1 / 29

Subcommittee on Spheres of Influence Municipal Service Reviews

Subcommittee on Spheres of Influence Municipal Service Reviews. CALAFCO Annual Conference September 7, 2005. Subcommittee Report Spheres of Influence - Municipal Service Reviews. 27 of 58 LAFCO’s responded (47%) Survey covered many issues: Purpose of MSR’s Effectiveness and Results

keelty
Download Presentation

Subcommittee on Spheres of Influence Municipal Service Reviews

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

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

  3. 1 Strongly Disagree 5 Strongly Agree SURVEY SCALE

  4. PURPOSE of MSR’s

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

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

  7. EFFECTIVENESS of MSR’s

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

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

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

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

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

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

  14. REACTION TO MSR’s

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

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

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

  18. WRITTEN DETERMINATIONS

  19. DETERMINATIONS Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

  20. DETERMINATIONS: Should the determinations be combined?

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

  22. METHODOLGY

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

  24. TIMING

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

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

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

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

More Related