DOCSLIB.ORG

MSR/SOI Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MSR/SOI Report MSR/SOI Report Central Orange County November 20, 2006 Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Report for Central Orange County (MSR 06-11) November 20, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 THE MSR NINE DETERMINATIONS & SPHERE REVIEWS............................................................ 1 MSR SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 3 SPHERE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 6 BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................................8 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 8 COMMISSION MSR AND SOI RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................................ 9 MSR PROCESS FOR THE CENTRAL ORANGE COUNTY (COC) FOCUS AREA ............................... 9 AGENCY OVERVIEWS .........................................................................................................................13 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 13 CITY OF ANAHEIM ................................................................................................................... 14 CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY .................................................................................................... 16 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE......................................................................................................... 18 CITY OF SANTA ANA................................................................................................................ 20 CITY OF STANTON.................................................................................................................... 22 CITY OF WESTMINSTER............................................................................................................ 24 GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT...................................................................................... 26 MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DISTRICT ........................................................................................ 28 KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED ....................................................................................................................32 KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL ORANGE COUNTY (COC) MSR TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP (TWG)........................................................................................................ 32 GROWTH & POPULATION PROJECTIONS ....................................................................................36 REGIONAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 36 EXISTING & PROJECTED POPULATION...................................................................................... 37 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS & DEFICIENCIES...............................................................................39 REGIONAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 39 POLICE PROTECTION ................................................................................................................ 42 FIRE PROTECTION .................................................................................................................... 45 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................... 48 CITY OF ANAHEIM ............................................................................................................. 49 CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY .............................................................................................. 50 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE................................................................................................... 50 CITY OF SANTA ANA.......................................................................................................... 50 CITY OF WESTMINSTER...................................................................................................... 50 Table of Contents - i - Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Report for Central Orange County (MSR 06-11) November 20, 2006 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY.................................................................................... 50 PRIVATE COMPANIES SERVING MIDWAY CITY .................................................................. 51 WASTEWATER.......................................................................................................................... 53 CITY OF ANAHEIM ............................................................................................................. 53 CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY .............................................................................................. 54 CITY OF SANTA ANA.......................................................................................................... 54 CITY OF STANTON.............................................................................................................. 54 GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT................................................................................ 54 MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DISTRICT .................................................................................. 55 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT .......................................................................... 55 PARKS, RECREATION, & OPEN SPACE...................................................................................... 58 ANIMAL CONTROL ................................................................................................................... 59 CODE ENFORCEMENT............................................................................................................... 59 FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS .........................................................................61 REGIONAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 61 FINANCIAL SUMMARIES........................................................................................................... 63 CITY OF ANAHEIM ............................................................................................................. 63 CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY .............................................................................................. 64 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE................................................................................................... 65 CITY OF STANTON.............................................................................................................. 66 CITY OF WESTMINSTER...................................................................................................... 67 GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT................................................................................ 68 MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DISTRICT .................................................................................. 69 ECONOMIES OF SCALE.......................................................................................................................71 COST AVOIDANCE, SHARED FACILITY OPPORTUNITIES, & MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES........ 71 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..........................................................................................73 A. REORGANIZATION OF AGENCIES ................................................................................ 73 B. SMALL ISLANDS ........................................................................................................ 77 C. LARGE ISLANDS (MORE THAN 150 ACRES)................................................................. 81 C. LARGE ISLANDS (MORE THAN 150 ACRES)................................................................. 82 D. SPHERE REVIEWS/UPDATES/BOUNDARY CLARIFICATIONS ....................................... 84 CURRENT CITY SPHERES AND OPTIONS ............................................................................. 85 BOUNDARY CLARIFICATIONS............................................................................................. 89 LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY & GOVERNANCE ..............................................................................91 CITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 91 SPECIAL DISTRICTS.................................................................................................................. 96 NON-LAFCO ISSUES..............................................................................................................................98 MASS TRANSIT ........................................................................................................................ 98 Table of Contents - ii - Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Report for Central Orange County (MSR 06-11) November
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Operating Budget &
    ADOPTED FY 2009/10 OPERATING BUDGET & Capital Improvement Program ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA FY 2009/10 Adopted Budget City of Anaheim, California Fiscal Year (FY) 2009/10 Adopted Budget FY 2009/10 - FY 2013/14 Adopted Capital Improvement Program Curt Pringle, Mayor Robert Hernandez, Mayor Pro Tem Lorri Galloway, Council Member Lucille Kring, Council Member Harry S. Sidhu, P.E., Council Member Thomas J. Wood, City Manager Marcie L. Edwards, Assistant City Manager Prepared by the Department of Finance William G. Sweeney, Finance Director City of Anaheim, California City of Anaheim, California i FY 2009/10 Adopted Budget The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to the City of Anaheim, California for its annual budget for the fiscal period beginning July 1, 2008. In order to receive this award, a government unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications device. This award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements and we are submitting it to GFOA for award consideration. FY 2009/10 Adopted Budget ii City of Anaheim, California TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary City Manager’s Transmittal Letter . .1 City of Anaheim Organizational Chart. 3 Directory of Officials . 4 Executive Summary . 6 City Profile . 15 City Financial Information . 18 Financial Management Policies . 20 Full-Time Position Comparison . 23 Summary of Full-Time Position Adjustments. 25 Fund Summaries A Look at the Budget by Fund .
    [Show full text]
  • City of South Lake Tahoe Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Update
    Agenda Item #4E Page 1 of 99 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT EL DORADO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE MAY 2016 Agenda Item #4E Page 2 of 99 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE Prepared for: El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission 550 Main Street Placerville, CA 95667 Contact Person: Jose Henriquez, Executive Officer Phone: (530) 295-2707 Consultant: 6051 N. Fresno Street, Suite 200 Contact: Steve Brandt, Project Manager Phone: (559) 733-0440 Fax: (559) 733-7821 May 2016 © Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc. Unauthorized use prohibited. Cover Photo: City of South Lake Tahoe 150245 Agenda Item #4E Page 3 of 99 EL DORADO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Commissioners Shiva Frentzen, El Dorado County Representative Brian Veerkamp, El Dorado County Representative Mark Acuna, City Representative Austin Sass, City Representative Dale Coco, MD, Special District Representative Ken Humphreys, Chair, Special District Representative Dyana Anderly, Public Member Representative Alternate Commissioners John Clerici, City Representative Niles Fleege, Public Member Representative Holly Morrison, Special District Representative Michael Ranalli, El Dorado County Representative Staff Jose Henriquez, Executive Officer Erica Sanchez, Policy Analyst Denise Tebaldi, Interim Commission Clerk Legal Counsel Kara Ueda, LAFCO Counsel Consultant 6051 N. Fresno, Suite 200 Fresno, CA 93710 Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc. Unauthorized use prohibited. © 150245 Agenda Item #4E Page 4 of 99 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 - Role and Responsibility of Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) ...... 1-1 1.2 - Municipal Service Review Purpose ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Outdated Municipal Structures
    A RESEARCH SERIES FROM THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Alan G. Hevesi & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES IN FOCUS Outdated Municipal Structures “Starting Cities, Towns and Villages – 18th Century Designations from scratch, for 21st Century Communities no one would design the An examination of how traditional classifi cations no longer fi t many of system of local today’s local governments, and a discussion of policy implications government operating in • The terms city, town and village each bring an image to mind, but these images New York no longer hold true in many places. In New York, a locality’s municipal State today.” designation—which has many implications for governance, service provision and intergovernmental aid—has everything to do with history and little to do with current realities. • The vast majority of our cities, towns and villages were established prior to 1920. Overwhelming changes have occurred in the built environment, demographics “A municipal and economy since that time, but there has been no corresponding adjustment in structure the underlying municipal structure or boundaries. designed • Historically, cities were more populous than towns and villages, but today there for another are many more big towns than big cities. Ten “mega-towns” have populations century greater than 100,000, whereas among cities, only the “Big Five” are that has many populous. Four of these mega-towns exceed the population of Buffalo—making disadvantages them the largest municipalities outside of New York City. Most of the State’s for the cities (35 out of 62) have populations under 25,000, whereas 60 towns and six State and villages have populations exceeding that level.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Basics of County and City Revenues
    Understanding the Basics Of County and City Revenues www.ca-ilg.org/document/understanding-basics-county-and-city-revenues Updated: 2013 The Institute for Local Government’s mission is to promote good government at the local level with practical, impartial and easy-to-use resources for California communities. ILG is the nonprofit 501(c)(3) research and education affiliate of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. The Institute’s current program areas include: • Local Government 101 • Public Engagement • Public Service Ethics • Sustainability 1400 K Street, Suite 205 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8208 F 916.444.7535 • www.ca-ilg.org The Basics of County and City Revenues 2013 Acknowledgments Special thanks to Betsy Strauss whose expertise contributed to the 2013 update of this publication. Betsy Strauss is an attorney and mediator based in Napa specializing in local government law with an emphasis on land use and municipal finance. The Institute also appreciates the contributions of the following individuals whose time and effort contributed to the 2008 version of this publication: Dan Carrigg, League of California Cities; Michael G. Colantuono, Colantuono & Levin, P.C.; Michael Coleman, Coleman Advisory Services; Jean Kinney Hurst, California State Association of Counties; Zane Johnson, City of Tracy; Pat Leary, Yolo County; Richard A. Milligan, City of Riverside; Joseph W. Pannone, Aleshire & Wynder, LLP; Joe Saccio, City of Palo Alto; Bill Statler, City of San Luis Obispo; Betsy Strauss, League of California Cities; Christine M. Vuletich, City of South Lake Tahoe; and Brent Wallace, County Administrative Officers Association of California.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of GST on Municipal Finances in India: a Case Study of Mumbai
    SEPTEMBER 2018 ISSUE NO. 257 The Impact of GST on Municipal Finances in India: A Case Study of Mumbai SAYLI MANKIKAR ABSTRACT The post-GST Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Budget of 201819 was the first to contend with the abolition of octroi, which was previously its largest and most robust source of revenue. One year after the introduction of the General Services Tax (GST) by the central government, the MCGM has been forced to find new financing sources. While the state government of Maharashtra has assured that the loss of octroi will be compensated, this move raises larger questions about financial power in the hands of urban local bodies (ULBs). It is imperative to discuss issues such as the need to give ULBs a share in the GST, the role of toothless state machineries such as the state finance commission, the failure to implement the 74th Amendment of the Constitution, and the need for long-term strategies to improve the financial situation and level of services offered by large municipal corporations such as MCGM. INTRODUCTION Municipal nance is directly correlated with the Municipal bodies are local self-governments economic growth of a city, contributes to whose mandate includes the provision of basic fullling the targets of urban policy and services such as healthcare, water supply, planning agendas, and is responsible for educational institutions, housing, transport municipal-service delivery. Municipal bodies and waste management. Historically, Indian being the powerhouses of growing economies, it municipalities have suered from weak scal is essential to keep their engines well-oiled. capacity, relying heavily on state contributions Indeed, India's long-term economic prosperity to nance their budgets.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Power for Your Community Local Control
    Public Power for Your Community Local control. Local priorities. A stronger local economy. 2 PUBLIC POWER FOR YOUR COMMUNITY Public Power for Your Community Local control. Local priorities. A stronger local economy. The American Public Power Association represents not-for-profit, community-owned electric utilities that power homes, businesses and streets in more than 2,000 towns and cities, serving 48 million Americans. With no divided loyalties, these utilities are focused on a single mission—providing reliable electricity at a reasonable price, while protecting the environment. These public power utilities generate, or buy, electricity from diverse sources. More at © 2016 American Public Power Association. All rights reserved. Public Power for Your Community Local Control. Local priorities. A stronger local economy. Prepared by the American Public Power Association MORE INFORMATION For additional information or resources on forming a public power utility, contact: Ursula Schryver, 202/467-2980, [email protected]; or LeAnne Sinclair, 202/467-2973, [email protected] American Public Power Association 2451 Crystal Drive Suite 1000 Arlington, VA 22202 Table of Contents Summary ..................................................................................................................................6 What is Public Power? ........................................................................................................7 What is the public power business model? ...................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Plan for the Annexation of Real Estate Contiguous to the City of Fishers, Indiana
    Fiscal Plan for the Annexation of Real Estate Contiguous to the City of Fishers, Indiana Generally described as: North Shore Woods/Taylor Woods (Kroger) North side of 116th Street, west of Olio Road This Fiscal Plan Supports Ordinance # 012015 This Fiscal Plan is Exhibit "A" Referenced In Resolution # R020215 Kroger ANX - Fiscal Plan Introduction The purpose of this report is to outline the estimated fiscal impact of annexation upon the City of Fishers and the ability of the City to provide necessary municipal capital and non capital services to an area proposed for annexation. The area proposed for annexation that is analyzed in this report is referred to as the North Shore Woods/Taylor Woods (Kroger) and is generally located at: North side of 116th Street, west of Olio Road The Indiana Statutes (IC-36-4-3-13-d) governing annexation activity by the City of Fishers requires the preparation of a written fiscal plan and the establishment of an annexation policy by resolution, as of the date of the annexation ordinance. The fiscal plan is required to present cost estimates and a plan for the extension of municipal services to the areas proposed for annexation. Municipal services of a non-capital nature are required to be provided within one (1) year of the effective date of the annexation ordinance to the extent that such services are equivalent in standard and scope to those services already provided within the city limits. Likewise, municipal services of a capital improvement nature are required to be provided within three (3) years of the effective date of the annexation ordinance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Municipally Owned Enterprises ENGAGING the PRIVATE SECTOR for INCLUSIVE URBANIZATION: the Role of Municipally Owned Enterprises
    ISTANBUL INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR PRIVATE SECTOR IN DEVELOPMENT ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR FOR INCLUSIVE URBANIZATION: The Role of Municipally Owned Enterprises ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR FOR INCLUSIVE URBANIZATION: The Role of Municipally Owned Enterprises ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR FOR INCLUSIVE URBANIZATION: The Role of Municipally Owned Enterprises The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this study are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), to its affiliated organizations or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the UNDP, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations or UNDP concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Cover and Graphic Design: Çizgi Reklam Copyright © 2019 United Nations Development Programme Istanbul International Center for Private Sector in Development All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME photocopying or otherwise, without prior permission of UNDP ISTANBUL INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR PRIVATE SECTOR IN DEVELOPMENT CONTENTS Abbreviations 2 Acknowledgements 3 Preface 4 Foreword 5 Executive Summary 6 1. Urbanization 7 Context and Issues 7 UN Strategy for Sustainable Urbanization 9 The New Urban Agenda 10 Relevance to UNDP 10 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation & Municipal Services
    A Partnership Among Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Johnson College, Keystone College, Lackawanna College, Luzerne County Community College, Marywood University, Misericordia University, Penn State Scranton, Penn State Wilkes-Barre, The Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education, University of Scranton & Wilkes University Transportation & Municipal Services After COVID-19 March 2021 The Institute is a non-profit economic and social innovation research and policy organization dedicated to empowering business and community leaders with research based strategies for informed decision making. We conduct independent, non-biased research to identify the opportunities, issues and challenges unique to the region and to find innovative solutions to help solve the problems facing our communities. The Institute also offers a wide array of research, consulting and support services to help organizations boost productivity, increase profitability and be successful in their missions. The Institute is a partnership of 13 colleges and universities and the business community. The Institute has served clients in a number of states including the federal government. Planning, Land Use, Transportation & Infrastructure Task Force Signature Underwriters Dr. Marleen Troy, Professor, Wilkes University - Chair Andrew J. Sordoni Carl Beardsley, Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport Foundation Joe Glynn, WVIA Luzerne County Robert Luciani, Prudential Retirement Services PPL Electric Utilities Lawrence Malski, Pennsylvania Northeast Regional Railroad
    [Show full text]
  • Manteca Municipal Services Review July 2015
    MANTECA MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW JULY 16, 2015 Prepared for: City of Manteca Community Development Department 1001 West Center Street Manteca, CA 95337 (209) 456-8511 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 (916) 580-9818 De Novo Planning Group A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm MANTECA MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW JULY 16, 2015 Prepared for: City of Manteca Community Development Department 1001 West Center Street Manteca, CA 95337 (209) 456-8511 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 (916) 580-9818 TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC Chapters Page Numbers Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ES-1 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 A. Sphere of Influence ................................................................................................. 1-1 1. 10-Year Growth Boundary (2014-2024 Planning Horizon) ............................... 1-7 2. 20-Year Growth Boundary (2024-2034 Planning Horizon) ............................... 1-8 B. LAFCo and the Sphere of Influence .......................................................................... 1-8 C. California Environmental Quality Act ....................................................................... 1-8 2. Sphere of Influence Plan .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Service Delivery in an Increasingly Urbanized World Usaid Policy
    SUSTAINABLE SERVICE DELIVERY IN AN INCREASINGLY URBANIZED WORLD USAID POLICY SUSTAINABLE SERVICE DELIVERY IN AN INCREASINGLY URBANIZED WORLD USAID POLICY OCTOBER 2013 WASHINGTON, DC iii Sustainable Service Delivery in an Increasingly Urbanized World / USAID Pol icy Table of Contents CONTENTS Message from the Administrator .................................................... vi Acknowledgements ............................................................ viii Executive Summary ............................................................. 1 I. Context .................................................................... 5 II.Vision .................................................................... 11 III. Development Principles to Support Sustainable Urban Services ........................... 12 1. Ensuring Political and Financial Sustainability ................................... 12 2. Advancing Accountable, Pro-Poor Service Delivery Models ........................ 12 3. Fostering Market Orientation and Public-Private Collaboration ..................... 14 4. Supporting Municipal Resilience ........................................... 15 IV. Advancing USAID’s Core Development Objectives ................................... 16 V. Supporting USAID's Integrated Program Cycle ....................................... 20 VI. Moving Forward ............................................................ 24 VII. Annex ................................................................... 27 Endnotes ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • City of Placerville Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Update
    FINAL DRAFT EL DORADO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) CITY OF PLACERVILLE MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE ADOPTED AUGUST 23, 2017 FINAL DRAFT CITY OF PLACERVILLE MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE Prepared for: El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission 550 Main Street Placerville, CA 95667 Contact Person: Jose Henriquez, Executive Officer Phone: (530) 295-2707 Consultant: 6051 N. Fresno Street, Suite 200 Contact: Steve Brandt, Project Manager Phone: (559) 733-0440 Fax: (559) 733-7821 August 2017 © Copyright by QK, Inc. Unauthorized use prohibited. Cover Photo: City of Placerville 150245 EL DORADO LAFCO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CITY OF PLACERVILLE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AUGUST 2017 Commissioners Shiva Frentzen, Chair Mark Acuna Diana Anderly Dale Coco Ken Humphreys Brooke Laine Brian Veerkamp Alternates John Clerici Holly Morrison Michael Powell Michael Ranalli Staff José C. Henríquez Erica Sanchez Denise Tebaldi Kara Ueda EL DORADO LA _CO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH FROM: P. O. Box 3044 EL DORADO COUNTY LAFCO Sacramento, CA 95812- 3044 550 Main Street, Suite E Placerville, CA 95667 COUNTY CLERK José Henriquez FILED 530) 295- 2707 County of El Dorado AUG 24 2017 330 Fair Lane Placerville, CA 95667 I . A tr._ Project Title: City of Placerville SOI Update; LAFCO Project No. 2015- 01 Project Location — Specific: The City is located near the middle of El Dorado County, on the Western Slope along the intersection of Highway 50 and Highway 49. Project Location— City: Placerville Project Location — County: El Dorado Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: Update the sphere of influence for the City of Placerville and to reaffirm the current sphere of influence, which was last updated in February 2008.
    [Show full text]