Alameda County Special Districts and County Service Areas

Local Agency Formation Commission of Alameda County 224 W Winton Ave Suite 110 Hayward, CA 94544 Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Reviews Alameda County Special Districts and County Service Areas Final Commission Report October 11, 2024 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................... 5 List of Abbreviations Used ........................................................................................................ 6 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7 Alameda Districts Reviewed ..................................................................................................... 7 MSR Determinations Summary ................................................................................................ 8 SOI Determinations Summary and Recommendations .......................................................... 10 SOI Updates ........................................................................................................................ 12 Background ............................................................................................................................... 14 Legal Requirements and Purpose .......................................................................................... 14 Authority and Powers of LAFCO ............................................................................................. 14 LAFCO Responsibilities ...................................................................................................... 14 Planning Authorities ............................................................................................................ 15 Sphere of Influence Updates ............................................................................................... 15 Municipal Service Reviews ..................................................................................................... 16 Prior Municipal Service Reviews ......................................................................................... 17 Existing Spheres of Influence .............................................................................................. 17 Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission ......................................................... 19 Commission Composition ................................................................................................... 20 Meeting and Contact Information ........................................................................................ 21 Methodology and Data Sources .............................................................................................. 21 DOF Population and Housing Estimates ............................................................................. 21 Other Data Sources Used ................................................................................................... 22 Agency Profiles ........................................................................................................................ 23 Growth and Population Projections ....................................................................................... 57 Present and Planned Land Uses ............................................................................................. 60 Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District .................................................................... 61 2 East Bay Regional Park District .......................................................................................... 61 Hayward Area Recreation and Park District ........................................................................ 61 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District ...................................................................... 61 Castlewood, Castle Homes, Morva, and Five Canyons CSAs ............................................ 62 Vector Control Services District CSA .................................................................................. 63 Lead Abatement CSA ......................................................................................................... 63 Street Lighting CSA ............................................................................................................. 63 Location and Characteristics of Any DUCs ........................................................................... 64 Capacity of Facilities and Adequacy of Services .................................................................. 66 Street Maintenance and Lighting ............................................................................................ 66 Castle Homes CSA ............................................................................................................. 67 Castlewood CSA ................................................................................................................. 67 Five Canyons CSA .............................................................................................................. 68 Morva CSA .......................................................................................................................... 68 Street Lighting CSA ............................................................................................................. 68 Estuary Bridges CSA .......................................................................................................... 68 Parks, Recreation and Open Space ....................................................................................... 69 Hayward Area Recreation and Park District: ....................................................................... 69 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District: ..................................................................... 70 East Bay Regional Park District: ......................................................................................... 71 Mosquito Abatement Services ................................................................................................ 72 Vector Control Services .......................................................................................................... 73 Library Services ...................................................................................................................... 74 Lead Abatement Services ....................................................................................................... 74 Financial Ability to Provide Services ...................................................................................... 76 Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District .................................................................... 77 East Bay Regional Park District .......................................................................................... 78 Hayward Area Recreation and Park District ........................................................................ 79 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District ...................................................................... 80 Castlewood, Castle Homes, Morva, and Five Canyons CSAs ............................................ 81 Vector Control and Lead Abatement CSAs ......................................................................... 82 Street Lighting CSA ............................................................................................................. 84 3 East Bay Regional Parks District and Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Property Tax Sharing Agreement ...................................................................................................... 85 Opportunities for Shared Facilities ......................................................................................... 89 Accountability, Government Structure and Operational Efficiencies ................................. 90 4 TABLE OF FIGURES Table 1: Special Districts and County Service Areas ............................................................. 7 Table 2: Alameda LAFCO Commission Roster ...................................................................... 20 Table 3: Regional Population and Housing Trends .............................................................. 58 Table 4: Agency Housing Growth ........................................................................................... 59 5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED ACFR Annual Comprehensive Financial Report ACMAD Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate CIP Capital Improvement Program CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act CSA County Service Area DOF California Department of Finance DUC Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District FTE Full-Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GIS Geographic Information Systems HARD Hayward Area Recreation and Park District JPA Joint Powers Authority LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District MSR Municipal Service Review RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation SOI Sphere of Influence 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Local Agency Formation Commission of Alameda County (“Alameda LAFCO”) initiated this Community Services Municipal Service Review (“MSR”) and Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) update in 2023 for 14 cities, four special districts, and seven County Service Areas (“CSAs”) within Alameda County. This report focuses on the four special districts and seven CSAs within the County which provide community services. Alameda LAFCO retained consultant RSG, Inc. (“RSG”) to prepare the MSR, which included conducting surveys and interviews with each of the agencies, and collecting demographic, fiscal, and other data to support the MSR findings and determinations under State law. This MSR will encompass a comprehensive assessment of community services in Alameda County, including street maintenance and lighting, library, parks and recreation, mosquito and vector abatement, and lead abatement services. ALAMEDA DISTRICTS REVIEWED Alameda LAFCO included seven county service areas (“CSAs”) and four special districts as a part of this MSR and SOI update. Several of the agencies have service areas which span the entire county, while others serve much smaller populations. The 11 agencies are listed in Table 1. Table 1: Special Districts and County Service Areas County Service Areas Special Districts Castlewood CSA Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Castle Homes CSA East Bay Regional Park District Five Canyons CSA Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Morva CSA Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Street Lighting CSA Vector Control Services District CSA Lead Abatement CSA 7 MSR DETERMINATIONS SUMMARY As further detailed in the body of this report, RSG makes the following MSR determinations for the community services agencies based on our data collection, surveys, and interviews: Population, Growth, and Housing Generally, the population for agencies in the County is expected to increase over the next five years, as is the housing supply. The agencies are planning for increased population through their respective planning documents, many of which have been updated in the past five years to reflect the increased population. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities The unincorporated community of Ashland, within the SOI of the City of San Leandro, is the only Alameda LAFCO-designated disadvantaged unincorporated community (“DUC”) in the County. Ashland receives services from the countywide community service providers and receives other municipal services from the County. More information about Ashland can be found on page 64 of this report. Capacity of Facilities and Adequacy of Services The CSAs and special districts within the County are generally providing adequate street maintenance and lighting, parks and recreation, library, and vector and mosquito control services to their residents and customers. Most agencies serving the region have the resources to maintain current levels of service and to meet expected demand in the future. Residents who receive street maintenance services from the Castlewood CSA have expressed concerns about the ability of the Castlewood CSA to provide adequate services. The CSA did not engage with RSG throughout the MSR process. RSG recommends that the Commission further study the ability of the public works CSAs to provide services to their residents. 8 Financial Ability to Provide Services The financial capacity of the agencies is adequate for current service levels. The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (“LARPD”) expressed interest in revisiting its revenue sharing agreement with the East Bay Regional Park District (“EBRPD”) in order to more efficiently fund deferred maintenance projects and increases in facility capacity. RSG recommends the Commission facilitate the discussions with LARPD and EBRPD regarding the possibility of negotiating a new property tax sharing agreement. Opportunities for Shared Facilities The 2006 MSR recommended that the Vector Control District Services CSA and the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District explore options for consolidation and shared services and facilities. Staff at the Mosquito Abatement District indicated that the services provided by the two agencies are distinct and require different types of expertise and facilities, and that consolidation of the two agencies would likely not lead to increased operational efficiency. Livermore Area Recreation and Park District and East Bay Regional Park District work collaboratively to manage the Brushy Peak Preserve. LARPD also operates and maintains Camp Shelly, near Lake Tahoe. It leases the property from the US Forest Service. The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District operates parks and facilities owned by other entities, including but not limited to the City of Hayward, the Hayward Unified School District, and Alameda County. The District did not express challenges with these shared facilities. The agencies did not express a desire for further shared facilities, nor did RSG identify potential opportunities for additional shared facilities during this review. 9 Accountability for Community Service Needs Alameda community service agencies implement policies and procedures that ensure transparency and accountability to the public, including public notice of meetings and actions and regular elections. All agencies have websites and social media which provide information about their meetings, including ways to access the meetings virtually. The five public works CSAs (Castle Homes, Castlewood, Five Canyons, Morva, and Street Lighting) all operate under the County Public Works Agency. The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District expressed concern that its overlapping boundaries with the East Bay Regional Park District may lead to decreased accountability for Livermore residents and may decrease service efficiency. At this time, RSG recommends that the Commission further explore the overlapping boundaries between the two districts in order to evaluate how accountability is impacted and potential solutions. A number of the agencies take additional discretionary steps to survey residents and businesses periodically to gauge sentiment or interest in various topics. These efforts increase accountability for community service needs. Any Other Matter Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery, as Required by Commission Policy LAFCO does not have any policies affecting the preparation of MSRs, so RSG did not evaluate matters aside from those listed above. SOI DETERMINATIONS SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS When asked, no agency told RSG they plan to annex unincorporated areas within their SOIs, nor did they indicate a desire to a change to their respective SOIs. As further detailed in the body of this report, RSG makes the following SOI determinations for the cities based on our data collection, surveys, and interviews: 10 Present and Planned Land Uses The agencies anticipate population growth within the County and are planning for growth via their respective planning documents. The agencies do not have land use planning authority, which is instead reserved for the cities and the County. The community services districts and CSAs in this MSR generally serve specific land uses. Four of the CSAs (Castlewood, Castle Homes, Five Canyons, and Morva) almost exclusively serve residential customers in small, unincorporated residential areas. The park districts focus on managing open space, parks, trails, and recreational facilities. Some of the districts are working to acquire additional land for park uses, or to preserve existing open spaces. The Lead Abatement CSA serves residential land uses, focusing primarily on structures built prior to 1978 in the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland. RSG identified 95 parcels throughout the County designated as prime farmland under the Williamson Act. All 95 parcels are within the SOI of the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District. Present and Probable Need for Facilities and Services Alameda County community services special districts and CSAs are providing adequate services to their residents and customers. Agencies serving the region have the resources to maintain current levels of service and to meet expected demand in the future. Present Capacity and Adequacy of Public Facilities and Services The present capacity of the public facilities operated by the special districts and CSAs in the County is generally adequate to provide community services to their residents and customers. Residents of the Castlewood CSA have expressed concern about the adequacy of the services provided by the CSA and potential assessment increases. RSG 11 recommends that the Commission further study the ability of the public works CSAs to provide services. Social or Economic Communities of Interest Alameda County includes one DUC, the 1,137-acre Ashland community, within the southeast portion of San Leandro’s SOI. Based on our research, Ashland receives community services from the following agencies: • Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District • Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area • Lead Abatement: Alameda County • Library: Alameda County Library • Street Maintenance and Lighting: Alameda County • Parks and Recreation: Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Aside from Ashland, other unincorporated areas are located in the SOIs of Berkeley, Dublin, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Leandro. Among these areas are the unincorporated communities of Castro Valley, Cherryland, Fairview, Sunol, and San Lorenzo. In general, these unincorporated areas receive community services from countywide districts and CSAs and the County itself. The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District is the designated parks and recreation services provider for Castro Valley, Cherryland, Fairview, and San Lorenzo. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services by any DUCs within the Existing SOIs As mentioned earlier, the Ashland community within the San Leandro SOI is the only DUC in the County. The service providers did not indicate any challenges with providing community services to Ashland. SOI UPDATES In the course of our review, staff at LARPD made RSG aware of one potential SOI update. The District is considering annexing the northeast corner of its SOI in order to better serve 12 residents who currently utilize LARPD’s services. LARPD has not yet submitted an application to LAFCO for this change. Figure 1 shows the location of the annexation area. RSG recommends that LAFCO approve this change upon receipt of an annexation application. Figure 1: Potential LARPD Annexation Area 13 BACKGROUND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND PURPOSE In 1963 the California Legislature created for each County a Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) to oversee the logical formation and determination of local agency boundaries that encourage orderly growth and development essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well-being of the State. LAFCOs’ authority to carry out this legislative charge is codified in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000 (“CKH”). For nearly 60 years, CKH has been amended to give more direction to LAFCOs and, in some cases, expand the authorities of the Commissions. One of the most important revisions to CKH by the Legislature occurred in 2000, which added a requirement that LAFCOs review and update the “spheres of influence” for all cities and special districts every five years and, in conjunction with this responsibility, prepare comprehensive studies that are known as “municipal service reviews.” AUTHORITY AND POWERS OF LAFCO Codified within CKH are the procedures and processes for LAFCOs to carry out their purposes as established by the Legislature. LAFCOs’ purposes are guided CKH ACT (G.C. SECTION 56301) – and achieved through their regulatory and PURPOSES OF LAFCOs “Among the purposes of a commission are planning powers and acknowledge that the discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, local conditions of the 58 California encouraging the efficient provision of counties shall be considered in part to the government services, and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local Commissions’ authorities. agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances.” LAFCO RESPONSIBILITIES LAFCOs’ regulatory authorities include the reviewing, approving, amending or denying of proposals to change the jurisdictional boundaries of cities and special districts. Specifically, these types of boundary changes commonly referred to as “changes of organization,” include: 14 • City Incorporation • City Disincorporation • District Formation • District Dissolution • City and District Annexations and Detachments • City and District Consolidations • Merger of a City and District • Establishment of a Subsidiary District • Activation of new or different functions or classes of services, or divestiture of power to provide services for special districts. PLANNING AUTHORITIES LAFCOs’ planning authorities are carried out through the establishment and updating of agencies’ SOIs, which is a tool used to define a city or special district’s future jurisdictional boundary and service areas. Through the reform of CKH in 2000, LAFCO’s planning responsibility includes the preparation of comprehensive studies (MSRs) that analyze service or services within the county, region, subregion, or other designated geographic area. The determinations that LAFCOs must review, analyze, and adopt for SOIs and MSRs are discussed below. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES In 1972, LAFCOs throughout the State were tasked with determining and overseeing the SOIs for local government agencies. An SOI is a planning boundary that may be outside of an agency’s jurisdictional boundary (such as the city limits or a special district’s service area) that designates the agency’s probable future boundary and service area. The purpose of an SOI is to ensure the provision of efficient services while discouraging urban sprawl and the premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands, and by preventing overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services. On a regional level, LAFCOs coordinate the orderly development of a community through reconciling differences between different agency plans. This is intended to ensure the most efficient 15 urban service arrangements are created for the benefit of area residents and property owners. Factors considered in an SOI update include current and future land use, capacity needs, and any relevant areas of interest such as geographical terrain, location, and any other aspects that would influence the level of service. Per Government Code Section 56425, a LAFCO shall consider and prepare a written statement of its SOI determinations on the following five (5) factors: 1. The present and planned land use in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. 5. If a city or special district provides public facilities or services related to sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection the present and probable need for those facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. From time-to-time, an SOI may be modified as determined by LAFCO using the procedures for making sphere amendments as outlined by CKH. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, a LAFCO must first conduct an MSR prior to updating or amending an SOI. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS Section 56425(g) of CKH requires that LAFCOs evaluate an SOI every five years, or when necessary. The vehicle for doing this is known as a Municipal Service Review. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, MSRs make determinations on seven (7) required topics as follows: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence(s). 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. 6. Accountability for community service needs, including government structure and operational efficiencies. 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission Policy. 16 The focus of an MSR is to ensure that public services are being carried out efficiently and the residents of any given area or community are receiving the highest level of service possible, while also discouraging urban sprawl and the premature conversion of agricultural lands. If an MSR determines that certain services are not being carried out to an adequate standard, LAFCO can recommend changes be made through sphere changes and dissolution or consolidation of service providers to provide the best service possible to the population. PRIOR MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS Several cycles of MSRs have been completed by Alameda LAFCO prior to this one. The first was produced in 2008 and the second in 2013. In 2017, LAFCO released an SOI update for all cities in the County and in 2021, LAFCO released a Countywide MSR on Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and Flood Control Services. Each MSR cycle has provided Alameda LAFCO with new and important information regarding the delivery of services to Alameda County residents. EXISTING SPHERES OF INFLUENCE This MSR evaluates service provision by and within the community service agencies of Alameda County, both within their incorporated boundaries and their unincorporated spheres of influence. A number of agencies have unincorporated area adjacent to their boundaries but within their spheres. RSG has identified these areas below. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) Consistent with Government Code Section 56430, this MSR reviews DUCs within the County, including their location, characteristics, and adequacy of services and public facilities. Further, to address issues of inequity and infrastructure deficits, Government Code Section 56375 places restrictions on annexations to cities if the proposed annexation is adjacent to a DUC. DUCs are defined as inhabited territory located within an unincorporated area of a county in which the annual median household income is less than 80 percent of the 17 statewide median household income. State law considers an area with 12 or more registered voters to be an inhabited area. Alameda LAFCO has identified one DUC within the eastern SOI of the City of San Leandro, the Ashland community. The following agencies provide community services to Ashland: • Street Maintenance & Lighting: Alameda County • Parks and Recreation: Hayward Area Recreation and Park District • Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (“ACMAD”) • Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area (“Vector Control CSA”) • Lead Abatement: Alameda County • Broadband: Private providers • Library: Alameda County Library More information about Ashland can be found on page 64. Unincorporated Areas of Note A number of the agencies have SOIs which extend beyond their corporate boundaries. These areas and their respective service providers are identified below: Livermore Area Recreation and Park District The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District’s (“LARPD”) SOI extends beyond its corporate boundary to the northeastern corner of the County. LARPD did not express an interest in annexing this area into its boundary at this time. This area is unincorporated County territory, and is serviced by the following providers: • Street Maintenance & Lighting: Alameda County • Parks and Recreation: Livermore Area Recreation and Park District • Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (“ACMAD”) 18 • Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area (“Vector Control CSA”) • Lead Abatement: Alameda County • Broadband: Private providers • Library: Alameda County Library Street Lighting CSA The Street Lighting CSA’s SOI extends beyond its corporate boundary to the northeast and separately to the southeast. The Street Lighting CSA, a part of the Alameda County Public Works Agency, did not respond to RSG’s requests for information or comment as a part of this MSR and SOI update. This area is unincorporated County territory, and is serviced by the following providers: • Street Maintenance & Lighting: Alameda County • Parks and Recreation: Hayward Area Recreation and Park District • Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (“ACMAD”) • Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area (“Vector Control CSA”) • Lead Abatement: Alameda County • Broadband: Private providers • Library: Alameda County Library ALAMEDA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Alameda LAFCO is responsible for overseeing the boundaries, establishing MISSION: Alameda LAFCO serves Alameda County and updating SOIs, and preparing MSRs cities, special districts, and the county to for the County’s 14 cities and 29 ensure effective and efficient delivery of municipal services. independent and dependent special districts. Alameda LAFCO’s authority is guided through adopted policies and procedures that assist in the implementation of the 19 provisions of CKH and consideration of the local conditions and circumstances of the County. COMMISSION COMPOSITION Alameda LAFCO is comprised of 11 Commissioners, with 7 voting Commissioners and 4 Alternates. The Commissioners represent different parts of the County, including: three County Supervisors, three Cities, three independent Special Districts, and two representatives of the general public. All members serve four-year terms and there are no term limits. In accordance with the statute, while serving on the Commission, all Commission members shall exercise their independent judgement on behalf of the interests of residents, property owners, and the public as a whole. Table 2 identifies the Commissioners and Alternates along with their respective appointing authority and term, as well as the two members of LAFCO staff. Table 2: Alameda LAFCO Commission Roster Commissioners Appointing Authority Current Term Regular Members Karla Brown, Chair City Member City Selection Committee 2024-2028 Independent Special District Mariellen Faria, Special District Member 2023-2027 Selection Committee David Haubert, County Member Board of Supervisors 2023-2027 Independent Special District Ralph Johnson, Special District Member 2024-2028 Selection Committee John Marchand, City Member City Selection Committee 2021–2025 Nate Miley, County Member Board of Supervisors 2024-2028 Sblend Sblendorio, Public Member Alameda LAFCO Commission 2022-2026 Alternate Members Vacant, City Member, Alternate City Selection Committee Vacant Lena Tam, County Member, Alternate Board of Supervisors 2023-2026 Georgean Vonheeder-Leopold, Special Independent Special District 2021-2025 District Member, Alternate Selection Committee Bob Woerner, Public Member Alternate Alameda LAFCO Commission 2023-2027 20 LAFCO Staff Rachel Jones, Executive Officer April Raffel, Clerk MEETING AND CONTACT INFORMATION The Commission’s regular meetings are held on the second Thursday of the month at 2:00 p.m. Currently, the meetings are conducted at City of Dublin Council Chambers 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, 94568. The Alameda LAFCO administrative offices are centrally located at 224 West Winton Ave., Suite 110, Hayward, CA 94644. Commission staff may be reached by telephone at (510) 670-6267. The agency’s agendas, reports and other resources are available online at www.alamedalafco.org. METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES RSG worked in coordination with Alameda LAFCO staff throughout the duration of this MSR. To fully understand key factors and current issues involving the agencies, RSG conducted an initial working session with Alameda LAFCO staff to determine the project scope and process and formalize overall MSR objectives, schedules, agency services to review, fiscal criteria, and roles and responsibilities of Alameda LAFCO, and RSG. Data presented in this MSR was compiled between July 2023 and February 2024. Population and housing data presented in this MSR reflect statistics released by the California Department of Finance (“DOF”) Demographic Research Unit for incorporated cities, and the Federal Decennial Census data, as reported by ESRI Business Analyst, for unincorporated areas. DOF POPULATION AND HOUSING ESTIMATES This MSR uses the DOF’s population and housing estimates for cities and the county, and reflects data compiled through January 1, 2023. The DOF’s Demographic Research Unit publishes population estimates annually and are the official population and housing unit tallies used in most State programs and for jurisdictional appropriation limits. 21 OTHER DATA SOURCES USED The DOF does not provide data for unincorporated areas within city SOIs nor for other agencies, including special districts and CSAs. In order to produce the demographic reports for these areas, RSG extracts Census data from ESRI Business Analyst using GIS shapefiles provided by the County. 22 AGENCY PROFILES For each of the agencies, this section provides a summary of the governing structure, population and service area, and types of services provided. A demographic summary and a map of each agency are shown following the profile table. Below is a list of the agencies profiled in this MSR: County Service Areas: • Castlewood CSA • Castle Homes CSA • Five Canyons CSA • Morva CSA • Street Lighting CSA • Vector Control Services District CSA • Lead Abatement CSA Special Districts: • Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District • East Bay Regional Park District • Hayward Area Recreation and Park District • Livermore Area Recreation and Park District 23 Castlewood CSA Established 1968 Agency Information Address 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, CA 94544 Primary Contact Lorena Arroyo Garcia, CSA Administrator Contact Information (510) 670-5480 Website https://www.acpwa.org/programs- services/County-Service- Areas/CastlewoodAR.page Service Area Information Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 0.35 Population Served 638 Communities Served Unincorporated County southwest of Pleasanton Services Provided • Maintenance of private roads • Drainage services for private roads • Sewer and water services 24 Castlewood County Service Area Population & Density Agency County 2020 Population 6 38 1,682,353 2023 Population 6 38 1,636,194 2028 Population1 6 36 1,697,701 2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) -0.3% 3.8% Daytime Population 5 90 1,660,752 Households 2 40 595,862 Household Size 2 .66 2.75 Area (Square Miles) 0 .88 821.46 Density (Persons per Square Mile) 7 25 1,992 Housing Housing Units 2 42 630,758 Owner Occupied (%) 86% 51% Renter Occupied (%) 13% 44% Vacant (%) 1% 6% Median Home Value $ 2 ,000,001 $ 1,064,817 Employment & Poverty Businesses 1 4 Employees 1 30 2023 Median Household Income $ 2 00,001 $ 116,079 Poverty Rate 1% 9% 12028 Population estimate is a projection only. Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities), ESRI Business Analyst 25 26 Castle Homes CSA Established 1968 Agency Information Address 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, CA 94544 Primary Contact Lorena Arroyo Garcia, CSA Administrator Contact Information (510) 670-5480 Website https://www.acpwa.org/programs- services/County-Service- Areas/CastleHomes.page Service Area Information Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 0.88 Population Served 173 Communities Served Unincorporated roads in Fairview Area, northeast of City of Hayward Services Provided Road maintenance for three private roads: • Clover Road • Star Ridge Road (formerly East Avenue) • China Court 27 Castle Homes County Services Area Population & Density Agency County 2020 Population 1 76 1,682,353 2023 Population 1 73 1,636,194 2028 Population1 1 70 1,697,701 2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) -1.7% 3.8% Daytime Population 1 11 1,660,752 Households 3 6 595,862 Household Size 4 .81 2.75 Area (Square Miles) 0 .35 821.46 Density (Persons per Square Mile) 4 94 1,992 Housing Housing Units 4 3 630,758 Owner Occupied (%) 74% 51% Renter Occupied (%) 9% 44% Vacant (%) 16% 6% Median Home Value $ 1 ,142,857 $ 1,064,817 Employment & Poverty Businesses 1 Employees 2 2023 Median Household Income $ 1 50,000 $ 116,079 Poverty Rate 0% 9% 12028 Population estimate is a projection only. Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities), ESRI Business Analyst 28 29 Five Canyons CSA Established 1994 Agency Information Address 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, CA 94544 Primary Contact Lorena Arroyo Garcia, CSA Administrator Contact Information (510) 544-3073 Website https://www.acpwa.org/programs- services/County-Service- Areas/FiveCanyons.page Service Area Information Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 1.13 Population Served 3,415 Communities Served Unincorporated County northeast of the City of Hayward, including parts of Castro Valley Services Provided • Maintenance of roadways, access roads, and bridges • Storm drainage management • Landscaped areas, open space, erosion control, mass soil movement, and fire buffer zones maintenance • Retaining walls and entry monuments upkeep • Graffiti prevention and removal • Administrative and engineering services coordination 30 Five Canyons County Service Area Population & Density Agency County 2020 Population 3 ,490 1,682,353 2023 Population 3 ,415 1,636,194 2028 Population1 3 ,342 1,697,701 2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) -2.1% 3.8% Daytime Population 2 ,219 1,660,752 Households 1 ,102 595,862 Household Size 3 .10 2.75 Area (Square Miles) 1 .13 821.46 Density (Persons per Square Mile) 3 ,022 1,992 Housing Housing Units 1 ,121 630,758 Owner Occupied (%) 93% 51% Renter Occupied (%) 5% 44% Vacant (%) 2% 6% Median Home Value $ 1 ,357,472 $ 1,064,817 Employment & Poverty Businesses 4 8 Employees 2 72 2023 Median Household Income $ 2 00,001 $ 116,079 Poverty Rate 5% 9% 12028 Population estimate is a projection only. Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities), ESRI Business Analyst 31 32 Morva CSA Established 1983 Agency Information Address 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, CA 94544 Primary Contact Lorena Arroyo Garcia, CSA Administrator Contact Information (510) 670-5480 Website https://www.acpwa.org/programs- services/County-Service-Areas/Morva.page Service Area Information Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 0.02 Population Served 327 Communities Served Unincorporated County north of the City of Hayward within the Cherryland area Services Provided • Provides a financing mechanism for road maintenance services for Morva Court and Morva Drive 33 Morva County Service Area Population & Density Agency County 2020 Population 3 37 1,682,353 2023 Population 3 27 1,636,194 2028 Population1 3 19 1,697,701 2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) -2.4% 3.8% Daytime Population 2 09 1,660,752 Households 1 14 595,862 Household Size 2 .87 2.75 Area (Square Miles) 0 .02 821.46 Density (Persons per Square Mile) 1 6,350 1,992 Housing Housing Units 1 15 630,758 Owner Occupied (%) 28% 51% Renter Occupied (%) 71% 44% Vacant (%) 1% 6% Median Home Value $ 9 01,786 $ 1,064,817 Employment & Poverty Businesses - Employees - 2023 Median Household Income $ 7 5,330 $ 116,079 Poverty Rate 15% 9% 12028 Population estimate is a projection only. Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities), ESRI Business Analyst 34 35 Street Lighting CSA Established 1970 Agency Information Address 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, CA 94544 Primary Contact Lorena Arroyo Garcia, CSA Administrator Contact Information 510-670-6615 Website https://www.acpwa.org/programs- services/County-Service- Areas/Streetlight.page Service Area Information Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 23.66 Population Served 143,119 Communities Served Unincorporated areas including Castro Valley, Eden Consolidated Area, and Fairview Services Provided • Routine street light maintenance and upgrades • Development and implementation of street lighting guidelines 36 Street Lighting County Service Area Population & Density Agency County 2020 Population 1 44,967 1,682,353 2023 Population 1 43,119 1,636,194 2028 Population1 1 41,344 1,697,701 2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) -1.2% 3.8% Daytime Population 1 00,711 1,660,752 Households 4 7,149 595,862 Household Size 3 .04 2.75 Area (Square Miles) 2 3.66 821.46 Density (Persons per Square Mile) 6 ,049 1,992 Housing Housing Units 4 8,812 630,758 Owner Occupied (%) 58% 51% Renter Occupied (%) 39% 44% Vacant (%) 3% 6% Median Home Value $ 8 78,109 $ 1,064,817 Employment & Poverty Businesses 4 ,858 Employees 3 7,293 2023 Median Household Income $ 1 02,766 $ 116,079 Poverty Rate 9% 9% 12028 Population estimate is a projection only. Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities), ESRI Business Analyst 37 38 Vector Control Services District CSA Incorporated 1984 Agency Information Address 1131 Harbor Bay Parkway, Ste. 166, Alameda, CA 94502 Primary Contact Adena Why, Acting Chief Contact Information 510-777-2176 Website www.acvcsd.org Governance Alameda County Board of Supervisors Service Area Information Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 821.46 Population Served 1,636,194 Communities Served Entirety of Alameda County Services Provided • Investigation and education related to vectors and vector-borne diseases • Administration of quarantine measures for animal bites • Investigations of wildlife and wildlife issues on residential and commercial properties • Rodent suppression, population surveys, and sewer inspection 39 Vector Control Services District County Service Area Population & Density Agency County 2020 Population 1 ,682,353 1,682,353 2023 Population 1 ,636,194 1,636,194 2028 Population1 1 ,697,701 1,697,701 2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 3.8% 3.8% Daytime Population 1 ,660,752 1,660,752 Households 5 95,862 595,862 Household Size 2 .75 2.75 Area (Square Miles) 8 21.46 821.46 Density (Persons per Square Mile) 1 ,992 1,992 Housing Housing Units 6 30,758 630,758 Owner Occupied (%) 51% 51% Renter Occupied (%) 44% 44% Vacant (%) 6% 6% Median Home Value $ 1 ,064,817 $ 1,064,817 Employment & Poverty Businesses 7 1,066 Employees 7 57,815 2023 Median Household Income $ 1 16,079 $ 116,079 Poverty Rate 9% 9% 12028 Population estimate is a projection only. Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities), ESRI Business Analyst 40 41 Lead Abatement CSA Incorporated 1991 Agency Information Address 2000 Embarcadero Cove, Suite 300 Oakland CA 94606 Primary Contact Lidice De La Fuente Contact Information 510.567.8280 Website www.achhd.org Governance 5-member Joint Powers Authority Service Area Information Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 546.63 Population Served 809,509 Communities Served Cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland; Unincorporated Parts of County Services Provided • Comprehensive lead poisoning prevention program, including: • Hazard consultation • Property owner education and outreach • Referrals of children from dwellings with lead hazards 42 Lead Abatement County Service Area Population & Density Agency County 2020 Population 8 08,818 1,682,353 2023 Population 8 09,509 1,636,194 2028 Population1 8 19,218 1,697,701 2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 1.2% 3.8% Daytime Population 7 87,563 1,660,752 Households 3 06,073 595,862 Household Size 2 .64 2.75 Area (Square Miles) 5 46.63 821.46 Density (Persons per Square Mile) 1 ,481 1,992 Housing Housing Units 3 28,567 630,758 Owner Occupied (%) 42% 51% Renter Occupied (%) 52% 44% Vacant (%) 7% 6% Median Home Value $ 1 ,058,098 $ 1,064,817 Employment & Poverty Businesses 3 4,688 Employees 3 56,914 2023 Median Household Income $ 9 8,072 $ 116,079 Poverty Rate 12% 9% 12028 Population estimate is a projection only. Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities), ESRI Business Analyst 43 44 Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Established March 11, 1930 Agency Information Address 23187 Connecticut Street, Hayward CA 94545 Primary Contact Ryan Clausnitzer, General Manager Contact Information (510) 783-7744 Website www.mosquitoes.org Governance 15-member Board of Trustees Total Agency Staff 18 Full-Time Service Area Information Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 821.46 Population Served 1,636,194 Communities Served Entirety of Alameda County Services Provided • Responds to public complaints and addressing mosquito issues • Monitoring mosquito populations, inspecting breeding sources, and providing education on mosquito control 45 Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Population & Density Agency County 2020 Population 1 ,682,353 1,682,353 2023 Population 1 ,636,194 1,636,194 2028 Population1 1 ,697,701 1,697,701 2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 3.8% 3.8% Daytime Population 1 ,660,752 1,660,752 Households 5 95,862 595,862 Household Size 2 .75 2.75 Area (Square Miles) 8 21.46 821.46 Density (Persons per Square Mile) 1 ,992 1,992 Housing Housing Units 6 30,758 630,758 Owner Occupied (%) 51% 51% Renter Occupied (%) 44% 44% Vacant (%) 6% 6% Median Home Value $ 1 ,064,817 $ 1,064,817 Employment & Poverty Businesses 7 1,066 Employees 7 57,815 2023 Median Household Income $ 1 16,079 $ 116,079 Poverty Rate 9% 9% 12028 Population estimate is a projection only. Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities), ESRI Business Analyst 46 47 East Bay Regional Park District Incorporated November 6, 1934 Agency Information Address 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, CA 94605 Primary Contact Sabrina Landreth, General Manager Contact Information 510-569-4319 Website www.ebparks.org Governance 7-member Board of Directors Total Agency Staff 956.7 FTE Service Area Information Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 821.46 Population Served 1,636,194 Communities Served Entirety of Alameda County Services Provided • Provides a diverse regional park system and related services for outdoor recreation • Acquires and preserves significant natural, cultural, and historic resources • Manages, maintains, and restores parklands 48 East Bay Regional Park District Population & Density Agency County 2020 Population 1 ,682,353 1,682,353 2023 Population 1 ,636,194 1,636,194 2028 Population1 1 ,697,701 1,697,701 2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 3.8% 3.8% Daytime Population 1 ,660,752 1,660,752 Households 5 95,862 595,862 Household Size 2 .75 2.75 Area (Square Miles) 8 21.46 821.46 Density (Persons per Square Mile) 1 ,992 1,992 Housing Housing Units 6 30,758 630,758 Owner Occupied (%) 51% 51% Renter Occupied (%) 44% 44% Vacant (%) 6% 6% Median Home Value $ 1 ,064,817 $ 1,064,817 Employment & Poverty Businesses 7 1,066 Employees 7 57,815 2023 Median Household Income $ 1 16,079 $ 116,079 Poverty Rate 9% 9% 12028 Population estimate is a projection only. Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities), ESRI Business Analyst 49 50 Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Incorporated December 11, 1944 Agency Information Address 1099 E Street, Hayward, CA 94541 Primary Contact James Wheeler, General Manager Contact Information 510-881-6700 Website www.haywardrec.org Governance 5-member Board of Directors Total Agency Staff 147 Full-Time, and 150 to 300 Part-Time (seasonal) Service Area Information Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 114.01 Population Served 308,131 Communities Served City of Hayward and unincorporated communities of Castro Valley, San Lorenzo, Ashland, Cherryland, and Fairview Services Provided • Provides park and recreation services • Manages an affordable golf course 51 Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Population & Density Agency County 2020 Population 3 09,586 1,682,353 2023 Population 3 08,131 1,636,194 2028 Population1 3 06,836 1,697,701 2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) -0.4% 3.8% Daytime Population 2 45,650 1,660,752 Households 9 8,283 595,862 Household Size 3 .14 2.75 Area (Square Miles) 1 14.01 821.46 Density (Persons per Square Mile) 2 ,703 1,992 Housing Housing Units 1 02,344 630,758 Owner Occupied (%) 55% 51% Renter Occupied (%) 41% 44% Vacant (%) 4% 6% Median Home Value $ 8 36,756 $ 1,064,817 Employment & Poverty Businesses 9 ,255 Employees 8 3,131 2023 Median Household Income $ 1 02,670 $ 116,079 Poverty Rate 8% 9% 12028 Population estimate is a projection only. Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities), ESRI Business Analyst 52 53 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Incorporated June 10, 1947 Agency Information Address 4444 East Ave, Livermore CA 94550 Primary Contact Mathew Fuzie, General Manager Contact Information 925-373-5700 Website www.larpd.org Governance 5-member Board of Directors Total Agency Staff 106 Full-Time, 44 Part-Time Service Area Information Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 243.55 Population Served 93,119 Communities Served City of Livermore, part of City of Pleasanton, and eastern unincorporated Alameda County Services Provided • Provides park and recreation services • Provides community classes, sports, aquatics, environmental education, senior services, and special events • Provides childcare and extended student services 54 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Population & Density Agency County 2020 Population 9 3,416 1,682,353 2023 Population 9 3,119 1,636,194 2028 Population1 9 3,737 1,697,701 2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 0.7% 3.8% Daytime Population 1 07,891 1,660,752 Households 3 3,664 595,862 Household Size 2 .77 2.75 Area (Square Miles) 2 43.55 821.46 Density (Persons per Square Mile) 3 82 1,992 Housing Housing Units 3 5,021 630,758 Owner Occupied (%) 70% 51% Renter Occupied (%) 26% 44% Vacant (%) 4% 6% Median Home Value $ 9 87,390 $ 1,064,817 Employment & Poverty Businesses 4 ,300 Employees 6 0,806 2023 Median Household Income $ 1 52,784 $ 116,079 Poverty Rate 4% 9% 12028 Population estimate is a projection only. Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities), ESRI Business Analyst 55 56 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS Alameda County covers a total population of approximately 1.63 million people. The Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District, East Bay Regional Park District, and Vector Control Services District CSA all serve the entire population of the County. The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District serves the population of the City of Hayward and the unincorporated areas of Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, San Lorenzo, and Fairview. The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District largely serves the population of the City of Livermore. The Castlewood, Castle Homes, and Morva CSAs all serve small neighborhood areas with less than 1,000 residents each. RSG used data from both the DOF and from ESRI Business Analyst to make determinations about growth and population. The DOF does not provide population information or projections for special districts, so RSG has relied on ESRI Business Analyst for those projections, which largely are aligned with the trends of the DOF. According to LAFCO’s SOI maps, both the Street Lighting CSA and the Livermore Recreation and Park District have SOIs which extend beyond their boundaries. In both cases, these areas serve unincorporated parts of the County. The DOF projects that the County population will grow over the next five years and through 2040 at a faster rate than growth throughout the state. ESRI projects that the Lead Abatement CSA and the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District will both experience population growth, while the five public works CSAs and the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District will experience a decline in population. 57 Table 3: Regional Population and Housing Trends CSAs and Special Districts Past Growth Projected Growth Population Changes 2020-2022 2023-2028 % # % # Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District -2.74% -46,159 3.76% 61,507 East Bay Regional Park District -2.74% -46,159 3.76% 61,507 Hayward Area Recreation and Park District -0.47% -1,455 -0.42% -1,295 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District -0.32% -297 0.66% 618 Castlewood County Service Area 0.00% 0 -0.31% -2 Castle Homes County Services Area -1.70% -3 -1.73% -3 Five Canyons County Service Area -2.15% -75 -2.14% -73 Vector Control Services District County Service Area -2.74% -46,159 3.76% 61,507 Estuary Bridges County Service Area 0.37% 5,136 0.62% 8,752 Morva County Service Area -2.97% -10 -2.45% -8 Street Lighting County Service Area -1.27% -1,848 -1.24% -1,775 Lead Abatement County Service Area 0.09% 691 1.20% 9,709 Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates, ESRI Business Analyst Per the DOF, the housing stock in Alameda County grew by approximately 48,000 between 2010 and 2022. While the community service agencies are not responsible for developing housing, their ability to provide services will be impacted by growing infrastructure and service needs from an increased population. The COVID-19 pandemic created unique migration patterns in the US, with many urban areas losing population rapidly in the years after 2020. These urban areas have been slowly regaining population, and projections show they will continue to grow in the future. RSG has used the jurisdictional goals established by HCD as part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) for estimates of future housing growth in the special districts. RSG has analyzed the RHNA for the cities and unincorporated County in order to determine the housing impact on the community service agencies. Table 4 shows the expected changes in housing growth within the jurisdiction of each of the agencies. While there is housing growth within the jurisdiction of the Lead Abatement CSA, the actual number of homes the CSA serves will not increase, as new housing does not have lead-based paint. 58 Table 4: Agency Housing Growth CSAs and Special Districts Past Growth Projected Growth Housing Unit Changes 2010-2022 2023-2031 % # % # Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District 8.28% 48,256 14.11% 88,997 East Bay Regional Park District 8.28% 48,256 14.11% 88,997 Hayward Area Recreation and Park District 5.34% 5,192 9.09% 9,306 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District 9.62% 3,072 13.05% 4,570 Castlewood County Service Area 2.54% 6 0.00% 0 Castle Homes County Services Area 2.38% 1 0.00% 0 Five Canyons County Service Area -0.09% -1 0.00% 0 Vector Control Services District County Service Area 8.28% 48,256 14.11% 88,997 Estuary Bridges County Service Area 8.35% 40,486 14.36% 75,439 Morva County Service Area 0.88% 1 0.00% 0 Street Lighting County Service Area 1.29% 622 9.65% 4,711 Lead Abatement County Service Area 6.40% 19,771 14.32% 47,064 Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates, ESRI Business Analyst, Local Housing Elements 59 PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES Per Government Code Section 56425, a LAFCO shall consider and prepare a written statement of its SOI determinations on five (5) factors, including: 1. The present and planned land use in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The agencies anticipate population growth and are planning for increased housing stock through their respective planning documents, including Strategic Plans. These agencies do not have planning authority with regard to future residential development, and instead provide specific community services to residents and customers within their jurisdiction. They will be impacted by the planning and development activities of both the incorporated cities and the County for unincorporated areas. Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that jurisdictions adopt general plans for the physical development of the community. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research indicates that general plans must be updated periodically, although there is no prescribed definition of frequency. General plans typically have a defined planning period of 15-20 years, at the end of which a new general plan update would be prepared unless otherwise necessary. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65302(c), general plans must include a housing element explaining how the jurisdiction will meet its part of the regional housing need. The County is part of the Association of Bay Area Governments planning agency, which established jurisdictional housing goals for the 6th Round planning cycle (2023 through 2031); these goals are known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”). Each city and the County is to prepare and seek HCD approval of their local housing element. As of March 12th, 2024, all Alameda County cities have received HCD certification of their 6th Round Housing Element. Alameda County has submitted an initial draft of its Housing Element, but it has not yet been approved by HCD. Alameda County has a RHNA of 4,711 for 2023-2031 for the unincorporated areas of the County. Following are individual agency notes on development and land use: 60 ALAMEDA COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT Staff at the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District noted that they anticipate increased calls for service as future development approaches open space, particularly wetlands, which have high quantities of mosquitoes. The District serves the entire County, which has a total RHNA of 89,000 housing units between the cities and the unincorporated areas of the County. EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT The East Bay Regional Park District owns and operates 73 parks spanning approximately 127,000 acres in both Alameda and Contra Costa counties. In its 2022 Community Report, the District noted that acquiring land for recreation and habitat preservation is a priority. The report highlighted that the District acquired a trail easement for the San Francisco Bay Trail along the Hayward Regional Shoreline and secured ongoing use agreements for several regional parks. The District operates a number of parklands where there is not public access in order to preserve habitat. HAYWARD AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District owns and operates parks and recreational facilities in the City of Hayward and the adjacent unincorporated parts of Alameda County, including the only DUC in the County, the community of Ashland. LIVERMORE AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (“LARPD”) owns and operates parks, facilities, and open space in the City of Livermore and in unincorporated Alameda County. There are four open space areas operated by the District, including Brushy Peak, the Garaventa Wetlands, Holdener Peak, and Sycamore Grove Park. All of the Williamson Act- designated prime farmland parcels in the County are within the SOI of LARPD. Figure 2 shows the location of these parcels. 61 Figure 2: Williamson Act Parcels in LARPD CASTLEWOOD, CASTLE HOMES, MORVA, AND FIVE CANYONS CSAS The Castlewood, Castle Homes, Morva, and Five Canyons CSAs all serve relatively small residential areas. The Alameda County Public Works Agency did not respond to requests for comment, and RSG has not identified any changes in land use within the CSAs. 62 VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES DISTRICT CSA Staff at the Vector Control Services District CSA noted that increased development, particularly in rural land, causes increases in calls for service. The District serves the entire County, which has a total RHNA of 89,000 housing units between the cities and the unincorporated areas of the County. The District has historically had the highest calls for service volume from the City of Oakland, which has one of the largest RHNA requirements in the County. LEAD ABATEMENT CSA The Lead Abatement CSA provides supplemental lead abatement services in the incorporated cities of Oakland, Alameda, Emeryville, and Berkeley. While there is housing development in these areas, new structures do not require lead abatement services, and so the CSA will continue to focus on the needs of pre-1978 residential housing structures. STREET LIGHTING CSA The Street Lighting CSA serves unincorporated Alameda County. The County has a RHNA of 4,711, and the CSA will be required to provide street lighting services to the increased population. Staff at the CSA did not respond to RSG’s requests for information and did not provide comment on the ability of the CSA to plan for this increase in population. 63 LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ANY DUCS Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, MSRs make determinations on seven (7) required topics, including: 2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence(s). Per Government Code Section 56425, a LAFCO shall consider and prepare a written statement of its SOI determinations on five (5) factors, including: 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. Alameda LAFCO has identified one DUC in the County, the community of Ashland, within the SOI of the City of San Leandro. A DUC is defined by Government Code Section 56033.5 as an area of inhabited territory (with 12 or more registered voters) located within an unincorporated area of a county with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household, or $147,900 for 2023. Figure 3 shows the location of the Ashland community. Figure 3: Ashland Unincorporated Community 64 Ashland receives community services from a variety of different providers, as summarized below: • Street Maintenance & Lighting: Alameda County • Parks and Recreation: Hayward Area Recreation and Park District • Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District • Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area • Lead Abatement: Alameda County • Broadband: Private providers • Library: Alameda County Library The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District operates a number of parks and facilities in the Ashland area, including Ashland Park, the Ashland Community Center, Jack Holland Sr. Park, Edendale Park, Hesperian Park, and Fairmont Linear Park. Neighboring Ashland is the Lake Chabot Regional Park, which is operated by EBRPD. The closest library branches to the Ashland area are the South Branch, operated by the San Leandro Public Library, and the San Lorenzo Branch of the Alameda County Library. Residents of Ashland are able to join both library systems by providing a valid ID with a California address. 65 CAPACITY OF FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF SERVICES Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, MSRs make determinations on seven (7) required topics, including: 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, adequacy of public services, infrastructure needs, or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. Per Government Code Section 56425, a LAFCO shall consider and prepare a written statement of its SOI determinations on the five (5) factors, including: 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide; and 5. the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. Overall, agencies in Alameda County are providing adequate community services to their residents and customers. In general, agencies report they have the resources to maintain current levels of service and there are very few service areas where there are any ongoing issues or disputes between agencies. The five public works CSAs did not engage with RSG throughout the MSR process. RSG has made determinations about the ability of those agencies to provide community services in those cities based on publicly available documents, but was unable to speak with staff in order to gain a deeper understanding of service opportunities and challenges. This section of the report discusses the community services provided by the agencies in Alameda County and their capacity to deliver those services with the existing staff and public facilities. STREET MAINTENANCE AND LIGHTING The Castle Homes, Castlewood, Five Canyons, Morva, and Street Lighting CSAs all provide various street maintenance and lighting services. All are administered by the County Public Works Department. The County Public Works Department did not engage with RSG through the MSR process, and did not express the current capacity of their 66 services or staff. The publicly available annual reports for these CSAs did not include detailed information about staff capacity or recent activities by the CSAs. CASTLE HOMES CSA The Castle Homes CSA provides road maintenance services to three zones in unincorporated County territory northeast of the boundaries of the City of Hayward. In Zone 1, the CSA provides maintenance services along China Court. In that zone, the CSA levies an annual service charge of $1,000 on developed parcels and $500 on undeveloped parcels, which is the maximum fee approved by a 2011 ballot measure. In Zone 2, the CSA provides services along Quercus Court and Arbutus Court. It charges $525 annually for developed parcels and $262.50 for undeveloped parcels. In Zone 3, the CSA provides services along Clover Road and Star Ridge. At present, Zone 3 residents are charged $300 per developed parcel and $150 per undeveloped parcel, but the CSA is currently undergoing the service charge increase process to increase the fees to $1,000 and $500 for developed and undeveloped parcels respectively by FY 26-27. CASTLEWOOD CSA The Castlewood CSA provides road maintenance, sewer, and water services to 213 parcels covering 587 acres in unincorporated County territory southwest of the City of Pleasanton. This MSR will only address the road maintenance services provided by the CSA. The CSA only provides routine road maintenance, such as the repair of potholes and other small emergency road repairs. There are several private roads in the CSA which are not maintained by the CSA, however, property owners along the private roads still pay CSA assessment fees for the use of the public roads used to access their private property. Property owners pay $224 per parcel for road service, with the exception of the Castlewood Country Club, which pays $6,951 per parcel for road service. These rates have remained the same since FY 13-14. 67 FIVE CANYONS CSA The Five Canyons CSA includes approximately 718 acres, 307 of which are owned by East Bay Regional Park District. The CSA also includes two Hayward Area Recreation District parks. The CSA provides road maintenance, storm drainage, landscaping, open space management, graffiti prevention and removal, and engineering services. This MSR will only evaluate the provision of road maintenance services. The CSA levies annual service charges which range from $455 to $692, depending on the type of development, and which are less than the $909 Board-approved maximum. MORVA CSA The Morva CSA provides a financing mechanism for road maintenance services along Morva Court and Morva Drive, both of which are private roads serving 20 low- and middle- income residences. In FY 23-24, the annual service charge per living unit is $1,000. In FY 24-25, the service charge will decrease to $250. Per the annual report, the CSA has plans for major road repairs in FY 24-25. STREET LIGHTING CSA The Street Lighting CSA owns and operates approximately 6,700 street lights. The CSA levies charges on parcels depending on the land use and zone within the CSA, and has not increased rates since FY 92-93 by taking advantage of energy efficient lighting and implementing a proactive maintenance program. Service charges in the commercial zone depend on the cost of street lighting. ESTUARY BRIDGES CSA The Estuary Bridges CSA was originally formed to finance the operation and maintenance of three draw bridges which cross the Oakland Estuary between the City of Oakland and the City of Alameda. The CSA is currently inactive, with a zero SOI and no assessments or funding sources. In 2006, Alameda LAFCO adopted a policy to encourage dissolution of the CSA. RSG recommends that LAFCO continue to encourage the County to initiate dissolution of the CSA. 68 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE There are three special districts that provide Parks and Recreation services in Alameda County: the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (“HARD”), Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, and East Bay Regional Park District (“EBRPD”). Agency Parks Acreage Number of Parks Hayward Area Recreation 1,369 110 and Park District Livermore Area Recreation 1,148 38 and Parks District East Bay Regional Park 60,303 38 District1 HAYWARD AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT: HARD’s SOI encompasses the City of Hayward, along with portions of unincorporated Alameda County north and east of the City. Approximately half of the District’s residents live in the City of Hayward, with the remainder in unincorporated County land. The District’s corporate boundary is larger than its SOI. In order to prepare for anticipated population and housing growth in the region, the District has acquired nine new park areas over the past four years. The District’s 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program included $7.95 million in funding for the acquisition of two new park spaces and the demolition of the existing structures on those parks. The CIP also included two separate renovations for Kennedy Park ($19.3 million) and La Vista Park ($15.4 million). HARD is funded through property tax revenues and Park Impact Fees from the City of Hayward and the County. In 2016, the District passed the $250 million Measure F1 Bond for Clean, Safe, Local Parks to help finance the acquisition and renovation of parks and facilities. As a result of the bond, the District has acquired new parkland specifically in underserved areas of the 1 This inventory only includes land under EBRPD management in Alameda County. 69 area, including in Ashland. Overall, HARD has used $22 million in bond funds to acquire 18.5 acres of new parkland. HARD adopted Park Maintenance Standards in 2022 which provide standards for the different types of parks and facilities operated by the District. The Standards create policies to help staff better prioritize repairs and evaluate maintenance needs across the District. The District also has completed a park evaluation and is currently engaged in a district-wide community survey and needs assessment in order to improve customer service and better understand community needs. HARD is committed to providing free programming for the community, especially since Hayward has several underserved communities along with the only DUC in the County. The District’s Healthy Equity Initiative provides free health and wellness offerings to the community, and the Water Safety Initiative has offered almost 4,000 free swim lessons and water safety classes in the past two years. Several of HARD’s facilities and parks are located on property owned by other agencies, including the County, City of Hayward, and local school districts. These facilities are governed by a number of different agreements, including operation and maintenance agreements and joint use agreements. The District did not express any challenges related to inter-agency coordination. LIVERMORE AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT: LARPD’s boundary encompasses the City of Livermore along with a small portion of the City of Pleasanton. It also expands south and east to the southern border of Alameda County and to the eastern boundary of the County. The northeast portion of the SOI extends to the County boundaries and is not part of the District’s boundary. There are also two small areas on the western side of the District where the SOI does not cover the full boundary of the District. LARPD works closely with the City of Livermore to plan for population and housing changes. Upon the completion of the City’s updated General Plan, the District will also 70 update its Master Plan to include the City’s population projections. LARPD determines management and maintenance responsibilities for parks within the City through a Master Property Agreement. The District is in the process of establishing a similar agreement with the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. The District served over 17,500 participants and provided 24,750 hours of sports field and gym use in the last year. LARPD has seen an increased demand for some specific recreation uses, such as fields, gyms, and pools, which exceeds its current capacity. LARPD is working with a consultant to better understand and accommodate this demand. LARPD also has some deferred maintenance projects for which funding is a challenge. Staff from LARPD expressed interest in revisiting the tax revenue sharing agreement between the District and the East Bay Regional Park District (also reviewed as a part of this MSR). The two agencies have a Cooperative Agreement and Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement, established in 1992. The Agreement specified EBRPD would receive a phase- in or incremental shift of LARPD’s property tax shares generated from the Murray Township area.2 LARPD takes the position the share of property tax revenue transferred to EBRPD is not sufficiently reinvested in the Livermore community. Beginning in FY 03-04, EBRPD has transferred approximately $200,000 per year back to LARPD for the purpose of supporting ongoing park maintenance projects. The transfer amount has not increased over the past 20 years. EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT: East Bay Regional Park District is the largest parks district in the County and its boundaries and SOI encompass the entirety of both Alameda County and Contra Costa County. EBRPD owns or operates 73 regional parks and 31 regional, inter-park trails across the two counties. It provides recreational activities which aim to foster use of the parkland 2 Beginning in FY 93-94, the Agreement specified EBRPD would receive a certain amount of tax revenue in the Murray Township area, which escalated until FY 00-01. Beginning in FY 01-02, the Agreement dictates EBRPD receives $.025 of the base year AV and $.030 per $100 of all AV growth after the base year. The base year is set at FY 00-01. 71 while also preserving their value as biodiverse open spaces. It also provides law enforcement and fire protection services in its parks; neither of these services are included as a part of this MSR. EBRPD’s most recent complete Master Plan is from 2013, and began an update to its Master Plan in 2024. EBRPD is working to acquire and open to the public new parkland and open space, including expanding Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park by opening approximately 2,844 acres and 18 miles of new trails.. The majority of the District’s revenues are from taxes and assessments, with 92% of operating revenues from property taxes. The FY 22-23 budget included $11.9 million for capital projects. The two largest projects are construction at the Oyster Bay Access and Picnic Area ($1.4 million) and the Tilden Environmental Educational Center ($1.1 million). MOSQUITO ABATEMENT SERVICES The Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (“ACMAD”) provides mosquito abatement services to all of the cities and unincorporated areas within the County. None of the cities expressed challenges with the services provided by ACMAD and expect that ACMAD will continue to provide services in the future. ACMAD District expressed that they have the capacity to handle mosquito abatement services at current levels. ACMAD provides services to the entire incorporated and unincorporated County, and is funded by a share of property taxes, a special tax, and a benefit assessment. It is governed by a Board of Trustees, which consists of one member for each of the 14 cities within the District, as well as a member appointed by the County Board of Supervisors who represents the County at-large. ACMAD provides mosquito abatement services through a variety of means, including physical, biological, and chemical control to reduce and eliminate mosquito populations. The District also provides education services, including an elementary education program which is managed by a full-time staff member. In 2015, ACMAD added a program to test 72 birds and mosquitoes for diseases in-house which reduced response times for these tests from 10 days to a matter of hours. The District is funded through a share of the property tax, a special tax passed by the voters in 1982, and a benefit assessment passed in 2008. The District is currently collecting less than half of the maximum allowable benefit assessment due to operational efficiencies which allow the District to provide services without use of the full assessment. The District approved its most recent Strategic Plan for 2024-2026 in January 2024. The plan addresses the equity of District services throughout the County, and the distribution of field staff workloads. VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES Vector control services for vectors other than mosquitoes, including rodents, ticks, bed bugs, and cockroaches, are provided by the Vector Control Services District County Service Area. The CSA is a division of the Alameda County Environmental Health Department, which is a part of Alameda County Health. The CSA serves the entirety of Alameda County, including all fourteen incorporated cities and the unincorporated areas. The CSA manages programming such as wildlife nuisance investigations, identification of vectors, vector control in public areas, and testing of vectors for various diseases which could pose threats to human health and wellbeing. This includes ongoing disease surveillance in homeless encampments throughout the County along with responses to requests from the public for service investigations involving vectors. Members of the public are able to directly submit requests for service to the CSA, which are routed to staff. In 2022, the CSA received over 4,500 service requests. Staff from the CSA regularly work with Registered Environmental Health Specialists to inspect food facilities countywide for vector-related issues. The CSA additionally educates the public by making presentations, posting notices, providing media releases, and attending public outreach events including the Alameda County Fair. 73 The Vector Control Services CSA provides yellow jacket nest control to the East Bay Regional Park District as a courtesy. In prior years the CSA has had a contract with EBRPD to provide these services, but the cost of administering the contract exceeded the cost of the actual service. The CSA is funded through two benefit assessments charged to all parcels within the County. The benefit assessment charged to single-family residences increased from $11 to $11.93 in FY 22-23. Residents in the City of Oakland are charged an additional $1.28 per unit due to an increased need for services (specifically with regard to rat populations in sanitary sewers). Staff from the CSA noted that there has been an increased need for vector control services in the County, due to both the increased development of rural land into commercial or residential uses and the ongoing homelessness crisis. LIBRARY SERVICES There are two inactive library CSAs in Alameda County: the Castro Valley Library CSA and the Dublin Library CSA. LAFCO adopted a zero SOI for both CSAs in 2006, which recommended that the County dissolve both CSAs if neither was used by 2009. RSG recommends that LAFCO continue to encourage the County to initiate dissolution of the two CSAs. LEAD ABATEMENT SERVICES The Lead Abatement County Service Area provides comprehensive lead poisoning prevention services necessary to mitigate lead hazards found in dwelling units built before 1978 in four cities: Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland. The CSA is part of the Healthy Homes Department of the County, and is managed by a Joint Powers Authority consisting of one representative from each jurisdiction and one community representative. The CSA is currently experiencing challenges with recruiting appropriately qualified staff to adequately provide services. Ideally, housing staff at the CSA will have Lead 74 Professional certifications and Registered Environmental Health Specialist credentials. The CSA also employs public health nurses, which it has been able to adequately recruit. The CSA levies a service charge of $10 per pre-1978 dwelling unit in the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland, and does not collect any fees in unincorporated areas. This charge has remained unchanged since 1991 because a proposed increase requires a ballot measure. As the number of older units in the CSA’s jurisdiction declines due to redevelopment activity, fee revenue has also decreased. The CSA actively pursues grants in order to continue to provide a high level of service, and is also exploring the possibility of raising fees via a ballot measure. 75 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, MSRs make determinations on seven (7) required topics, including: 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. As part of the Alameda MSR process, RSG gathered data from publicly available sources including agency budgets and audits. RSG included information between FY 18-19 and FY 22-23, the most recent audit year available for most of the agencies as of the date of this report. Some agencies did not have a FY 22-23 audit available as of the writing of this report; for these cities, RSG has included the most up-to-date financial information available. This MSR reviews community services, so RSG has attempted to identify expenditures and revenues specifically related to the community services which are being provided by each agency. Any revenues or expenditures not related to the services reviewed in this report, including but not limited to those related to law enforcement, fire, and general government services, have been included under the “Other” line item in the agency tables. RSG has not included summaries of funds which are not used for community service uses, such as funds used for debt service. RSG made determinations about revenue and expenditure growth for the agencies based on compound annual growth rates (“CAGR”). Some agencies have made accounting changes over the years, so RSG has only calculated the CAGR for total General Fund revenues and expenditures for each agency. • Less than 0 percent: Negative growth • 0 – 2 percent: Low growth • 2.1 – 4 percent: Below average growth • 4.1 – 6 percent: Average growth • 6.1 – 10 percent: Moderate growth • 10.1 – 18 percent: High growth • Above 18 percent: Very high growth 76 The financial capacity of each agency is adequate for providing services at the current levels. The agencies have all established reserve policies and have reserves which meet their policy requirements. Although some agencies have deferred maintenance costs, these agencies are planning appropriately through budget documents in order to continue to provide services. ALAMEDA COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT The Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District experienced average revenue growth and below average revenue growth over the past five years. The District receives the majority of its income from property taxes and special assessments within its boundaries, which are discussed in further depth on page 72. Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 General Fund $ 4,922,549 $ 5,146,702 $ 5 ,406,554 $ 5 ,195,433 $ 6 ,009,518 Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 General Fund Salaries and Fringe Benefits $ 2,683,156 $ 2,854,468 $ 2 ,990,918 $ 3 ,107,470 $ 3 ,482,424 Materials, Supplies and Services 886,491 867,982 8 17,384 9 32,593 9 94,633 Capital Outlay 418,175 464,392 3 6,964 - 4 9,535 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 3,987,822 $ 4,186,842 $ 3 ,845,266 $ 4 ,040,063 $ 4 ,526,592 Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District 77 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT The East Bay Regional Park District’s General Fund revenues exceeded General Fund expenditures between 2018 and 2022. However, General Fund expenditure growth did outpace General Fund revenue growth over the same time period. Revenues in the Project Fund and the non-major governmental funds decreased between 2018 and 2022, although the Project Fund experienced fluctuation over the five-year period. The District receives most of its revenues from property taxes, followed by interagency agreements and grants and charges for services. East Bay Regional Park District Revenues 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 General Fund $ 157,773,727 $ 168,498,929 $ 1 70,877,100 $ 1 76,277,892 $ 1 87,116,870 Project Fund $ 18,511,292 $ 9,983,554 $ 1 0,450,187 $ 1 8,335,242 $ 1 7,948,199 Non-Major Governmental Funds $ 10,392,279 $ 9,931,246 $ 9 ,399,145 $ 1 1,324,950 $ 9 ,664,044 Expenditures 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 General Fund Acquisition/Stewardship/Development $ 10,477,413 $ 11,017,942 $ 1 2,118,061 $ 1 3,055,792 $ 1 4,442,585 Operations Division 65,052,760 65,983,523 6 8,014,229 7 4,252,265 8 4,680,827 All Other Uses 53,370,524 54,448,823 5 8,960,807 6 3,752,767 6 7,032,860 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 128,900,697 $ 131,450,288 $ 1 39,093,097 $ 1 51,060,824 $ 1 66,156,272 Project Fund Acquisition/Stewardship/Development $ 10,671,372 $ 7,252,784 $ 1 6,674,699 $ 1 2,155,963 $ 1 5,830,483 Operations Division 5,008,703 4,439,868 2 ,922,028 2 ,885,599 2 ,756,240 All Other Uses 28,566,525 39,984,486 3 4,534,072 2 8,049,888 3 4,512,311 TOTAL PROJECT FUND $ 44,246,600 $ 51,677,138 $ 5 4,130,799 $ 4 3,091,450 $ 5 3,099,034 Nonmajor Governmental Funds Acquisition/Stewardship/Development $ 88,239 $ 13,996 $ - $ 1 ,057 $ 1 ,003 Operations Division 5,467,197 5,396,295 6 ,742,797 5 ,435,811 5 ,352,046 All Other Uses 8,819,661 6,792,544 3 ,832,003 3 ,417,247 2 ,946,808 TOTAL NON-MAJOR GOV'T FUNDS $ 14,375,097 $ 12,202,835 $ 1 0,574,800 $ 8 ,854,115 $ 8 ,299,857 Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, East Bay Regional Parks District 78 HAYWARD AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT General Fund revenue growth outpaced General Fund expenditure growth for the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District between FY 18-19 and FY 22-23. The largest funding sources for the District are taxes and assessments and rents, concessions, and fees. The District also passed a $250 million bond to acquire, renovate, and build out new park spaces throughout the District. Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 General Fund $ 34,241,117 $ 34,164,351 $ 32,815,997 $ 37,527,516 $ 40,865,436 Capital Projects Fund $ 4,613,009 $ 1,654,661 $ 898,977 $ 860,315 $ 3,416,313 Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 General Fund District Management $ 3,057,372 $ 4,254,808 $ 5,459,920 $ 5,324,842 $ 6,713,520 Recreation Programs 12,034,819 9,096,272 5,334,650 7,558,273 9,106,932 Capital Planning and Development - - 85,467 205,553 332,145 Park and Facility Maintenance 13,229,510 13,692,551 14,587,989 15,970,158 17,622,717 Golf Courses 3,860,887 3,005,976 1,858,745 1,883,737 1,917,695 Other Uses 319,384 87,802 62,465 41,661 38,349 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 32,501,972 $ 30,137,409 $ 27,389,236 $ 30,984,224 $ 35,731,358 Capital Project Fund $ 15,518,819 $ 34,421,748 $ 20,674,846 $ 30,960,613 $ 23,042,001 Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District 79 LIVERMORE AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District experienced declining revenues and expenditures between FY 18-19 and FY 22-23. Expenditures for salaries and employee benefits decreased by $3 million between FY 19-20 and FY 20-21, and increased about $1 million between FY 20-21 and FY 22-23. As noted earlier in this report, staff at LARPD expressed interest in revisiting the Cooperative Agreement and Tax Revenue Sharing Agreements between the District and the East Bay Regional Park District. LARPD takes the position the share of property tax revenue transferred to EBRPD is not sufficiently reinvested in the Livermore community, and negatively impacts LARPD’s ability to provide services to residents. The agreement, entered into in 1992, allocates some property taxes which had previously been allocated to LARPD to EBRPD. Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Revenues FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 General Fund $ 31,524,731 $ 24,160,274 $ 17,611,442 $ 2 3,133,630 $ 2 3,132,917 Expenditures FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 General Fund $ 32,554,087 $ 25,564,477 $ 17,263,375 $ 2 1,164,051 $ 2 3,462,608 Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District 80 CASTLEWOOD, CASTLE HOMES, MORVA, AND FIVE CANYONS CSAS The Castlewood, Castle Homes, Morva, and Five Canyons CSAs are all funded via the Public Ways and Facilities Fund of Alameda County. The four CSAs receive the bulk of their revenues from charges for service, which are discussed in further depth on page 66. In all five years that RSG examined, the expenditures exceeded the revenues of the fund, and expenditures have grown while revenues have remained at the same level. Public Ways and Facilities Fund1 Revenues2 FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 Taxes $ 997 $ 961 $ 987 $ 1,080 $ 772 Use of Money and Property 206 233 ( 5) ( 86) 46 Other Aid 94 63 125 104 61 Charges for Services 2,197 2,217 2,242 2,300 2,439 Other Revenue 51 - - - 191 TOTAL $ 3,545 $ 3,474 $ 3,349 $ 3,398 $ 3,509 Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 Public Ways and Facilities $ 4,639 $ 5,693 $ 5,404 $ 7,820 $ 8,842 1 The Alameda County Public Ways and Facilities Fund provides funds for the Castlewood, Castle Homes, Five Canyons, Morva, and Estuary Bridges CSAs. 2 All amounts shown in thousands. Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, Alameda County 81 VECTOR CONTROL AND LEAD ABATEMENT CSAS The Vector Control and Lead Abatement CSAs are funded via the Health Services Fund of Alameda County. The growth of expenditures has slightly outpaced the growth of revenues, although in most years of RSG’s analysis revenues did exceed expenditures. This fund receives most of its revenue from charges for service. RSG requested but did not receive a breakdown of the audited financials between the two CSAs. Health Services Fund1 Revenues2 FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 Licenses and permits $ 210 $ - $ - $ - $ - Fines, forfeitures, and penalties 605 - - - - Use of Money and Property 409 521 7 ( 254) 115 State aid 141 - - - - Charges for services 28,565 30,184 31,420 31,873 34,174 Other revenue 270 7 2 3 2 TOTAL $ 30,200 $ 30,712 $ 31,429 $ 31,622 $ 34,291 Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 Health and Sanitation $ 28,827 $ 28,079 $ 28,607 $ 32,441 $ 32,233 1 The Health Services Fund provides funding for the Lead Abatement and Vector Control CSAs. 2 All amounts shown in thousands. Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, Alameda County Vector Control Services CSA The Vector Control Services CSA is funded through two benefit assessments charged to all parcels within the County. The benefit assessment charged to single-family residences increased from $11 to $11.93 in FY 22-23. Residents in the City of Oakland are charged an additional $1.28 per unit due to an increased need for services (specifically with regard to rat populations in sanitary sewers). The following table presents information from the County budget book for the individual Vector Control Services CSA. Vector Control Services CSA - Budget Information Revenues FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Revenues $ 5,479,809 $ 5,489,881 $ 6,281,110 $ 6,358,411 Expenditures FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Salaries and employee benefits $ 3,944,592 $ 4,153,174 $ 4,767,767 $ 4,850,346 Services and supplies 1,522,998 1,917,056 2,945,455 2,939,721 Other charges 106,583 110,979 110,239 110,695 Fixed assets - - - - Other Uses - - 133,234 133,234 TOTAL $ 5,574,173 $ 6,181,209 $ 7,956,695 $ 8,033,996 Source: County of Alameda Final Budget 2023-24 82 Lead Abatement CSA Staff at the Lead Abatement CSA noted that it has seen a decrease in fee revenue, a trend that it anticipates will continue in the future, as structures that may contain lead-based paint are redeveloped. The CSA is working to fill funding gaps created by this change by pursuing grants and other outside funding sources. While the Lead Abatement CSA is funded via the Health Services Fund of the County, the CSA is under the administration of the Alameda County Community Development Agency. The following table presents information from the County budget book for the individual Lead Abatement CSA. Lead Abatement CSA - Budget Information Revenues FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Revenues $ 2,719,412 $ 2,577,731 $ 3,075,189 $ 3,016,260 Expenditures FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Salaries and employee benefits $ 1,249,840 $ 1,506,066 $ 1,663,545 $ 1,697,121 Services and supplies 1,662,958 2,084,904 1,360,012 1,267,416 Other charges 25,197 51,723 51,723 51,723 Fixed assets - - - - Other Uses - - - - TOTAL $ 2,937,995 $ 3,642,693 $ 3,075,280 $ 3,016,260 Source: County of Alameda Final Budget 2023-24 83 STREET LIGHTING CSA The Street Lighting CSA is funded via the Lighting Fund of Alameda County. Revenues have slightly decreased over the past five years, while expenditures have grown. In all five years, revenues have exceeded expenditures, although by a shrinking margin. Lighting Fund1 Revenues2 FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 Taxes $ 9 $ 9 $ 10 $ 11 $ 12 Use of Money and Property 119 142 10 ( 21) 41 Other Aid 2 2 2 2 3 Charges for Services 869 872 913 915 904 Other Revenue - - - 2 2 TOTAL $ 999 $ 1,025 $ 935 $ 909 $ 962 Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 Public Ways and Facilities $ 619 $ 750 $ 789 $ 826 $ 959 1 Provides funding for the Street Lighting County Service Area 2 All amounts shown in thousands. Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Alameda County 84 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS DISTRICT AND LIVERMORE AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT PROPERTY TAX SHARING AGREEMENT As allowed under California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b)(6) the County of Alameda is empowered to make all related property tax exchange determinations on behalf of special districts. Wherein no master agreement applies, the statute requires the adoption of a property tax exchange agreement between the local agencies prior to LAFCO’s consideration of a jurisdictional change. In 1980, the County Board of Supervisors adopted a master property tax agreement to govern the tax exchange for subsequent EBRPD annexations; the master property tax agreement specified no transfer of property taxes would occur. Under the master agreement, EBRPD would have the responsibilities for regional park and recreational services for Murray Township or elsewhere it annexes property without the allocation of property taxes. Given the above, EBRPD approached LARPD in 1992 and negotiated a property tax sharing agreement (“1992 Agreement”) that provided funding to EBRPD to cover operational responsibilities for Murray Township. Specifically, the two agencies entered into the agreement with the purpose of fulfilling their mutual goals and objectives of providing quality regional, community and local park, recreation and open space facilities and services to residents of the Murray Township area. The 1992 Agreement includes a handful of terms and conditions that include, but are not limited to, the following four key conditions3: 1. LARPD will continue to provide all existing LARPD facilities and programs, as well as all future Murray Township community and local park and recreation facilities, and their related maintenance and operation. 2. EBRPD will assume responsibility for acquisition and development of future regional parks, open space areas, and trails within Murray Township, and their related maintenance and operations. 3 The current 1992 Agreement does not have any clauses which permit termination nor any that allow for renegotiation in the event of changes to LARPD’s property tax share. The 1992 Agreement can only be amended by the written consent of both districts. 85 3. A “Liaison Committee” will be created and continue to serve as a form for discussion of concerns for EBRPD and LARPD specific to the implementation of the cooperative and complementary functions of the two districts. At least one meeting each year will be devoted primarily to a financial review. 4. The Liaison Committee will provide information reports regularly to their full boards and when appropriate conduct public meetings to obtain information from members of the public and to enhance public awareness of joint activities. In addition, the 1992 Agreement specified EBRPD would receive a certain amount of the tax revenue generated in the Murray Township area beginning in FY 1993-94, which escalated until FY 2000-01. Beginning in FY 2001-02, the Agreement dictated EBRPD receive $0.025 of the base year AV and $0.030 per $100 of all AV growth after the base year. The base year is set at FY 2000-01. The Agreement does not have a sunset date. The 1992 Agreement does not appear to have considered that LARPD’s share of property taxes could change, which did occur around the same time as the Agreement was executed by the parties. In July 1992, as a means to provide more property tax revenues to fund schools, the State Legislature called for the permanent shift of property taxes from cities, counties, and most special districts to a new fund called the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (“ERAF”), pursuant to Section 97.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. When the County Auditor-Controller implemented the required shift of revenues from LARPD to ERAF, LARPD’s share of the one percent property tax decreased significantly. As it turns out, as confirmed by the County Auditor-Controller, EBRPD is not subject to the ERAF shift because it is a multicounty taxing agency. RSG collected information from the County Auditor-Controller to understand the how both the ERAF shift and the EBRPD 1991 Agreement altered the revenues to LARPD. In FY 2022-23, LAPRD received approximately $12.3 million in property tax revenue from the County Auditor-Controller. This is equal to approximately 4.73 percent of the basic one percent tax levy. A nearly equal percentage of the one percent tax levy, or 4.59 percent (approximately $12 million), was shifted to ERAF, while another 2.79 percent 86 (approximately $7.3 million) was paid to EBRPD. See Figure 4 below for a graphic illustration of the breakdown of the LARPD property tax revenues between the district and amounts that went to ERAF and EBRPD in FY 2022-23. Figure 4: Breakdown of Gross LARPD Property Tax Share, 2022-23 (Source: County Auditor-Controller) 5.00% 4.73% 4.59% 4.50% 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.79% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% To ERAF To EBRPD To LARPD Also, the percentage of the LAPRD funds lost to ERAF appear to be somewhat more than the other park and recreation district in the County. Excluding the portion going to EBRPD, the County Auditor Controller reports that in FY 2022-23, LARPD’s ERAF shift equaled 49 percent of their share gross of the ERAF shift, while Hayward Area Recreation and Park District’s ERAF shift was 41 percent of their share gross of ERAF. Based on this data, the ERAF shift has resulted in a significant impact on LAPRD. Despite this impact, the formula used in the 1992 Agreement with EBRPD is not altered by the ERAF shift. In the survey responses received from LARPD, the District claims they have made multiple attempts to engage EBRPD to revisit the terms in the 1992 Agreement with no success. LARPD further expresses their concerns with the existing terms having a material impact on their ability to financially support large scale maintenance projects and related capacity additions. Lastly, LARPD believes the $200,000 EBRPD is transferring to them for on- 87 going park maintenance support is modest when compared to the amount of property taxes being shifted from LARPD to EBPRD. RSG recommends LAFCO facilitate discussions between LARPD and EBRPD to renegotiate a property tax sharing agreement that more closely aligns with what the agencies deem equitable, is in line with the services currently being provided, and considers other factors that may affect property tax distributions. LAFCO may also consider further studying the intricacies of the 1992 Agreement and the overlapping boundaries and services between the two districts by way of a special study. This study could explore how the districts are sharing responsibilities for parks and recreation services in the Livermore area, and whether they are sharing resources in a manner that is aligned with the shared services and/or meets the terms and conditions of the 1992 Agreement. 88 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, MSRs make determinations on seven (7) required topics, including: 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities; The 2006 MSR recommended that the Vector Control Services District CSA and the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District work toward consolidation, given the interconnected nature of both agencies’ services. Staff at both districts expressed that services provided by the two agencies are in fact distinct and that consolidation would not lead to improved efficiency or service outcomes. The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District and the East Bay Regional Park District cooperate on the operation of the Brushy Peak Preserve. LARPD also operates and maintains Camp Shelly, near Lake Tahoe. It leases the property from the US Forest Service. LARPD did not express any challenges with these shared facilities. The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District operates parks and facilities owned by other entities, including but not limited to the City of Hayward, the Hayward Unified School District, San Lorenzo Unified School District, Castro Valley Unified School District, and Alameda County. While HARD is open to collaborating with other agencies on shared facilities, it did not indicate that it is seeking additional shared facilities at this time. HARD did not express challenges with these shared facilities. None of the agencies identified any opportunities for further shared facilities in the MSR survey or interviews. 89 ACCOUNTABILITY, GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, MSRs make determinations on seven (7) required topics, including: 6. Accountability for community service needs, including government structure and operational efficiencies. 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission Policy. Alameda community service agencies have established a robust framework of policies and procedures aimed at fostering transparency and accountability to the local community. This framework encompasses a range of practices, including the organization of elections and the dissemination of public notices regarding agency meetings and actions. To enhance accessibility, many agencies utilize technology, such as Zoom, to broadcast public hearings and meetings. This approach accommodates a wider audience and overcomes potential barriers to in-person attendance. Additionally, all Alameda County agencies maintain user-friendly websites that contain information about City and District departments, their activities, and upcoming events. These websites are valuable resources for residents seeking information about local government services. Collectively, these agencies prioritize operational efficiency and structural strength, demonstrating their commitment to accessible, accountable, and responsive local governance. The Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District is governed by a fifteen-member Board of Trustees, with one trustee appointed for each of the fourteen cities within the District and one appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. Each trustee serves either a two- or four-year term. The Vector Control Services District County Service Area is a division of the Alameda County Environmental Health Department, which is a part of Alameda County Health. The CSA practices extensive public outreach and participates in various County fairs including the Alameda County Fair, the Fremont Festival of the Arts, and the Oakland Chinatown 90 Lunar New Year. Its programming includes presentations at community group meetings (such as homeowners’ association meetings) throughout the County. The five public works CSAs (Castle Homes, Castlewood, Five Canyons, Morva, and Street Lighting) are all administered by the Alameda County Public Works Agency. The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District and Hayward Area Recreation and Park District are both independent special districts. Both districts are governed by an independently elected five-member Board of Directors. These boards are elected at-large, ensuring that they represent a broad cross-section of the community they serve. The East Bay Regional Park District operates with a seven-member Board of Directors. Each member is elected to represent a specific "ward" of the county, with these seven wards covering the entire service area of the District. The Board also appoints a General Manager responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the District. The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District has expressed concerns that the overlapping boundaries between LARPD and EBRPD negatively impact accountability for community service needs and decrease efficiency. LARPD’s concern with the boundary overlap and efficiency of service delivery has been prevalent for over a decade. In fact, in October 2009, LARPD sought LAFCO’s input on potential reorganization options for the District. LAFCO responded with an outline of the various ways that it is empowered to make changes in organization, including: (a) dissolution, (b) consolidation, (c) divestiture of power, or (d) transition to subsidiary district.4 Further, LAFCO’s response to LARPD indicated that under each reorganization scenario, a negotiation of a new property tax sharing agreement between the affected agencies would be required. With the above in mind, RSG recommends the Commission work with LARPD and EBRPD in negotiating a new property tax sharing agreement which better aligns with the existing levels of services provided by each agency within the overlapping boundary. If an agreement cannot be reached, the agencies may explore potential detachment to correct 4 LAFCO letter response to LARPD dated November 12, 2009. 91 the existing overlapping areas. The Commission may also further explore the overlapping boundaries between the two districts in order to evaluate whether the services provided by each agency are redundant. Such a study would likely explore the same options that LAFCO outlined in its 2009 letter to LARPD, along with different annexation scenarios. The Lead Abatement County Service Area is part of the Alameda County Healthy Homes Department and is governed by a Joint Powers Authority (“JPA”). The JPA is composed of one representative from each of the participating cities and one community representative, ensuring that various stakeholders are involved in decision-making regarding lead abatement services. Some of the agencies have taken steps to engage their communities beyond what is required by law. The East Bay Regional Park District surveys residents regularly to understand the community support for parks and the public’s priorities for parks programming. The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District has a Public Information Office, which oversees the District’s development, maintenance, and communication of public information. HARD is currently completing a community survey and needs assessment in order to better understand the needs of its residents. No additional matters related to effective and efficient service delivery have been identified for review in this MSR by Alameda LAFCO. 92