Murrieta’s median home value sits at $567,700—more than $54,000 higher than Ontario’s $513,000—yet the decision between these two Inland Empire cities isn’t settled by housing prices alone. Both cities share the same regional economy, similar climate exposure, and access to Southern California’s broader job market, but the way cost pressure shows up in daily life differs sharply depending on how you move, where you shop, and what your household prioritizes in 2026.
Murrieta and Ontario sit roughly 30 miles apart, connected by commuter corridors and shared infrastructure, but they function differently on the ground. Murrieta skews newer, more spacious, and more car-dependent, with housing stock that favors single-family layouts and a street network built around driving. Ontario offers more transit options, denser commercial corridors, and a mixed building profile that supports walkable errands in certain neighborhoods. The cost tradeoff isn’t about which city is cheaper—it’s about which cost structure aligns with how your household actually operates day to day.
For families prioritizing space and newer construction, Murrieta’s higher entry cost comes with lower ongoing utility volatility and more predictable maintenance exposure. For households sensitive to transportation friction, commute flexibility, or daily errand access, Ontario’s lower housing entry barrier and stronger transit infrastructure can offset tighter grocery budgets and higher electricity rates. The better choice depends on which costs dominate your household’s decision-making—and which types of friction you’re equipped to manage.
Housing Costs
Murrieta’s median home value of $567,700 reflects a market built around newer single-family construction, larger lot sizes, and master-planned communities that appeal to families seeking space and modern layouts. Ontario’s median home value of $513,000 represents a more varied housing stock, with a mix of older single-family homes, townhomes, and low-rise multifamily buildings that support denser neighborhoods and shorter distances to commercial corridors. The $54,700 difference in median home value translates directly into higher down payment requirements, larger monthly mortgage obligations, and steeper property tax exposure in Murrieta—but it also buys access to housing stock with lower deferred maintenance risk and more energy-efficient construction.
Renters face a similar gap: Murrieta’s median gross rent of $2,150 per month exceeds Ontario’s $1,826 by $324. That difference compounds over a year, but it also reflects differences in unit type, building age, and neighborhood walkability. Murrieta’s rental stock skews toward newer apartment complexes and single-family rentals in subdivisions where parking is abundant and transit is minimal. Ontario’s rental market includes older multifamily buildings closer to commercial districts, bus lines, and rail stations, where car ownership becomes optional rather than mandatory. For renters who can reduce transportation costs by living near transit or work, Ontario’s lower rent can create meaningful budget flexibility. For renters who need space, modern appliances, and predictable utility performance, Murrieta’s higher rent buys newer construction with lower ongoing friction.
First-time buyers face a steeper climb in Murrieta, where the higher median home value demands larger savings, higher income verification, and more aggressive debt-to-income management. Ontario’s lower entry point opens homeownership to households earning closer to the regional median, though the tradeoff often involves older homes with higher maintenance exposure, less efficient HVAC systems, and more variable utility costs. Families planning to stay long-term may find Murrieta’s front-loaded cost worthwhile if it reduces ongoing repair volatility and utility unpredictability. Households prioritizing near-term affordability or planning shorter tenure may prefer Ontario’s lower entry barrier, even if it means managing older infrastructure and higher seasonal utility swings.
| Housing Type | Murrieta | Ontario |
|---|---|---|
| Median Home Value | $567,700 | $513,000 |
| Median Gross Rent | $2,150/month | $1,826/month |
The housing cost difference between Murrieta and Ontario is less about total monthly obligation and more about what that obligation buys. Murrieta’s higher costs secure newer construction, lower maintenance risk, and more predictable utility performance in a car-dependent layout. Ontario’s lower costs provide access to homeownership or rental stability in neighborhoods where transit, walkability, and commercial density reduce reliance on driving. Households with higher incomes and longer time horizons may absorb Murrieta’s entry barrier more easily. Households with tighter budgets, shorter tenure plans, or strong preferences for transit access may find Ontario’s structure more manageable, even if it requires navigating older housing stock and higher seasonal utility exposure.
Utilities and Energy Costs
Ontario’s electricity rate of 34.71¢/kWh exceeds Murrieta’s 30.29¢/kWh, a difference that becomes meaningful during the extended cooling season both cities experience. Inland Empire summers bring sustained triple-digit heat, and air conditioning dominates household energy use from late spring through early fall. In Ontario, higher electricity rates amplify the cost of cooling older homes with less efficient insulation, single-pane windows, and aging HVAC systems. In Murrieta, lower electricity rates combine with newer construction standards—better insulation, dual-pane windows, and more efficient cooling equipment—to reduce both usage and cost volatility during peak summer months.
Natural gas pricing shows a smaller gap: Ontario’s $23.78 per MCF versus Murrieta’s $22.96 per MCF. Heating demand in both cities remains modest compared to colder climates, with natural gas primarily supporting water heating, cooking, and occasional winter heating during rare cold snaps. The difference in natural gas cost matters less than the difference in housing stock efficiency. Murrieta’s newer homes tend to feature tankless water heaters, energy-efficient appliances, and better-sealed building envelopes that reduce baseline gas consumption. Ontario’s older housing stock often relies on conventional tank water heaters and older furnaces that cycle more frequently, increasing gas usage even when outdoor temperatures remain mild.
Utility cost exposure varies sharply by household size and housing type. Single adults in small apartments face lower absolute utility costs in both cities, but Ontario’s higher electricity rate makes cooling a one-bedroom unit noticeably more expensive during summer months. Families in larger single-family homes experience the reverse: Murrieta’s lower electricity rate and newer construction reduce cooling costs even as square footage increases, while Ontario families in older homes face compounding exposure from both higher rates and less efficient building performance. Renters in newer apartment complexes in either city benefit from shared wall insulation and modern HVAC systems, but those in older Ontario multifamily buildings face higher summer bills without the option to upgrade insulation or windows.
Utility cost predictability also differs. Murrieta’s newer housing stock and lower electricity rates create more stable month-to-month bills, with cooling costs rising predictably during summer and falling sharply in winter. Ontario’s combination of higher electricity rates and older housing stock introduces more volatility, as inefficient cooling systems and poor insulation amplify the cost impact of heat waves. Households in Ontario can reduce exposure through behavioral changes—limiting AC use, upgrading to programmable thermostats, sealing air leaks—but these strategies require upfront investment and ongoing discipline. Murrieta households benefit from construction standards that reduce the need for such interventions, though they pay for that efficiency through higher housing entry costs.
The utility takeaway is conditional: households in Murrieta experience lower electricity costs and more predictable seasonal bills, especially in newer construction. Households in Ontario face higher electricity rates and greater volatility, particularly in older homes where cooling dominates summer budgets. For families planning long-term residence in larger homes, Murrieta’s lower utility exposure and newer infrastructure reduce ongoing friction. For renters, singles, or households in smaller units, Ontario’s higher electricity rate creates noticeable summer pressure but remains manageable with careful usage and smaller square footage.
Groceries and Daily Expenses
Both Murrieta and Ontario share the same regional price parity index, meaning grocery staples, household goods, and everyday purchases reflect similar baseline costs across the Inland Empire. The difference in daily spending pressure comes not from price levels but from access patterns, store concentration, and the friction involved in running errands. Murrieta’s corridor-clustered food and grocery access means households plan shopping trips around specific commercial strips, often requiring a car and consolidating errands into fewer, larger outings. Ontario’s broadly accessible daily errands—with food and grocery density exceeding high thresholds—allow households to make smaller, more frequent trips on foot, by bike, or via short drives, reducing the need for bulk purchasing and large-format storage.
For families managing larger grocery volumes, Murrieta’s layout favors big-box stores, warehouse clubs, and sprawling supermarkets with ample parking and competitive pricing on bulk goods. This structure works well for households with vehicles, storage space, and the ability to plan weekly or biweekly shopping runs. Ontario’s denser commercial corridors support a wider mix of smaller grocers, ethnic markets, and neighborhood stores that cater to more frequent, smaller purchases. This setup benefits singles, couples, and smaller households who prioritize convenience over bulk savings and prefer to walk or take transit rather than drive and park.
Dining out and convenience spending follow similar patterns. Murrieta’s car-oriented layout concentrates restaurants, coffee shops, and takeout options along major corridors, making spontaneous stops less common and planned outings more typical. Ontario’s mixed-use neighborhoods and walkable pockets place cafes, quick-service restaurants, and prepared food options closer to residential areas, increasing the likelihood of frequent, smaller convenience purchases. For households sensitive to spending creep—where easy access to coffee, takeout, and impulse dining adds up—Ontario’s walkability can amplify daily expense pressure. For households disciplined about meal planning and cooking at home, Murrieta’s layout naturally limits convenience spending by adding friction to spontaneous purchases.
The grocery and daily expense takeaway is structural: Murrieta’s corridor-clustered access favors households with cars, storage, and the ability to plan consolidated shopping trips, reducing convenience spending but requiring more logistical discipline. Ontario’s broadly accessible errands reduce planning friction and support car-free or car-light living, but increase exposure to convenience spending for households prone to frequent takeout, coffee runs, or impulse purchases. Families with predictable routines and bulk-buying habits may find Murrieta’s layout more cost-effective. Singles, couples, and households valuing spontaneity and walkability may prefer Ontario’s density, even if it requires tighter discipline around discretionary spending.
Taxes and Fees
Property taxes in both Murrieta and Ontario follow California’s Proposition 13 framework, capping annual increases at 2% for existing homeowners and resetting assessed value at the time of sale. Murrieta’s higher median home value of $567,700 translates into higher absolute property tax bills for new buyers compared to Ontario’s $513,000 median, though the percentage rate remains similar across Riverside and San Bernardino counties. For long-term homeowners who purchased years ago, property tax growth remains predictable and modest. For recent buyers or those planning to purchase in 2026, Murrieta’s higher entry price means higher ongoing tax obligations from day one, with no mechanism to reduce that baseline short of refinancing or appealing assessed value.
Sales tax rates in both cities reflect county and local add-ons, with minimal variation between Murrieta and Ontario. The impact of sales tax depends more on household spending patterns than location: families making large purchases—vehicles, furniture, appliances—face similar tax burdens in either city. Households spending more on services, digital goods, or experiences face lower sales tax exposure overall. The structural difference lies in how daily errands and transportation patterns shape taxable spending. Murrieta’s car-dependent layout increases fuel purchases, vehicle maintenance, and auto-related spending, all subject to sales tax. Ontario’s transit availability and walkable errands reduce fuel consumption and car wear, lowering taxable transportation spending for households able to rely on rail or bus service.
HOA fees and special assessments vary widely within both cities, but Murrieta’s newer master-planned communities more commonly bundle services—landscaping, community pools, trash collection—into mandatory monthly fees. These fees add predictability by covering routine maintenance and amenities, but they also add non-negotiable monthly obligations that renters and homeowners alike must budget for. Ontario’s older neighborhoods less frequently impose HOA fees, giving homeowners more control over maintenance spending but also more exposure to deferred repairs, irregular assessments, and variable service costs. For households prioritizing budget predictability and bundled services, Murrieta’s HOA structure provides clarity. For households seeking lower fixed costs and more control over spending, Ontario’s less regulated neighborhoods offer flexibility at the cost of higher planning burden.
The tax and fee takeaway is conditional: Murrieta’s higher home values generate higher property tax obligations for new buyers, and HOA fees add predictable but non-negotiable monthly costs. Ontario’s lower home values reduce entry-level property taxes, and fewer HOA-governed neighborhoods lower fixed monthly obligations. Homeowners planning long-term residence may find Murrieta’s bundled services and predictable fees worthwhile. Households with tighter budgets or shorter tenure plans may prefer Ontario’s lower baseline taxes and more flexible fee structures, even if it means managing maintenance and services independently.
Transportation & Commute Reality
Ontario’s rail transit presence fundamentally changes how households navigate daily life. The availability of Metrolink service connects Ontario to Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino, offering a viable alternative to driving for commuters working in regional job centers. Murrieta’s bus-only transit system provides local circulation but lacks the speed, frequency, and regional reach that rail offers. For households with one or more members commuting to areas served by rail, Ontario’s transit access reduces car dependence, lowers fuel costs, and eliminates parking expenses in downtown job centers. For households working locally or in areas not served by transit, Murrieta’s car-oriented infrastructure and ample parking make driving straightforward, though it locks in fuel and maintenance costs as non-negotiable.
Gas prices reflect this difference in transportation structure. Murrieta’s $5.84 per gallon exceeds Ontario’s $5.51 per gallon, a gap that compounds for households driving long distances daily. A household commuting 25 miles round trip in a vehicle averaging 25 MPG consumes roughly one gallon per day, translating into higher weekly and monthly fuel costs in Murrieta. Ontario’s lower gas prices reduce per-mile costs, but the real savings come from reduced mileage enabled by transit access and denser errands. Households able to use rail for commuting and walk or bike for daily errands can cut fuel consumption sharply, even if they still own a car for weekend trips or off-peak needs.
Commute patterns also shape time costs. Murrieta’s layout spreads residential areas across master-planned subdivisions separated from commercial and employment centers, increasing average trip distances for work, errands, and recreation. Ontario’s mixed-use corridors and denser commercial districts place jobs, services, and transit closer to residential neighborhoods, reducing the time cost of daily logistics. For dual-income households juggling childcare, errands, and work schedules, Ontario’s shorter distances and transit options reduce the coordination burden. For single-income households or those with flexible schedules, Murrieta’s longer distances matter less, especially if driving time remains predictable and parking remains abundant.
The transportation takeaway is structural: Murrieta’s car-oriented layout and bus-only transit require households to own and operate vehicles for nearly all trips, locking in fuel, insurance, and maintenance costs as baseline expenses. Ontario’s rail access and broadly accessible errands allow households to reduce car dependence, lower fuel consumption, and cut transportation costs—but only if daily routines align with transit schedules and walkable corridors. Households with regional commutes, tight budgets, or preferences for car-light living may find Ontario’s transit infrastructure essential. Households prioritizing convenience, schedule flexibility, and suburban space may accept Murrieta’s higher transportation costs as the price of car-dependent autonomy.
Cost Structure Comparison
Housing pressure dominates the cost experience in both cities, but the nature of that pressure differs. Murrieta’s higher median home value and rent create a steeper entry barrier, requiring larger down payments, higher income verification, and more aggressive debt management for buyers and renters alike. Ontario’s lower housing costs reduce the initial hurdle, making homeownership and rental stability accessible to households earning closer to the regional median. The tradeoff lies in what that entry cost buys: Murrieta’s higher prices secure newer construction, lower maintenance risk, and more predictable utility performance, while Ontario’s lower prices often mean older housing stock with higher repair exposure and less efficient energy systems.
Utilities introduce more volatility in Ontario, where higher electricity rates and older housing stock amplify cooling costs during the extended summer season. Murrieta’s lower electricity rates and newer construction reduce both usage and cost swings, creating more stable month-to-month bills. For families in larger homes, this difference compounds: Murrieta’s efficient building envelopes and modern HVAC systems keep cooling costs manageable even as square footage increases, while Ontario families in older homes face rising bills that track both rate increases and inefficient performance. Renters in newer apartments in either city benefit from shared-wall insulation, but those in older Ontario multifamily buildings feel the rate difference most acutely.
Transportation patterns matter more in Ontario, where rail access and walkable errands create opportunities to reduce car dependence and cut fuel, insurance, and maintenance costs. Murrieta’s car-oriented layout offers no such flexibility: households must own and operate vehicles for nearly all trips, locking in transportation costs as a fixed baseline expense. For households with regional commutes or preferences for car-light living, Ontario’s transit infrastructure and denser commercial corridors provide meaningful cost relief. For households prioritizing convenience, schedule autonomy, and suburban space, Murrieta’s car-dependent layout feels less like a burden and more like a feature.
Daily living and groceries reflect similar baseline prices in both cities, but access patterns shape spending behavior. Murrieta’s corridor-clustered errands favor bulk shopping, consolidated trips, and big-box savings, reducing convenience spending but requiring more planning and storage. Ontario’s broadly accessible food and grocery options support smaller, more frequent purchases and increase exposure to takeout, coffee runs, and impulse dining. For households disciplined about meal planning and cooking at home, Murrieta’s layout naturally limits convenience creep. For households valuing spontaneity and walkability, Ontario’s density provides flexibility but requires tighter discipline around discretionary spending.
The better choice depends on which costs dominate the household. For families with higher incomes, long-term tenure plans, and preferences for space and predictability, Murrieta’s higher housing entry cost buys lower ongoing utility volatility, newer infrastructure, and more stable maintenance exposure. For households with tighter budgets, regional commutes, or strong preferences for transit access and walkable errands, Ontario’s lower housing entry barrier and denser infrastructure reduce friction and create opportunities to cut transportation and convenience costs. The decision is less about which city is cheaper overall and more about which cost structure aligns with how the household actually operates day to day.
How the Same Income Feels in Murrieta vs Ontario
Single Adult
For a single adult, housing becomes the first non-negotiable cost, and Murrieta’s higher rent reduces flexibility immediately. Ontario’s lower rent and transit access create room to reduce car dependence, cutting fuel and insurance costs if work and errands align with rail and bus routes. Murrieta’s car-oriented layout locks in vehicle ownership as mandatory, adding fixed transportation costs that compound with higher gas prices. Flexibility exists in Ontario through walkable errands and smaller, more frequent grocery trips, while Murrieta requires more planning and consolidation to avoid wasting time and fuel on scattered errands.
Dual-Income Couple
For a dual-income couple, housing costs still dominate, but the ability to split rent or mortgage payments eases the entry barrier in both cities. Ontario’s rail access becomes more valuable when one or both partners commute regionally, reducing the need for two cars and cutting transportation costs sharply. Murrieta’s higher rent and car dependence require both partners to budget for vehicles, fuel, and parking, but the tradeoff buys newer housing stock with lower utility volatility and more predictable maintenance. Flexibility in Ontario comes from transit optionality and walkable errands, while Murrieta’s predictability comes from stable utility bills and bundled HOA services that reduce surprise costs.
Family with Kids
For families with kids, housing space becomes non-negotiable first, and Murrieta’s higher home values and rents buy larger layouts and newer construction that reduce ongoing repair friction. Ontario’s lower housing costs ease the entry barrier, but older homes often require more maintenance and higher utility spending during summer cooling months. Transportation friction escalates for families juggling school, childcare, and errands: Murrieta’s car-dependent layout requires multiple vehicles and longer trip distances, while Ontario’s stronger family infrastructure and denser errands reduce coordination burden for households able to walk, bike, or use transit. Flexibility disappears faster in Murrieta as fuel, insurance, and maintenance costs stack, while Ontario families face tighter grocery budgets and higher electricity bills but gain time savings and lower transportation exposure.
Decision Matrix: Which City Fits Which Household?
| Decision factor | If you’re sensitive to this… | Murrieta tends to fit when… | Ontario tends to fit when… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Housing entry + space needs | Down payment size, monthly rent or mortgage obligation, and housing stock age | You prioritize newer construction, lower maintenance risk, and can absorb higher entry costs | You need lower entry barriers, accept older housing stock, and value near-term affordability |
| Transportation dependence + commute friction | Fuel costs, car ownership requirements, and commute flexibility | You accept car dependence, value parking abundance, and work locally or have flexible schedules | You can use rail transit for regional commutes and reduce car dependence through walkable errands |
| Utility variability + home size exposure | Seasonal cooling costs, electricity rates, and building efficiency | You value predictable utility bills, benefit from newer insulation and HVAC, and occupy larger homes | You can manage higher electricity rates, accept seasonal volatility, and occupy smaller or older units |
| Grocery strategy + convenience spending creep | Bulk shopping access, walkable errands, and impulse dining exposure | You plan consolidated shopping trips, have storage space, and limit spontaneous takeout spending | You value frequent, smaller grocery runs, walkable cafes, and accept higher convenience spending risk |
| Fees + friction costs (HOA, services, upkeep) | Bundled service fees, maintenance predictability, and control over spending | You prefer bundled HOA services, predictable monthly fees, and lower deferred maintenance exposure | You want lower fixed fees, more control over maintenance spending, and accept variable service costs |
| Time budget (schedule flexibility, errands, logistics) | Trip consolidation burden, errand proximity, and coordination complexity | You have flexible schedules, accept longer trip distances, and can consolidate errands efficiently | You juggle tight schedules, value shorter errand distances, and benefit from transit and walkability |
Lifestyle Fit
Murrieta and Ontario offer distinct lifestyle textures shaped by their infrastructure, density, and regional positioning. Murrieta’s low-rise, master-planned layout creates a suburban environment where space, quiet, and newer amenities dominate. Neighborhoods feature wide streets, large lots, and community parks integrated into residential subdivisions. The city’s walkable pockets exist but remain isolated, requiring cars to connect residential areas to shopping, dining, and recreation. For families prioritizing outdoor space, modern construction, and a slower pace, Murrieta delivers a lifestyle built around home-centered routines and planned outings. The tradeoff is longer trip distances, limited spontaneity, and higher reliance on driving for nearly all activities.
Ontario’s mixed building heights and denser commercial corridors create a more urban-suburban hybrid, where residential neighborhoods sit closer to shopping districts, transit stations, and employment centers. The presence of rail transit and broadly accessible errands supports a lifestyle where walking, biking, and public transportation become viable for daily routines. Ontario’s stronger family infrastructure—schools and playgrounds meeting density thresholds—eases logistics for parents managing school drop-offs, after-school activities, and weekend recreation. The city’s older housing stock and more varied neighborhood character appeal to households valuing convenience, transit access, and shorter distances over uniformity and newness.
Both cities benefit from integrated green space access, with park density exceeding high thresholds and water features present in both locations. Murrieta’s parks tend to anchor master-planned communities, offering playgrounds, sports fields, and walking trails designed into residential layouts. Ontario’s parks serve denser neighborhoods, providing green space within walking distance of multifamily housing and commercial districts. For families with young children, Ontario’s stronger playground density and school access reduce the coordination burden of daily routines. For families prioritizing space and modern amenities, Murrieta’s newer parks and larger residential lots provide more room for outdoor play and recreation without leaving the neighborhood.
Murrieta’s median household income of $106,925 exceeds Ontario’s $78,070 by nearly $29,000. This income gap reflects differences in household composition, employment patterns, and housing affordability dynamics. Murrieta attracts higher-earning families seeking space and newer construction, while Ontario’s lower housing costs and transit access draw a broader income mix, including younger households, renters, and families prioritizing location over square footage. Both cities share similar unemployment rates—Murrieta at 5.3% and Ontario at 5.1%—indicating comparable labor market conditions across the Inland Empire.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Murrieta or Ontario more affordable for renters in 2026?
Ontario’s median gross rent of $1,826 per month sits $324 below Murrieta’s $2,150, making Ontario more accessible for renters with tighter budgets or those prioritizing lower monthly housing obligations. The tradeoff often involves older rental stock, higher summer utility bills due to less efficient cooling systems, and more variable building quality. Murrieta’s higher rent typically buys newer apartments with modern appliances, better insulation, and more predictable utility performance, but it requires higher income verification and leaves less room for discretionary spending. Renters able to reduce car dependence through Ontario’s rail transit and walkable errands may offset the rent difference by cutting transportation costs.
How do transportation costs differ between Murrieta and Ontario in 2026?
Murrieta’s car-oriented layout and bus-only transit require nearly all households to own and operate vehicles, locking in fuel, insurance, and maintenance as baseline expenses. Murrieta’s gas price of $5.84 per gallon exceeds Ontario’s $5.51, amplifying costs for households driving long distances daily. Ontario’s rail transit presence and broadly accessible errands allow households to reduce car dependence, cutting fuel consumption and parking expenses for those whose commutes and routines align with transit schedules. Households working regionally or juggling tight schedules may find Ontario’s transit infrastructure essential, while those valuing schedule flexibility and suburban convenience may accept Murrieta’s higher transportation costs as unavoidable.
Which city has lower utility costs, Murrieta or Ontario, in 2026?
Murrieta’s electricity rate of 30.29¢/kWh sits below Ontario’s 34.71¢/kWh, creating lower cooling costs during the extended Inland Empire summer. Murrieta’s newer housing stock—featuring better insulation, dual-pane windows, and efficient HVAC systems—further reduces electricity usage and cost volatility. Ontario’s higher electricity rate compounds with older housing stock, where single-pane windows and aging cooling equipment increase both usage and monthly bills. Families in larger homes feel this difference most acutely, as Murrieta’s efficient construction keeps bills stable even as square footage increases, while Ontario families face rising costs that track both higher rates and inefficient building performance.
Does Murrieta or Ontario offer better access to schools and family amenities in 2026?
Ontario’s family infrastructure meets density thresholds for both schools and playgrounds, providing stronger access to educational facilities and recreational spaces within walking or short driving distance. Murrieta’s school density falls below thresholds, though playground density reaches moderate levels, meaning families may face longer trips to schools but find neighborhood parks integrated