open deputy

positions, four sergeant positions and two open sergeant positions assigned to the unincorporated areas with the South operations

Area. An additional 75 to 80 non-sworn, professional staff members serve all areas, both incorporated and unincorporated, of the

South Operations Area. Once the twelve open positions are filled, this staffing level is considered the minimum level of police

protection necessary to properly protect the general project area.”



December 2005


OCSD tracks response times for both Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls which can vary due to the time of day, number of available patrol units in the field, and traffic and weather conditions. Priority 1 calls are emergency calls requiring an immediate response; Priority 2 calls are non-emergency calls that do not require an immediate response.

The South Operations area receives approximately 16,000 Priority 1 calls annually. Some calls are routed to administrative staff; however each officer handles approximately 750 calls per year.5 The target response time by a ground patrol unit for Priority 1 calls is five (5) minutes or less and 12 minutes or less for Priority 2 calls. The Sheriff’s Department, as with all public agencies, is facing financing constraints. However, without additional data from the Sheriff’s Department, staff cannot make any determination regarding the existing or future infrastructure deficiencies or concerns in meeting target response times.

California Highway Patrol

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) provides traffic law enforcement and traffic collision investigation in the unincorporated area. The CHP also provides mutual aid assistance to OCSD when needed. The CHP local headquarters are located in the City of San Juan Capistrano.

The number of units fielded by the Capistrano area office varies widely. Typically, there are four to seven single-officer units available during the day and afternoon shifts, and one to three two-officer units on the graveyard shifts. As of April 2004, the Capistrano office had 48 sworn officers on staff, including 33 providing road patrol services, six supervisors, one lieutenant, one captain, and seven for special assignments. There are no existing plans to hire additional officers; in fact, there is currently a hiring freeze due to the state budget deficit.6

According to the CHP, current resources are not always sufficient to maintain an adequate level of service throughout the study area and the shortfall in staffing is expected to continue. It should be noted that the CHP only provides a support role to the OCSD for law enforcement in the south operations area. Due to CHP staff shortages, OCSD often handles traffic issues until CHP officers can arrive.

5 The Ranch Plan – Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 589. June 10, 2004

6 The Ranch Plan Draft EIR



December 2005


C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services

The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) provides fire and emergency medical services throughout the study area, serving both the unincorporated area and the four cities. OCFA’s countywide service area is divided into four divisions with each division subdivided into two battalions. The MSR area is primarily located within Division 3 with only a portion of Mission Viejo in Division 2. Figure 4.3 on the following page depicts the OCFA service area.

With 60 fire stations and a service area that includes urban, suburban, rural, and wilderness areas, OCFA is one of the largest regional fire service organizations in California. Front line apparatus (those units staffed for immediate response) includes 56 fire engines, 10 paramedic vans, and 13 trucks. Of the 79 units, 30 are paramedic advanced life support units, 25 are paramedic assessment units and 24 are basic life support units. OCFA resources include helicopters, a hazardous materials response unit, airport crash rescue units at John Wayne Airport, bulldozers, swift water rescue capabilities, and a federally sponsored urban search and rescue task force.

OCFA’s resources are based upon a regional service delivery system, meaning the agency assigns personnel and equipment to emergency incidents without regard to jurisdictional boundaries. The principle benefits of a regional system are reduced costs, improved service and coverage, reduced duplication, cost avoidance, and increased effectiveness.7

Orange County is a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) Contract County and protects 146,724 acres of State Responsibility Area wildland within Orange County. Large open space and undeveloped areas pose a significant challenge to the suppression of wildfires, provision of rescue services and resources.

State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) are those areas in which primary financial responsibility for preventing and suppressing fires belongs to the state as determined by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. However when areas are annexed, incorporated, or if housing densities average more than 3 units per acre over an area of 250 acres, they are then classified as a Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). Wildland fires in SRA lands trigger dispatch of CDF resources and equipment through the contract OCFA has with the state. However, if a fire starts in a LRA, even a wildland fire, then the local jurisdiction is responsible for fire suppression. This is a significant issue for the MSR area in terms of future governance and financing. Specific analysis of the fiscal implications to cities related to the annexation of unincorporated areas is beyond the scope of this MSR report. 7 Orange County Fire Authority. Overview of Deployment in Orange County.



December 2005


Figure 4.3, OCFA Service Area in South Orange County



December 2005


Fire Stations

Existing and proposed fire stations within the study area are listed below in Table 4.4, along with the number of calls for service received by the stations. A discussion of each station’s location, labor resources, and equipment follow.

Table 4.4

Fire Stations Serving the MSR Study Area

Station Number Station Name & Address

Calls for Service

in 2003

Existing Station Number and Name

Station 7 San Juan Capistrano – 31865 Del Obispo, San Juan Capistrano 4,860

Station 9 South Mission Viejo – 9 Shops Boulevard, Mission Viejo 2,380

Station 24 Mission Viejo – 25862 Marguerite Parkway, Mission Viejo 3,352

Station 40 Coto de Caza – 25082 Vista del Verde, Coto de Caza 451

Station 45 30131 Aventura, Rancho Santa Margarita 92668

Station 58 Ladera Ranch – 58 Station Way, Ladera Ranch 1,486

Station 59 San Clemente – 1030 Calle Negocio, San Clemente 991

Proposed Station

Station 56 Near the intersection of New Ortega Highway & SR-74, Ladera Ranch

NA2

1 No calls were received by Fire Station 56 because it is a proposed station. Source: Michelle Hernandez, Orange County Fire Authority Strategic Services Division, 2004

Source: The Ranch Plan Final EIR Table 4.15-1

Station 7 is located west of I-5 at the corner of Del Obispo and Forrester Lane in San Juan Capistrano. The station is approximately three miles from Rancho Mission Viejo’s Planning Area 1.8

Station 9 is located in Mission Viejo, approximately five miles from Rancho Mission Viejo. Station 24 is also in Mission Viejo and is located approximately seven miles from Rancho Mission Viejo’s Planning Area 2.

Station 40 is located in Coto de Caza, approximately eleven miles from Rancho Mission Viejo via existing roadways. Planning Areas 2 and 3 are the closest Ranch Plan development areas to the fire station.




December 2005


Station 58 is located near the intersection of Antonio Parkway and Crown Valley Parkway in unincorporated Orange County (Ladera Ranch). The station is located approximately five miles from Rancho Mission Viejo. Planning Areas 1 and 2 are the closest Ranch Plan development area to the fire station.

Station 59 is located in the City of San Clemente, approximately one mile from Planning Area 8 of the Rancho Mission Viejo development. OCFA is in the process of being relocated this station to Avenida La Pata between Avenida Pico and Avenida Vista Hermosa in the City of San Clemente. The new location is also approximately one mile from Planning Area 8.

Proposed Station 56 is currently planned to be located near Antonio Parkway and Ortega Highway. The station would be responsible for calls within the southern portion of Ladera Ranch, as well as areas to the south. Though the precise location has not been determined, the anticipated location is adjacent to Planning Area 1 in the proposed Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan.

Response Times

Response times within a service area vary and depend on a number of factors, including development density and road infrastructure. Low density development and roadways that do not meet OCFA standards may also lengthen emergency response times. This issue was addressed in the Final EIR for the Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan and was noted by the City of Mission Viejo as an important issue for some stakeholders.

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 Standard establishes a goal of a five (5) minute response time from the time of dispatch to arrival on the scene, whenever possible. Currently OCFA meets the NFPA 1710 Standard 71% of the time, with an average response time of five (5) minutes 17 seconds.9

Fire & Emergency Services for Future Development

According to The Ranch Plan Final EIR, the Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan may impact the ability of OCFA to meet its standards as follows:10

1. Due to the remoteness of the low density development in the eastern portion of Planning Area 7 and the estates in Planning Area 9, OCFA would not be able to


10 During the MSR process some changes in the development pattern were made to the Rancho Mission Viejo Ranch

Plan; these changes have not been addressed in this MSR due to the timing of the changes.



December 2005


provide adequate fire protection to these areas and meet adopted performance objectives.

2. The removal of Crown Valley Parkway from the County’s Master Plan of Arterials and Highways (MPAH) would reduce the effectiveness of Fire Station 58 and result in service levels below adopted performance objectives for the northern portion of Planning Area 2.

3. The distance to the nearest hospital would cause delays in transport and greater use of OCFA staff. As a result, staff would not be available at the stations for other emergency calls. This may have an adverse impact on meeting adopted performance objectives.

4. Use of the existing ranch roads for access in Planning Area 9 may not meet OCFA standards for emergency access.

In order to meet service standards, several new fire stations may need to be constructed as well as additional firefighters hired and trained. Preliminary analysis by OCFA demonstrates the need for approximately four new fire stations with five and a half companies (i.e., four engines and one truck and a paramedic van).11 At the time the Draft EIR was prepared, OCFA was recommending that fire stations be located within Planning Areas 3, 6, and 8, with two new stations in Planning Area 3. Additionally, proposed Station 56 would move from its currently planned location at Ortega Highway and Antonio Parkway to an area near New Ortega Highway and Antonio Parkway adjacent to the southern portion of Planning Area 1.

The proposed Rancho Mission Viejo development includes 6,000 senior housing units. Typically this population group uses emergency services more frequently than the general population, resulting in higher demand for these services.

As previously indicated, OCFA has expressed concern about the distance to the nearest hospital from the future Rancho Mission Viejo development. Although the distance would have a potential impact on delays for OCFA staff (addressed above), local medical facilities and Mission Hospital would be able to accommodate growth in the area. Additionally, it is anticipated that as the population grows a hospital or emergency medical facility may locate within the Rancho Mission Viejo project area.

Since the approval of the Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan in November of 2004, an August 2005 settlement agreement reached between Rancho Mission Viejo and an




December 2005


environmental coalition reduces the development area of the Ranch Plan by 25% and further changes the configuration and distribution of planning areas. These changes will require further assessment by OCFA for the number and location of fire stations required as well as a facility agreement between OCFA and Rancho Mission Viejo.

D. Water Service

Water service in the MSR area is provided by four agencies—the Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD), Trabuco Canyon Water District (TCWD), and Cities of San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente. Water supply includes groundwater, imported, and recycled water with a small amount of surface diversion.

The Santa Margarita Water District’s (SMWD) service area encompasses 97 square miles in southeastern Orange County. The district provides both potable and recycled water to Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Las Flores, Coto de Caza, Ladera Ranch, San Clemente (Talega), and the recently approved Ranch Plan area.

The Trabuco Canyon Water District (TCWD) is located at the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. Its service area encompasses approximately 14.2 square miles, including the communities of Trabuco Canyon, Robinson Ranch, Trabuco Highlands, Walden, Rancho Cielo, a portion of Portola Hills, Santiago Canyon Estates, and Dove Canyon.

The City of San Juan Capistrano water system serves the city’s incorporated area and Dana Point, and the City of San Clemente provides water service to the western portion of the city. A map of the water agency service areas is shown as Figure 4.5.

Water Supply

All four agencies12 are members of the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), which is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. As such, the agencies are provided with imported water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project. The imported supply includes both raw and treated water. The Allen-McColloch Pipeline and the Aufdenkamp Connection Transmission Main are the primary mains serving SMWD. SMWD owns capacity rights to the Allen-McColloch Pipeline for the delivery of domestic water, which it retails to its customers and wholesales to TCWD. The V.P. Baker Aqueduct, operated by the Santiago Aqueduct Commission, supplies non-domestic water to the area. Water for the aqueduct originates from Metropolitan’s Lake Mathews or Irvine Lake.

12

The term “agencies” refers to both cities and special districts. In this instance it refers to the Santa Margarita

Water District, the Trabuco Canyon Water District, and the Cities of San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente.



December 2005


Figure 4.5, Water Agency Service Areas



December 2005


TCWD purchases the bulk of its untreated water from MWDOC and treats the water at its water treatment facility. TCWD also purchases treated water from MWDOC which is supplied through capacity TCWD owns in the SMWD system. The District has a contractual capacity of 4,340 acre-feet annually for the aqueduct. SMWD also receives water through the Irvine Lake Pipeline (operated by the Irvine Ranch Water District).

The balance of the water supply in the MSR area is obtained through locally-produced groundwater, water transfers, recycled water, and surface flow diversions. Recycled water is available in both SMWD and TCWD’s service areas and is an important component in the total water supply for the area. SMWD owns and operates recycled water systems at the Oso Creek Water Reclamation Plant and the Chiquita Water Reclamation Plant. TCWD produces recycled water at its Robinson Ranch Water Reclamation facility.

SMWD is permitted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the San Juan Basin Authority (SJBA) to use up to 8,026 acre-feet per year (AFY) from the San Juan Creek with the ability to increase to 10,702 AFY upon a demonstration of sufficient availability of unappropriated water.

The two water districts also obtain a portion of their water supply through other agencies. SMWD has an agreement to purchase at least 2,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater produced by the El Toro Water District. In addition, SMWD has entered into supplemental dry year agreements with the Cucamonga County Water District and the Southern California Water Company, involving existing water supplies in the Chino Groundwater Basin. SMWD can purchase 4,250 AF of water each year from the Cucamonga County Water District for the next 25 years.

The SMWD and Southern California Water Company (SCWC) also entered into an agreement that entitles SMWD to acquire 2,000 AF of water from SCWC. Both agreements are intended to provide redundancy in water supplies for the region. TCWD purchases water delivered through the Allen-McColloch Pipeline from SMWD.



December 2005


Table 4.6

Current and Projected Water Supplies (in acre feet)

Agency/Water Supply Source

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

SMWD

Purchased from MWDOC/MWD

27,893 20,638 19,657 19,998 18,901

ETWD produced groundwater

0 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

SMWD produced recycled water

1,960 4,759 6,439 8,118 9,797

Water Transfers

(recycled water) 1,983 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Water Transfers (domestic)

1,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

TCWD13

Purchased from Santiago Aqueduct

Commission

2,901 3,234 4,297 4,340 4,340 4,340

Purchased from SMWD 209 225 225 468 712 928

Purchased from IRWD 222 222 222 222 222 222

Net Transfers In/Exchanges Out (SCWD & IRWD)

(29) 0 0 0 0 0

Recycled Water 884 850 956 1,000 1,000 1,000



GWRP 0 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800

Purchase MWDOC/MWD

14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400

Ground Water Potable 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

Recycled/Non-Domestic Mix

460 460 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Grand Total

Sources: 2000 Urban Water Management Plans for SMWD and TCWD

13

Source: 2005 draft Urban Water Management Plan for Trabucco Canyon WD. The district suggested that the draft

2005 UWMP be used since projected water supplies have changed significantly from the 2000 UWMP.



December 2005


Balancing Supply & Demand

The following table, Table 4.7, summarizes the potable demand and supply, both current and projected, as reported by the agencies providing water service.

Table 4.7

Potable Supply and Demand Summary (Acre Feet/Year)

Agency

Existing

Supply 2000

Existing

Demand 2000

Difference

Projected

Supply 2020

Projected

Demand 202014

Difference

SMWD 33,376 45,498

TCWD 4,625 4,612 0 6,272 6,272 0



15,600 8,700 6,900 15,600 11,840 3,760

TOTAL

E. Wastewater

Wastewater infrastructure includes collection and sewer main lines, lift stations, and treatment plants. The Santa Margarita Water District, Trabuco Canyon Water District, City of San Clemente, and South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) operate treatment plants. Each of the cities is responsible for the sanitary sewer system within their incorporated area. A portion of TCWD’s service area remains un-sewered and relies on septic systems.

Three of the treatment plants are producing recycled water that is used in the study area:

Oso Creek Wastewater Reclamation System

Chiquita Wastewater Reclamation System

Robinson Ranch Wastewater Treatment Plant

14

Development of the Mission Viejo Ranch will extend beyond 2020; however water providers will update water

supply/demand as required by State law every 5 years.



December 2005


The following table, Table 4.8, summarizes the wastewater infrastructure within the study area:

Table 4.8

Wastewater Infrastructure Summary

Agency

No. of Sewer

Connections

Permitted Treatment Capacity

Current Dry Weather

Flow (MGD)

2020 Dry Weather

Flow (MGD)

Current Recycled Water Use

AF/Yr

2020 Recycled

Water Use AF/Yr

Agencies

SMWD 13.4

TCWD 0.72

City of San Juan Capistrano 3.5

City of San Clemente 4.5

Treatment Plants

Oso Creek Wastewater Reclamation System

N/A

Chiquita Wastewater Reclamation System

N/A

Robinson Ranch Wastewater

Treatment Plant 3,538

0.85

mgd

0.75

mgd

0.90

mgd 822 af

1,000

af

City of San Clemente Water Reclamation Plant

N/A

Jay B. Latham Regional Treatment Plant

N/A

The wastewater systems are adequate to meet current needs and the agencies have planned for capacity to meet the flows generated by future development within their service areas.

F. Parks & Recreation

Parks and recreation facilities within the study area range from state and regional parks to local public parks, trails, bikeways and golf courses.

The provision of park and recreation facilities is addressed in the General Plans prepared by the cities. Table 4.9 summarizes existing and proposed public parks within the study area.



December 2005


Table 4.9 Public Park Facilities

Facility Acreage

State Park

San Onofre State Beach 3,036

Regional Parks

General Thomas F. Riley Wilderness Park 524

Ronald W. Caspers Wilderness Park 8,500

O’Neill Regional Park 3,358

Prima Deshecha Regional Park (proposed) 1,530

Community Parks (~20-50 acres)

San Juan Capistrano Sports Park 18

Ladera Ranch County Regional Sports Park 24

C. Russell Cook Park, San Juan Capistrano 17

Forster Ranch Community Park, San Clemente

22

Oso Viejo Park, Mission Viejo 52

Florence Joyner Olympiad Park, Mission Viejo 20

Youth Athletic Park, Mission Viejo 41

Rancho Mission Viejo Sports Park (proposed) 20-25

Neighborhood Parks (~2-20 acres) # of

parks

City of Mission Viejo15 39 parks

City of Rancho Santa Margarita 22 parks*


City of San Juan Capistrano 7 parks

Coto de Caza

Ladera Ranch

Las Flores

Rancho Mission Viejo (proposed) 82 acres

* According to the City of Rancho Santa Margarita, neighborhood and community parks in the city are owned and maintained by homeowner associations.

15

The City of Mission Viejo noted that it has several parks that fall below the acreage listed in the chart.



December 2005


In addition there are four golf courses within the study area, three of which are privately owned. Two of the three privately owned golf courses are available for public use. Further, the Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan includes the potential development of up to five more courses.

Trails and bikeways are an important component of recreational programs, and their value to the community increases significantly when they provide linkages to other local and regional facilities. In addition to the parks and recreational facilities, South County also has public beaches that are an important recreational element to the region. The City of San Clemente maintains 20 acres of sand beaches with nine beach access points, and the state maintains San Onofre State Beach.

All neighborhood and community parks within the City of Rancho Santa Margarita are owned and operated by the homeowners associations with the exception of O’Neill Regional Park, which is owned and maintained by the County of Orange. Santa Margarita Landscape and Recreation Corporation (SAMLARC) oversees a majority of the community facilities within the city.

The City of Mission Viejo manages and operates its public park and recreation facilities through its Public Services and Community Services Departments.

The City of San Juan Capistrano manages park facilities through its Public Works Department. The city’s Community Services Department manages its recreation programs.

The City of San Clemente operates its parks and recreational facilities through its Beaches, Parks, and Recreation Department. The Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Department, a division of the Resources Management and Development Department, manage the County’s regional parks and local parks in unincorporated area.

Park Facilities Capital Improvements

Growth within the South County region will result in increased use of parks and recreational facilities, which will intensify maintenance needs and accelerate the need for some capital improvements and refurbishment. Each agency or organization responsible for parks and recreations establishes improvement projects and acquisitions as funding is available.

Due to financial constraints, the County’s Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Department faces significant challenges in maintaining aging facilities and infrastructure, completing required ADA improvements, and implementing new capital projects. The



December 2005


department’s priority for grants and other limited capital funding is for projects that preserve or restore the useful life of structures and infrastructure at existing facilities serving the public. The County received $13.9 million in Proposition 40 funds, all of which was allocated to major maintenance, refurbishment and replacement projects at regional recreation facilities. Per the RDMD 2004 Business Plan, the Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Department does not have the fiscal resources to fund new, currently unknown, or unbudgeted projects or programs. The department will only provide levels of service that are within available resources.

G. Open Space

Open space within the study area includes privately owned land, land held in conservancy and public land owned by the County of Orange, the Cities of Rancho Santa Margarita and Mission Viejo, and other entities. The Cleveland National Forest is adjacent to the study area. The County’s Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Department manages open space areas. Infrastructure within open space areas is minimal and services primarily require staff and vehicles for patrol; improvements include native vegetation restoration.

The County has established goals and benchmarks to measure performance related to open space management. In the County Resources Development and Management Department’s 2004 Business Plan, the performance measurements for open space are as follows:

Table 4.10 County of Orange Performance Measures – Open Space

Performance Measure FY 02-03

Results

FY 03-04 Anticipated

Results

FY 04-05 Plan

Cumulative number of acres managed as open space:

(Indicates result of preserving and protecting natural areas and open

space habitats.)

1,605 acres 300 acres 300 acres

Percentage increase in targeted species

existing compared to base numbers: (Indicates progress in preserving and protecting natural areas and open space habitats.)

4.6% 1.3% 1.3%



December 2005


Table 4.10 County of Orange Performance Measures – Open Space

Performance Measure FY 02-03

Results

FY 03-04 Anticipated

Results

FY 04-05 Plan

Percent of total land managed by HBP that has been restored with native vegetation:

(Indicates result of restoring natural

areas and open space habitats to

more native state.)

0.23% 0.25% 0.25%

Source: RDMD 2004 Business Plan – Harbors, Beaches and Park Operational Plan

The Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan includes 17,023 acres that would be retained in open space. The County’s ability to manage additional open space area is currently limited due to budgetary constraints and the future ownership and operations/maintenance responsibilities for open space areas is a significant issue for all governance options.

The entity that will manage and operate any of the open space associated with the Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan has not been determined. This issue has been raised in previous MSRs completed by Orange County LAFCO, and efforts are ongoing to find an acceptable solution. Given the financial constraints for public agencies and the liabilities associated with the management and operation of open space lands, it is doubtful whether a public agency would accept responsibility without adequate funding.

Funding for long-term maintenance of open space and fire protection continue to be an issue for all agencies responsible for open space areas. This is a regional problem that will require regional solutions to ensure that there is equity in how the resource benefits and liabilities are shared. Rancho Mission Viejo, however, has committed to the management of the open space areas of the Ranch Plan through conditions of approval, which should not obligate the County of Orange or other public agencies.

H. Animal Control Services

The Cities of Mission Viejo and San Clemente and Orange County Animal Care Services, a division of the Orange County Health Care Agency, provide animal control services.



December 2005



The City of Mission Viejo Public Services Department provides animal care and control for the cities of Mission Viejo and Laguna Niguel. The Animal Care Facility has limited space and only accepts owner-relinquished animals on a limited basis.


The Cities of San Clemente and Dana Point formed a JPA, Coastal Animal Services Authority (CASA), in order to provide animal control services in the two cities. Services include pet licensing, quarantine, pet adoptions, and stray pick up.

Orange County Animal Care Services

The County provides services in the unincorporated area as well as by contract for the Cities of Rancho Santa Margarita and San Juan Capistrano. The County has three animal transport vehicles serving the South County area. The County’s Animal Care Facility is located on the City Drive in Orange.

I. Library Services

The City of Mission Viejo Library Department manages and operates the Mission Viejo Library, a full-service city program housed in a 41,400 square foot facility. In addition to overseeing daily library operations, the Library Department provides information programs and services for youth and adults, including an adult literacy program and a homebound delivery program. The library is open 60 hours a week, seven days a week, and serves all residents of Mission Viejo as well as residents of the surrounding cities of Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, and Rancho Santa Margarita, and the unincorporated areas east of the city, including Las Flores and Ladera Ranch. The Mission Viejo Library is located on Marguerite Parkway, south of La Paz Road, adjacent to Mission Viejo City Hall.



December 2005


Section 5:

FINANCING

OPPORTUNITIES &

CONSTRAINTS



December 2005

Section 5, Financing Opportunities & Constraints - 52 -

FINANCING

OPPORTUNITIES &

CONSTRAINTS

A. Financial Overview

Over the past several years, public agencies have experienced escalating costs without a compensating increase in revenue, and the required transfer of local money to the state is compounding the problem for FYs 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The uncertainty of local funds for public agencies is a significant financing constraint. Overall the agencies addressed by this MSR have adequate funds for current service levels.

The total budgeted revenue and expenses for each of the four cities for FY 2004-2005 is demonstrated in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1

FY 2004-2005 Budgeted Revenue and Expenses – Cities

$50.1

$36.2

$48.2

$36.9

$15.9

$25.1

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

Mission Viejo Rancho Sta Marg San Clemente San Juan Capo

Revenue/Exp in millions

Revenue

Expenses



December 2005


The water districts operate as enterprise activities, so revenues cover the cost of service, capital improvements and reserves. The total budgeted revenue and expenses for the two districts for FY 2004-2005 are shown below in Figure 5.2:

Figure 5.2

FY 2004-2005 Budgeted Revenue and Expenses – Water Districts

$5.1

$37.7

$5.0

$42.2

$-

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$40.0

$45.0

SMWD TCWD

Reven

ue/E

xp

en

ses in

millio

ns

Operating Revenue Operating Expenses



December 2005


B. Financial Summaries

The following tables demonstrate the cities and the special districts’ three-year financial summaries.

Table 5.3, City of Mission Viejo’s Three-Year Financial Summary


Finances FY 02-03

Actual

FY 03-04

Actual

FY 04-05

Actual

Revenue:

General Fund $41,460,304 $41,477,915 $46,497,230

Special Revenue Funds $10,797,942 $10,642,491 $10,316,935

Debt Service Fund $1,624,248 $1,756,614 $2,130,030

Capital Projects Funds ($947) $0 $0

Less Interfund Transfers ($1,381,284) ($1,358,037) ($861,233)

Total Revenue $52,500,263 $52,518,983 $58,082,962

Appropriations:

General Fund $36,639,989 $40,009,262 $40,724,522


Debt Service Fund $1,602,811 $1,752,672 $2,125,209

Capital Projects Funds $154,019 $6,622 $0

Less Interfund Transfers ($2,852,628) ($2,821,152) ($3,687,730)

Total Appropriations $43,662,909 $49,641,665 $49,752,909

Total Fund Balance, End of Year16 $27,464,167 $30,902,486 $35,084,395

The city’s property tax revenue will be reduced by $1,305,798 in FYs 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 due to the ERAF III transfer.

16

Unreserved fund balance for the fund types indicated



December 2005


Table 5.4, City of Rancho Santa Margarita’s Three-Year Financial Summary

The city’s property tax revenue will be reduced by $437,533 in FYs 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 due to the ERAF III transfer.


Finances FY 02-03

Actual FY 03-04

Actual FY 04-05

Adopted Budget

Revenue:

General Fund $13,242,022 $14,121,005 $13,119,438


Capital Projects Fund $2,702,829 $2,386,586 $7,644,531

RSM Non-Profit $0 $12,877,671 $0

Less Interfund Transfers ($2,956,907) ($6,708,626)

Total Revenue $15,065,134 $18,155,530 $15,934,201

Appropriations:

General Fund $12,783,432 $12,631,296 $18,036,166

Special Revenue Funds $2,723,399 $500,121 $3,159,408


RSMNP Capital Projects $0 $8,154,448 $0



Total Fund Balance, End of Year $15,745,726 $21,794,326 $13,783,783



December 2005


Table 5.5, City of San Clemente’s Three-Year Financial Summary


Finances FY 02-03

Actual

FY 03-04 Projected

Actual

FY 04-05 Adopted Budget

Revenue:

General Fund

Special Revenue Funds

Capital Projects Fund

Less Interfund Transfers

Total Revenue

Appropriations:

General Fund

Special Revenue Funds

Capital Projects Fund

Less Interfund Transfers

Total Appropriations

Total Fund Balance, End of Year




December 2005


Table 5.6, City of San Juan Capistrano’s Three-Year Financial Summary


Finances FY 02-03

Actual

FY 03-04 Projected

Actual

FY 04-05 Adopted Budget

Revenue:

General Fund $18,754,373 $19,902,827 $20,931,128




Total Revenue $22,664,710 $29,332,573 $36,527,230

Appropriations:

General Fund $16,213,695 $17,760,248 $20,271,473





Total Fund Balance, End of Year $32,079,503 $38,310,122 $39,612,735




December 2005


Table 5.7, Santa Margarita Water District’s Three-Year Financial Summary


Finances FY 02-03

Actual FY 03-04

Projected Actual FY 04-05

Budget

Operating Revenue

Water Sales $29,184,532 $28,658,514 $29,171,965

Sanitation Sales Service Charge $9,605,491 $10,079,720 $10,574,503

Property Taxes $3,570,237 $0 $0

Other Operating Revenue $2,768,022 $2,239,560 $2,451,042

Total Operating Revenue $45,128,282 $41,757,194 $42,197,510

Operating Expense

Salaries and Related $8,112,139 $8,899,568 $9,928,991

Professional Services $1,218,848 $1,127,119 $1,234,657

Water Purchases $13,508,257 $15,140,807 $13,796,495

Regional Participation $71,667 $96,514 $102,067

Sewage Treatment Participation $2,137,446 $1,922,264 $1,894,310

Power $3,730,389 $3,438,543 $4,134,865

Repair & Maintenance $1,895,822 $2,324,382 $2,862,451

Meter Purchases $386,902 $330,397 $443,055

M&O Agreements $534,414 $823,622 $822,600

Genl/Other Operating Expenses $3,494,820 $3,660,228 $3,799,666

JOF Expense Adjustment ($974,432) ($977,493) ($1,322,536)

Total Operating Expense $34,116,272 $36,785,951 $37,696,621

Net Surplus/(Deficit) $11,012,010 $4,971,243 $4,500,889

Capital Purchases $1,402,730 $684,265

Reserve Balance, end of year

The district’s property tax revenue was reduced by $3,245,037 in FY 2004-2005 due to the ERAF III transfer with the same reduction in FY 2005-2006; therefore no property tax revenue is included in the budget.



December 2005


Table 5.8, Trabuco Canyon Water District’s Three-Year Financial Summary


Finances FY 02-03

Actual FY 03-04

Actual FY 04-05

Budget

Operating Revenue

Water Sales $3,243,806 $3,264,973 $3,078,447

Sanitation Sales Service Charge $1,593,867 $1,672,089 $1,702,999

Property Taxes See footnote17

Other Operating Revenue $59,827 $347,433 $351,700

Total Operating Revenue $4,897,500 $5,284,495 $5,133,146

Operating Expense

Salaries and Related $1,624,823 $1,746,675 $2,168,468

Professional Services $111,458 $223,623 $135,844

Water Purchases $1,235,627 $1,356,121 $1,093,632

Regional Participation $30,773 $21,823 $38,019

Sewage Treatment Participation $341,651 $524,436 $202,260

Power $720,239 $618,537 $640,983

Repair & Maintenance $202,226 $179,684 $246,094

Meter Purchases $16,664 $8,900 $28,134

M&O Agreements $0 $0 $0

Genl/Other Operating Expenses $394,895 $535,272 $478,093

JOF Expense Adjustment $0 $0 $0

Total Operating Expense $4,678,356 $5,215,071 $5,031,527

Net Surplus/(Deficit) $219,144 $69,424 $101,619

Capital Purchases $276,240 $123,652 $2,165,699

Reserve Balance, end of year $3,844,509 $329,1993 $2,550,159

The district’s property tax revenue was reduced by $1,332,117 in FY 2004-2005 due to the ERAF III transfer with the same reduction in FY 2005-2006. 17 The district’s ad valorem property taxes are not considered Operating Revenue. The ad valorem property taxes area committed

to funding a portion of the annual debt service for the district’s Certificates of Participation (COPs) securities. The district’s

property tax revenue was reduced by $804.076 in FY 2004-05 due to the ERAF transfer with the same reduction in FY 2005-06.

However, the district collected a pass-through surcharge totaling $454, 276 and supplemented the loss of the ad valorem property

tax with its Water Rate Stabilization Fund to assist in recapturing a portion of the loss of property tax revenues in FY 2004-2005.

In FY 2005-06, the district will collect $731,940 in pass-through surcharges to assist in recapturing a portion of the revenue loss.



December 2005


The Orange County Fire Authority is funded through property taxes, contracts and other fees.

Table 5.9, Orange County Fire Authority’s Three-Year Financial Summary


Finances FY 02-03

Actual FY 03-04

Actual FY 04-05

Final Budget

Revenue:

1% Property Tax $113,593,644 $122,930,589 $135,149,401

Fire Protection Tax N/A N/A N/A

Dispatch Services N/A N/A N/A

Interest $1,275,243 $946,272 $1,268,914

Plan Check Fees* $4,254,396 $5,132,780 $5,451,281

Other Revenue** $43,997,828 $48,499,601 $51,084,693

Total Revenue $163,121,111 $177,509,242 $192,954,289

Appropriations:

Salaries and Employee Benefits $129,440,279 $143,071,322 $159,716,155

Services & Supplies $16,280,358 $19,504,205 $19,906,300

Other Charges (Debt Service) $722,337 $525,536 $659,513

Fixed Assets $181,932 $397,567 $296,833

Operating Transfers Out $14,274,323 $5,566,362 $22,328,425

Contingencies N/A N/A N/A


Fund Balance, End of Year $31,392,370 $29,991,925 $18,127,138

* Plan Check Fees include all Fire Prevention Fees ** Other revenue includes cash contracts, intergovernmental reimbursements and pass-throughs, hazardous materials fees, ALS reimbursements, and miscellaneous revenues.



November 2005

Section 6:

ECONOMIES OF

SERVICE



December 2005

Section 6, Economies of Service - 62 -

ECONOMIES OF

SERVICE

This section combines the required determinations for rate restructuring, cost avoidance opportunities, shared facilities, and evaluation of management efficiencies.

A. Rate Restructuring

The following section provides an overview of the rate structures in use by the agencies addressed in this service review.

Police Services

The Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) does not charge user fees in conjunction with the contracted law enforcement services it provides for the four cities. It does, however, recover costs through contracts with the cities.

On a countywide basis, service charges are imposed where allowable, such as for civil processing and forensic services for law enforcement agencies in other counties. As part of the OCSD 2004 Business Plan, the department planned to pursue some revenue generating changes such as marketing analytical services for forensic cases to agencies outside Orange County and charging for production of documents under Civil Subpoenas Duces Tecum, record checks conducted for the Department of Defense and Office of Personnel Management; and various services offered to other law enforcement agencies.

Fire & Emergency Services

The Structural Fire Fund (SFF) is an allocation of property taxes levied for the specific purpose of funding county fire protection services. It is based on Government Code Section 25643, which states:

“The board of supervisors of a county shall determine each year such sum of money as the board of supervisors deems necessary for fire protection services within the county, excluding therefrom any city or district which is at such time providing fire protection services within such city or district….the taxes for the costs of county fire protection services shall be levied only upon property within the county served by and benefiting from county fire protection services…”



December 2005


This section of the government code was adopted prior to passage of Proposition 13. Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the SFF rate that was in effect in 1978 remains at the same ratio to non-structural fire fund tax revenues collected from the different tax rate areas. In Proposition 13’s enabling legislation, the legislature provided that the SFF be treated like a “special district” and be entitled to receive a pro rata share of the property tax allocation. The boundaries of the SFF encompass the County unincorporated area and 12 member cities of the OCFA.

The SFF includes 15 cities and the County unincorporated area. The 15 member cities include Aliso Viejo, Cypress, Dana Point, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Juan Capistrano, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda.

Cash contract cities are not within the structural fire fund boundaries. Cash contract cities are not required to commit a specific portion of property tax revenues to fire protection. Rather cash contract cities are responsible for providing their own fire protection services and pay an annual charge to OCFA. The cash contract cities are Buena Park, Placentia, San Clemente, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, and Westminster.

OCFA charges for plan review and inspections, including development, fire sprinklers and alarms, and architectural structure. It also charges fees for hazardous materials based on the number of chemicals and quantity located on site. In 2002, OCFA’s Board of Directors adopted a resolution to adjust fees on July 1 of each year to recover the cost of providing the service. It increased fees 6.61% in July 2004.

The Orange County Health Care Agency has authority over the ambulance service rates charged by OCFA. The County Board of Supervisors, which approves the rates, has directed the Health Care Agency to review rates annually and adjust the maximum Advanced Life Support (ALS) paramedic assessment and transport fee by the same percentage change as the maximum Basic Life Support (BLS) emergency ground ambulance rate for the same period, but not to exceed actual costs for providing ALS services. Per the ambulance ordinance, the BLS ground emergency ambulance rates are established based on the median fees for San Bernardino County, Los Angeles County, and the City of San Diego in effect on January 1 of each year. The current BLS base rate is $581.50.18 The ALS base rate is $308 per ambulance transport.19

18 Does not include mileage ($13.25 per mile), oxygen ($65.5o when administered), stand-by charges ($31.00 per fifteen minutes)

and expendable medical supplies ($25.75 maximum per response) 19 Not applicable in the City of San Clemente.



December 2005


Water Service

Water utility rates include a meter charge (readiness to serve) and a commodity or usage charge. Most of the agencies providing water service are using a tiered rate structure to encourage water conservation. Current domestic water rates are as follows, based on a ¾” meter and 20 units of summer usage:

Figure 6.1 Monthly Water Utility Charge

(3/4” meter, 20 CCF usage)

$35.86

$48.05

$27.53

$20.00

$49.30

$43.06

$-

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

San

ta M

arga

rita W

D

Trabu

co C

anyo

n W

D

El T

oro

WD

Mou

lton

Niguel

WD

San

Juan

Cap

istra

no

San

Clem

ente

Mo

nth

ly C

harg

e



December 2005


SMWD’s current water rates were established July 1, 2000. The Moulton Niguel Water District and El Toro Water District serve a portion of Mission Viejo. These agencies are not included in this service review and rates are shown for comparison purposes only.

Wastewater Service

Sewer rates within the study area range from flat monthly charges to commodity rates based on water usage. Current monthly sewer rates are as follows:

Figure 6.2

Monthly Sewer Utility Charge

$20.57 $19.80

$16.60

$13.50$15.40

$37.83

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

$40.00

San

ta M

arga

rita W

D

Trabu

co C

anyo

n W

D

El T

oro

WD

Mou

lton

Niguel

WD

San

Juan

Cap

istra

no

San

Clem

ente

The Moulton Niguel Water District and El Toro Water District serve a portion of Mission Viejo. Rates are shown for comparison purposes only.

Both the City of San Clemente and SMWD charge a monthly sewer meter charge plus a commodity charge. San Clemente reviews each customer account for water consumption during the wettest winter month, and the sewer charge is based on 90% of water usage during that month, to a maximum of 20 units. The rate is valid for one calendar year and is adjusted based on the following year’s winter water consumption.



December 2005


SMWD’s charge is based on the size of water meter and water usage, with a maximum charge for each type of account. SMWD’s current sewer rates were established July 1, 2000.

Parks and Recreation

Each of the agencies providing parks and recreation services charges user fees for programs and facilities. Fees are structured to cover the agency’s cost of the program or facility use. Fees for some city programs are higher for non-residents. Most of SAMLARC’s programs and facilities are only open to residents of the Master Homeowner’s Association.

Open Space Management

There are no fees associated with open space management.

B. Cost Avoidance, Shared Facilities and

Management Efficiencies

The agencies leverage resources and share facilities in a number of ways, including mutual aid and joint powers agreements as well as shared system capacity. The agencies also capitalize on management efficiencies to improve operations and reduce the cost of service. Master plans and other long range plans are means of controlling costs and improving management efficiency. Table 6.3 on the following page summarizes the status of the agencies’ planning documents.

Police Service

The Orange County Sheriff’s Department is serving the South County through its South Operations headquarters in Aliso Viejo. Staff is assigned to each of the contract cities and an OCSD Lieutenant serves as chief of police services for each city. The California Highway Patrol provides mutual aid to OCSD when needed, and OCSD handles traffic issues when the CHP cannot provide first response.



December 2005


Table 6.3, Agency Planning Documents

Agency Master Plan

Type of Master Plan

Urban Water Management

Plan

Capital Improvement

Program

Cities

City of Mission Viejo Yes

City of Rancho Santa Margarita Yes

City of San Clemente Water

Wastewater

Yes

City of San Juan Capistrano Water

Sewer

Yes

Special Districts

Santa Margarita Water District Yes Water

Wastewater 2000

Yes

Trabuco Canyon Water District Yes Water

Wastewater Reclaimed

2000 Yes

Orange County Fire Authority Yes

South Orange County Wastewater Authority

Wastewater Yes

County of Orange

OC Sheriff’s Department Yes

RDMD – Harbors, Beaches and Parks

Parks Yes

Health Services Agency (for Animal Control Service)

Yes

Fire & Emergency Services

The Orange County Fire Authority serves all of South Orange County; the nearest independent city fire department is in Laguna Beach. Resources are based upon a regional service delivery system, assigning personnel and equipment to emergency incidents without regard to jurisdictional boundaries. The equipment used by the department can respond to both urban and wildland emergency conditions. The principle benefits of a regional system are reduced costs, depth of service and coverage, reduced duplication, cost avoidance, and increased effectiveness.20 OCFA also provides automatic aid and mutual to fire departments in Riverside and San Diego Counties.

Ambulance service is contracted through a competitive bid process, with the exception of San Clemente, which has its own ambulances.

20 Orange County Fire Authority. Overview of Deployment in Orange County.



December 2005


Water Service

The agencies providing water service share water resources as well as pipeline and treatment capacity. Imported water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project is the primary source of supply to the South County area, and the agencies share the Metropolitan Water District’s storage, transmission and treatment facilities. TCWD purchases imported water through SMWD. SMWD has an agreement to purchase groundwater from the El Toro Water District. The agencies are avoiding the costs associated with developing new water supplies and increasing treatment capacity through the use of recycled water, which is widely available in the study area. In addition, all of the agencies have water conservation programs and incentives to encourage water use efficiency.

Wastewater Service

Similar to water service, the agencies control the costs associated with wastewater collection, treatment, beneficial reuse, and disposal through shared system capacity. All of the agencies are members of the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) and full secondary treatment is provided at all of the regional wastewater facilities. SOCWA also has active water recycling, industrial waste (pre-treatment), biosolids management and ocean/shoreline monitoring programs to meet the needs of its members and the requirements of applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. SOCWA is organized on a project committee basis with each member agency financially contributing to and participating only in those project committees in which it has an equity ownership interest.

Parks & Recreation

Some parks and recreation facilities in the South County area serve a regional need and are frequently used by residents from adjacent cities or communities. The facilities are managed by different departments within the cities and the County.

All neighborhood and community parks within Rancho Santa Margarita are owned and operated by homeowners associations. The Santa Margarita Landscape and Recreation Corporation (SAMLARC) also oversees a majority of the community facilities within the City.

The City of Mission Viejo manages its public park and recreation facilities through two city departments—Public Services (maintenance) and Recreation and Community Services (recreational uses and programming).



December 2005


The City of San Juan Capistrano manages park facilities through its Public Works Department. The city’s Community Services Department manages its recreation programs.

The City of San Clemente operates its parks and recreational facilities through its Beaches, Parks, and Recreation Department.

The County’s regional parks and local parks in unincorporated area are managed by the Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Department, a division of the Resources Management and Development Department.

Currently there are twelve regional and community parks in the area; there may be benefit to forming a Commission with representatives from the County and each of the cities and communities in the unincorporated area. With the financial constraints faced by agencies to maintain and improve facilities, the Commission could provide input and coordination on a regional basis to assist the agencies in prioritizing capital improvements.

Open Space Management

The County’s Department of Harbors, Beaches. and Parks is responsible for management of open space areas. The department shares resources with other departments within the Resources Development and Management Department, and the County achieves management efficiencies by assigning staff to directly oversee open space areas. The County controls current costs by delaying some maintenance and improvement needs, although costs will likely increase when projects are undertaken in the future. The County stated in the 2004 Business Plan that it would only approve projects for which it has identified funding for the current need and long-term maintenance (if necessary).

Animal Control Services

The agencies control costs for animal control services through a variety of means, including the use of volunteers. The City of Mission Viejo provides animal licensing, field patrol, and shelter services to the City of Laguna Niguel by contract and shares the total costs of the program and net revenues with Laguna Niguel. The Cities of San Clemente and Dana Point have formed a JPA to provide services within the two jurisdictions. The shelters for both programs are highly dependent on volunteer support. The County’s Animal Care Services is operated through the County Health Care Agency, which allows for resources to be shared within the agency.



November 2005

Section 7:

GOVERNMENT

STRUCTURE OPTIONS



December 2005

Section 7, Government Structure Options - 71 -

GOVERNMENT

STRUCTURE

OPTIONS

A. Introduction

The nine determinations required of LAFCO in conjunction with this municipal service review include an examination of government structure options. Staff has addressed this determination by preparing a list of all possible government structure options as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each potential option. The purpose is to identify those options that encourage the current and future orderly formation of local government agencies, create logical boundaries, and promote the efficient delivery of services. The MSR report is an informational document that will be used by the LAFCO staff, the Commission, agencies/organizations, communities, stakeholder working group, and the public to discuss future governance options for the MSR area.

Advantages that might accrue from the reorganization of agencies include the simplification of boundaries, improved service delivery, and reduction in costs or fees due to economies of scale. Disadvantages from a change in governmental boundaries can include no actual or limited costs savings (or actual loss in revenue), little improvement in service efficiency, loss of local autonomy, and political opposition. Pursuing reorganization without the support of residents or the governing board typically increases the time and effort involved.

LAFCO is not required to implement any of the governmental structure options noted in this report. However, LAFCO must update the agencies’ spheres of influence, an action that will be taken concurrently by the Commission with the MSR report.



December 2005


This section of the MSR report is divided into four major parts:

1) The first section is an overview of the potential governmental structure for the entire MSR study area.

2) The second section addresses the Rancho Mission Viejo Ranch Plan and its possible, ultimate governance structure.

3) The third section addresses the unincorporated communities of Coto de Caza/Wagon Wheel, Ladera Ranch and Las Flores.

4) The fourth addresses the special districts.

B. Overview

The primary objective of this study is the consideration of government structure options within a regional context. It is hoped that a progressive implementable “road map” that will ensure that all communities are ultimately within incorporated area(s) and /or municipal services are provided in the most efficient and cost effective manner.

Table 7.1 on the following page details the possible government structure options for the study area’s cities, special districts, and communities. Each of these options has service, political, and economic considerations that must be evaluated by the Commission and affected agencies. Neither the Commission nor the affected agencies are required to adopt or implement any of the options. The Commission is required, however, to adopt a sphere of influence for each agency.

Table 7.1 Government Structure Options

Option

Option

Option

Option



December 2005


Table 7.1

Government Structure Options

Option

Option

Option

Option



Form So County

CSA, transition into CSD, then incorporate as new So County city

San Juan Capistrano annexes Planning Area 1

San Clemente annexes Planning Area 8

Status Quo

Unincorporated Communities



annexation

Include in So County CSA and transition

to CSD; future incorporation as part

of new So County city

Maintain status quo

Ladera Ranch Put in SOI of Mission

Viejo; annexation

Put in SOI of San Juan Capistrano;

annexation



new So County city

Maintain status quo

Las Flores Put in SOI of Mission

Viejo; annexation


annexation



new So County city

Maintain status quo

Cities

Mission Viejo Expand SOI to

include Las Flores; annexation



Rancho Santa Margarita

Expand SOI to include Coto de

Caza/Wagon Wheel; annexation

Expand SOI to include Las Flores;

annexation Maintain status quo

San Juan Capistrano





San Clemente



Maintain status quo

Special Districts



TCWD


influence



SMWD


influence

Transition to Incorporation

Eventual incorporation of the study area as one city or annexation into existing cities



December 2005


Establishing an eventual plan for government structure within the region is critical at this point for several reasons: 1) the Rancho Mission Viejo Ranch Plan is starting construction; 2) the existing master planned communities are built-out or close to being built-out; and 3) the County faces increasing financial constraints in providing municipal level services.

Some of the governmental structure options have been evaluated in the past. However, consideration of those options preceded the zoning and approval of the Rancho Mission Viejo Plan, and the region’s future governance was not clearly defined. With the approval of Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan, the governance structure of the region can be evaluated more comprehensively.

It is important to recognize that approved land uses in the unincorporated area play a critical role in the economic viability of any future incorporation action. Coto de Caza/Wagon Wheel, Las Flores, and Ladera Ranch have limited commercial land use, and the cost to increase non rate-based service levels will most likely be borne by property owners. The general land uses within the Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan have been approved by the County and are a legal requirement of the development agreement. Any specific annexation proposals should consider regional economic impacts to ensure that self-sufficient governance within the region remains viable.

The objectives of studying the MSR area’s governance structure include maximization of local control and involvement in the provision of municipal services, provision of an adequate and stable fiscal basis for these services, and minimization of the County’s involvement as a municipal services provider.

Figure 7.2 on the following pages depicts one possible scenario of the progression of government structure in South County as initially suggested by LAFCO staff. LAFCO staff and affected agencies have discussed all possible government structure options as part of the stakeholder working group, a discussion that will continue between the Commission and stakeholders at the public hearing.



December 2005


Figure 7.2, Potential Process for Governance Change in South Orange County



December 2005


Once the Commission updates the cities’ spheres of influence, the County could form a County Service Area (CSA)21 for the unincorporated areas remaining beyond the cities’ spheres, establishing each master planned community and the Rancho Mission Viejo planning areas as separate benefit zones to maintain the financial and maintenance history needed for the evaluation of future governance options. Each benefit zone could strive to become as fiscally viable as possible and provide services at levels that meet community needs and expectations. This would require changes in the way the County budgets and delivers services.

The CSA could incorporate a management methodology similar to the “Balanced Scorecard” approach, which has been successful in the City of Charlotte, North Carolina. Using this methodology, the CSA tracks and records maintenance and service costs and continually evaluates progress toward goals, assesses changing conditions, and alters operation and service plans as needed. This could be accomplished in South County through the establishment of a measurement-based strategic management system involving multiple County departments to develop a service strategy, objectives, and metrics to measure performance consistent with the idea of eventual incorporation. This type of approach could provide significant benefits, not only to the new development areas, but also to the entire MSR area if and when it chooses to incorporate. The management system would provide a process for defining trigger points, objectives, evaluation of those objectives, and correction if needed.

The County would need to anticipate future development and land uses in order to determine how any proposed action might impact financial viability and future service provision. The County would also determine how to implement the management system, assign a managing department, and implement annual monitoring report submittals and development entitlements.

As the CSA service area develops, the County and CSA benefit areas representative could consider the formation of a Community Services District (CSD)22 to provide a broader range of services. (Established, built-out communities within the CSA might elect to initiate the process early on.) The CSD could initially be governed by the County Board of Supervisors as a dependent district with planning areas annexed as they reach the final stages of development. In order for LAFCO to consider approval of a CSD, the financial viability of the proposed CSD would have to be demonstrated as now required by Assembly Bill 135, and this structure change might require approval of a funding mechanism by the voters.

21 Government Code Section 25210 22 Government Code Section 25210



December 2005


In the progression from unincorporated area to more local control, once all of the planning areas have been built-out and are annexed to the CSD or to another city, the CSD could transition from a dependent special district to an independent special district. The CSD would then be governed by an independently elected board of directors and would function similar to a city. Upon completion of an incorporation study and revenue agreement with the County, an incorporation proposal could be submitted to LAFCO and placed before the voters.

C. Rancho Mission Viejo

(Note: The recent settlement agreement reached regarding challenges to the County of Orange approval Rancho Mission Viejo Ranch Plan has resulted in changes of the plan as originally approved. Although the overall amount of development proposed has not changed, the configurations and proportions of use have changed (i.e., the development areas have been reduced by 25% and certain planning areas eliminated). These changes are likely to create changes in demands for service and fiscal impacts. However, the settlement agreement was reached after this section of the MSR report was written, and the following fiscal analysis reflects the land use as originally proposed.)

Rancho Mission Viejo is situated on 22,815 acres in unincorporated South Orange County. The project includes ten planning areas, nine of which have proposed development and one which will remain open space. A total of 7,683 acres are proposed for development. The project includes 14,000 dwelling units, 3.48 million square feet for urban activity center use, 500,000 square feet of neighborhood center use, and 1.22 million of Business Park use.

Per the revised Ranch Plan fiscal impact analysis, the entire project is projected to result in a recurring surplus of $142,817 to the County’s General Fund with a revenue/cost ratio of 1.01. The projected surplus for the Orange County Fire Authority is $4.39 million per year after build-out, with a revenue/cost ratio of 1.55.23 Until more precise development plans are available for each planning area, financial data for each planning area is limited. Table 7.3 summarizes the financial information for the entire Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan.

23

The Ranch Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis, County of Orange, Addendum. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. October

2004, revised July 2005. Revisions are based on the B-10M Alternative land uses and fiscal factors in the current

2004-2005 Orange County budget; residential valuation is unchanged from July 2004 report.



December 2005


Table 7.3

Fiscal Summary – Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan

(in Constant 2005 Dollars)

Data 2004 Study

Population at Build-out - 2025 32,823

Assessed Valuation (000’s) in 2025

Residential: $8,165,487,500 Non-residential: $1,078,330,900

Total: $9,243,818,400

Orange County Funds Recurring Fiscal Impacts After Build-out

General Fund

Recurring Revenues $13.2 million

Recurring Expenses $13.1 million

Recurring Surplus $0.1 million

Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.01

Road Fund



Recurring Surplus $0


Library District





Flood Control District





Harbors, Beaches & Parks





Fire Authority





Source: Source: The Ranch Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis, Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 3-1

(revised July 2005)



December 2005


Governance is a critical issue for Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan. The County is faced with continued financial constraints along with increasing service demands and costs countywide. To address these concerns, two studies were conducted in 2003 that addressed the issue of governance; both emphasized the need for a comprehensive solution for the entire region. The two studies conducted in 2003 are summarized in the following sections.

SCORE

In 2003, Supervisor Tom Wilson initiated the South County Outreach and Review Effort (SCORE) to “assist in the early stages of defining community goals and issues related to potential future development on the Rancho Mission Viejo property in South Orange County.”24 Two task forces were convened to address land use and urban runoff. The Land Use Task Force used a set of criteria to evaluate a range of land use alternatives for the nine planning areas. Three of the criteria, listed below, were related to governance:

1. The plan provides for a fiscally balanced mix of residential, industrial, commercial and open space uses;

2. The plan provides for adequate public safety: fire, sheriff, emergency management facilities and services; and

3. The plan results in a viable community that includes a model for future governance.

In the Phase 2 Report – Summary of Findings, the Land Use Task Force observed that Planning Area 1 might be considered for possible annexation to San Juan Capistrano; however, this option should be evaluated within the context of a comprehensive governance solution. The full text of the SCORE report is included as Appendix A.

Rancho Mission Viejo Governance Concept Study

In September 2003, the Rancho Mission Viejo Company commissioned an independent consultant to prepare a governance concept study for the proposed Ranch development. Several issues were noted in the Rancho Mission Viejo Governance Concept study that provided an impetus to address governance early in the planning process.

The study proposed seven sequential phases of governance:

24 Orange County SCORE Program Phase 2 Report. Moore Iacafano Goltsman, Inc. September 2003.



December 2005


1. Completion of fiscal and financial analysis related to levels of service, facility needs, and funding requirements/sources

2. Creation of an institutional framework for governance within planning and regulatory documents and agreements

3. Establishment of a Ranch Plan Project Area-wide special district

4. Subsequent creation of Community Services Districts for newly developed communities

5. Establishment of contracts and cooperative services agreements between special districts and existing service providers

6. Transition control of the Community Service Districts from the County to locally elected boards of directors; and

7. Transition to municipal incorporated status

The development plan approved by Orange County envisioned that the master planned community would have an overall identity with a community identity for each planning area evolving over time. The Rancho Mission Viejo Governance Concept study also proposed an evolutionary governance structure with pre-determined trigger points to initiate a change in organization.

Rancho Mission Viejo Government Structure Options

The six government structure options for Rancho Mission Viejo are:

1. Remain unincorporated with no additional governance beyond that currently existing

2. Initially form a County Service Area (CSA) which is a dependent special district of the County

3. Initially form a Community Services District (CSD) which can be an independent agency or a dependent district of the County

4. Combination of #2 and #3 with a phasing plan including clearly defined transitions or triggers

5. Incorporate as a new city



December 2005


6. Annexation into surrounding cities

The first option, remaining unincorporated with no additional governance, is not considered feasible because it would create a large unincorporated area that requires municipal level services from the County of Orange in perpetuity, and the County of Orange has expressed its desire to focus on the provision of regional services. The fifth option is also not feasible at this time because state law requires that an incorporating area have at least 500 residents (Government Code Section §56043).

However, the most logical goal at the completion of the development of the Ranch is incorporation as a city. Formation of a CSA and/or a CSD (options 2, 3, or 4) offers advantages and disadvantages as the area develops and could help to facilitate the eventual incorporation of the area. The primary differences between a CSA and a CSD are in the method of governance and in the range of services each can provide.

A CSA can provide a governmental service that the county is authorized by law to perform if the county does not also provide the same services on a countywide basis. To provide these extended services, the Board of Supervisors must determine that such services should be provided on an extended basis within a county service area or such services are specified in the application to form a CSA. A CSA can provide extended police protection, fire protection, local parks, extended library facilities and services, water service, sewer service, street sweeping/lighting/maintenance, garbage collection, ambulance service, and animal control.

A CSD can also provide similar services, including: water; sewer; police; fire and ambulance; parks, open space, and recreation; animal control; street and highway construction, maintenance, sweeping and lighting; garbage collection; planning; drainage; interments; mosquito abatement; libraries; under-grounding of utilities; graffiti abatement, flood protection; snow removal; and mail delivery service under contract to the United States Postal Service. The range of services a CSD can provide is similar to the range a city can provide.

The advantages of forming a CSA first and transitioning to a dependent CSD are that cost control and tracking specific to each improvement area could be provided through one entity while still ensuring that the overall development proceeded as planned. The County Board of Supervisors would govern the CSA. The CSD could be formed as a dependent district governed by the Board of Supervisors or it could be governed by an independently elected board of directors. If it originates as a dependent district, it can transition to independent status by a vote of the residents. It is important that this change occur at the appropriate time to ensure the appropriate benefits and community attributes accrue to the residents.



December 2005


CSDs do not have land use authority, a fact that could adversely impact the ability of the governing body to ensure that continuity remains throughout the development. As this has long range implications, it would be important that the CSD remain as a dependent district until all of the planning areas have been annexed to ensure several attributes critical to the economic sustainability of the region: 1) appropriate land use decisions that uphold the approved development agreement; 2) finances for the entire area remain balanced with appropriate land uses; and 3) services are provided concurrent with need. If a community wanted to form an independent CSD, undeveloped land could be excluded, further impacting the ability of the area to evolve toward self-sufficiency.

The transition from a CSA to a CSD could mirror development such that, upon completion of the development of each planning area, the planning area would be detached from the CSA and annexed to the CSD.

Development of Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan will be implemented in phases with build-out projected for 2025. The project has eight construction phases, and Planning Areas 2 and 3 have multiple phases. The projected dates by planning area are as follows:

Table 7.4 Construction Phases

Planning Area Construction Period

1 2005-2007

2 2007-2011

3 2009-2017

4 2013-2017

5 2016-2018

6 2016-2018

7 2016-2018

8 2020-2025

9 2016-2025

Source: The Ranch Plan Draft EIR, Exhibit 3-26

To implement phasing and specific cost accounting, the County Board of Supervisors could form separate internal improvement districts for each planning area and master planned community within the CSA. This should occur at the outset to capture as much maintenance and financial history as possible and provide the basis for determining the special tax and fees needed to ensure that the improvement area is financially self-sufficient.



December 2005


In order to successfully achieve the goal of eventually having a city providing services in the MSR area, the management and governance of the Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan would need to incorporate a methodology previously mentioned that tracks and records maintenance and service costs, evaluates progress toward goals, assesses changing conditions, and alters operation and service plans as needed. This would require a measurement-based strategic management system involving multiple County departments.

Additional government structure options identified include the annexation of Planning Area 1 to the City of San Juan Capistrano and Planning Area 8 to the City of San Clemente. These two areas contain a significant portion of the commercial land uses within the Rancho Mission Viejo development. Annexation proposals would have to be evaluated within the context of the economic impact to the region to ensure that the remaining planning areas would continue to be financially self-sufficient. Other considerations would include development patterns, socio-economic ties, and ability to provide services at build-out.

D. Unincorporated Communities


Coto de Caza is a gated community consisting of 5,000 acres and approximately 3,975 residential units. Build-out was achieved in 2002. Wagon Wheel and Stonecliff, with approximately 800 residential units, is located outside the gates of Coto de Caza but was originally considered part of the Coto de Caza development. The entire area is primarily residential with limited community and recreational facilities. There are two large sports fields, one located at the Wagon Wheel elementary school and the other inside the Coto gates. At the south end of Coto, Oso Parkway is the only major arterial roadway with direct access to the Foothill Transportation Corridor (SR-241) and the I-5 Freeway. At the north end of Coto, there are two gates that enter directly into the Rancho Santa Margarita city limits. Currently, neither Coto De Caza nor Wagon Wheel are within a city’s sphere of influence.

In LAFCO’s 2000 South County sphere of influence study, three SOI options were identified for Coto De Caza and Wagon Wheel: no action, designation as a LAFCO study area, and inclusion in Rancho Santa Margarita’s incorporation proposal or within the new city’s sphere. Wagon Wheel was also considered in conjunction with a boundary that included Las Flores. According to the LAFCO report, “The results of the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis for the incorporation’s alternative boundaries [of Rancho Santa Margarita] revealed that including Coto de Caza in the new city would



December 2005


present a substantially large deficit to the city, making incorporation fiscally infeasible.” The area was designated as a LAFCO study area so that it could be further evaluated as conditions changed within the South County region. Since that report, Coto de Caza has entered into discussions with the city regarding providing extended police services by contract. The residents no longer consider traffic protection service levels provided by the California Highway Patrol adequate.

Build-out population for the boundary alternative that included Coto de Caza and Wagon Wheel was expected to reach 49,782, an increase of 13,238.25 Revenues and costs were projected in the incorporation report to be higher due to increased population and the need for nine additional city staff. Coto de Caza and Wagon Wheel offered little additional retail space. As a result, the overall net balance to the proposed city of Rancho Santa Margarita in fiscal year 2008-2009 was projected to be negative $844,200, representing a cost of approximately $54 per capita within Coto de Caza and Wagon Wheel.26

Residents of Coto de Caza have recently identified a significant need for a higher level of traffic patrol services due to substantially increased traffic in the community of nearly 15,000 residents. Because of funding constraints and staff limitations, the California Highway Patrol is unable/unwilling to provide additional services or increase patrol frequency or units unless the residents pay additional monies for these services. Representatives of Coto are discussing alternative means to provide traffic patrol services through its municipal contract with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.

Another government structure option identified is that Coto de Caza and Wagon Wheel be included in the sphere of influence for the City of Rancho Santa Margarita. An alternative is to link Coto de Caza and Wagon Wheel to the CSA suggested for the Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan. The southern end of Coto de Caza and Wagon Wheel are adjacent to the northern end of Planning Area 3. However, the current land use plan for Rancho Mission Viejo Plan has an open space buffer between the two planned communities and the only transportation link would be the proposed southern extension of the SR-241. In addition, construction for the northern portion of Planning Area 3 is not projected to start until 2012, while the service needs of the Coto de Caza/Wagon Wheel community need to be addressed immediately.

25 Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Proposed Incorporation of Rancho Santa Margarita. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. May 1999.

26 Ibid.



December 2005


Table 7.5

Fiscal Summary – Coto de Caza and Wagon Wheel (incremental difference from RSM incorporation alternative)

Data (Yr 2007) 1999 Study

Population at Build-out 15,750

Revenue – All Funds $1,490,097

Expenditures – All Funds $2,257,669

Net Deficit per Capita ($57.98)

% Property Tax to City 1.55% Tax Allocation Factor

(2.15% adopted alternative)

Assessed Valuation (000’s) $2,091,059

Ladera Ranch

Ladera Ranch is a 2,390-acre planned community with a projected build-out of 8,100 residential units and a population of 22,000 in 2009. Although surrounded on three sides by open space, it is near to, and has transportation access to and from, the cities of Mission Viejo and San Juan Capistrano and Planning Area 1 of the future Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan. The main arterial roadway in the community is Crown Valley Parkway, which provides access to the I-5. Commercial uses within the community are limited to the 10-acre Bridgepark Plaza.

There are potential options in considering the future governance of Ladera Ranch. One option is to annex the community to the City of Mission Viejo. While past city councils had once indicated an interest in annexing Ladera Ranch and Las Flores and adopted Resolution 99-50 on May 3, 1999 “seeking a sphere of influence which includes the communities of Las Flores and Ladera,” the current city council has no position on this issue to date. In addition, at a special election in 1990, the Mission Viejo voters approved Measure A, requiring a vote of residents before the city council initiates or supports any annexation in excess of 100 acres.

The Ladera Fiscal Impact Analysis was prepared in December 1998. It noted that:

1. The land use mix in Ladera is financially unbalanced with a smaller than proportionate share of non-residential property in the overall tax base; and

2. The City of Mission Viejo’s negotiated allocation of property taxes would probably be less than typical of other cities based on recent history in the South County area.

The projected deficit in 1998 for annexation of Ladera Ranch to Mission Viejo ranged from $13,358 to $704,393, if the Master HOA continues to provide park and landscape



December 2005


maintenance, to $939,726 to $1,630,761, if the city provided park and landscape maintenance. The study noted that in order for the city to break even while providing all of the park and landscape maintenance, it would have to receive all of the County Library Fund revenue and 68.0 percent of the General Fund revenue, a scenario that was not consistent with past practice.27 Revenues would have had to be expanded or costs reduced by approximately $0.61 to $74.57 per capita per year for Ladera’s population in order to have a fiscally neutral annexation.

Another option would be to annex Ladera Ranch to the City of San Juan Capistrano. No fiscal impact analysis has been conducted, although the results would probably be similar to those of Mission Viejo. The City of San Juan Capistrano did not express any intent or desire to expand its current sphere during the preparation of the 2000 LAFCO sphere of influence study. In addition, the development styles and distance between the City of San Juan Capistrano and Ladera Ranch are not considered compatible.

As a third option, Ladera Ranch could be included in the CSA/CSD option as suggested for the Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan. Ladera Ranch is in proximity to Planning Area 1, which includes planned uses consisting of residential (56%), urban activity center (11%), and open space (33%). However, the physical connection between Ladera Ranch and Rancho Mission Viejo would be limited since there is open space and a ridgeline between Ladera and Planning Area 2, and no transportation linkages are planned.

The last option is no change, which would leave the community an unincorporated area. This does not address the future governance needs of the community as it approaches build-out or the service related issues with the County as the primary provider.

Table 7.6 Fiscal Summary – Ladera Ranch

Data 1998 Study


Revenue – All Funds $2,709,615 to $3,400,650

Expenditures – All Funds $3,414,008 to $4,340,376

Net Deficit per Capita ($32.21) to ($42.97)

% Property Tax to City 6.5% General Fund + Library Fund

or

18% General Fund + 100% Library Fund

Assessed Valuation (000’s) $2,568,937.2

Source: Ladera Fiscal Impact Analysis

27 Ladera Fiscal Impact Analysis. Alfred Gobar Associates. December 1998.



December 2005


Las Flores

Las Flores is a 1,005-acre planned community adjacent to the City of Mission Viejo and the City of Rancho Santa Margarita, with easy transportation access to and from both cities. The area is primarily residential with commercial development limited to approximately 15 acres and consisting of convenience-oriented businesses. 670 acres of the planned community are designated open space.

One of the previously considered options is the annexation of Las Flores to the City of Mission Viejo. A fiscal analysis was prepared in September 1998 similar to the one conducted for the Ladera Ranch annexation. The Las Flores Fiscal Impact Analysis noted the following two factors would negatively impact Mission Viejo if it were to annex Las Flores:

1. The land use mix in Las Flores is financially unbalanced with minimal non-residential property in the overall tax base; and

2. The City of Mission Viejo’s negotiated allocation of property taxes would probably be less than typical of other cities based on recent history in the South County area.

The projected deficit in 1998 for annexation of Las Flores to Mission Viejo ranged from $123,990 to $247,672, if the Master HOA continues to provide park and landscape maintenance, to $315,541 to $439,223, if the city provides park and landscape maintenance. The study noted that even if the entire County property tax revenue generated by Las Flores were to accrue to the City of Mission Viejo after annexation, projected costs would still exceed revenue by an estimated $40,000 per year.28 Revenues would have to be expanded or costs reduced by approximately $9.25 per capita per year for the Las Flores population in order to have a fiscally neutral annexation.

The second option would be to annex Las Flores to the City of Rancho Santa Margarita. This option was considered in three of the boundary alternatives evaluated for the incorporation of Rancho Santa Margarita. The overall net balance in fiscal year 2008-2009 was projected to be negative $214,600,29 or approximately $130 per capita within Las Flores.

28 Las Flores Fiscal Impact Analysis. Alfred Gobar Associates. September 1998.

29 Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Proposed Incorporation of Rancho Santa Margarita. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. May 1999.



December 2005


An alternative is to link the community to the CSA suggested for the Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan. The last option is no change which would leave the community as an unincorporated area. This does not address the future governance needs of the community nor the service-related issues with the County as the primary provider.

Table 7.7

Fiscal Summaries – Las Flores Incremental difference from RSM Incorporation Alternative

Data (Yr 2007) 1999 Study


Revenue – All Funds $420,122

Expenditures – All Funds $627,171

Net Deficit per Capita ($61.37)

% Property Tax to City 2.04% Tax Allocation Factor

(2.15% adopted alternative)

Assessed Valuation (000’s) $331,291

Source: Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Proposed Incorporation of


Table 7.8 Annexation to Mission Viejo

Data 1998 Study


Revenue – All Funds $489,424 to $613,106

Expenditures – All Funds $737,096 to $928,647

Net Deficit per Capita ($57.12) to ($72.77)

% Property Tax to City 6.5% General Fund + Library Fund,

or

18% General Fund + 100% Library

Fund

Assessed Valuation $460,002,763 Source: Las Flores Fiscal Impact Analysis

E. Special Districts

The two water districts located within the MSR area are providing similar services in adjacent service areas and benefits may accrue from reorganizing the two districts. The Santa Margarita Water District’s sphere of influence is coterminous with its service area boundary. The district’s service area encompasses 97 square miles and includes a portion of Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Las Flores, Coto de Caza, Ladera Ranch, San Clemente (Talega), and rural areas east of San Juan Capistrano.



December 2005


The Trabuco Canyon Water District’s sphere of influence is coterminous with its service area boundary with the exception of a section of land adjacent to Glenn Ranch Road in Lake Forest. This area is not contiguous to the other areas within the district but is part of its sphere and service area. The district’s service area is located at the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and encompasses approximately 14.2 square miles, including the communities of Trabuco Canyon, Robinson Ranch, Trabuco Highlands, Walden, Rancho Cielo, Portola Hills, Santiago Canyon Estates, and Dove Canyon.

The benefits and costs of a reorganization of the districts require further study. Orange County LAFCO should initiate discussions with the agencies to determine if a reorganization of the agencies might increase efficiencies and reach economies of scale.

F. Current City Spheres & Options


The City of Mission Viejo was incorporated on March 31, 1988. The city is bound to the north by the City of Lake Forest and the Portola Hills development; to the south by the City of San Juan Capistrano; to the west by I-5 and the City of Laguna Hills; and to the east by Rancho Santa Margarita and unincorporated area including Las Flores, Ladera Ranch, and Rancho Mission Viejo. The city’s sphere of influence is currently coterminous with the city boundaries. In a report prepared by LAFCO in 1999, the city was considered a suitable future service provider for Las Flores and Ladera Ranch.


The sphere of influence for the City of Rancho Santa Margarita is currently coterminous with the city boundaries with the exception of a portion of undeveloped territory located in the northeast corner of the city’s sphere of influence south of Trabuco Creek Road. The boundaries were determined at the time of incorporation on January 1, 2000 based on a comprehensive analysis that identified the most fiscally sound alternative at the time. The city is bounded by the City of Mission Viejo to the west, with unincorporated area on the south, east, and north. The city’s boundaries extend around the unincorporated community of Coto de Caza.


The City of San Clemente was incorporated on February 28, 1928. The city is generally bound by the Prima Deshecha Landfill and the cities of Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano to the north and northwest, the Pacific Ocean to the west, the County boundary to the east and southeast, and unincorporated area including Rancho Mission



December 2005


Viejo to the north and northeast. The city’s sphere of influence is coterminous with city boundaries with the exception of a portion of unincorporated area in the northeast corner of the city’s sphere which includes the Donna O’Neill Land Conservancy.

One government structure option identified is for the City of San Clemente to annex Planning Area 8. This planning area was proposed to have 1,200 residences, 100,000 square feet of neighborhood center use, 1.22 million square feet of business park use, and a 20-acre golf resort which may include a 250-room hotel. Planning Area 8 was not contiguous with the city’s current boundaries, and there are no existing socio-economic ties to the area as it is undeveloped.

Planning Area 8 is one of the areas projected to generate revenue with its land use mix. The projected transient occupancy tax for 2025 is approximately $1.4 million. The annexation of Planning Area to San Clemente 8 may affect the long-term governance options for the entire MSR area. In addition, the recent settlement agreement may affect the viability of annexation to the city.


The City of San Juan Capistrano incorporated on April 19, 1961. The city is generally bound by the City of San Clemente to the southeast, the City of Dana Point to the southwest, the City of Laguna Niguel to the west, the City of Mission Viejo to the north, and unincorporated area including Ladera Ranch and Rancho Mission Viejo to the northeast. The city’s sphere of influence is coterminous with city boundaries with the exception of a County island in the northwest corner of the city, surrounded by the city on three sides, and the city of Laguna Niguel to the north.

One of the government structure options identified is for the City of San Juan Capistrano to annex Planning Area 1 of the Rancho Mission Viejo’s Ranch Plan. This area has existing socio-economic ties to the city and is a logical extension of the city’s incorporated area along Ortega Highway. Planning Area 1 was proposed to have 1,020 dwelling units and 1.19 million square feet of urban activity center use.

This planning area had one of the larger revenue-generating land use mixes for the Ranch. The annexation of Planning Area 1 to San Juan Capistrano may affect the long-term fiscal outlook for the Ranch’s incorporation. In addition, the recent settlement agreement may affect the viability of annexation to the city.



December 2005




December 2005

Section 8:

LOCAL

ACCOUNTABILITY &

GOVERNANCE



December 2005

Section 8, Local Accountability & Governance - 95 -

LOCAL

ACCOUNTABILITY &

GOVERNANCE

A. Cities

The local accountability and governance of the cities is meeting the required standards for public agencies, with appropriate elections and public notice of council meetings and actions.

Table 8.1

City Governance and Local Accountability

City

# of

Council Members

Council Meetings Website

Mission Viejo 5 1st and 3rd Mondays 5 pm http://cityofmissionviejo.org

Rancho Santa

Margarita 5 2nd & 4th Wednesdays 7 pm www.cityofrsm.org

San Clemente 5 1st & 3rd Tuesdays 7 pm http://ci.san-clemente.ca.us

San Juan Capistrano

5 1st & 3rd Tuesdays 7 pm www.sanjuancapistrano.org/

Each city is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government. Members of the city councils are elected at large by registered voters of the city to staggered four-year terms of office. In a council-manager form of government, the city manager makes policy recommendations to the council and in-turn implements policies adopted by the council.

The following tables detail the current city council members by city, their terms of office, and compensation level.



December 2005


Mission Viejo

Table 8.2

City of Mission Viejo Council Members Term Expirations Compensation

Trish Kelley November 2006

$500/mo. + $150/mo. mileage allowance

Lance MacLean November 2006

Gail Reavis November 2008

Frank Ury November 2008

John Paul Ledesma November 2006


Table 8.3

City of Rancho Santa Margarita Council Members Term Expirations Compensation

Jerry Holloway November 2008

$463.50/mo.

James Thor November 2006

Neil Blais November 2006

L. Anthony Beall November 2008

Gary Thompson November 2006

San Clemente

Table 8.4 City of San Clemente

Council Members Term Expirations Compensation

Joe Anderson November 2006

$400/mo.

Wayne Eggleston November 2006

Jim Dahl November 2008

Stephanie Dorey November 2008

Susan Ritschel November 2006

San Juan Capistrano

Table 8.5 City of San Juan Capistrano

Council Members Term Expirations Compensation

Wyatt Hart November 2006

$300/mo.

David Swerdlin November 2006

Joe Soto November 2008

Diane Bathgate November 2006

Sam Allevato November 2008



December 2005


In addition to monetary compensation, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, and San Juan Capistrano City Council members have the option to participate in the city’s health care and retirement benefit programs.

B. County of Orange

Table 8.6 County of Orange

General Agency Information: Agency Address: 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana,

CA 92701 Website: www.oc.ca.gov Formation: 1889 Governance Processes: Governance Structure: Five-member Board of Supervisors

Directly (Supervisorial Districts) Term: 4 years Election cycle: In even numbered years, member elections are

staggered Meeting schedule: Weekly on Tuesday Postings: Facility and website

Board Members Term Expiration Compensation *

Lou Correa November 2008

Pd. at hourly rate of $55.32. County medical/dental & retirement benefit plan

James Silva November 2006

Bill Campbell November 2008

Chris Norby November 2006

Thomas Wilson November 2006

County Executive Officer: Thomas Mauk

The chief governing body for the County is a five-member Board of Supervisors. The Board members are elected by district, and the Board selects the officer positions of chair and vice chair each January.

With the passage of Measure V in March 2002, the County of Orange became a charter County. As a charter County, mid-term vacancies are filled by electoral process rather than through gubernatorial appointment under a general law process. The County operates as a general law County in all other respects.

The Board conducts weekly meetings that are open to the public. Additionally, Board meetings are broadcast live on the Internet. Past and current meeting agendas and minutes are posted on the Board of Supervisors portion of the County website.

http://www.oc.ca.gov/



December 2005


The County maintains a comprehensive website with links to all County departments and other public agencies. Extensive contact information, budget and financial documentation, demographic and economic data, and other general information is available through the website. Additionally, each Board office maintains a separate website with district-specific information as well as links to other information and sites.

C. Special Districts

The following summarizes the governance and local accountability of the special districts within the South Orange County MSR study area.


Table 8.7

Santa Margarita Water District Date formed: December 23, 1964

Statutory Authorization: Water Code §30000 et seq. – County Water District Law

Board Meetings: 4th Wednesday of each month, 7 p.m.

Board of Directors Title Term Expiration Compensation *

Saundra Jacobs President November 2006

$175/meeting

Betty Olson Vice President November 2008

Sam Johnson Treasurer November 2008

Charley Wilson Board Member November 2008

Roger Faubel Board Member November 2006

* SMWD Board members may also receive compensation for participation in additional district meetings up to a

maximum of six per month. Board of Director members have the option to participate in the District’s health care

benefit program

Santa Margarita Water District is divided into eight improvement districts encompassing 62,674 acres, 10,000 acres of which currently lies outside existing improvement district boundaries. SMWD serves residents of Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Las Flores, Coto de Caza, Ladera Ranch, and rural areas east of San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente. Directors are elected at large by registered voters to staggered four-year terms. The district’s website offers a wide range of information including meeting notices and agendas, district services, conservation, rates, and more technical water quality and supply data.



December 2005



Table 8.8

Trabuco Canyon Water District Date formed: February 26, 1962

Statutory Authorization: Water Code § 30000 et seq. – County Water District Law

Board Meetings: 3rd Wednesday of each month, 7 p.m.

Board of Directors Title Term Expiration Compensation *

Corinne Loskot President November 2006

$125 per diem

Glenn Acosta Vice President November 2006

Mike Safranski Director November 2006

Matt Disston Director November 2008

Jim Haselton Director November 2008

* Per diem compensation not to exceed ten days per month. Board members also have the option to participate in

the District’s health care benefit program.

TCWD covers an area of approximately 9,100 acres of residential, agricultural and forest land within portions of the Cities of Rancho Santa Margarita and Lake Forest and unincorporated canyon areas of Orange County. The district provides both water and sewer service through approximately 4,000 metered connections. The district is expected to expand to approximately 6,000 connections at build-out.

The five Board members serving the district are elected at large to four-year alternating terms. Elections are held every two years. The next election will be held in November 2006 and affects three board seats. The district maintains a website and posts public meeting agendas, rate information, policies/regulations, master plans, and financial documents that are readily available to the public.



December 2005



Table 8.9

Orange County Fire Authority Date formed: March 1, 1995

Statutory Authorization: By Joint Powers Authority Agreement

Board Meetings: 4th Thursday bimonthly, 6:30 p.m.

Board Members

Rep. Agency Title Term

Expiration* Compensation

Cynthia Adams Aliso Viejo Director

No term limits $100/meeting

Donald McCay Buena Park Executive Committee

Director

Mike McGill Cypress Director

James Lacy Dana Point Director

Beth Krom Irvine Executive Committee

Director

R. Craig Scott Laguna Hills Executive Committee

Director

Joe Brown Laguna Niguel Executive Committee

Director

Brenda Ross Laguna Woods Director

Mark Tettemer Lake Forest Director

Kenneth Blake La Palma Executive Committee

Chair

Fred Freeman Los Alamitos Director

Patricia Kelley Mission Viejo Director

Chris Lowe Placentia Executive Committee

Director

Neil Blais Rancho Santa

Margarita Director

Susan Ritschel San Clemente Director

Sam Allevato San Juan

Capistrano Director

John Larson Seal Beach Director

David Shawver Stanton Director

Tracey Worley Hagen

Tustin Executive Committee

Vice Chair

Bob Bell Villa Park Executive Committee

Director

Russell Paris Westminster Director

Keri Lynn Wilson Yorba Linda Director

Thomas Wilson County of Orange Executive Committee

Director

Chris Norby County of Orange Director

* OCFA Board members have no term limits and may serve on the OCFA Board for as long as they hold elected office with their

representative agency.



December 2005


The Orange County Fire Authority provides regional fire, emergency medical, and rescue services to 22 cities and all unincorporated areas of Orange County. OCFA, a joint powers authority (JPA), is governed by a twenty-four member Board of Directors comprised of one representative from each member city and two members from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The full OCFA Board meets every other month on the fourth Thursday at 6:30 p.m. Two Board sub-committees, budget and finance and executive, meet monthly. Budget and finance committee members meet the second Wednesday at noon and the executive committee meets every fourth Thursday at 6:00 p.m.

OCFA maintains an active website including extensive information on safety and education, updates on current fire emergencies, OCFA services, fire regulations, service related statistics, and public meeting agendas and minutes.



November 2005

Appendix A:

Phase I SCORE Report

Phase II SCORE Report

Fiscal Analysis for Ladera (1998)

Fiscal Analysis for Las Flores (1998)

Rancho Mission Viejo Governance

Study

Municipal Service Review & Sphere of Influence...

Documents

Transcript of Municipal Service Review & Sphere of Influence...