MSR Volume 2: Agency Profiles

AAmmaaddoorr LLooccaall AAggeennccyy Formation Commission Municipal SSeerrvviicceess Review: VVoolluummee IIII Final August 2008 Burr Consulting TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. CITY OF AMADOR ............................................................................................................................................... 2 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................. 2 WASTEWATER SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................... 8 ROADWAY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 13 DRAINAGE SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 15 PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 16 CEMETERY SERVICE ................................................................................................................................................ 18 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 20 2. CITY OF IONE ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 AGENCY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 22 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................... 31 FIRE AND EMS SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 39 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES................................................................................................................................ 43 ROADWAY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 47 DRAINAGE SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 50 PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 53 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 56 3. CITY OF JACKSON ............................................................................................................................................. 60 AGENCY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 60 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................... 68 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................... 75 FIRE AND EMS SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 81 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES................................................................................................................................ 86 ROADWAY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 90 DRAINAGE SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 93 PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 95 CEMETERY SERVICE ................................................................................................................................................ 98 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 100 4. CITY OF PLYMOUTH ...................................................................................................................................... 104 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 104 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 112 WASTEWATER SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 119 FIRE AND EMS SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................... 125 DRAINAGE SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................. 128 PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES ...................................................................................................................... 130 CEMETERY SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................. 133 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 134 5. CITY OF SUTTER CREEK ............................................................................................................................... 138 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 138 WASTEWATER SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 147 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES.............................................................................................................................. 155 ROADWAY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................. 159 DRAINAGE SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................. 162 PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 163 CEMETERY SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................. 166 BY BURR CONSULTING II-i AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 167 6. AMADOR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT .................................................................................................. 170 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 170 FIRE AND EMS SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................... 175 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 182 7. AMADOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ................................................................................ 184 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 184 RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES ................................................................................................................... 190 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 191 8. AMADOR WATER AGENCY........................................................................................................................... 193 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 193 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 201 WASTEWATER SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 211 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 220 9. DRYTOWN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ................................................................................................... 223 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 223 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 227 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 232 10. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT ........................................................................................... 234 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 234 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 239 WASTEWATER SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 241 PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 243 11. FIDDLETOWN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ............................................................................. 244 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 244 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 248 WASTEWATER SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 254 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 260 12. IONE MEMORIAL DISTRICT ....................................................................................................................... 262 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 262 MEMORIAL SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 265 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 266 13. JACKSON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT .............................................................................. 268 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 268 FIRE AND EMS SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................... 273 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 277 14. JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT .......................................................................................... 279 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 279 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 284 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 290 15. KIRKWOOD MEADOWS PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ......................................................................... 293 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 293 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 298 WASTEWATER SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 299 FIRE AND EMS SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................... 300 PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 303 II-ii PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO 16. LOCKWOOD FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT .......................................................................................... 304 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 304 FIRE AND EMS SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................... 308 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 313 17. PINE ACRES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ................................................................................. 315 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 315 ROADWAY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................. 319 CC&R SERVICES ................................................................................................................................................... 322 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 323 18. PINE GROVE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ................................................................................ 325 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 325 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 330 PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 336 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 338 19. RABB PARK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ................................................................................. 340 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 340 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 344 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 349 20. RANCH HOUSE ESTATES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ........................................................ 351 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 351 ROADWAY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................. 355 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 356 21. RIDGEWOOD ACRES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ................................................................ 358 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 358 ROADWAY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................. 361 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 363 22. RIVER PINES PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT .............................................................................................. 365 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 365 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 369 WASTEWATER SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 377 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 382 23. SUNSET HEIGHTS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ...................................................................... 385 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 385 ROADWAY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................. 389 DRAINAGE SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................. 392 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 392 24. SUTTER CREEK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT .................................................................................... 394 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 394 FIRE AND EMS SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................... 398 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 403 25. TOWNSHIP NUMBER TWO PUBLIC CEMETERY DISTRICT .............................................................. 405 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 405 CEMETERY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 410 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 412 26. VOLCANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT .................................................................................... 414 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 414 BY BURR CONSULTING II-iii AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 418 ROADWAY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................. 425 PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 425 CEMETERY SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................. 428 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 432 27. WILLOW SPRINGS WATER DISTRICT ..................................................................................................... 434 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 434 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 436 28. COUNTY SERVICE AREAS ........................................................................................................................... 437 CSA 1 .................................................................................................................................................................... 438 CSA 2 .................................................................................................................................................................... 441 CSA 3 .................................................................................................................................................................... 443 CSA 4 .................................................................................................................................................................... 446 CSA 5 .................................................................................................................................................................... 450 CSA 6 .................................................................................................................................................................... 455 CSA 7 .................................................................................................................................................................... 459 CSA 8 .................................................................................................................................................................... 459 29. OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS .................................................................................................................... 464 AMADOR COUNTY RECREATION AGENCY ............................................................................................................. 464 AMADOR FIRE PROTECTION AUTHORITY............................................................................................................... 468 AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION AUTHORITY ...................................................................................................... 470 AMADOR COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION .............................................................................................. 475 AMERICAN LEGION POST 108 AMBULANCE SERVICE ............................................................................................ 476 COUNTY OF AMADOR ............................................................................................................................................ 477 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION ........................................................................ 500 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL ............................................................................................................................ 504 JACKSON RANCHERIA ............................................................................................................................................ 506 MULE CREEK STATE PRISON ................................................................................................................................. 507 PRESTON YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY .......................................................................................................... 516 U.S. FOREST SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................ 517 30. DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 520 II-iv PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO LIST OF TABLES TABLE II-1-1: CITY OF AMADOR GOVERNING BODY ................................................................................................ 3 TABLE II-1-3: CITY OF AMADOR WASTEWATER PROFILE ........................................................................................ 9 TABLE II-1-4: CITY OF AMADOR ROADWAY SERVICES .......................................................................................... 14 TABLE II-1-5: AMADOR CITY PARK & RECREATION PROFILE ................................................................................ 18 TABLE II-2-1: CITY OF IONE ANNEXATION RECORDS ............................................................................................. 22 TABLE II-2-2: CITY OF IONE GOVERNING BODY .................................................................................................... 23 TABLE II-2-4: PLANNED AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF IONE SOI ..................................... 27 TABLE II-2-5: IONE WASTEWATER PROFILE ........................................................................................................... 35 TABLE II-2-6: CITY OF IONE FIRE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 42 TABLE II-2-10: CITY OF IONE POLICE DEPARTMENT PROFILE .................................................................................. 46 TABLE II-2-11: CITY OF IONE ROADWAY SERVICES ................................................................................................. 49 TABLE II-2-12: IONE PARK & RECREATION PROFILE ............................................................................................... 55 TABLE II-3-1: CITY OF JACKSON ANNEXATION RECORDS ...................................................................................... 60 TABLE II-3-2: CITY OF JACKSON GOVERNING BODY ............................................................................................. 62 TABLE II-3-4: PLANNED AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF JACKSON SOI .............................. 65 TABLE II-3-6: CITY OF JACKSON WATER PROFILE ................................................................................................. 71 TABLE II-3-7: CITY OF JACKSON WASTEWATER PROFILE ...................................................................................... 77 TABLE II-3-8: CITY OF JACKSON FIRE PROFILE ..................................................................................................... 85 TABLE II-3-12: CITY OF JACKSON POLICE PROFILE .................................................................................................. 89 TABLE II-3-13: CITY OF JACKSON ROADWAY SERVICES .......................................................................................... 92 TABLE II-3-4: JACKSON RECREATION & PARK PROFILE ......................................................................................... 97 TABLE II-4-1: CITY OF PLYMOUTH ANNEXATION RECORDS ................................................................................ 104 TABLE II-4-2: CITY OF PLYMOUTH GOVERNING BODY ........................................................................................ 105 TABLE II-4-4: PLANNED AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH VICINITY ........................ 108 TABLE II-4-5: PLYMOUTH WATER PROFILE ......................................................................................................... 115 TABLE II-4-6: PLYMOUTH WASTEWATER PROFILE .............................................................................................. 121 TABLE II-4-7: PLYMOUTH ROADWAY SERVICES .................................................................................................. 127 TABLE II-4-8: PLYMOUTH RECREATION & PARK PROFILE ................................................................................... 132 TABLE II-5-1: CITY OF SUTTER CREEK ANNEXATION RECORDS .......................................................................... 139 TABLE II-5-2: CITY OF SUTTER CREEK GOVERNING BODY ................................................................................ 140 TABLE II-5-4: PLANNED AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK SOI ........................... 143 TABLE II-5-6: SUTTER CREEK WASTEWATER PROFILE ........................................................................................ 151 TABLE II-5-10: SUTTER CREEK POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVICE SUMMARY ........................................................... 158 TABLE II-5-11: CITY OF SUTTER CREEK ROADWAY SERVICES .............................................................................. 160 TABLE II-5-12: SUTTER CREEK RECREATION & PARK PROFILE ............................................................................. 165 TABLE II-6-1: AFPD FIRE PROFILE ..................................................................................................................... 181 TABLE II-7-1: ARCD GOVERNING BODY ............................................................................................................. 186 TABLE II-8-1: AWA GOVERNING BODY .............................................................................................................. 195 TABLE II-8-2: PLANNED AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN AWA SERVICE AREAS .................................. 199 TABLE II-8-3: COMMUNITIES WITH AWA WATER SERVICE ............................................................................... 202 TABLE II-8-4: AWA WATER PROFILE .................................................................................................................. 207 TABLE II-8-5: COMMUNITIES WITH AWA WASTEWATER SERVICE ...................................................................... 211 TABLE II-8-6: AWA WASTEWATER PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 216 TABLE II-9-1: DCWD GOVERNING BODY ........................................................................................................... 224 TABLE II-9-2: DCWD WATER SERVICE PROFILE ................................................................................................. 229 TABLE II-10-1: EBMUD GOVERNING BODY ......................................................................................................... 235 TABLE II-11-1: FCSD GOVERNING BODY .............................................................................................................. 246 TABLE II-11-2: FCSD WATER SERVICE PROFILE ................................................................................................... 250 TABLE II-11-3: FCSD WASTEWATER SERVICE PROFILE ........................................................................................ 256 TABLE II-12-1: IMD GOVERNING BODY ................................................................................................................ 263 TABLE II-13-1: JACKSON VALLEY FPD GOVERNING BODY .................................................................................. 269 TABLE II-13-2: JACKSON VALLEY FPD FIRE PROFILE ........................................................................................... 276 TABLE II-14-1: JVID LAFCO RECORD .................................................................................................................. 280 BY BURR CONSULTING II-v AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II TABLE II-14-2: JVID GOVERNING BODY .............................................................................................................. 281 TABLE II-14-3: JVID WATER SERVICE PROFILE .................................................................................................... 287 TABLE II-15-1: KMPUD GOVERNING BODY ......................................................................................................... 294 TABLE II-15-2: KMPUD FIRE PROFILE .................................................................................................................. 302 TABLE II-16-1: LOCKWOOD FPD GOVERNING BODY ............................................................................................ 305 TABLE II-16-2: LOCKWOOD FPD FIRE PROFILE .................................................................................................... 312 TABLE II-17-1: PINE ACRES CSD GOVERNING BODY ............................................................................................ 316 TABLE II-17-2: PINE ACRES CSD STREET PROFILE ................................................................................................ 321 TABLE II-18-1: PGCSD LAFCO RECORD .............................................................................................................. 326 TABLE II-18-2: PINE GROVE CSD GOVERNING BODY ........................................................................................... 327 TABLE II-18-3: PINE GROVE CSD WATER PROFILE ............................................................................................... 332 TABLE II-18-4: PINE GROVE CSD PARK PROFILE .................................................................................................. 337 TABLE II-19-1: RABB PARK CSD GOVERNING BODY ............................................................................................ 341 TABLE II-19-2: RABB PARK CSD WATER PROFILE ................................................................................................ 346 TABLE II-20-1: RANCH HOUSE ESTATES CSD GOVERNING BODY ......................................................................... 352 TABLE II-20-2: RANCH HOUSE ESTATES STREET PROFILE ..................................................................................... 356 TABLE II-21-1: RIDGEWOOD ACRES CSD GOVERNING BODY ............................................................................... 359 TABLE II-21-2: RIDGEWOOD ACRES STREET PROFILE ........................................................................................... 363 TABLE II-22-1: RPPUD GOVERNING BODY .......................................................................................................... 366 TABLE II-22-2: RPPUD WATER PROFILE ............................................................................................................... 373 TABLE II-22-3: RPPUD WASTEWATER PROFILE .................................................................................................... 378 TABLE II-23-1: SUNSET HEIGHTS CSD GOVERNING BODY .................................................................................... 386 TABLE II-23-2: SUNSET HEIGHTS CSD ROAD SERVICE SUMMARY ........................................................................ 391 TABLE II-24-1: SCFPD GOVERNING BODY ........................................................................................................... 395 TABLE II-24-2: SCFPD FIRE PROFILE ................................................................................................................... 402 TABLE II-25-1: TPCD GOVERNING BODY .............................................................................................................. 406 TABLE II-26-1: VCSD GOVERNING BODY ............................................................................................................ 415 TABLE II-26-2: VCSD WATER PROFILE ................................................................................................................. 421 TABLE II-26-3: VCSD PARK PROFILE .................................................................................................................... 427 TABLE II-31-1: ACRA GOVERNING BODY ............................................................................................................. 465 TABLE II-29-2: ACRA PARK PROFILE.................................................................................................................... 467 TABLE II-29-1: AFPA GOVERNING BODY .............................................................................................................. 468 TABLE II-29-2: AMADOR COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ...................................................................... 476 TABLE II-29-3: AMADOR COUNTY GOVERNING BODY ........................................................................................... 478 TABLE II-29-4: UNINCORPORATED LAND USES ..................................................................................................... 480 TABLE II-29-6: PLANNED AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS ................................................................................... 483 TABLE II-29-10: AMADOR COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................... 492 TABLE II-29-11: AMADOR COUNTY ROADWAY SERVICES ....................................................................................... 495 TABLE II-29-13: CALFIRE FIRE PROFILE ................................................................................................................ 503 TABLE II-29-16: MCSP WASTEWATER PROFILE ...................................................................................................... 511 TABLE II-29-17: MCSP FIRE PROFILE ..................................................................................................................... 515 TABLE II-30-1: PROPOSED AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS COUNTYWIDE ............................................................. 520 II-vi PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE II-1-2: AMADOR CITY POPULATION, 2000-8 ................................................................................................. 5 FIGURE II-2-3: CITY OF IONE POPULATION, 2000-8 ................................................................................................ 26 FIGURE II-2-7: IONE CRIME RATES PER 1,000 RESIDENTS, 1996-2006 .................................................................... 43 FIGURE II-2-8: LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIME CLEARANCE RATES, 2000-06 AGGREGATE ......................................... 45 FIGURE II-2-9: LAW ENFORCEMENT PROVIDERS AVERAGE RESPONSE TIMES, 2007 ............................................... 45 FIGURE II-3-3: JACKSON POPULATION, 2000-8 ........................................................................................................ 64 FIGURE II-3-5: ANNUAL GROWTH IN TAXABLE SALES ............................................................................................ 67 FIGURE II-3-9: JACKSON CRIME RATES PER 1,000 RESIDENTS, 1996-2006 ............................................................. 87 FIGURE II-3-10: LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIME CLEARANCE RATES, 2000-06 AGGREGATE ......................................... 88 FIGURE II-3-11: LAW ENFORCEMENT PROVIDERS AVERAGE RESPONSE TIMES, 2007 ............................................... 88 FIGURE II-3-4: JACKSON CEMETERY BURIALS BY DECADE ..................................................................................... 98 FIGURE II-4-3: PLYMOUTH POPULATION, 2000-8 .................................................................................................. 107 FIGURE II-5-3: SUTTER CREEK POPULATION, 2000-8 ............................................................................................ 142 FIGURE II-5-5: ANNUAL GROWTH IN TAXABLE SALES .......................................................................................... 146 FIGURE II-5-7: SUTTER CREEK CRIME RATES PER 1,000 RESIDENTS, 1996-2006 .................................................. 155 FIGURE II-5-8: LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIME CLEARANCE RATES, 2000-06 AGGREGATE ....................................... 156 FIGURE II-5-9: LAW ENFORCEMENT PROVIDERS AVERAGE RESPONSE TIMES, 2007 ............................................. 157 FIGURE II-5-13: SUTTER CREEK CEMETERY BURIALS BY DECADE ......................................................................... 166 FIGURE II-26-4: VCSD CEMETERY BURIALS BY DECADE ....................................................................................... 429 FIGURE II-29-5: AMADOR COUNTY POPULATION, 2000-08 ..................................................................................... 481 FIGURE II-29-7: AMADOR COUNTY SHERIFF’S SERVICE AREA CRIME RATES, 1996-2006 ...................................... 490 FIGURE II-29-8: LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIME CLEARANCE RATES, 2000-06 AVERAGE ........................................... 491 FIGURE II-29-9: LAW ENFORCEMENT PROVIDERS AVERAGE RESPONSE TIMES, 2007 ............................................. 491 FIGURE II-29-12: AMADOR COUNTY BURIALS BY DECADE ....................................................................................... 498 FIGURE II-29-14: CHP PROPERTY CRIMES, 1996-06 ................................................................................................. 504 FIGURE II-29-15: CHP ARRESTS, 1996-06 ................................................................................................................ 505 BY BURR CONSULTING II-vii P R E FA C E Volume II of the municipal services review (MSR) report prepared for the Amador Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) provides profiles of each local agency. Volume I provides background on LAFCO and the MSR requirement, a countywide review of growth and anticipated development, and comparative review and analysis of the various agencies providing backbone services—water, wastewater and fire protection. Agency maps and backbone service overview maps are located in Volume III. Volume II contains agency-specific determinations, whereas Volume I contains broader determinations relating to growth and backbone services. The MSR Determinations report contains all of the determinations found in both Volumes I and II. GUIDE TO VOLUME II This volume provides an agency overview as well as service-specific sections for water, wastewater, drainage, police, fire, street, parks and recreation, cemetery, and other services provided by agencies serving Amador County. Local agencies subject to LAFCO jurisdiction are profiled in individual chapters within this volume; whereas, agencies not subject to LAFCO jurisdiction (e.g., Amador County and the U.S. Forest Service) are profiled in the final chapter of this volume. The formation and boundary history section summarizes when, why, and how each agency was formed and describes the current boundary and SOI. The local accountability and governance section describes each agency’s governance structure, public outreach efforts, disclosure of information to the public, participation in this MSR project, approach to handling constituent complaints, and other activities that reflect on the agency’s accountability to its constituents. The growth and service demand section provides the current population in the agency’s boundaries. The section discusses recent and anticipated changes in service needs, and identifies anticipated development, major employers, projected long-term growth and significant growth areas and strategies. The management section describes the agency’s organizational structure, management efforts, as well as recent awards, honors and accomplishments. The service-specific overviews for each local agency focus on services provided by or for the particular agency. Each service-specific overview includes a description of the nature, extent and location of services provided. Service configuration, service demand, service adequacy, facilities, infrastructure needs and deficiencies, growth and service challenges, and facility-sharing practices and opportunities are covered. The local agencies have provided a substantial portion of the information included in this appendix. Each local agency provided budgets, financial statements, various plans, and responded to questionnaires. The service providers provided interviews covering workload, staffing, facilities, regional collaboration, and service challenges. BY BURR CONSULTING II-1 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 1. C I T Y O F A M A D O R The City of Amador provides wastewater, road maintenance, drainage, parks and recreation, and cemetery services. Amador Water Agency (AWA) provides retail water services throughout the City. Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA) provides secondary wastewater treatment and disposal services to all residents within the City’s limits. Law enforcement services are provided by the Amador County Sheriff’s Office. Sutter Creek FPD provides fire protection and emergency medical services.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION AND BOUNDARIES Amador City incorporated on June 2, 1915.2 The City is a general law city. The City’s boundary is entirely within Amador County, and is located approximately 1.1 miles northwest of the City of Sutter Creek. From the intersection of Water Street and Amador Creek Road, the bounds extend approximately 0.22 miles west, 0.37 miles east, 0.25 miles north, and 0.36 miles south. The total boundary area is approximately 0.31 square miles (198 acres). Amador LAFCO records date back to 1966, and the State Board of Equalization (BOE) maintains records of officially recorded boundary changes since 1948. The BOE record for the City of Amador begins in 1959 and the LAFCO record of annexations for the City begins in 1985. LAFCO and BOE records reflect two annexations to the City. The first occurred in 1959 before LAFCO was established and is of unknown size. The second annexation was in 1986 and involved a small area.3 The City’s SOI was originally adopted in 1976, and was reconfirmed by LAFCO in 2007.4 The SOI is nearly coterminous with the bounds, except that it extends beyond the bounds on a small portion (approximately 300 feet) of the southwestern boundary line west of Gods Hill Road. In this area, the boundary follows parcel lines, but the SOI does not. Mapping may not be entirely reliable, and LAFCO staff notes that additional research may be needed to confirm the boundaries of the City. 1 According to Board of Equalization tax rate area maps, there is small area within the City limits that has no designated provider. 2 City of Amador, Government, URL accessed 3/1/08, http://www.amador-city.com/government.html 3 LAFCO Resolution 85-187. 4 LAFCO Resolution 2007-05. II-2 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF AMADOR LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The City is governed by a five-member City Council. The members are elected at large to staggered, four-year terms. Board meetings are held monthly. The last contested election for a council seat occurred in 2004, when three seats were filled from four candidates. Two council seats were filled in 2006 without contest.5 Table II-1-1: City of Amador Governing Body Amador City Council Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Richard Lynch Mayor Nov-08 Kirk Lindsay Vice Mayor Nov-10 Members Mark McKenna Member Nov-08 Tim Knox Member Nov-10 David Dittman Member Nov-08 Manner of Selection Elections at large Length of Term Four years, staggered Meetings Date: Third Thursdays Location: Old Schoolhouse Agenda Distribution Posted, online, emailed by request Minutes Distribution By request; minutes from some 2006 and 2007 meetings are available online. Contact Contact City Clerk Mailing Address P.O. Box 200, Amador City, CA 95601 Phone (209) 267-0682 Email/Website cityclerk@amadorcity.net, http://www.amador-city.com/ The City’s constituent outreach efforts include posting of agendas and information on special events on the City’s website. Special events in the City include an annual clean-up day, antique fairs, collector’s shows, wine tasting events, and holiday gatherings. The City had also posted minutes of council meetings online in the past, although the most recent posted minutes were from March of 2007 (as of April 2008). The City reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. With regard to customer service, the city clerk is the City’s primary ombudsman, although complaints are forwarded to the mayor if warranted. Complaints may be submitted through a phone call or a letter. The City reported that five complaints were submitted in 2007, but did not report the types of complaints. The City demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaire, interview and document requests. 5 Amador County, General Election Results, 2004 and 2006. BY BURR CONSULTING II-3 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II MANAGEMENT The daily operations of the City are managed by the mayor and the city clerk. Paid city personnel consist of five part-time employees. The positions include two elected officials: the city clerk and the treasurer. The remaining three positions are a maintenance worker, a sewer technician, a deputy city clerk. One person currently works as both the city clerk and the deputy city clerk. Council members, including the mayor, are volunteers. The City does not perform formal evaluation of employee performance. There is no formal policy on employee evaluations; in the event of a problem, the Mayor would provide direction. The City’s current planning document is a general plan, many elements in which were updated in recent years. The land use, noise and recreation elements were updated in 2007, and housing, open space and conservation elements were updated in 2006. The seismic/safety element was completed in 2001 and the circulation element in 2000. In addition to the general plan, a pavement management plan was completed in 2008.6 Amador City reported that its financial planning efforts include annually adopted budgets and audited financial statements every five years. The City provided copies of its FY 07-08 budget and unaudited financial statements from FY 06-07 to LAFCO. The City does not have a capital improvement plan. The City’s risk management practices include the provision of general liability and workers compensation insurance.7 SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Developed land use in the City is primarily single-family residential. There is some light commercial land use primarily fronting Main Street, as well as some institutional land use (a sewage treatment plant and an old school site). Residential lands cover 15.8 percent of city bounds; commercial and institutional lands cover 6.1 percent. Seventy percent of city bounds are vacant land; vacant parcels are located on the City’s outskirts, largely on the east side.8 The land use map in the City’s land use element provides details of which lands are planned for certain purposes: The eastern half of the City is designated as agricultural lands, with the exception of parcels along Water Street, which are for single-family residential. Main Street south of O’Neil Alley is shown as commercial land. West of Main Street is single-family residential and special planning areas, as is north of SR 49 west of School Street. 6 Communication with Ghio Weber and Associates, May 1, 2008. 7 Amador City, FY 06-07 Budget. 8 Amador City, General Plan Land Use Element, 2007. II-4 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF AMADOR Existing land uses just outside of the City bounds are predominantly vacant, but also include agricultural and residential uses.9 Significant business activities in the City include a bakery and a small hotel; each has approximately six employees. Other businesses include locally-owned retail stores. The City reported that demand for services is increasing. Population The City has 208 residents, amounting to 0.5 percent of the Amador County population. The City’s population density is 671 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. Other cities in the County have higher population densities, ranging from 733 to 1,637 per square mile. Figure II-1-2: Amador City Population, 2000-8 Amador City’s population topped 200 residents in 2001. The 200 population peaked at 217 residents in 2005. Since that time the City has 150 experienced negative and zero growth; the population was 214 in 100 2006 and in 2007 and down further to 208 in 2008.10 50 New housing unit permit issuance has also been limited in 0 recent years. The City of Amador 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 issued seven residential building permits between 2000 and 2007. There was one permit issued per year in 2001 through 2003, and four in 2004.11 These residences’ proposed locations have been in existing residential areas; there are no new subdivisions.12 Commercial development in the City has been similarly limited. Amador City has had a total of $83,000 worth of new commercial construction since 2000 as of the drafting of this report. There was no construction activity for commercial buildings from 2000 to 2003; since then the peak year, 2006, brought $28,000 worth of construction. 9 Amador County, General Plan, Existing (2007) Land Use Classifications Map, 2007. 10 California Department of Finance, 2000-2008. 11 Census Building Permit Data, 2000-2007. 12 Interview with Joyce Davidson, City Clerk, City of Amador, February 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-5 noitalupoP AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II For wastewater planning purposes, the City projects the population will reach 346 by 2028.13 Sewer projections by AWA forecast that the Amador City population may reach 300 by 2015 and 350 by 2020.14 Development The City expects to provide services to future growth inside and outside the City bounds. The City reported that there are currently four to six lots available for residential use. In the surrounding unincorporated areas outside of the City’s SOI, the City expects one development to be proposed in 2008. The expected plans cover 21 acres north of the City and involve 18 units. No proposal had been formally submitted at the time this report was drafted. For a list of all planned and proposed developments in Amador County by area, see Table II-30-1. Growth Strategies Amador City’s planning area is contiguous with its SOI. The City designates land uses only within its sphere. The City’s growth strategies emphasize preservation of the historical character of the area, especially the historic "Gold Rush" character of the downtown commercial buildings. All development and all signage in the City are to be consistent with this historic theme. The general plan indicates that the City would welcome a modest amount of growth, particularly economic growth.15 With regard to specific growth plans, the City indicates it may be amenable to an SOI expansion, although it has not pursued or formalized a proposed SOI. The city engineer has suggested expansion so that the Old Highway 49 segments between the SR 49 bypass and Sutter Creek are split between the two cities’ SOIs, as both Amador City and Sutter Creek value historic character. Recently, a resident has offered to donate the Bunker Hill Mine to the City as parkland. The mine is outside City bounds. The City is considering the offer, as of the drafting of this report. The City is concerned about the type of land uses the County might approve adjacent to the City, as the City may be more focused on historical character than the County is.16 13 Communication with Ghio Weber and Associates, May 1, 2008. 14 ECO:LOGIC Engineering, Amador County Regional Wastewater Management Plan, 2005. 15 Amador City, General Plan Land Use Element, 2007, p. 2. 16 Interview with Roark Weber, City Engineer, City of Amador, January 16, 2008. II-6 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF AMADOR FINANCING The City reported that its current financing level is adequate to deliver services, but reported that wastewater regulatory mandates and fees present a challenge. The City tracks its financial activities through a general fund and various special funds, and separately accounts for its sewer activities. The general fund is the City’s main operating fund. The City’s total revenues were $0.31 million in FY 05-06.17 Revenue sources include grants (35 percent), sewer rates (24 percent), property taxes (12 percent), interest (7 percent), vehicle license fees (4 percent) and sales tax (4 percent). Sales tax revenues in the City were $5,374 per capita in 2006; by comparison, the countywide average was $11,978 per capita. Grant revenue in FY 05-06 included a $100,000 COPS grant and a $5,000 grant related to beverage containers. The City’s sales tax revenues are lower than in the remainder of Amador County. Taxable sales per resident were $5,437 in 2006 in the City.18 By comparison, the countywide average was $12,698, and the statewide average was $15,344. City expenditures were $0.36 million in FY 05-06. Of this amount, 29 percent was spent on the Sheriff contract, 16 percent on street maintenance and paving, 11 percent on sewer operations, 11 percent on employee compensation, and 7 percent on general repairs and maintenance. The City’s long-term debt outstanding at the end of FY 06-07 is not available, because the City did not provide a financial statement to LAFCO. However, no debt payments were posted in the City’s FY 06-07 budget. Amador City does not have a formal policy on maintaining financial reserves, although the City’s practice is to operate frugally. The City’s reserve funds at the close of FY 06-07 are not available. The City operated with a budget deficit of $53,000 in FY 05-06, but operated with a budget surplus of $110,000 in FY 04-05. The City reported a total of $2.8 million in “cash on hand” as of September 2007. The City participates in joint financing mechanisms related to financing recreation and wastewater services. The City obtains insurance through the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California (PARSAC), a JPA of 37 cities that offers general liability, employment practices, workers’ compensation, property, and special events insurance. 17 The source for financial information is the FY 05-06 actuals reported in the City’s FY 06-07 budget. 18 This indicator is calculated as the ratio of taxable sales at all outlets in 2006 to the average annual household population in the City in 2006 (i.e., the average of the January 2006 and January 2007 household population estimates from DOF). BY BURR CONSULTING II-7 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II WASTEWATER SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City provides wastewater collection services to its boundary area, and provides partial treatment before pumping the wastewater to the City of Sutter Creek for treatment. Sutter Creek conveys the treated wastewater effluent to land disposal systems operated by the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority, a joint powers authority of which Amador City appoints one of five voting members. The City inspects the treatment plant daily during the business week for a short period of time, but the plant is left unattended for the majority of the day and on weekends. Plant operations are automated in that pumping is controlled by floats (i.e., water level) and timers.19 LOCATION The City provides wastewater service within its boundary area, and not outside its boundary. City ordinance prevents wastewater service outside bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE The City’s wastewater facility provides aeration of its wastewater flows prior to exporting the wastewater to the City of Sutter Creek for secondary treatment and disposal. Key wastewater infrastructure owned and maintained by the City includes a treatment plant, equalization basin, effluent pump station, effluent export system, and collection system. Treatment processes include an influent bar screen, followed by aeration and clarification in a 4- 6 inch thick concrete-lined equalization basin. The basin’s storage capacity is 335,000 gallons with two feet of freeboard. The basin accommodates seven days of wet weather flow, and two weeks of dry weather flows. The equalization basin is located on a small bluff adjacent to Amador Creek, and would drain to the creek if a spill or leak occurred. The plant is not equipped with emergency generators or remote communication systems. Sludge is periodically pumped to a concrete-lined sludge drying bed, and is eventually deposited in a landfill. The City’s treatment facility has adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. The wastewater is exported to the City of Sutter Creek’s wastewater treatment plant through an effluent pump station, and is generally transferred during the evening and other low-flow periods to Sutter Creek. The pump station is equipped with two pumps, with a combined capacity of 136,000 gpd, and a four-inch force main with a capacity of 125,000 gpd. The force main holds approximately 7,000 gallons at any one time, and may be drained to the equalization basin for maintenance purposes. 19 Correspondence from Amador City wastewater engineer, Gene Weatherby, August 14, 2008. II-8 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF AMADOR The City owns and maintains 1.9 miles of sewer collection system, most of which is composed of pipe six inches in diameter.20 The collection system was installed in the mid-1970s, and was described as in good condition.21 Sewer lines make three crossings of Amador Creek. Table II-1-3: City of Amador Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection Amador City Wastewater Treatment Sutter Creek Wastewater Disposal Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA) Recycled Water None Service Area Collection: Amador City boundary area Treatment: Amador City boundary area Recycled Water None Sewer Connection Regulatory/Policies Property owners must connect to the public sewer system if the building is within 250 feet of the sewer line (Municipal Code §13.04.130). Onsite Septic Systems in Service Area There were 5 homes in the City on septic systems, according to the 1990 Census, which was the most recent census to inquire about residential sewage disposal. Service Demand 2005 Connections Flow (mgd) Inside Outside Type Total Bounds Bounds Average Total 115 115 0 0.024 Residential 103 103 0 0.021 Commercial 12 12 0 0.003 Industrial 0 0 0 0.000 Projected Demand (in millions of gallons per day) 2005 2015 2025 Build-Out Avg. dry weather flow 0.021 0.027 0.034 0.04 Peak wet weather flow 0.053 NP NP NP Note: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. continued 20 ECO:LOGIC Engineering, Amador County Regional Wastewater Management Plan, 2005, pp. 4-5 and Figure 4-4. 21 Correspondence with Gene Weatherby, Grant Reynolds, April 23, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-9 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Wastewater is collected in a pond and aerated by Amador City, then conveyed to City of Sutter Creek for secondary treatment. Disposal method: Secondary treated effluent is discharged through the ARSA outfall to land sites. Facility Name Capacity Condition Yr Built Amador City Wastewater Treatment pond 335,000 gal Good 1976 Effluent pump station/force main 125,000 gpd Good 1976 Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) Average Dry Peak Wet Amador City WWTP 0.0205 0.053 Sutter Creek WWTP (by contract) 0.0205 0.039 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The Amador treatment facility is not equipped with emergency generators or remote communication systems. Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 1.9 Sewage Lift Stations 1 Other: 4-inch force main rated at 86.8 gpm Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The collection system, the pump station and/or the force main may need to be modified or improved in the future to accommodate anticipated increases in flows, according to the RWQCB. Infiltration and Inflow Peak flow is more than double dry weather flow, indicating I/I problems. The City has identified I/I problems and taken steps to reduce impacts on the collection system. Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing Regional Collaboration Amador City shares treatment and disposal facilities with the City of Sutter Creek and the unincorporated Martell area through ARSA. Facility Sharing Opportunities ARSA and AWA are evaluating future opportunities for regional wastewater facilities. continued II-10 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF AMADOR Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Regulatory Compliance Record, 2000-7 Formal Enforcement Actions 0 Informal Enforcement Actions 3 Enforcement Action Type Date Description of Violations Notice of Violation 5/24/2007 Deficient report violations (13) Notice of Violation 2/9/2004 Deficient report violations (18) Notice of Violation 8/29/2000 Sanitary sewer overflow (Aug. 22, 2000) Service Adequacy Indicators Sewer Overflows 20071 0 Sewer Overflows 20062 0 Treatment Effectiveness Rate3 96% Sewer Overflow Rate4 0 Total Employees (FTEs) 0.2 Response Time Policy5 as quick as possible Employees Certified? Yes Response Time Actual 1-2 hours Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices Amador City's contract with Sutter Creek precludes industrial discharges. Collection System Inspection Practices Conduct smoke tests as needed to identify leaks. Objective is to smoke-test one-third of system annually subject to financing availability. Service Challenges The City reported that its most significant challenge relates to sewer operations. The City struggles to keep up to date on State mandates and to set adequate but manageable rates. Wastewater Planning Plan Description Planning Horizon Wastewater Master Plan None NA Wastewater Collection Plan None NA Capital Improvement Plan None NA General Plan No resource or service element NA Sanitary Sewer Management Plan 1st Phase, May 2008 NA Emergency Plan Emergency contact list NA Other: Operations and Maintenance Manual Notes: (1) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2007 as reported by the agency. (2) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2006 as reported by the agency. (3) Total number of non-compliance days in 2007 per 365 days. (4) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. (5) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-11 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Rates and Financing Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Demand2 Residential Water Use and Flat Charges $42.00 250 gpd Rate Zones Wastewater rates are the same throughout the City. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description: NP Last Rate Change 12/1/2003 Frequency of Rate Changes Every 2-3 years Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach The connection fee is a flat rate based on land use type. Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit issuance. Connection Fee Amount1 Residential: $5,345 Land Dedication Req. Minimum 5-feet easement on each side of lateral is required to be dedicated to City, with project-specific requirements by approval of the City Engineer. Development Impact Fee None Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY 05-06 Expenditures, FY 05-06 Source Amount % Amount Total $84,747 100% Total $57,595 Rates & Charges $75,701 89% Administration $9,983 Property Tax $0 0% O & M (Direct) $15,016 Grants $0 0% O & M (SC/ARSA) $32,596 Interest $7,015 8% Capital Depreciation NP Connection Fees $0 0% Debt $0 Other $2,032 3% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include wastewater-related service charges and strength and flow charges. Average monthly charges calculated based on average consumption. Rates are rounded for presentation. (2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are 250 gallons per home per day, and are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. (3) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home. II-12 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF AMADOR ROADWAY SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City directly provides minor street services such as filling potholes and patching roads, and contracts out major roadway reconstruction projects. PG&E owns and maintains the street lights within the City, and the City pays for the electricity. The City did not provide any street maintenance services in FY 06-07. LOCATION Street services are provided within the City’s boundaries. The City does not provide street services outside its bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE The City’s key infrastructure includes 3.3 centerline miles of roads. All roads maintained by the City are of the rural functional classification, including 3.1 miles of rural local roads, and 0.2 miles of rural collector roadway. There are no signalized intersections in the City. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns and maintains the 44 street lights in the City. Circulation within the City is primarily provided by Old Highway 49, which is called Main Street within the City limits, in a north-south direction. Other roadways providing north-south circulation include East and West School Streets, and Church Street. East-west circulation within the City is provided by Water Street (Amador Creek Road), Ione Valley Road and Fleehart Street. A pavement management plan was completed by the City in 2008. The City has an application in progress to Caltrans for a $2 million bridge replacement project that is expected to begin in 2008.22 Other planned improvements scheduled to begin in 2008 include the Main Street reconstruction. No other infrastructure needs were identified by the City. SERVICE ADEQUACY The City reports that it has the means to provide services adequately, and that there are no service challenges in the provision of street maintenance in the City. An example of street service adequacy is the fact that all City streets operate at LOS “C” or better, and that the City does not anticipate any roadway segments to operate at less than LOS “C” at build-out. The City reports that streets are in good condition, and recognize the historical character of the area. 22 Communication with Ghio Weber and Associates, February 15, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-13 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-1-4: City of Amador Roadway Services Street Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Street Maintenance Direct and by contract Signal Maintenance None System Overview Total Maintained Miles 3.3 Urban Maintained Miles 0 Rural Maintained Miles 3.3 Signalized Intersections 0 Service Demand Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel, 20061 1,110 DVMT per Street Mile, 20062 336 Street Sweeping Frequency No street sweeping Street Service Adequacy and Operations Service Adequacy Miles Rehabilitated FY 06-07 0.0 Maintenance Cost per Street Mile3 $0 Pavement Condition Pavement Management System Yes PMS last updated4 1997 Miles Needing Rehabilitation 0.0 Pavement Condition Index, 2006 NP Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Major projects in 2008 include the Main Street Bridge replacement and the Main Street reconstruction. Level of Service (LOS) Current: All roadway segments operate at LOS "C" or better. Policy: LOS "C" Build-Out: The City does not anticipate any roadway segments to operate at less than LOS "C." Service Challenges None identified. City streets are reported to be in good condition. Facility Sharing Current Practices: None Opportunities: None identified Development Fees and Requirements Local Fee Per Single Family Unit: $3,040 Per Trip End (Non-Residential): $304 Regional Fee Per Single Family Unit: $4,906 Per Trip End (Non-Residential): $491 Street Light Service Profile Service Configuration Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights 44 Maintained by Contract All Maintained by City None Notes: (1) Daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) in 2006, according to the California Department of Transportation. (2) 2006 DVMT divided by total mileage of County-maintained public road system in 2006. (3) City road maintenance expenditures in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street. (4) 10-year PMS ended in 2007. The City reports that it is in the process of updating the PMS. continued II-14 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF AMADOR Street Service Financing General Financing Approach Street services are financed primarily by gas tax revenues and VLF in-lieu fees. Streets and Roads Financial Information, FY 05-061 Revenues Expenditures Total $14,168 Total6 $66,330 Gas Tax $9,792 Maintenance $66,330 VLF In-Lieu2 $1,075 Street $0 Traffic Congestion Relief $963 Lights & Signals $66,330 Other State Revenues $0 Other $0 Federal Revenues $0 Capital $0 Local Revenues3 $0 New Construction7 $0 City Revenues $2,338 Reconstruction $0 Interest $2,338 Signals & Lights $0 Bond proceeds $0 Other $0 General Fund $0 Undistributed Costs8 $0 Assessments4 $0 Plant & Equipment $0 Other5 $0 Other Public Agencies $0 Note: (1) Financial information as reported in the Annual Street Report to the State Controller. (2) Includes motor vehicle license fees used for street purposes and/or being accounted for in a street-purpose fund. (3) Includes other funds distributed by the local agencies other than the County and the cities. (4) Includes benefit assessments (also called special assessments) collected to finance street improvements and street lighting under the Landscape and Lighting Assessment Act of 1972, the Improvement Act of 1913 and the Street Lighting Act of 1931. (5) Includes traffic safety funds, development impact fees, redevelopment agency funds, and miscellaneous local sources. Excludes payments from other governmental agencies for contract services. (6) Total before adjustments for reporting changes since prior years. (7) Includes new construction and betterment of streets, bridges, lighting facilities, and storm drains, as well as right-of-way acquisitions. (8) Engineering costs that are not allocated to other expenditure categories or projects because the work is not specific or such allocation is impractical. Administration cost is an equitable pro rata share of expenditures for the supervision and management of street-purpose activities. DRAINAGE SERVICES Amador City is located in an east-west trending canyon created by Amador Creek; the entire City is within the Amador Creek watershed. The creek originates east of the City, and its waters eventually join Rancheria Creek and then Dry Creek to the west. Flooding is of minimal concern for the City; FEMA has not mapped a flood plain through Amador City. Peak flows have remained within established floodway areas, although increased runoff from new development could pose a flood hazard.23 23 Amador City, General Plan Conservation and Open Space Elements, 2006. BY BURR CONSULTING II-15 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II NATURE AND EXTENT The City provides debris removal during and after storm events. The City does not provide flood control services. The City maintains a policy establishing a 50-foot development setback from Amador Creek. The setback is based on the high water mark and extent of streamside vegetation. The City also aims to minimize increased flow created by new impermeable surfaces.24 Capital and operating costs are funded from city streets funds and grant programs. LOCATION Municipal stormwater services are provided throughout the City and are not provided outside City limits. INFRASTRUCTURE Drainage infrastructure includes cross culverts, roadside ditches, drainage swales and creeks, and approximately 1.25 miles of storm drain, 0.25 miles of which is covered. There are 15 inlets; two inlets are inspected per year on average. Main Street Bridge is in poor condition; it is scheduled for repair in the summer of 2009. Other scheduled work includes street surface repair and installation of new drop inlets. This will be completed before October 2009. PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Amador City owns and maintains three public parks. It does not provide recreation programs. The City has one part-time maintenance worker for all city maintenance. Volunteers provide supplemental park maintenance as well as recreation services. Amador City is a member of the Amador County Recreation Agency, which provides countywide recreation programming and facilitates collaborative planning efforts. 24 Amador City, General Plan Seismic and Safety Elements, May 2001. II-16 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF AMADOR LOCATION Park facilities are located within city bounds. School House Park is located in the Northern part of the City, while Pocket Park and Culbert Park are located near downtown. INFRASTRUCTURE The total park area in Amador City is 2.5 acres. It consists of an open space and two small neighborhood parks. Culbert Park is the largest park in the City. It does not require maintenance because the parkland is undeveloped and is not publicized to City residents. Pocket Park is a large wooden deck in good condition; it does not require regular maintenance. School House Park has a children’s playground and is also in good condition. The Amador County Regional Recreation Plan includes a recommendation for the City to acquire and develop a new five-acre neighborhood park. Amenities would include a small multi- purpose sport field, a picnic area and a pathway system. The acquisition cost is estimated at approximately $1 million. No timeline is mentioned. The Agency doesn’t recommend improvements to the other parks. SERVICE ADEQUACY The City has a ratio of 2.4 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. This is lower than the current countywide parkland ratio of 7.3 acres per 1,000 residents. The countywide goal for parkland is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. The City did not report any capacity constraints that limit its present ability to provide park maintenance, or identify any future constraints. BY BURR CONSULTING II-17 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-1-5: Amador City Park & Recreation Profile Park and Recreation Service Configuration Service Configuration Park Maintenance Direct Number of Parks Maintained 3 Recreation None Number of Recreation Centers 0 Service Adequacy FY 06-07 Park Acres per 1,000 pop1 2.4 Adopted Policy: No City policy 2 Park Acreage Local Open Space 2.0 Neighborhood Parks 0.5 Undeveloped 0.0 Special Use Areas 0.0 Community Parks 0.0 Landscaped 0.0 Park Name Location Condition Acres School House Park 14531 School Street. Good 0.3 Pocket Park Hwy. 49 & Main Street Good 0.2 Culbert Park Keystone Alley Undeveloped 2.0 Service Challenges None identified. Facility Needs/Deficiencies None identified. Facility Sharing The City participates in the programs run by the Amador County Recreation Agency. Developer Fees and Requirements Development Impact Fees $4,300 per dwelling unit3 Land Dedication Requirement No requirement In-Lieu Fees No requirement Notes: (1) Developed park acreage per 1,000 residents per the Department of Finance January 2008 estimate. (2) The Amador County Recreation Agency's adopted countywide policy is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. (3) Development impact fee is automatically adjusted annually according to the appropriate engineering cost index per the Engineering News Record. CEMETERY SERVICE NATURE AND EXTENT Amador City owns and maintains two cemeteries, Amador City Pioneer Cemetery and Oak Knoll Cemetery. City volunteers perform ground maintenance activities. A city maintenance person may be available for special projects, but cemetery maintenance is not technically part of his duties. The City pays for weed spraying twice a year at Oak Knoll Cemetery. II-18 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF AMADOR Burials The City did not report data on the number of total and annual burials. The earliest graves at Amador City Pioneer Cemetery date back to the 1850s; the earliest graves at Oak Knoll Cemetery were not provided. Plot Acquisition Amador City Pioneer Cemetery has no remaining capacity. The City reported that plots are available at Oak Knoll Cemetery, but does not know how many graves are located there or how many interments occurred in the last two years. For purchasing a plot, the City charges a $500 site fee and a $50 interment fee. There are no restrictions on plot acquisition. LOCATION Amador City Pioneer Cemetery is located on Church Street and Cross Street, within City bounds. Oak Knoll Cemetery is located outside of City bounds in the Bunker Hill area. INFRASTRUCTURE Amador Pioneer Cemetery is less than one acre in size and is in fair condition. The cemetery is open for visitation at any time of day. All plots have been purchased or occupied, and there is no remaining capacity. Infrastructure needs include repair of the sprinkler system, which is not in working order. Oak Knoll Cemetery is approximately one acre in size, and is in fair condition. Access to the cemetery is through an easement across private property, and there are no signs marking the site. There is no water service at the cemetery site. The City reported that it does not have plans to construct or expand cemetery facilities. SERVICE ADEQUACY Amador City reported that it has the capacity to provide cemetery services to its service area. The City did not identify any opportunities to share cemetery facilities with other service providers. The City does not have an endowment care fund for cemetery operations, and is not required to have such a fund. BY BURR CONSULTING II-19 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • The population of Amador City grew from 196 in 2000 to 208 in 2008, an increase of six percent. With build-out of the existing city limits, the population would reach 230, an increase of six percent. At build-out of all possible developments in the vicinity, the area population would reach 268, an increase of 24 percent. • For wastewater planning purposes, the City projects the population will reach 346 by 2028. Sewer projections by ARSA forecast that the Amador City population may reach 300 by 2015 and 350 by 2020. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • Wastewater treatment service levels are presently inadequate; however, the City of Sutter Creek and ARSA plan improvements to provide the capacity needed to accommodate growth and meet regulatory requirements. • The wastewater collection system, pump station and/or force main may need to be modified or improved in the future to accommodate anticipated growth. • The City reported that its most significant challenge relates to sewer operations. The City struggles to keep up to date on State mandates and to set adequate but manageable rates. • Roadway capacity and drainage is sufficient, and maintenance is adequate. No unfunded needs or deficiencies were reported for roadway infrastructure, including roadside drainage. • The City has a ratio of 2.4 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents, which is lower than the current countywide parkland ratio of 7.3 acres per 1,000 residents. The countywide goal for parkland is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. • The Amador County Regional Recreation Plan recommends that the City acquire and develop a new five-acre neighborhood park, with amenities including a small multi-purpose sport field, a picnic area and a pathway system. The acquisition cost is estimated at approximately $1 million. • The City reported that cemetery plots are available at Oak Knoll Cemetery, but did not provide an indication of remaining capacity, or the number of recent burials. There is no remaining capacity at Amador Pioneer Cemetery. II-20 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF AMADOR FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The City reported that its current financing level is adequate to deliver services, but reported that wastewater regulatory mandates and fees present a challenge. • The City’s sewer rates are lower than those charged by the City of Sutter Creek and AWA (Martell), with which Amador City shares treatment and disposal facilities. The City last updated its sewer rates in 2003. • The ability of the City to provide cemetery services is constrained due to a lack of financing. Neither cemetery owned by the City is professionally maintained on a regular basis, with the exception of weed spraying twice a year at Oak Knoll Cemetery. Maintenance of cemetery grounds is performed on a volunteer basis only. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • Amador City shares water and wastewater facilities and resources by contracting with AWA for water services and the City of Sutter Creek for wastewater treatment services. • The City does not practice sharing of facilities for roadway and drainage maintenance or cemetery service, and did not identify any possible opportunities. • Amador City is a member of the Amador County Recreation Agency, which provides countywide recreation programming and facilitates collaborative planning efforts. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Accountability is best ensured when contested elections are held for governing body seats, constituent outreach is conducted to promote accountability and ensure that constituents are informed and not disenfranchised, and public agency operations and management are transparent to the public. The City generally demonstrated accountability for community service needs; however, the office hours of the city clerk, the City’s primary ombudsman, are limited to four hours per week. • Operational efficiencies are achieved in the provision of park maintenance through the use of volunteers for supplemental park maintenance as well as recreation services. The City also relies on volunteers to perform grounds maintenance at the cemeteries. • Accountability for community service needs is limited in regard to cemetery service, as the City was unable to provide the number of vacant plots available at Oak Knoll Cemetery. BY BURR CONSULTING II-21 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 2. C I T Y O F I O N E The City of Ione provides wastewater, fire, law enforcement, road maintenance, drainage, and parks and recreation services. AWA provides retail water services to all residents and businesses within city limits. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION AND BOUNDARY The City of Ione incorporated on March 23, 1953.25 The City is a general law city. The City’s boundary is entirely within Amador County. The bounds are an irregular shape, as shown on Map III-2 (see Volume III). From the intersection of SRs 104 and 124 in the western portion of the County, the boundary extends west along SR 104 to Five Mile Drive, extends south along SR 124 to Brickyard Road, and extends east along SR 104 to Foothill Boulevard. The City’s northern boundary is located north of Mule Creek State Prison. The City has a boundary area of approximately 4.5 square miles (2,880 acres). Table II-2-1: City of Ione Annexation Records Amador LAFCO LAFCO records date back to Resolution 1966, and the State Project Name Acres Number 1 Official Date 2 Board of Equalization Waterman Addition NA 3/9/1962 (B) (BOE) maintains Preston Annexation 67-5 9/20/1967 (B) records of officially Warner Annexation 0.2 78-129 12/21/1978 (L) recorded boundary Banks Annexations 112.6 81-161 3/30/1982 (C) changes since 1948. Ione Industrial Park Annexation 146.3 84-175 12/15/1984 (C) Over this time frame, Sutter Mill Annexation 95.0 84-174 12/11/1985 (C) LAFCO and BOE Triangle Mobile Home Park Annexation NA 7/23/1987 (B) records indicate there Howard Park Annexation 98.0 NA 8/31/1987 (B) have been 11 Ione Prison Annexation 822.0 86-197 10/23/1987 (B) annexations to Ione Marlette Manor Subdivision Annexation 5.0 89-211 3/20/1989 (B) bounds, as shown in Villa Arroyo Seco Annexation 1.5 NA 3/29/1989 (B) Table II-2-1. Of Notes: (1) "NA" indicates LAFCO records are not available. these, the acreage of (2) "L" indicates that the official date is according to the LAFCO resolution, "C" indicates that the eight annexations official date is according to the Certificate of Completion, and "B" indicates that the official date is totals 1,280.6 acres, according to the Board of Equalization filing. 25 The formation date is from California Board of Equalization Index. II-22 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE amounting to 43 percent of current City bounds. The acreage of the other annexations was not found in the record. The City’s SOI was adopted in 1976 and affirmed by LAFCO in 2007.26 The SOI covers 6.9 square miles and is 53 percent larger than the City’s current bounds. The SOI extends beyond city bounds in the northwest, the southwest, and the east. The SOI extends in the northwest to Irish Hill Road, and follows the western city limits along Five Mile Drive. Farther south, the SOI extends to Old Stockton Road, including four large parcels beyond the city limits in this area. Finally, the SOI extends from the city limits in the east to the intersection of Waterman Road and SR 124.27 LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The City is governed by a five-member City Council. The members are elected at large to staggered, four-year terms. Board meetings are held every other Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. The most recent contested election for a council seat occurred in 2006, when three seats were filled from five candidates. There was also a contested election in 2004 when four candidates vied for two council seats.28 For more information on council members and meeting information, see Table II-2-2. Table II-2-2: City of Ione Governing Body Ione City Council Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Andrea Bonham Mayor Nov-08 Lee Ard Vice Mayor Nov-10 Members Chester "Skip" Schaufel Member Nov-10 Jerry Sherman Member Nov-08 Jim Ulm Member Nov-10 Manner of Selection Elections at large Length of Term Four years, staggered Meetings Date: first and third Tuesdays Location: Ione City Hall Agenda Distribution Online, posted, email subscription Minutes Distribution Online Contact Contact City Manager Mailing Address P.O. Box 398, Ione, CA 95640 Phone (209) 274-2412 Email/Website ctyadm@ione-ca.com, http://www.ione-ca.com/ The City apprises residents of meetings and events through the City’s website, which includes links to City Council information, a listing of special events in the City, the City’s newsletter, and 26 LAFCO Resolution 2007-09. 27 Amador County GIS Division, Sphere of Influence Map for Ione, 2007. 28 Amador County, General Election Results, 2004 and 2006. BY BURR CONSULTING II-23 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II contact information. The City’s future goal is to post City Council agendas with all staff reports on its website along with the approved minutes. Also, the City sends out print copies of its monthly newsletter with sewer billings. The newsletter provides an update on issues facing the City and advertises the regular meetings. The City reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. Regarding customer service, the City does not have a formal complaint system. The city manager generally functions as the primary ombudsman. Complaints may be submitted in person, in writing or by phone. Police or fire complaints may be directly submitted to those departments; billing complaints may be submitted directly to the finance director. Between July 2007 and March 2008, the City had received approximately four complaints. The City reported that none of the four complaints were substantiated. Another avenue to file a complaint is by filing a claim for damages if the complaining party has been harmed. There have been two such claims filed within the past eight months regarding customer service. One claim was substantiated and a remittance was made; the other claim was otherwise resolved. The City demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaire, interview and document requests. MANAGEMENT In addition to the City Council, Ione’s government is organized into seven departments: building, engineering, fire, planning, police, public works, and wastewater. The daily operations of the City are managed by the City Manager. Other key positions in the City include a city clerk, a finance director, a city planner, and a public works manager (who is also a building inspector). The City has 18 full-time employees, three part-time employees, and four contract firms that provide accounts payable, engineering, planning, and chief wastewater operator services.29 The City evaluates employee performance on an annual basis. In addition, new employees also receive three- and six-month reviews. The City does not track workload but reported that it intends to establish a tracking mechanism in the future. In the meantime, the City reported closely tracking applications for permits. The City’s central planning document is its general plan. The plan includes the seven legally required elements. The most recently updated elements are the housing element (2005) and circulation element (2003). The remaining elements were completed in 1989. The City’s land use map was amended in 1992. Other planning documents include a development impact fee nexus study, a facility plan for wastewater facilities and a study on economic development strategies. The City was in the process of a General Plan update at the time this report was drafted. 29 City of Ione, FY 07-08 Budget, p. v. II-24 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE The City’s financial planning documents include annual budgets, annual audits, and a capital improvement plan. Ione began auditing its financial statements in 2007, and plans to conduct annual audits in the future.30 The City provided a copy of its audited financial statement for FY 06- 07 to LAFCO. The auditor disclosed that the City has not recorded all of its assets and related depreciation expenses, but otherwise did not identify any reportable conditions. The City had not maintained historical records of all asset purchases. Recent honors received by the City include two consecutive wins of the California Law Enforcement Challenge in 2007 and 2008. The award recognizes the best in overall traffic safety between departments of similar size and type.31 City management practices include risk management. The City participates in a public entity risk pool for insurance purposes. The City is self-insured for basic claims and carries excess liability insurance. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Land use in the City is mostly single-family residential. Residential lands covered almost 16 percent of the City in 1994. Single-family residential lands were concentrated east and south of the intersection of SR 124 and SR 104. The area north of the SR 124 and SR 104 intersection was divided between medium- and low-density residential. The area directly surrounding the SR 124 and SR 104 intersection is the City’s commercial business district, constituting less than one percent of the City boundary area as of 1994. Other commercial uses covered an additional 1.5 percent of the City. Heavy industrial lands, located in the south of the City, covered seven percent of bounds; there were no light industrial uses. Undeveloped land designated for open space-recreation, public service-open space and public service-agricultural transition-mineral resources constituted 47 percent of the City.32 There are two State correctional facilities within the City’s boundaries—Mule Creek State Prison and Preston Youth Correctional Facility. The two facilities make up almost 55 percent of the City’s population and are the two most significant employers in the City. Other major employers in the City include Ione Minerals. The City reported that demand for services is increasing as the population grows. 30 Interview with Kim Kerr, City Manager, City of Ione, January 16, 2008. 31 Amador Ledger Dispatch, Ione Police Department Gets New Officer Award, June 5, 2008. 32 Tschudin Consulting Group, City Land Use Desginations by Acreage: Memorandum to Randy Johnsen, 1994. BY BURR CONSULTING II-25 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Population Figure II-2-3: City of Ione Population, 2000-8 The City’s population is 7,416, of which 52 percent are institutionalized 8,000 in the State prison or Youth correctional facility. The City’s 6,000 population density is 1,637 per square mile, the densest area in Amador 4,000 County. Excluding Ione’s institutionalized prisoners, however, the City’s population density was 778 2,000 per square mile. The countywide population density is 64 per square 0 mile.33 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 The City’s total population, including prisoners, grew by four percent since 2000, as shown in Figure II-2-3. The residential population grew from 2,898 in 2000 to 3,526 in 2008, an increase of 22 percent. The number of residential building permits issued by the City over the last eight years largely mirrors the growth shown in Table II-2-3. Between 2000 and 2007, the City issued permits for over 340 units. Over 60 permits were granted in 2000. There was a general decline in the number of permits issued each year from 2000 through 2004. From 2005 through 2007, however, the number of permits increased with 42 permits granted in 2007. The value of new commercial construction in the City has declined nearly every year since 2000 through 2007. The value of construction in 2000 topped $1 million, and then dropped in the coming years down to less than $50,000 in 2004. Since this time, the value of new commercial construction has been less than $130,000 in each year. The City projected 3,500 equivalent dwelling units within the City at build-out, as of the most recent general plan land use element in 1989 (no timeline was provided).34 There were 1,495 housing units within the City as of 2008.35 As of October 2007 the City has committed to provide wastewater service to 1,200 un-built equivalent dwelling units, projected to be constructed by July 2014.36 Development Significant growth is planned and proposed in the City of Ione and its SOI. 33 California Department of Finance, 2008. 34 City of Ione, General Plan & Environmental Impact Report: Land Use Element, 1989, p. 38. 35 California Department of Finance, 2008. 36 Lee & Ro, Inc., City of Ione Technical Memorandum: Wastewater Treatment and Disposal, Oct. 4, 2007. II-26 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO noitalupoP CITY OF IONE All development proposals—approved and tentative—would bring 3,468 new residential units to the area. There are seven developments within Ione’s city limits that have submitted applications. These developments with applications total 899 units, 20 acres of non-residential development, and an 80- room hotel. The most recently approved, the Wildflower Subdivision, received City Council approval in December 2007. This planned development is to be located between SR 104 and SR 124, east of Howard Park. Other planned and proposed developments within bounds that have submitted applications include Broussard, Castle Oaks, Castle Ridge, St. Andrew’s Place, and Washington Place. In addition to those that have submitted applications, there are three additional potential development projects within bounds and two within the City’s existing SOI. Ringer Ranch and the Howard property would add 1,073 units. Located outside of the City’s boundaries but within the SOI are the potential Q Ranch and Yaegar subdivisions. The Q-Ranch development is proposed to cover 400 acres near Mule Creek State Prison and would add 822 dwelling units. The Yaegar subdivision would add 674 dwelling units at build-out. These potential projects had not filed applications with the City at the time this report was drafted. Table II-2-4: Planned and Proposed Developments within the City of Ione SOI Non- General Residential Development Developer Location Acres Units Acres1 Developments with Submitted Applications Broussard Parcel Map Broussard In Bounds NP 2 0 Castle Oaks2 JTS In Bounds NP 475 10 Castle Ridge Doug Knutsen/KORAF Corp. In Bounds 8.6 65 0 Ione 20/Gold Ridge Galleli & Son In Bounds 20.0 49 10 St. Andrews Place NP In Bounds NP 25 0 Washington Place NP In Bounds NP 6 0 Wildflower Ryland Homes In Bounds NP 277 0 Other Potential Developments Howard NP In Bounds NP 550 0 Q-Ranch NP In SOI 400.0 822 0 Ringer Ranch (Part of Rancho Amador Ranch Associates In Bounds 134.0 523 0 Arroyo Seco) Waterman Parcel (Part of Amador Ranch Associates In Bounds 85.0 NP NP Rancho Arroyo Seco) Yaegar NP In SOI NP 674 0 Notes: (1) Non-residential acres exclude parks and open space. (2) The Castle Oaks plan includes 10 acres of retail and 80 hotel rooms. Significant development may be proposed on the Arroyo Seco Ranch—16,100 acres recently purchased from the Howard Property. The property is mostly outside of the City’s SOI, but abuts Ione’s SOI in the north and extends into the City’s SOI in the south. Two non-contiguous islands, constituting 240 acres of the property, are within the City’s boundaries in the east and west along SRs 124 and 104. The City identifies these two areas as separate developments, Ringer Ranch and the Waterman Parcel subdivisions, which were described previously. At the time of purchase, the only existing development located outside of the City’s SOI in this area was the Carbondale Industrial Park. A new arterial connecting SR 104 and SR 88 on the west side of town is being BY BURR CONSULTING II-27 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II considered primarily to relieve congestion in the downtown area and improve regional circulation; this would improve access to a portion of the Arroyo Seco land. The contemplated arterial is discussed under Roadway Services. For a list of all planned and proposed developments in Amador County by area, see Table II-30-1. Growth Strategies Ione’s existing planning area is contiguous with its SOI. The City designates land uses only within its SOI. The planning area in the City’s General Plan update, which is currently being processed, is larger than the SOI. The primary guiding goals for land use and development in the City of Ione include the enhancement and restoration of the central business district, the encouragement of cluster development and planned-unit development, the use of energy-efficient construction and development, and the preservation of open spaces. Specific housing preferences in the City are to have subdivision design with maximum east-west alignment of streets and north-south alignment of dwellings, with most windows facing south.37 The City’s Retail and Business Park Study provides several strategies for business recruitment and retention.38 The primary recommendation is to implement a “Main Street Program,” which is a management model used to revitalize downtown and neighborhood commercial districts. The program entails developing a volunteer management organization, enhancing the appearance of the district through historic preservation; retaining and strengthening existing businesses while recruiting new businesses; and creating a unified, quality image and promotion strategies. Other strategies identified by the study include developing a downtown website, hosting an annual real estate brokers’ breakfast, and offering businesses incentives to relocate to Ione.39 With regard to specific growth plans, the City has interest in expanding its SOI to several areas.40 First, the City is interested in expansion to the area north of SR 88, west of SR 104, and east of SR 124 to the south of the City. Second, the City is interested in the area north of SR 104 between Mule Creek State Prison and Irish Hill Road. Third, the City is interested in the area between the Castle Oaks Mobile Home Park along West Marlette Avenue to Old Stockton Road, continuing along Five Mile Drive. This last area includes the City’s wastewater treatment plant. Wastewater capacity and water availability are the most significant constraints to growth.41 The City has developed various capital strategies to providing adequate wastewater capacity to serve 37 City of Ione, General Plan & Environmental Impact Report: Land Use Element, 1989, pp.108-113. 38 Burnes Consulting, A Study in Economic Development Strategies for the City of Ione, California, 2003. 39 Burnes Consulting, A Study in Economic Development Strategies for the City of Ione, California, 2003, pp. 38-48. 40 City of Ione response to Amador LAFCO Request for Information, 2008. 41 Water service is provided by AWA, and is not directly under the City’s control. II-28 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE anticipated growth, and expects that reduced wastewater flows from Sutter Creek, Martell and the Ione Water Treatment Plant in the coming years will also help free up capacity to serve growth. FINANCING The City finances its general government, police, fire, and community development operations primarily with vehicle license fees and property taxes. Capital needs are funded by assessments and development impact fees. The City finances its street needs with gas tax and general revenue. The City finances its sewer operations with sewer rates, and its sewer capital improvements primarily with sewer connection fees and secondarily with sewer rates. The City reports that financing is adequate to deliver services, but is not ample enough to provide the fire protection and wastewater service levels the City desires. Specifically, the City reported a presently unfunded need for full-time paid firefighters and additional sewer system employees. Key fiscal challenges are relatively low sales tax revenues and a recent decrease in development activity and related fees. Unfunded operational needs in FY 07-08 included a full-time paid firefighter, a city engineer position, a budget for proactive code enforcement, a fee update study, and replacement of the financial management system.42 The City tracks its financial activities separately through various funds. The general fund is the City’s main operating fund. Other major governmental funds include gas tax, Transportation Development Act, and development impact fee funds for a new police building and for a new fire building and apparatus. Wastewater system finances are tracked through an enterprise fund. The City’s total revenues were $4.5 million in FY 06-07. Revenue sources include sewer rates (20 percent), vehicle license fees (16 percent), property taxes (13 percent), interest (11 percent), assessments and impact fees (11 percent), gas tax (4 percent), permits (4 percent), and sewer connection fees (3 percent). The City’s sales tax revenues are substantially lower than in the remainder of Amador County. Taxable sales per resident were $3,743 in 2006 in the City.43 By comparison, the countywide average was $12,698, and the statewide average was $15,344. New development pays a tax of $500 per dwelling unit to fund police and fire operations through a community facilities district (i.e., Mello-Roos) tax.44 There are no other assessments imposed at this time. The City plans to impose a similar tax in FY 08-09 to finance street lighting and landscaping operations. 42 City of Ione, Budget FY 07-08, pp. v-vii. 43 This indicator is calculated as the ratio of taxable sales at all outlets in 2006 to the average annual household population in the City in 2006 (i.e., the average of the January 2006 and January 2007 household population estimates from DOF). 44 The assessment in the JTS Communities subdivision was $300 in FY 07-08, and was expected to be increased as of June 2008 to $500 per residence. The assessment in the Ryland Homes subdivision was $500 in FY 07-08. BY BURR CONSULTING II-29 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The City finances new infrastructure expenses associated with growth through development impact fees. Development impact fees were $13,038 per new dwelling unit in FY 07-08, excluding water and sewer connection fees and school fees. City expenditures were $5.4 million in FY 06-07. The City drew down its sewer fund balance by $1.1 million to finance capital expenditures and sewer maintenance in FY 06-07. Of its total expenditures, 25 percent was spent on sewer operations, 14 percent on sewer capital investments, 17 percent on police operations, 15 percent on capital outlays (primarily fire-related), 12 percent on general government, 8 percent on public works, 7 percent on community development, and 3 percent on fire operations. The City had $71,538 in long-term debt outstanding at the end of FY 06-07. The debt was composed of a note payable for purchase of 88.7 acres of land known as Howard Park and compensated absences. In addition, there was $18 million in outstanding debt at the end of FY 06- 07 from community facilities district (CFD) debt; this debt is repaid by property owners in affected developments and is not an obligation of the City. The Castle Oaks Country Club Estates development defaulted on CFD bonds in 1989; those bonds were refinanced in 2007 through a private issuance. The City does not have a formal policy on maintaining financial reserves. The City had $1.7 million in unreserved, undesignated reserves in its general fund at the close of FY 06-07. This amount is equivalent to 94 percent of general expenditures in FY 06-07. In other words, the City maintained 11 months of working reserves. The City’s sewer fund had $0.7 million in unrestricted net assets at the close of FY 06-07, or 61 percent of annual operating expenditures. The City participates in joint financing mechanisms. For risk management, the City participates in Small Cities Organized Risk Effort, a public entity risk pool. City investments are pooled in the Local Agency Investment Fund managed by the State Treasurer. Employees are eligible to participate in pension plans offered by California Public Employees Retirement System—a multiple- employer defined pension plan. II-30 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE WASTEWATER SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City provides wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services to 1,475 connections, and recycled water to a local golf course. The City provides treatment and disposal services to Mule Creek State Prison and flows originating at the Preston Youth Correctional Facility and the CALFIRE Academy within City bounds.45 In addition, the City provides treatment and disposal services to the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA). Wastewater services are provided through a combination of City staff and private contractors. LOCATION The City provides wastewater collection services within its bounds, and does not provide collection services outside its bounds. The City does not provide wastewater collection services to its entire boundary area. The City’s wastewater collection service area excludes Mule Creek State Prison, the Preston Youth Correctional Facility and the CALFIRE Academy, which are served by a separate system. There are some septic systems within City bounds.46 The City’s secondary wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is located within city limits at the corner of Marlette Street and Old Stockton Road, just south of Sutter Creek. The tertiary plant is located on Five Mile Road in the Castle Oaks subdivision along the north bank of Sutter Creek. The City’s treatment and disposal facilities handle wastewater flows not only from the City’s collection system but also from the Mule Creek Prison WWTP and the Sutter Creek WWTP. The Mule Creek Prison WWTP treats flows originating at the prison, the Preston Youth Correctional Facility and the CALFIRE Academy. The Sutter Creek WWTP handles flows originating in the City of Sutter Creek, Amador City and Martell. The Sutter Creek and Mule Creek Prison WWTPs provide secondary treatment, and the City of Ione provides disposal services and, during the dry season, polishes the wastewater to tertiary standards prior to disposal.47 The City provides recycled water services to the Castle Oaks Golf Course. 45 Service by the City of Ione is provided through an agreement between the City, ARSA and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Mule Creek State Prison operates its own treatment plant and disposal spray fields. The prison discharges to the ARSA system, which in turn discharges to the City of Ione system. 46 There were 22 homes on septic systems, according to the 1990 Census, which was the most recent census to inquire about residential sewage disposal. 47 The majority of flows received from Mule Creek State Prison and ARSA is treated at the City’s tertiary plant and used for irrigation water at the golf course; flows received during non-irrigation (winter) months are disposed at the City’s percolation ponds where they receive secondary treatment. BY BURR CONSULTING II-31 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure includes the tertiary Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Plant (COWRP), the Ione secondary WWTP, 25 miles of sewer pipes and four City-owned lift stations.48 COWRP was constructed in 1994 by the original Castle Oaks subdivision developer to treat ARSA effluent previously disposed on the Preston Youth Correctional Facility farmlands.49 The plant treats effluent from the ARSA system, which includes flows from the Mule Creek Prison system, but does not currently treat flows originating in the City of Ione wastewater system. The plant, which is owned and operated seasonally by the City of Ione, has a design flow capacity of 1.2 mgd (ADWF). By comparison, the WWTP process an average flow of 0.7 mgd during the irrigation months when it is used, specifically April through November. The treatment system includes screening, flocculation, mixing basin, and sand filters; effluent is disinfected with chlorine. Sludge is pumped to drying beds and hauled off-site to a landfill for disposal. Tertiary effluent is pumped to the Castle Oaks Golf Course for irrigation during the dry season, which is typically April through November. The effluent flows through an underground pipe to a series of interconnected ponds used to store reclaimed water. Irrigation is conducted by the golf course operator, Portlock International, through a pump station and sprinkler system.50 The Castle Oaks Golf Course has agreed to use effluent from the Ione tertiary plant prior to using water from any other source through the end of 2013. The Ione secondary WWTP has a design flow capacity of 0.41-0.55 mgd (ADWF).51 The regulatory permit does not cite peak flow capacity of the plant, but the City reports peak capacity at 1.3 mgd. By comparison, existing flow to treatment (ADWF) was 0.35 mgd in 2007, and was 0.41 mgd in 2003.52 Build-out flow is projected to be as high as 3.6 mgd in the existing City bounds.53 The WWTP was built in 1958, and has been modified since.54 The treatment system consists of seven ponds connected in series. Four of the ponds function as treatment ponds, one of which also serves as a percolation and evaporation pond. The other three ponds serve as percolation and 48 Private lift stations are located at the Preston Youth Correctional Facility and in the Castle Park subdivision. 49 Preston’s permit was rescinded in 2002 due to regulatory non-compliance issues, including failure to meet tertiary treatment standards, failure to meet requirements for a dual-plumbed water system, discharging outside the designated area, and lack of signage alerting the public. 50 This contractual obligation was set for renewal or expiration on Dec. 31, 2013 at the time this report was drafted. 51 Average dry weather capacity of the secondary WWTP is permitted at 1.2 mgd, but the City’s 2004 master plan cited a maximum capacity of 0.41 mgd at that time. To achieve a capacity of 0.55 mgd, the City needed to make various improvements, according to a 2007 wastewater technical memorandum; in efforts to increase capacity, the City removed approximately 462 dry tons of sludge from Pond 1 and improved the headworks in FY 07-08. 52 The 2004 master plan estimated ADWF of 0.41 mgd based on data for the period of June through October 2003. 53 ECO:LOGIC Engineering, Amador County Regional Wastewater Management Plan, 2005, p. 3-8. 54 The plant was expanded in 1977. Ponds were added in 1996 and 2001, and a pond was rebuilt in 2006. II-32 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE evaporation ponds.55 Solids are disposed in the ponds where they are partially digested over a period of months or years; the ponds are occasionally drained and dewatered with the sludge removed for disposal in a landfill. The City described the plant as in fair condition with respect to its current permit, and poor condition with respect to expected future permitted conditions. Secondary treated ARSA effluent flows by pipeline along Sutter Creek and Jackass Creek initially through Henderson Reservoir (unincorporated) to Preston Reservoir (at Preston Youth Correctional Facility in the City of Ione). Between April and September, Preston Reservoir also accepts flows from the Mule Creek Prison WWTP, which in turn treats flows from the prison, the Preston facility and the CALFIRE Academy. From Preston Reservoir, ARSA effluent flows to City of Ione wastewater treatment facilities, specifically to COWRP during the dry season and to the Ione secondary WWTP (crossing Sutter Creek) during the wet season. The City of Ione is required to accept up to 650 af (0.6 mgd) in ARSA flows during a wet year. ARSA has agreed by 2011 to eliminate flows to Ione’s secondary wastewater ponds; in other words, ARSA must store flows or divert them elsewhere between October and March. Regulatory concerns in the Ione area relate to seepage of effluent into Sutter Creek, the impact of expanded land disposal facilities on groundwater quality, and historic non-compliance. RWQCB inspectors had observed seepage of water into Sutter Creek adjacent to the WWTP ponds in 2001. The City needs to establish a 200-foot buffer between the percolation ponds (i.e., ponds 4-6) and Sutter Creek to address this concern by providing greater distance between the ponds and the creek. Increased salinity and manganese concentrations below Ione’s secondary WWTP have raised concern over expanding disposal capacity in the area.56 To protect groundwater resources, there may be a need to modify the biological processes to provide more reliable nitrification and denitrification.57 The City installed groundwater monitoring wells in the area in 2002, and is required to conduct quarterly sampling. In the past (2001-2), the City had constructed and used a new percolation pond without regulatory approval in spite of being warned by the regulatory agency,58 had dumped wastewater sludge into unregulated pits accessible to the public,59 and had constructed sludge facility improvements at its tertiary treatment plant without regulatory approval, according to the regulatory agency. The City countered that it had constructed the pond as an emergency measure because its ponds were full that year, that the regulatory agency had not issued any warning prior to pond construction, that the sludge dumped in the pits was tertiary (i.e., less biologically potent) rather than secondary sludge.60 55 Lee & Ro, Technical Memorandum: Wastewater Disposal and Treatment Capacity: City of Ione WWTP, May 4, 2007. 56 Manganese may cause a metallic taste to water and staining of plumbing fixtures, but does not pose significant health risks. 57 ECO:LOGIC Engineering, Amador County Regional Wastewater Management Plan, 2005, p. 4-16. 58 Central Valley RWQCB, Cease and Desist Order No. R5-2003-0108, 2003. 59 Central Valley RWQCB, Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R5-2002-0092, 2002. 60 City of Ione, response to LAFCO request for information, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-33 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Infrastructure needs include expansion of storage and disposal capacity. The City needs additional capacity to handle peak ARSA flows (up to 650 af presently), and to handle future flows and growth in the City of Ione service area. The secondary WWTP needs major improvements to provide adequate capacity and comply with regulatory requirements. The COWRP site has capacity expansion potential, and the City owns property west of the tertiary plant that could potentially be used for land disposal if additional reclaimed water demand is identified. Disposal to Sutter Creek is not presently permitted, but may be an option; however, elevated arsenic levels in ARSA flows pose a constraint to surface discharge. The City’s preferred solution is to replace the secondary treatment facility with a new, larger facility to meet growth needs and treatment requirements, and to discontinue use of the treatment ponds, such that all effluent would receive tertiary filtration.61 MCSP, the City of Ione and ARSA have agreed to attempt to form a JPA to develop a wastewater master plan for the Ione Valley. Their intent is to develop a permanent source of recycled water, improve treatment and disposal capacity at MCSP and Ione facilities. Under a 2007 agreement, the City of Ione or MCSP has the right to eliminate flows from ARSA with five years’ notice if Ione and MCSP have resolved how to provide adequate recycled water to Castle Oaks and Preston Youth Correctional Facility. The wastewater collection system consists of approximately 24 miles of gravity sewer lines and one mile of pressure sewer.62 The collection system consists of two primary areas. The older portion of the City, primarily south of Sutter Creek, is served by a gravity sewer that carries flows down Marlette Street to the secondary WWTP. The Castle Oaks subdivision located north of Sutter Creek; the area began developing in the 1990s and continues to grow; flows are conveyed to the tertiary plant during dry periods and to the secondary WWTP during wet periods. Two small areas north of Sutter Creek off Edgebrook Drive are collected and pumped across Sutter Creek via utility bridges. The sewer collection system dates back to 1955.63 Approximately 35-40 percent of the sewers were constructed in 1955, and 20 percent was constructed between 1960 and 1990; these sewers were described by the City as in fair condition. The remaining 20 percent of the sewers were constructed since 1990, and were described by the City as in good to excellent condition. An ongoing capital replacement program is needed to address older portions of the collection system needing replacement. The sewer collection system is inadequate, subject to infiltration and inflow, and prone to overflows during heavy rain events.64 61 Correspondence from City of Ione wastewater engineer, Lee & Ro, July 1, 2008. 62 California Integrated Water Quality System Project. 63 City of Ione, General Plan and Environmental Impact Report for the City of Ione, 1989, p. 59. 64 City of Ione, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Ione Redevelopment Plan, 1998, p. 4-3; City of Ione, General Plan and Environmental Impact Report for the City of Ione, 1989, p. 59. II-34 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE Table II-2-5: Ione Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s)2 Wastewater Collection Ione City Wastewater Treatment Ione City, Mule Creek State Prison Wastewater Disposal Ione City, Mule Creek State Prison Recycled Water Ione City, Mule Creek State Prison City of Ione Wastewater Service Area Collection: Ione City Treatment: Ione City and ARSA (Sutter Creek, Amador City and Martell) Disposal: Ione City and ARSA (Sutter Creek, Amador City and Martell) Recycled Water Castle Oaks Golf Course (within Ione City) Sewer Connection Regulatory/Policies Properties with structures within city limits are required to connect to the sewer system. Onsite Septic Systems in Service Area There were 22 homes on septic systems, according to the 1990 Census, which was the most recent census to inquire about residential sewage disposal. Service Demand 2007 Connections Treated Flow3 Inside Outside Average Type Total Bounds Bounds (mgd) Total 1,434 1,434 0 0.36 Residential 1,352 1,352 0 0.28 Commercial 82 82 0 0.04 Industrial 0 0 0 0.00 AWA WTP Backwash 1 1 0 0.04 Projected Demand (in millions of gallons per day) 2007 2014 2024 Build-Out ADWF - City & AWA 0.35 0.82 1.35 3.6 PWWF - City & AWA 0.85 1.97 3.24 NP Notes: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided; ADWF: average dry weather flow; PWWF: peak wet weather flow. (2) Service providers within city limits, include both the City of Ione and Mule Creek State Prison. (3) Annual average daily flow through treatment excludes ARSA flows. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-35 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Secondary treatment is provided at the facility south of Sutter Creek. Tertiary treatment is provided to flows originating north of Dry Creek and ARSA during dry season.1 Disposal method: Secondary-treated effluent is discharged to land. Tertiary-treated effluent is discharged to irrigate the Castle Oaks Golf Course. Facility Name Capacity Condition Yr Built Ione Secondary WWTP 0.41 mgd Fair to Poor 1955 Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Plant 1.2 mgd Fair 1994 Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) Average Dry Peak Wet Ione Secondary WWTP 0.35 1.3 Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Plant2 0.71 April - Nov. 1.2 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Existing storage and disposal capacity is insufficient to handle peak flows in a wet year, to meet the City's maximum obligation to ARSA (650 af presently), or to accommodate anticipated growth. In the near-term, the secondary WWTP needs removal of accumulated sludge to maximize percolation. The aged secondary WWTP needs extensive modifications to pumping, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to expand its capacity and achieve regulatory compliance; the estimated cost to rebuild the facility is $7-9 million. Additional COWRP treatment and disposal capacity is needed; reclaimed water users, such as Unamin Mine, need to be identified to implement COWRP expansion. The total cost of wastewater improvements may be $12-18 million. A pipeline to Preston Reservoir is needed to increase storage capacity. Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 2 5 Sewage Lift Stations 4 Other: 2 utility bridge crossings of Sutter Creek Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The sewer collection system is inadequate, subject to inflow and infiltration, and prone to overflows during heavy rain events. The City has implemented an operation and maintenance program, and plans to conduct a system evaluation by May 2010. Infiltration and Inflow I/I is not a significant problem. The City plans to conduct a system evaluation by May 2010, and to implement improvements to reduce I/I and prevent sanitary sewer overflows. Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing Regional Collaboration The City participated in and helped fund a regional wastewater study in 2005. The City provides wastewater treatment and disposal services to ARSA and MCSP. Facility Sharing Opportunities The City and MCSP are considering a jointly-funded project that would double the COWRP capacity. There may be opportunities for the City to share CCTV equipment with neighboring wastewater collection service providers, all of which are subject to new requirements related to their collection systems. Note: (1) Disposal of ARSA flows during the wet season is at the secondary ponds. (2) COWRP flow represents the average flow during the dry season (April to November). continued II-36 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Regulatory Compliance Record, 2000-7 Formal Enforcement Actions 2 Informal Enforcement Actions 8 Formal Enforcement Actions 1 Informal Enforcement Actions 5 Formal Enforcement Actions 1 Informal Enforcement Actions 3 Enforcement Action Type Date Description of Violations Notice of Violation 9/26/2006 Permit conditions (6) at secondary WWTP Notice of Violation 9/9/2004 Deficient report at tertiary WWTP Cease and Desist Order 7/11/2003 Permit condition at secondary WWTP Notice of Violation 7/31/2002 Effluent violation at tertiary WWTP Notice of Violation 10/12/2001 Deficient report at tertiary WWTP Administrative Civil Liability 10/10/2001 Deficient report at tertiary WWTP Notice of Violation 10/2/2001 Deficient report at secondary WWTP Notice of Violation 9/19/2001 Deficient report at tertiary WWTP Staff Enforcement Letter 2/22/2001 Permit condition at tertiary WWTP Notice of Violation 9/27/2000 Permit condition at secondary WWTP Service Adequacy Indicators Sewer Overflows 20071 1 Sewer Overflows 20062 3 Treatment Effectiveness Rate3 100% Sewer Overflow Rate4 4 Total Employees (FTEs) 3.1 Response Time Policy5 as quick as possible Employees Certified? Yes Response Time Actual 45 min - 2 hours Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices The City seeks to eliminate AWA water treatment plant backwash water, or to implement pretreatment measures to reduce the backwash volume. Collection System Inspection Practices The City conducted CCTV inspection of 80-90 percent of the sewer system in 2006, and less than 2 percent in 2007. The City conducts visual inspection, and flushes identified trouble spots on a quarterly basis. Service Challenges NP Wastewater Planning Plan Description Planning Horizon Wastewater Master Plan 2004 Treatment Master Plan 2009-2029 Capital Improvement Plan None NA General Plan 1989 Public Service Element 1988-2010 Sanitary Sewer Management Plan Timeline, goals & organization NA Emergency Plan Emergency contacts NA Other: Operations and Maintenance Manual Notes: (1) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2007 as reported by the agency. (2) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2006 as reported by the agency. (3) Total number of non-compliance days in 2007 per 365 days. (4) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. (5) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-37 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Rates and Financing Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Demand2 Residential flat rate per unit $40.70 250 gpd Rate Zones Wastewater rates are the same throughout the City. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description: The City conducts a rate study and holds public hearings prior to increasing rates. Rates for "other institutions" (e.g., schools, restaurants, hotels, and outside agencies) are increased annually based on the cost per gallon for sewer treatment. Last Rate Change Apr-04 Frequency of Rate Changes up to 5 years Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach The connection fee is a flat rate based on land use type. Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit issuance. Connection Fee Amount1 Residential: $7,640 Land Dedication Req. None Development Impact Fee None Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY 06-07 Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $1,106,225 Total $2,127,770 Rates & Charges $890,599 Administration NP Property Tax $0 O & M NP Grants $0 Capital Depreciation NP Interest $92,000 Debt $0 Connection Fees $113,843 Capital Expense $750,608 Other $9,783 Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include wastewater-related service charges and strength and flow charges. Average monthly charges calculated based on average consumption. Rates are rounded for presentation. (2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are 250 gallons per home per day, and are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, see Chapter 4. (3) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home. II-38 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE FIRE AND EMS SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The Ione Fire Department (IFD) provides fire prevention, fire protection, fire suppression, basic life support (BLS), low-angle rescue, and water rescue services. Other services include storm operations (e.g., flood watch and sandbags), building inspections, and public education. For calls involving emergency medical services, IFD provides BLS response until American Legion Ambulance Service arrives to perform advanced life support and ambulance transport. Personnel The City has 33 call firefighters and 12 support staff.65 Personnel work an average of 20 hours per month, depending on position. The chief, captain and assistant chief receive monthly stipends of $1,000, $350, and $150, respectively. Other call firefighters receive an annual stipend of $400. The Department has plans to hire a full-time fire engineer, but the FY 07-08 City budget indicates that this will not take place until developer funding is assured and the Department is restructured. IFD requires 40 hours of training of each firefighter prior to any fire activities. The Department holds weekly drills and sub-drills. All fire suppression personnel are certified Firefighter Level 1 by the end of 18 months with the Department. The Department would like its staff to attend CALFIRE Academy classes offered in Ione, but that is not presently allowed by CALFIRE regulations. By way of medical training, three firefighters are paramedics, although they only perform basic EMS services through the Department. An additional 19 firefighters are at EMT Level 1. The Department reports that the City has no problems recruiting call firefighters; there is a five- person waiting list for positions. In 2007 the turnover rate was 12 percent; in 2006 it was nine percent. Over these two years, there was no net change in sworn staffing. Regional Collaboration The Ione Fire Department collaborates with other fire providers in the County through the Amador Fire Protection Authority. AFPD pays Ione $2,200 annually to compensate the City for increased insurance costs for its primary response area, which includes land in AFPD bounds, and also furnish and maintain a rescue squad vehicle operated by the City. This agreement expires June 30, 2011. In addition, IFD hosts 90 percent of regional fire training and collaboration events.66 65 Call firefighters respond to incidents from off-site and receive a minimal stipend per response. 66 Interview with Chief Mackey, City of Ione, January 17, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-39 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Dispatch and Communications All 911 calls made from land lines in Amador County are automatically routed to the Amador County Sheriff’s communication center in Jackson (the Public Safety Answering Point, PSAP). Cell phone 911 calls are answered by the California Highway Patrol in Stockton, and then are routed to the Sheriff. Fire and EMS calls are routed from the PSAP to CALFIRE’s Camino Interagency Command Center, which in turn dispatches a CALFIRE unit as well as the appropriate local jurisdiction responder. IFD is dispatched to all calls within its primary response area. All fire providers in Amador County, including IFD, communicate through the same radio systems. Due to shared radio frequencies, IFD is able to communicate with other providers. When multiple service providers respond to an incident, the first unit to arrive on scene is responsible for incident command. The first responder notifies other providers whether and when sufficient personnel have arrived on scene. For incidents such as vehicle accidents, law enforcement becomes responsible for incident coordination once it arrives on scene through universal command protocols; prior to law enforcement arriving on scene, the first responder fire provider remains responsible for incident command. The City relies on water storage tanks with a capacity of five million gallons as water reserves for fire purposes. Other resources include an independent water pond at Preston. Fire hydrants are located throughout the service area within city limits. The City has a water tender at one of its stations. LOCATION The Department serves within the 4.75 square miles in City bounds plus a primary response area defined through an automatic aid agreement with AFPD. The primary response area covers approximately 38 square miles and extends in all directions from city limits. It extends south to the intersection of SR 124 and SR 88, east to the Amador-Sacramento county line, west to Sunnybrook, and north level to Carbondale. The Mule Creek State Prison Fire Department is responsible for protecting property belonging to the California Department of Corrections, including the Preston School (California Youth Authority).67 The Mule Creek State Prison Fire Department and CALFIRE also provide response within the City’s primary response area. CALFIRE responds throughout the service area. Mule Creek State Prison does not respond to incidents within City limits unless specifically requested. INFRASTRUCTURE IFD operates primarily out of one fire station (Station 161). A second station (Station 162) is a covered, open-side warehouse. This station serves primarily as a storage facility, although the Department does respond with the fire apparatus from this location as needed. This facility is being replaced by a new station on Preston Avenue, which is expected to be operational in the fall of 2008. 67 City of Ione, Development Impact Fees 2005 Update, 2005, p. 4-1. II-40 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE This new station will accommodate increased service demand. The $1.8 million cost was funded through developer fees.68 All developed areas in the City have fire hydrants spaced 300 feet apart. Wildland areas have hydrants no more than 0.5 miles apart. The Department’s water reserves are five million gallons in tanks and domestic water within the City; in addition, Preston has an independent water system from a pond and the City Park has its own “dirty water” source. The pressure is acceptable 95 percent of the time; there are occasional problems in areas east of Main Street.69 This should be resolved through several planned infrastructure projects targeting water reserves. Specifically, the City plans to install an additional one to two-million gallon above-ground storage tank, to replace all four-inch water mains, to replace wharf hydrants with steamer hydrants, and to finish cross connections of water mains. SERVICE ADEQUACY The Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization, classifies fire service in communities from 1 to 10, indicating the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best systems for water distribution, fire department facilities, equipment and personnel and fire alarms and communications receive a rating of 1. The Ione Fire Department has an ISO rating of five. The rating was last updated in 2007. Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster a response is required. The response time guideline established by the California EMS Agency is five minutes in urban areas, 15 minutes in suburban or rural areas, and as quickly as possible in wilderness areas. The City of Ione is urban, whereas unincorporated areas within the IFD primary response zone are classified as wilderness. IFD’s 90th percentile response time is 9.6 minutes throughout its entire service area. The fire response time within the urban area is likely faster due to proximity to the fire station, but was not provided. The median response time is 5.8 minutes. The primary service challenges reported by the City relate to financing constraints. The dispatch system needs improvement to reduce the time involved in transfer of calls from the PSAP (Sheriff) to the CALFIRE dispatch system. 68 Interview with Chief Mackey, City of Ione, January 17, 2008. 69 City of Ione, FY 07-08 Budget. BY BURR CONSULTING II-41 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-2-6: City of Ione Fire Profile Fire Service Service Configuration Service Demand Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 EMS Direct Total Service Calls 816 Ambulance Transport American Legion % EMS 48% Hazardous Materials Calaveras and San Joaquin % Fire 10% Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CHP, Private % Vehicle Accidents 15% Fire Suppression Helicopter CALFIRE % Other 27% Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 51% Fire/EMS Dispatch CALFIRE Calls per 1,000 people 202.9 Service Adequacy Resources ISO Rating (2007) 5 Fire Stations in City 2 Median Response Time (min) 5.8 Fire Stations Serving City 2 90th Percentile Response Time (min) 9.6 Sq. Miles Served per Station 2 21.3 Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 3 45 Training Total Full-time Firefighters 0 The Department requires 40 hours of training prior to any fire activities. Total Call Firefighters 33 Service Challenges Total Sworn Staff per Station 4 16.5 It is difficult for the Department to find sufficient financing for services; Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 8.2 previous FEMA grant applications have not been successful. The Staffing Base Year 2008 Department struggles to keep up with State requirements on equipment. Fire Flow Water Reserves 5,000,000 gal. Facilities Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus Station 161 22 Jackson St. Good Unstaffed 3 Type 1 Engines, Type 2 Water Tender, Ione, CA 95640 Type 3 Engine/Water Tender, & Telesquirt, Type 3 rescue, support service unit Station 162 on SR 124 across Good (closure Unstaffed 55-Ft ladder truck, Type 2 Engine, Type (old) from Howard Park pending) 3 Engine, Water Rescue Unit with 2 Boats, Type 4 Grass Unit Station 162 600 Preston Avenue Under Unstaffed To be completed fall 2008 (new)5 Ione, CA 95640 Construction Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies General infrastructure needs include a back-up generator and exhaust system for Station 161, a more versatile ladder truck, and a replacement engine. Water-related infrastructure needs include an additional 1 to 2-million gallon above-ground storage tanks, water mains to replace all four-inch water mains, and steamer hydrants. The radio dispatch system also needs improvement. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers Current Practices: The Department hosts training and collaboration events with CALFIRE, Mule There is a mutual aid agreement between Creek, JVFPD, AFPD, American Legion and CHP. The Department also trains AFPD, CALFIRE, the City of Ione, the the Ione PD on medical and department drills. In addition, the State fire City of Jackson, JVFPD, LFPD, and academy uses the Ione facility for training. SCFPD. Opportunities: IFD has an automatic aid agreement Opportunities for greater collaboration include countywide consolidation with AFPD. through AFPA and local provider access to CALFIRE training in Ione. Notes: (1) CALFIRE has an MOU with Calaveras County and a secondary MOU with San Joaquin County for hazmat services. (2) Primary service area (square miles) per station. (3) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. (4) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. (5) Station 162 is being replaced; the new station will be on Preston Avenue. II-42 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT Ione City Police Department (ICPD) provides law enforcement services, including traffic enforcement, patrol and investigation. ICPD relies on Amador County Sheriff for specialized team services (see Table II-2-8). ICPD formerly shared a school resource officer with Jackson and Sutter Creek Police Departments, but Ione pulled out of the agreement due to financial constraints. The Department has five sworn officers plus three reserve officers. The Department added a vacant officer position in FY 06-07. At this staffing level, the Department reports that it is able to provide 24-hour service. There are also two non-sworn personnel. The Department reports it responded to a large number of incidents in 2007 without entering them into the computer system that tracks service response. The Chief reports that corrective measures have been taken to rectify this problem. He suspects the number of service calls was actually two to four times the total service calls logged, as reported in Table II-2-8. The City of Ione Police Department received the California Law Enforcement Challenge Award for Sworn Officers in 2007. On a multi-agency response, the agency with primary jurisdiction is the coordinating lead agency. Dispatch Amador County Sheriff’s Office is the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for all of Amador County, and provides most dispatch services for all police departments and ambulance services. Emergency Medical Dispatchers (EMDs) answer all 911 calls. Demand The Department reports that service demand is increasing due to both residential growth and business activity. There are more domestic incidents and more traffic-related matters. Figure II-2-7: Ione Crime Rates per 1,000 Residents, 1996-2006 Serious crime rates (excluding 12 larcenies under $400) in the City of Ione increased every year from 2000 10 through 2005, peaking at nearly ten 8 crimes per 1,000 residents in 2005, 6 as shown in Figure II-2-7. The crime rate decreased in 2006 for the 4 first year since 1996. Violent crimes 2 peaked in 2003, with 2.5 violent 0 crimes per 1,000 residents. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 The serious crime rate in Ione is lower than in the unincorporated BY BURR CONSULTING II-43 stnediseR 000,1 rep semirC Violent Property AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II areas (15 crimes per 1,000 residents) and in the state as a whole where there were 28 crimes on average per 1,000 residents in 2006. LOCATION The Ione City Police Department serves within the City’s bounds and provides mutual aid to the Sheriff’s office for the unincorporated area within the City’s SOI. INFRASTRUCTURE ICPD conducts operations from offices located within City Hall. The space was remodeled in 1994, but only limited space was added. The Department reports that it needs a separate station; the City has established a capital projects fund to construct a new police building. This would provide additional office space, a briefing room, holding facilities, and a locker room. Construction will be dependent on funding, and is projected to begin by 2010. The Department reported it lacks adequate equipment, but did not specify what is needed. SERVICE ADEQUACY The effectiveness of a law enforcement agency can be gauged by many factors, including crime clearance rates (the portion of crimes that are solved),70 response times and staffing ratios. 70 Cleared crimes refer to offenses for which at least one person was arrested, charged with the offense, and turned over to the appropriate court for prosecution. A crime is also considered cleared by exceptional means if the offender dies, the victim refuses to cooperate or extradition is denied. II-44 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE Figure II-2-8: Law Enforcement Crime Clearance Rates, 2000-06 Aggregate Ione PD’s crime clearance rates 100% are slightly higher than other those of providers in the County. IPD’s 75% average violent crime clearance rate from 2000 to 2006 for violent crime 50% was 57 percent. For 2006 alone, the rate was 36 percent. Other law 25% enforcement providers in the county have violent crime clearance rates 0% ranging from 42 to 50 percent. IPD’s ACSO Ione Jackson Sutter Creek average property crime clearance rate from 2000 to 2006 was 21 percent. Violent Crime Property Crime Other providers’ average rates were all at 16 percent. Figure II-2-9: Law Enforcement Providers Average Response Times, 2007 Ione PD’s average response time for all calls in 2007 was 11 minutes. Sutter Creek For priority one calls, the response time average six minutes. These Jackson response times are comparable to the Ione Jackson and Sutter Creek Police Departments and faster than ACSO. ACSO The other providers’ response times ranged between nine and 19 minutes 0 5 10 15 20 for all calls and between four and nine Response Time (minutes) minutes for priority one calls. Priority 1 Calls All Calls The number of sworn officers per capita is also a service level indicator. The average California city has 1.5 paid sworn officers per 1,000 residents.71 Ione has 1.4 paid sworn officers per 1,000 residents, just below the state average. Other providers in the County have between 2.0 sworn staff to 3.2 sworn staff per 1,000 residents. 71 Authors’ calculations based on FY 03-04 police staffing levels reported by cities to the State Controller’s Office and population estimates from the California Department of Finance. BY BURR CONSULTING II-45 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-2-10: City of Ione Police Department Profile Police Service Service Configuration Service Demand Patrol Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 Dispatch Sheriff Total Service Calls 1,091 Search and Rescue Sheriff 911 Calls NP Crime Lab Department of Justice Non-Emergency Calls NP SWAT Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 1 309.1 Temporary Holding Sheriff Arrests 2007 157 Bomb Squad Calaveras County Violent Crime Rate per 1,000 1.8 Canine Services Sheriff Property Crime Rate per 1,000 5.4 Service Adequacy Resources Average Response Time 11:00 Total Staff 7 Avg. Priority One Response Time 6:00 Total Sworn Staff 5 Response Time Base Year 2007 Sworn Staff per 1,000 3 1.4 Clearance Rate of Violent Crimes 2 57% Staffing Base Year 2008 Clearance Rate of Property Crimes 21% Marked Police Vehicles 7 Service Challenges The primary challenge is infrastructure deficiencies. Facilities Station Location Condition Built Ione Police 1 East Main Street Poor Remodeled Department Ione, CA 1994 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies The Department needs a new facility, which may be funded in 2010. The Department also reports that it lacks adequate equipment. Current Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration All law enforcement agencies in Amador County may request outside agency assists. ICPD also offers mutual aid for special events staffing and participates in the countywide Narcotics Taskforce, emergency response plan, and joint communications/crime reporting networks. Radio frequencies are shared. Opportunities for Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration No opportunities were identified. Notes: (1) Service calls per non-institutionalized populations. Service calls do not include officer-initiated activity (e.g., traffic stops). (2) Clearance rates are aggregated for the period between 2000 and 2006. (3) Sworn staff per non-institutionalized populations. II-46 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE ROADWAY SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City directly provides minor street maintenance services. Major roadway reconstruction projects and street light maintenance are performed by private contractors. The City provides street sweeping services for City streets monthly. Caltrans sweeps the highways (SRs 124 and 104) weekly. Ione contracts with Caltrans for cleaning Main Street, which is also a portion of SRs 124 and 104. LOCATION Street services are provided within the City’s boundaries. The City does not provide street services outside its bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE The City’s key infrastructure includes 12.6 centerline miles of roads. Over seven miles of these roads are classified as urban local road; an additional 1.4 miles are rural local roads. The remaining four miles are urban collector roads. Circulation within the City is primarily provided by SR 104, which flows northwest-southeast, and SR 124, which flows northeast-southwest. Fairway Drive and Sutter Land also run north-south. East-west circulation within the City is provided by Shakeley Lane, West Marlette Street, and Waterman Road. There are no signalized intersections in the City. The City owns the 40 street lights in Ione, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) maintains them. New street lights are installed by developers within new developments. The City is continuing what it calls an aggressive street overlay program in FY 07-08.72 One million dollars are allocated for street resurfacing in FY 07-08. 73 Proposed infrastructure improvements in the area include the Western Ione Roadway to connect SR 104 and SR 88 on the west side of town. This new arterial would route traffic around downtown Ione. It would relieve congestion downtown, improve regional circulation and improve access to a portion of the Arroyo Seco land. The project involves realigning SR-104 west of town and out of 72 City of Ione, FY 07-08 Budget, p. i. 73 City of Ione, FY 07-08 Budget, p. 22. BY BURR CONSULTING II-47 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II the downtown area. The project will be funded in part with Amador County traffic mitigation fees; the projected cost was not available.74 SERVICE ADEQUACY The City reports that all streets operate at a level that meet or exceed the adopted standard of LOS “C,” and that no roadway segments are anticipated to operate at less than LOS “C” as of 2016.75 A 10-year Pavement Management System (PMS) was put in place in 1997 and expired in 2007. The 2008 City of Ione Strategic Plan identifies purchasing a full size chipper, installing tool boxes in maintenance vehicles and purchasing a hazard/emergency response box trailer as goals for the City. 74 Correspondence from Amador County Transportation Commission, Neil Peacock, August 11, 2008. 75 City of Ione, General Plan Circulation Element, 2003. II-48 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE Table II-2-11: City of Ione Roadway Services Street Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Street Maintenance Direct, by Contract Signal Maintenance None System Overview Total Maintained Miles 12.6 Urban Maintained Miles 11.2 Rural Maintained Miles 1.37 Signalized Intersections 0 Service Demand Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel, 20061 8,820 DVMT per Street Mile, 20062 701 Street Sweeping Frequency Monthly Street Service Adequacy and Operations Service Adequacy Miles Rehabilitated FY 06-07 0 Maintenance Cost per Street Mile3 $8,236 Pavement Condition Pavement Management System Yes PMS last updated4 1997 Miles Needing Rehabilitation 0.5 Pavement Condition Index 2006 NP Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies A new arterial to connect SR 104 and SR 88 is being studied. Level of Service (LOS) Current: All major roadway segments operate at LOS "C" or better. Policy: LOS "C" Build-Out: The City does not anticipate any roadway segments to operate at less than LOS "C." Service Challenges State highway traffic at Main Street during peak hours is a concern. Left turn lanes are being considered. Facility Sharing Current Practices: Ione shares equipment with several jurisdictions. Opportunities: No opportunities were identified. Development Fees and Requirements Local Fee Per Single Family Unit: $3,074 Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. (Non-Residential) $612 Regional Fee Per Single Family Unit: $3,059 Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. (Non-Residential) $419 Street Light Service Profile Service Configuration Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights 40 Maintained by Contract 40 Maintained by City 0 Notes: (1) Daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) in 2006, according to the California Department of Transportation. (2) 2006 DVMT divided by total mileage of County-maintained public road system in 2006. (3) City road maintenance expenditures in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-49 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Street Service Financing General Financing Approach Street services are financed primarily by gas tax revenues and other receipts from the State. The City also collects traffic mitigation fees from developers. Streets and Roads Financial Information, FY 05-061 Revenues Expenditures Total $201,604 Total6 $117,407 Gas Tax $147,156 Maintenance $103,100 VLF In-Lieu2 $0 Street $8,291 Traffic Congestion Relief $33,874 Lights & Signals $0 Other State Revenues $0 Other $94,809 Federal Revenues $0 Capital $13,638 Local Revenues3 $0 New Construction7 $0 City Revenues $20,574 Reconstruction $0 Interest $20,574 Signals & Lights $13,638 Bond proceeds $0 Other $0 General Fund $0 Undistributed Costs8 $669 Assessments4 $0 Plant & Equipment $0 Other5 $0 Other Public Agencies $0 Note: (1) Financial information as reported in the Annual Street Report to the State Controller. (2) Includes motor vehicle license fees used for street purposes and/or being accounted for in a street-purpose fund. (3) Includes other funds distributed by the local agencies other than the County and the cities. (4) Includes benefit assessments (also called special assessments) collected to finance street improvements and street lighting under the Landscape and Lighting Assessment Act of 1972, the Improvement Act of 1913 and the Street Lighting Act of 1931. (5) Includes traffic safety funds, development impact fees, redevelopment agency funds, and miscellaneous local sources. Excludes payments from other governmental agencies for contract services. (6) Total before adjustments for reporting changes since prior years. (7) Includes new construction and betterment of streets, bridges, lighting facilities, and storm drains, as well as right-of-way (8) Engineering costs that are not allocated to other expenditure categories or projects because the work is not specific or such allocation is impractical. Administration cost is an equitable pro rata share of expenditures for the supervision and management of street-purpose activities. DRAINAGE SERVICES Streams in the Ione area generally run southwest from the foothills to the Central Valley. There are two major stream flows in the vicinity: Sutter Creek, which runs through the southern part of town, and Mule Creek, located at the western City limits. Both flow into Dry Creek west of the City, which eventually drains into the Cosumnes River.76 Portions of the City are within the 100-year flood plain. The floodplain encompasses most the developed areas in the south of the City, as well as areas stretching north-south to a lesser degree. 76 City of Ione, General Plan & Environmental Impact Report for the City of Ione, 1989, p. 13. II-50 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE Flooding occurs in Ione during heavy storms from December through March.77 Flooding has reached depths of four feet in the downtown area. Only 50 percent of parcel owners in the floodplain maintain flood insurance. Critical structures in the floodplain include the Ione Police Department, Ione Fire Department, and three bridges. There was serious damage in Ione in 1997 due to warm rain and snowmelt in a 100-year storm event. There was less than one-foot flooding in a small area of town for 45 minutes when the creek overflowed at West Marlette Road. Some evacuations were necessary. More recently, there was a wet spring in 2006. During this event, damages outside the City cut off the water supply to the City and there were road damages throughout the County.78 NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Ione provides stormwater maintenance services, including blockage removal and the cleaning of stormwater inlets. Preventive maintenance services include street sweeping and inspection of stormwater inlets. Stormwater treatment services are not provided. The City’s strategy to prevent drainage problems is to provide maintenance of pipes and cleaning of ditches and gradual installation of a storm drain system as finances permit.79 LOCATION Municipal drainage services are provided throughout the City and are not provided outside of City bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE The City’s drainage system consists of open ditches, storm drain conduits, diversion ditches, and retention basins. The system includes three miles of covered storm drain and 1.5 miles of open storm drain. Approximately 20 inlets are inspected prior to major storm forecasts and on a regular schedule. In addition, the City is protected by a series of levees constructed by the USACE along Sutter Creek, although these are not certified as providing protection from a 100-year flood. There are also flood and erosion-control retaining walls near the intersection of Preston and Main Streets. Maintenance of these levees is provided by the City of Ione and the California Conservation Corp, as needed.80 Other floodwalls and levees are located in the following areas: 77 Interview with Roark Weber, City Engineer, City of Ione, January 16, 2008. 78 Amador County, Amador County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2006. 79 City of Ione, General Plan & Environmental Impact Report for the City of Ione, 1989, p. 25. 80 City of Ione, General Plan & Environmental Impact Report for the City of Ione, 1989, p. 23. BY BURR CONSULTING II-51 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II • Howard Park Retention Basin; • West Marlette Storm Drain System; • Ione Oaks Drainage Ditch; • A concrete floodwall on the south bank of Sutter Creek, starting at Preston Avenue Bridge and extending upstream approximately 300 feet; • A levee on the south bank, starting at the end of the floodwall and extending upstream approximately 400 feet; • A levee on the south side of Sutter Creek, from downstream of Preston Avenue and extending downstream approximately 500 feet; and • A levee on the north bank of Sutter Creek, from downstream of Preston Avenue and extending downstream approximately 900 feet. 81 In addition, Ione has a large baseball field that is a retention basin for the east side of town. The western side of the City is on high ground and not prone to flooding.82 Most flooding is due to inadequate channel capacity, as a result of drainage problems that restrict flow. 83 Drainage is a particular problem in the area bounded by Main Street, SR 104, Washington, SR 88, and El Dorado Street. Water collects in city streets after heavy rains and in some cases basements become flooded, pedestrian routes are flooded and mosquitoes breed in standing water.84 The City received FEMA funds for repairs following the 1997 storm. Over $1 million was used for five projects in the City; local storm drains were improved, which improved drainage capacity. However, the City could not widen the creek, build berms wider or build levees with these funds.85 The City reports that infrastructure improvements are planned on East Main Street and on Jackson and Sacramento Streets. The City has plans to construct a pedestrian bridge access ramp at a projected cost of $128,500 in FY 07-08.86 These projects are funded through a stormwater 81 Amador County, Amador County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2006. 82 Interview with Roark Weber, City Engineer, City of Ione, January 16, 2008. 83 Amador County, Amador County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2006. 84 City of Ione, General Plan & Environmental Impact Report for the City of Ione, 1989, p. 25. Building in the flood plain is regulated by Chapter 18.04 of the municipal code. 85 Interview with Roark Weber, City Engineer, City of Ione, January 16, 2008. 86 City of Ione, FY 07-08 Budget, p. ix and II-5. II-52 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE drainage fund, which is supplemented by the City’s general fund. In addition, storm drain improvements are needed at City street intersections with SR 104 and SR 124. PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Ione owns and maintains seven parks and provides recreation services to City residents. It also owns and maintains a skate park, an Olympic-sized swimming pool, an arena, and a community center. The City entered into a development agreement with JTS Communities, Inc. in 2005 to establish an 18-hole golf course—Castle Oaks Golf and Country Club. The City has one maintenance supervisor and two maintenance workers who service parks, streets and buildings. The total parks and recreation expenditures account for 13 percent of the total general fund budgeted expenditures for FY 07-08. The City is a member of the Amador County Recreation Agency (ACRA), which provides countywide recreation programming and facilitates collaborative planning efforts. Facilities are shared with the Amador County School District, as the City funds and operates the pool facility at Ione Junior High School, and ACRA provides the lifeguards. Additionally, the City shares facilities at Howard Park, as it contains the regional soccer facilities for the County. The City plans future facility sharing at Howard Park with the Amador County School District for a three-acre expansion of Ione Elementary School, and plans additional collaboration with ACRA for the provision of programs at Howard Park and at other city-owned facilities. LOCATION Park facilities are located within city bounds. Howard Park is located in the southeastern portion of the city. INFRASTRUCTURE The total park area in Ione is approximately 100 acres. It consists of one community park, four neighborhood parks and two landscaped areas. The City identified general park conditions as good; however, improvements are needed at Howard Park due to the variety of facilities within the park. Howard Park is the largest park in the County. It contains an arena, horse stables, four baseball and softball fields, four soccer fields, a skate park, various picnic areas, and Evelyn Bishop Hall. It was purchased in 1994 and is in need of improvement. The City’s 2008 Park Improvement Plan identifies an extensive list of needed improvements at Howard Park, including the remodeling of Evelyn Bishop Hall (which is in fair condition), parking improvements, bleachers at the sports areas, bathrooms, exterior lighting, fence repairs, improved drainage, building a storage area for maintenance equipment, and various improvements to the arena and sports fields, among many others. The other six parks in Ione have fewer amenities. Grover Park has a parking lot and pathways. Heath Knoll has a basketball court, a parking lot and pathways. Perry Earl Park has a community BY BURR CONSULTING II-53 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II building, parking and pathways. Train Park has parking and pathways. Oakridge Park has parking and pathways. ACRA’s Regional Recreation Plan recommends that improvements be made at Grover Park, Train Park and Oak Ridge Park. The City identified needs at various park facilities including play equipment, picnic tables and new landscaping at Grover Park, play equipment, a half basketball court and new landscaping at Oak Ridge Park, play equipment, a half basketball court and picnic tables at Earl Perry Park, landscaping improvements at Schmidt Park, and repairs to picnic tables and fencing at Train Park. ACRA’s Regional Recreation Plan recommends that the City acquire and develop a new five- acre neighborhood park in the northern part of the community. No timeline was given. SERVICE ADEQUACY The City has a ratio of almost 26.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, excluding inmates at Mule Creek State Prison. This is higher than the current countywide parkland ratio of 7.3 acres per 1,000 residents. The countywide goal for parkland is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. The City reports that it is able to maintain its current parks adequately; however, as park facilities are added and expanded the City must improve its capabilities to maintain and manage the park facilities. The 2008 City of Ione Strategic Plan identifies the finalizing of a parks maintenance plan as a goal for the City, in addition to purchasing a tractor with disc, a trash pump and a utility trailer. II-54 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE Table II-2-12: Ione Park & Recreation Profile Park and Recreation Service Configuration Service Configuration Park Maintenance City of Ione Number of Parks Maintained 7 Recreation City of Ione Number of Recreation Centers 1 Service Adequacy FY 06-07 Park Acres per 1,000 pop1 28.2 Adopted Policy: No City policy 2 Park Acreage Local Open Space 0.0 Neighborhood Parks 3.6 Undeveloped 0.0 Special Use Areas 0.0 Community Parks 96.0 Landscaped 0.7 Park Name Location Condition Acres Grover Park At Oak and Walnut Streets NP 2.0 Earl Perry Park Intersection of Shakeley NP 1.0 Drive and Fairway Drive Train Park Behind City Hall NP 0.3 Oak Ridge Park On Oak Ridge Circle NP 0.3 Howard Park Southeast corner of City NP 96.0 Heath Knoll NP NP 0.2 Schmidt Park Intersection of SR 104/124 and NP 0.5 Main Street Ione Pool NP NP NP Service Challenges Lack of financial resources to make all required or requested improvements. Facility Needs/Deficiencies ACRA recommended that the City acquire a new five-acre neighborhood park. Facility Sharing The City funds and operates the pool facility at Ione Junior High School, with ACRA providing the lifeguards. Howard Park is the regional soccer facility for the County. Developer Fees and Requirements Development Impact Fees $3,284 (residential), $32,183 per acre (commercial) Land Dedication Requirement NP In-Lieu Fees Dwelling units x population/dwelling unit x 5 ac/1,000 people x fair market value of the land being subdivided/buildable acres of a typical area of the subdivision, with a slope less than 5% and located in an area other than an area on which building is excluded because of flooding, easements, or other restrictions. Notes: (1) Developed park acreage per 1,000 residents per the Department of Finance January 2008 estimate (excluding 4,300 inmates at Mule Creek Prison). (2) The Amador County Recreation Agency's adopted countywide policy is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. BY BURR CONSULTING II-55 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • The City of Ione population, including prisoners, grew from 7,129 in 2000 to 7,416 in 2008, an increase of four percent. The residential population grew from 2,898 in 2000 to 3,526 in 2008, an increase of 22 percent. • There are twelve planned and proposed developments located within the existing boundary and SOI of the City. Seven projects with submitted applications involve 899 dwelling units. Five projects that have not yet submitted applications involve another 2,569 dwelling units. If all of these projects should materialize, this would increase the population to approximately 12,265, an increase of 248 percent over the 2008 (non-institutional) population. • The City’s 1989 general plan land use element anticipates 3,500 equivalent dwelling units at build-out. This would amount to a population of 8,820, or an increase of 150 percent over the 2008 (non-institutional) population. • Wastewater flow projections for the City of Ione forecast growth of over 200 percent from 2005 to 2015, 400 percent from 2005 to 2025, and 1,340 percent at build-out. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • Existing wastewater storage and disposal capacity is insufficient to meet existing demand or to accommodate anticipated growth. • The City’s aged secondary WWTP needs extensive modifications to pumping, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to expand its capacity and achieve regulatory compliance. Additional reclaimed water users are needed to expand disposal capacity. • Wastewater services appear to be adequate based on overflow rates, peak flows, response times and planning efforts. The City has faced challenges in meeting regulatory requirements in the past, and needs to improve its wastewater facilities to meet requirements. • Infrastructure needs for the Fire Department include several water distribution system repairs and replacements to improve fire flow and emergency reserves, as well as a more versatile ladder truck and a replacement engine. • The City anticipates addressing future fire capacity needs for the short-term with its new station, which is under construction. The City plans to use development impact fees to finance future capacity needs. • Ione FD’s training program has been particularly successful. The City has the highest percentage of firefighters meeting State certification requirements. II-56 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE • Ione PD’s crime clearance rates are slightly higher than other those of providers in the County, and its response times are comparable to the Jackson and Sutter Creek Police Departments. • The Ione PD conducts operations from offices located within City Hall; however, it reports that a separate station is needed, to provide increased office space, a briefing room, holding facilities, and a locker room. • The City reports that road maintenance is adequate, and that no city-maintained roads operate at less than the established level of service threshold. One-half mile of roadway is in need of rehabilitation, less than four percent of the entire city-maintained roadway network. • A major infrastructure need identified by the City is the Western Ione Roadway connecting SR 104 and SR 88, to route traffic around downtown Ione. • The City reports that drainage infrastructure improvements are planned on East Main Street and on Jackson and Sacramento Streets. Drainage is a particular problem in the area bounded by Main Street, SR 104, Washington, SR 88, and El Dorado Street. In addition, storm drain improvements are needed at City street intersections with SR 104 and SR 124. • The City has a ratio of almost 26.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (excluding the institutional population). This is higher than the current countywide parkland ratio of 7.3 acres per 1,000 residents and exceeds the countywide goal of 13.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. • The City has identified numerous park infrastructure needs at the various city-maintained parks, including parking improvements, exterior lighting, fence repairs, bathrooms, picnic tables, play equipment, improvement to sports fields and facilities, new landscaping, and improved drainage. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The City reports that financing is adequate to deliver services, but is not ample enough to provide the fire protection and wastewater service levels the City administration desires. Specifically, the City reported an unfunded need for full-time paid firefighters. • The City’s wastewater rates have not been increased to keep pace with inflation for four years. To maintain adequate service levels in the future, the City should evaluate and increase rates on a regular basis. • The City has established a capital projects fund to construct a new police station. Construction will be dependent on funding, and is projected to begin by 2010. • The City did not report any major financing constraints to the provision of roadway services. The Western Ione Roadway is projected to be funded in part with Amador County traffic mitigation fees. BY BURR CONSULTING II-57 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II • The City reports that it is able to maintain its current parks adequately; however, as park facilities are added and expanded the City must improve its capabilities to maintain and manage the park facilities. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The City practices extensive wastewater facility sharing by treating and disposing a portion of wastewater flows originating in Sutter Creek, Amador City, and Martell and at Mule Creek State Prison. The City needs to expand recycled water use to increase its disposal capacity. Otherwise, the extent of facility sharing is expected to decline in the future, as ARSA plans to develop disposal capacity east of Ione. • The Ione Fire Department currently collaborates to a large degree with other fire service providers in the County through aid agreements and the AFPA. There is an opportunity for the Ione FD to collaborate further with nearby Jackson Valley FPD to pool financing resources and share paid staff. • The City is a member of the Amador County Recreation Agency, which provides countywide recreation programming and facilitates collaborative planning efforts. Facilities are shared with the Amador County School District, as the City funds and operates the pool facility at Ione Junior High School and ACRA provides the lifeguards. Additionally, the City shares facilities at Howard Park, as it contains the regional soccer facilities for the County. • The City identified opportunities for shared facilities including allowing the Amador County School District to use three-acres of Howard Park for expansion of Ione Elementary School, and additional collaboration with ACRA for the provision of programs at Howard Park and at other city-owned facilities. • The City does not practice facility sharing for roadway and drainage maintenance, and did not identify any possible opportunities. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Accountability is best ensured when contested elections are held for governing body seats, constituent outreach is conducted to promote accountability and ensure that constituents are informed and not disenfranchised, and public agency operations and management are transparent to the public. The City of Ione demonstrated accountability with respect to all of these factors. • The City achieves accountability by evaluating employee performance on an annual basis. In addition, new employees also receive three- and six-month reviews. • The City has made interim improvements in wastewater capacity by cleaning its wastewater ponds, and has collaborated with ARSA, AWA and Mule Creek State Prison to reduce their wastewater flows so that capacity is available for local uses. II-58 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF IONE • The City is presently planning new wastewater facilities to accommodate growth and meet regulatory requirements. Timely clarification of its future service area through SOI update will help ensure efficient facility planning for future needs. • The Ione FD maximizes operational efficiencies and minimizes cost by capitalizing on call firefighters and volunteer staff. • The City of Ione Police Department received the California Law Enforcement Challenge Award for Sworn Officers in 2007 and 2008. • The 2008 City of Ione Strategic Plan identifies the finalizing of a parks maintenance plan as a goal for the City. BY BURR CONSULTING II-59 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 3. C I T Y O F JAC K S O N The City of Jackson provides water, wastewater, fire, law enforcement, road maintenance, drainage, parks and recreation, and cemetery services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION AND BOUNDARY The City of Jackson incorporated on December 5, 1905.87 The City is a general law city. The City’s boundary is entirely within Amador County. The City is located at the intersection of SR 49 and SR 88, southeast of the City of Sutter Creek. The City bounds run along three miles of SR 49, beginning approximately 0.20 miles south of its intersection with Argonaut Lane and stretching southeasterly to Scottsville. The bounds encompass areas as far west as Westview Drive, and east to Scottsville. The City bounds encompass approximately 3.6 square miles (2,291 acres). Amador LAFCO boundary records date back to 1966, and the State Board of Equalization (BOE) maintains records of officially recorded boundary changes since 1948. LAFCO and BOE records indicate that Jackson has annexed lands 47 times over this period, as shown in Table II-3-1. Of these, acreage for 31 annexations of the 47 is known, and totaled 1,179 acres (53 percent of current bounds). The largest single annexation was 212-acre Jones Ranch in 1971. The most recent annexation in 2006 affected 17 acres. Table II-3-1: City of Jackson Annexation Records LAFCO Resolution Project Name Acres Number 1 Official Date 2 Pre-LAFCO Annexation NA 12/19/1960 (B) Vogan Toll Road Annexation NA 8/23/1961 (B) Pre-LAFCO Annexation NA 9/19/1961 (B) Sava Addition NA 7/19/1962 (B) Holiday Addition NA 4/24/1964 (B) Jackson Highlands Annexation NA 10/9/1964 (B) Fuller Addition NA 10/25/1965 (B) Voss Addition NA 10/25/1965 (B) Jackson Gate Annexation 43.9 67-7 9/24/1968 (B) Aragona Annexation 68-9 9/25/1968 (L) 87 Formation date provided by City. II-60 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON LAFCO Resolution Project Name Acres Number 1 Official Date 2 Sierra View Drive Annexation 70-27 9/2/1970 (B) Jones Ranch Annexation 212.6 70-29 2/4/1971 (B) Kit Carson Convalescent Hospital Annexation 0.6 70-32 5/5/1971 (B) Surian Annexation 38.8 71-36 11/3/1971 (B) Byrovich Annexation 9.3 72-41 5/10/1972 (B) Guletz Annexation 0.7 42-43, 42-49 12/22/1972 (B) Kosich Annexation 76-88 12/30/1977 (C) Monte Verde Annexation 108.5 77-94 12/30/1977 (C) Null Annexation 1.5 76-91 12/30/1977 (C) Lacazette Annexation 1.1 78-106 8/23/1978 (C) Selman Annexation 0.8 78-111 9/11/1978 (C) Jackson High School Annexation 42.8 77-99 10/19/1978 (C) Tri Level Annexation 5.1 78-117 4/2/1979 (B) French Bar Road Annexation 78-125 4/2/1979 (B) Spinetti Annexation 19.9 79-134 6/26/1979 (B) Pierovich (Murphy) Annexation 66.2 80-148 12/30/1980 (B) Laughton and Crew Annexation 41.3 81-155 12/3/1981 (B) Mother Lode Land Co./Catholic Church Annexation 63.9 81-157 1/5/1982 (B) Fuller (Jones Ranch) Annexation 48.6 80-154 1/13/1982 (B) Cuneo/Liest Boundary Adjustment 81-159 1/14/1982 (B) Daniels Annexation 0.9 82-166 11/10/1982 (B) Jackson Business Park Annexation NA 6/20/1984 (B) Hoag Annexation 1.2 84-183 12/17/1985 (B) Argonaut Heights/Van Horn Annexation 27.0 85-186 12/26/1985 (B) Westview Estates Annexation NA 7/25/1986 (B) Pierovich Annexation 146.2 87-199 6/24/1987 (B) Central Sierra Builders Annexation NA 3/21/1990 (B) Laughton Area Annexation 148.0 90-222 7/27/1990 (B) St. Sava Annexation 96.0 92-232, 233 10/21/1992 (B) Carlson/Brown Annexation 19.6 NA 10/14/1993 (B) Church of Christ Annexation 5.0 92-236, 237 10/26/1993 (B) Hampton Annexation 0.0 92-238 10/26/1993 (B) Argonaut Drive Segment Annexation 0.1 92-239 10/26/1993 (B) Guirlani Annexation 3.4 94-246 3/17/1995 (B) Casaleggio Annexation 4.8 96-254 5/29/1996 (B) Armstrong/Scottsville Annexation 4.3 03-01 9/22/2003 (B) Smith/Riley/Sexton 17.1 NA 8/8/2006 (B) Notes: (1) "NA" indicates LAFCO records are not available. (2) "L" indicates that the official date is according to the LAFCO resolution, "C" indicates that the official date is according to the Certificate of Completion, and "B" indicates that the official date is according to the Board of Equalization filing. BY BURR CONSULTING II-61 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The City’s SOI was confirmed by LAFCO in 2007.88 The SOI covers 5.5 square miles and is 53 percent larger than the City’s current bounds. The SOI extends beyond the bounds in two primary areas. In the northwest, the SOI extends past Jackson Gate Road, nearly to Ridge Road in Sutter Creek. In the southwest, the SOI extends past the bounds as far south as Scottsville. There are a number of parcels outside the bounds in the northeast, as well, and one parcel in the southeast. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The City is governed by a five-member City Council. The members are elected at-large to staggered four-year terms. Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m. The last contested election for a council seat occurred in 2006, when three candidates vied for two seats. Prior to that, the election in 2004 was also contested with six candidates vying for three seats. Most recently, Wayne Garibaldi was unanimously appointed to fulfill the term of a resigned member; he was sworn in on January 30, 2008. For more information on each of the council members and their term expiration dates, refer to Table II-3-2. The City apprises residents of meetings and events through the City’s website, which also includes event information, planning documents, and contact information. The City also publicizes information on city activities with local media outlets. The City reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. Table II-3-2: City of Jackson Governing Body Jackson City Council Governing Body Name Position Term Ends RosaLee Pryor-Escamilla Mayor Nov-08 Connie Gonsalves Vice Mayor Nov-10 Members Wayne Garibaldi Member Nov-08 Andy Rodriguez Member Nov-10 Alfred Allen Nunes Member Nov-08 Manner of Selection Elections at large Length of Term Four years, staggered Meetings Date: second and fourth Mondays Location: City Hall Civic Center Agenda Distribution Posted, online, email subscription Minutes Distribution Online and by request Contact Contact City Manager Mailing Address 33 Broadway, Jackson, CA 95642 Phone (209) 223-1646 Email/Website cinfo@ci.jackson.ca.us, http://ci.jackson.ca.us/index.html 88 LAFCO Resolution 2007-07. II-62 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON Regarding customer service, the City Manager generally serves as the ombudsman. The City has a form for complaint submittal. The City did not report the number or nature of complaints received in 2007. The City demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaire, interview and document requests. MANAGEMENT The daily operations of the City are managed by the city manager. The city manager is responsible for assisting the City Council and works closely with department heads and division heads/superintendents to coordinate and oversee all City services. The City has 34 full-time employees and 30 part-time employees. Employee goals are established and reviewed and all supervisors are involved with the development and management of their budgets. Employees are evaluated by a supervisor annually; new employees also receive a six- month review. The City reported that its department heads pursue efficiencies through technological advances, reassignment of personnel or other cost saving measures. The City’s primary planning document is a general plan. The current land use element was adopted in 1981, the housing element in 1994 and the circulation element in 1999. The noise and open space and conservation elements date back to 1987, and the safety element to 1981. Currently, the City is updating the Land Use Element, amending the Circulation Element, and replacing the existing zoning code with a new Development Code. These documents are expected to be adopted by the end of 2008. The City also has a wastewater facilities plan (2001). There are no other adopted City planning documents. The City’s financial planning documents include biennial budgets, audited financial statements, a capital improvement plan (included in the budget). The last audit was performed in FY 06-07; a copy was supplied to LAFCO. The most recent CIP planning horizon extends through FY 10-11. Risk management practices include group life insurance, disability insurance, workers compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, and liability insurance through the Northern California Cities Self Insurance Fund. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Land use in the City is primarily residential; fifty-one percent of the area within bounds is zoned for residential use. Most residential areas (92 percent) are low-density, single-family home areas. These areas are concentrated in the southern third of the city bounds, although there are neighborhoods of single-family residential lands scattered throughout the City. There are additional BY BURR CONSULTING II-63 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II low-density and suburban land uses designated for the SOI area to the north of the city limits.89 Duplex, medium- and high-density residential areas, which are much less prominent, are concentrated north of the SR 88 and SR 49 intersection. Commercial and industrial land uses, concentrated along SR 88 and SR 49, constitute 27 percent of the City. Recreational use covers 8 percent. Vacant land (largely of residential land use) makes up approximately 64 percent of the territory in the City. Existing land use within the SOI area outside of the City bounds is mostly vacant. Defined uses are primarily agricultural, with some parcels of residential.90 The most significant business industry in Jackson is governmental services, including Amador County offices, school district offices, Caltrans, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and CHP. The school district is the largest employer in the City, followed by the County. Other significant employers include a hospital, grocery stores, and two hotels. The City reported that service demand is increasing, particularly for water, fire and law enforcement services.91 The new growth is concentrated in the southern area of town and is both residential and commercial. Figure II-3-3: Jackson Population, 2000-8 Population 4,000 The City has 4,319 residents, amounting to approximately 11 percent 3,000 of the Amador County population. Jackson has the largest population of 2,000 cities in the County.92 Jackson’s population density is 1,206 per square mile, compared to the countywide 1,000 density of 64. 0 The City of Jackson’s population 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 grew eight percent from 2000 to 2008. The population peaked in 2006 at 4,351 residents, and declined by 34 residents to 4,319 in 2008, according to California Department of Finance. Jackson does not project a build-out population in its planning documents; it provides projections modeled by the Department of Finance. 89 Jackson’s General Plan Draft Land Use Element does not provide acreage for existing land uses, although it does provide intended use information. 90 Amador County, Amador County General Plan, “Existing (2007) Land Use Classifications Map”, 2007. 91 Interview with City Manager Mike Daly and City Planner Susan Peters, January 16, 2008. 92 Ione is the largest city if the institutionalized population at the state prison is included. II-64 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO noitalupoP CITY OF JACKSON Permits for new residential building construction numbered fewer than ten in 2001 and 2002, increased to 42 in 2003, and again to 68 and 70 in 2004 and 2005. The permits granted waned to fewer than 30 in 2006, and down to six in 2007. The value of commercial construction in Jackson since 2000 has generally been higher than other cities in the County. The value of new commercial construction topped two million dollars in 2000 and one million dollars in 2001. There was limited construction value from 2002 through 2005 (an average of $152,000), but the value in 2006 peaked at $3.7 million. The construction value declined in 2007 to under $566,000. Development The City has projected an additional 774 single-family units and 211 multi-family units may be constructed within existing city bounds by 2024.93 By way of commercial development, the City expects an additional 560,500 square feet to be constructed by 2024.94 The Stonecreek project is under construction as of the drafting of this report. There are an additional three planned and proposed developments within Jackson’s bounds as of the drafting of this report: Jackson Hills Golf Course and Residential Community (540 units), Jackson Gate Subdivision (26 units), and Saint Patrick's Green (185 units). The Jackson Hills development had been conditionally approved by the City, but this decision was repealed following a referendum; as a result, this development cannot be considered by the City again until March 2009. The Saint Patrick’s Green development is a mixed use project, with plans that include two acres of neighborhood retail space and a Catholic Community Center, as shown in Table II-3-4. Table II-3-4: Planned and Proposed Developments within the City of Jackson SOI Non- General Residential Development Developer Location Acres Units Acres1 Jackson Gate Cameron Stewart In Bounds 6.5 26 0 Jackson Hills Golf Course New Faze Development Partial Bounds 516.0 540 0 and Residential Saint Patrick's Green Diocese of Sacramento In Bounds 58.0 185 2 Stonecreek D&L Development In Bounds 5.0 8 0 The Home Depot Store The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. In Bounds 59.0 0 59 Note: (1) Non-residential acres exclude parks and open space. Located outside of the City’s SOI in the adjacent Martell area is the Wicklow Development, currently being processed by the County. Development plans for Wicklow call for 750 dwelling units on the 201-acre site. This development initially approached the City, but was declined due to lack of sewer capacity. The developers are now working with the County, but the City has an MOU with the County to review Wicklow development documents. For a list of all planned and proposed developments in Amador County by area, see Table II-30-1. 93 City of Jackson, General Plan Land Use Element, 2004, p. 15. 94 City of Jackson, General Plan Land Use Element, 2004. BY BURR CONSULTING II-65 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Also located outside of the City’s SOI in the Martell area are three approved proposals for commercial developments, the Sierra West Business Park (Phases I and II) and the Martell Business Park. These development areas cover approximately 457 acres and include 91 units. Growth Strategies Jackson’s planning area is contiguous with its SOI. The City designates land uses only within its sphere. The City’s Draft Land Use Element contains a policy to pursue a sphere of influence expansion with the intent of eventually annexing surrounding properties to act as a buffer between the County’s commercial area and the City’s residents.95 The City plans to focus expansion to areas where infrastructure already exists or is easily extended.96 Other City growth strategies include maintenance of agricultural lands as open space conservation areas, promoting the scenic development of the Jackson Creek Corridor, and preserving the floodway, riparian, and steep hillside areas. Finally, the City plans to preserve the historic downtown district.97 With regard to specific growth plans, the City reports interest in SOI expansion to the north.98 The City reports that the most significant growth constraint is city boundaries, as well as fiscal issues related to a growing commercial base just north of City bounds.99 FINANCING The City finances its general government, police, community development, and parks operations primarily with property taxes, sales taxes and vehicle license fees. Capital needs are funded by development impact fees and grants. The City finances its street needs with gas tax and general revenue. The City finances its sewer operations with sewer rates; its sewer capital improvements are financed with sewer connection fees. Similarly, water operations are financed with water rates; water capital costs are funded by connection fees. The City reports that financing is not adequate to deliver services. The key fiscal challenge is a significant decrease in sales tax revenue related to the 2007 loss of three businesses, including an auto dealer, to the adjacent unincorporated Martell area north of the City. In FY 07-08, the City 95 City of Jackson, General Plan Land Use Element, 2004, p. 16. 96 Ibid. 97 City of Jackson, General Plan Land Use Element, 2004, pp. 15-17; City of Jackson Land Use, Circulation and Zoning Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume I, 2007. 98 Interview with Mike Daly, City Manager, City of Jackson, January 16, 2008. 99 Ibid. II-66 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% BY BURR CONSULTING II-67 1-0002 2-1002 3-2002 4-3002 5-4002 6-5002 7-6002 relies on its general fund reserves to maintain service levels in spite of revenue declines associated with competition in the Martell area and a construction slowdown. The City reported that revenues are inadequate to provide desired public safety service levels, including full-time staffed fire stations. The City is considering financing mechanisms to improve fire protection service levels in collaboration with AFPA. Another financing challenge was public opposition to water and wastewater rate increases needed to comply with regulatory requirements.100 The City tracks its financial activities separately through various funds. The general fund is the City’s main operating fund. Significant governmental funds include separate funds for gas tax, traffic mitigation fees, and Community Development Block Grants. Water and wastewater system finances are each tracked through separate enterprise funds. The City’s total revenues were $6.8 million in FY 06-07. Revenue sources included sales taxes (20 percent), property taxes (12 percent), hotel taxes (6 percent), water rates (26 percent), sewer rates (17 percent), and grants (5 percent). Figure II-3-5: Annual Growth in Taxable Sales The City’s sales tax revenues are higher than in the remainder of Amador County. Taxable sales per resident were $22,252 in 2007 in the City.101 By comparison, the countywide level was $15,140, and the statewide average was $15,344. City sales tax revenues have declined significantly since 2004, as shown in Figure II-3-5. Taxable sales per capita decreased from $28,255 in 2004 to $22,252 in 2007. This decline was paralleled in the City Unincorporated Sutter Creek Jackson of Sutter Creek where taxable sales per capita decreased from $13,549 in 2003 to $9,520 in 2007. This decline has been attributed to the opening of the Martell Shopping Center in the unincorporated territory between the two cities. By contrast, sales tax revenue per capita in the unincorporated areas increased from $9,544 in 2004 to $16,572 in 2007. The City levies assessments to fund street lighting and, in some cases, landscaping and water/sewer booster stations in new subdivisions built since the 1990s. Assessments vary from $20 to $335 annually, depending on whether or not the assessment covers landscaping or water and sewer booster stations. The City charges development impact fees for police, fire and general facilities; the fee is $2,150 to $2,600 per unit for new single-family housing, depending on density, 100 City of Jackson, Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2007, 2007, p. 7. 101 This indicator is calculated as the ratio of taxable sales at all outlets in 2006 to the average annual household population in the City in 2006 (i.e., the average of the January 2006 and January 2007 household population estimates from DOF). AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II and was last updated in 1992.102 Utility connection fees are $1,700-$2,200 for wastewater and $1,760 - $2,160 for water, in addition to Amador Water Agency water participation fees of $7,145 for a 5/8- inch connection. Park in-lieu fees are $8,670 per unit. City expenditures were $8.4 million in FY 06-07. Of its total expenditures, 13 percent was spent on sewer operations, 18 percent on water, 25 percent on police operations, 12 percent on general government, 17 percent on public works and roads, 3 percent on parks and recreation, 11 percent on community development, and less than one percent on debt service. The City had $4.2 million in long-term debt outstanding at the end of FY 06-07. The debt was composed primarily of a $2.8 million bond and $1 million loan related to the City’s buyout of a private water system. There was only $0.25 million in debt related to the City’s wastewater system. The City does not have a formal policy on maintaining financial reserves. The City had $2.1 million in undesignated reserves in its general fund at the close of FY 06-07. This amount is equivalent to 43 percent of annual expenditures. In other words, the City maintained five months of working reserves. The City reported that it had accumulated a significant general fund reserve between 2000 and 2007, but that recent sales tax losses are reducing the reserve level. The City’s sewer fund had $1.9 million in unrestricted net assets at the close of FY 06-07, or 180 percent of annual operating expenditures. The water fund reserves of $0.7 million were 48 percent of annual expenditures. The City participates in joint financing mechanisms. For risk management, the City participates in the Northern California Cities Self Insurance Fund, a public entity risk pool. City investments are pooled in the Local Agency Investment Fund managed by the State Treasurer. Employees participate in pension plans offered by California Public Employees Retirement System—a multiple- employer defined pension plan. WATER SERVICES This section describes the nature, extent and location of the water services provided as well as key infrastructure and water sources. The tables provide further information and indicators of the agency’s water service supplies, demand, financing, service adequacy, and facilities. The water chapter in the MSR main document contains analysis and conclusions based on this information. NATURE AND EXTENT The City began providing water service in 1993 after purchasing the system from the Citizens Utilities Company of California under an order of condemnation. The system was purchased for $5 million with certificates of participation, which are anticipated to be completely paid in 2023.103 102 City of Jackson, Schedule of Charges. 103 City of Jackson, 1998 Water System Acquisition Project COP, 1998, p. 10. II-68 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON The City purchases treated water from AWA and distributes it to residential and commercial users. While the City has in the past provided water treatment services, in 1999, the City began purchasing water from AWA, and the City’s treatment plant is now inactive. The City provides the necessary maintenance and operation of the water distribution system directly through its three water staff. Major improvements are completed by private contractors. The City does not distribute recycled water within its service area, but its tertiary treated wastewater effluent is discharged to Jackson Creek and composes a portion of the JVID water supply. The City does not practice conjunctive use. LOCATION The City provides water services within its city limits. There are four connections within the City’s bounds that are not receiving water service from the City, and rely on private wells. As a result of the condemnation ruling, which transferred the water facilities to the City, the City also provides water service outside of its bounds to 144 connections in Martell. The City estimated that it provides water service to approximately 30 percent of the Martell community to the north and west of the City limits, including Wal-Mart and Kmart. At the time the water facilities were transferred to the City, the transferred service area was defined as an expansive area extending beyond the City’s boundaries in the east, west, north and south, including Martell, areas to the east along SR 88 to approximately Eagle Way, north beyond New York Ranch Road, and south along SR 49 to beyond Middle Bar Road.104 The City reported that while the service area extends to the east and south, water mains have not been extended beyond the city limits in those directions and the City is not providing water service to those areas. Although the City and AWA have an agreement, either may provide retail water service within the area that is both outside City bounds and within the former Citizens Utilities water service area. INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure includes the City’s water storage tank, four booster pump stations, an inactive treatment plant, and approximately 30 miles of distribution pipelines. The City purchases treated surface water from the North Fork of the Mokelumne River from AWA. The water is treated at AWA’s Tanner Treatment Plant, passes through 3,050 feet of transmission main and is stored in the City’s Martell Reservoir prior to delivery to the City’s distribution system. The quality of water is generally good. The City has not exceeded any maximum contaminant limits and has not had any health violations from the EPA since at least 1995. 104 City of Jackson, 1992 Water System Acquisition Project COP, 1992, p. 13. BY BURR CONSULTING II-69 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The City is not aware of any constraints on the amount that AWA will supply to the City at its current number of connections. The maximum capacity of the transmission main serving the City is approximately 3.0 mgd,105 of which the City is using on average 1.2 mgd. The City must apply to AWA for a commitment to serve additional connections. At build-out of the City’s boundaries and existing SOI, the City projects that an additional one mgd in water flows will be necessary, totaling 2.2 mgd.106 The City owns a treatment plant that has been inactive since 1999. The building is not in use, and there are no plans to renovate or sell the facility. The City maintains two storage facilities—the Martell Reservoir with a capacity of 1.3 mg and the Scottsville storage tank with a capacity of 0.25 mg. The Martell Reservoir was rehabilitated in 2003. The City reported that the reservoir cannot be filled to full capacity, because it begins to leak. The City is currently only filling the reservoir to approximately 80 percent to limit leakage. The Scottsville tank provides extra storage for fire flow and water for peak demand and helps to maintain adequate pressure in the system. The tank was re-coated in 2006. The City reported a need for additional storage capacity for emergency water failures. The City would like to replace the 1.3-mg Martell reservoir with a larger above ground welded steel tank of approximately 2.5 mg in the next 10 years. Based on informal cost estimates, the City reported that such a tank would cost about $1.2 million.107 In the event of emergencies, the City would rely on the City’s short-term storage tank and reservoir. These storage facilities would provide just over one day of water, based on average daily usage. There are no other interties with other water systems for back-up purposes. Emergency response planning includes a disaster response plan, emergency notification plan, a water conservation plan, and a disinfection plan. The distribution network consists primarily of PVC piping (46 percent) and steel lines (34 percent). There are also sections of asbestos cement, and less than one percent is composed of ductile iron. The City has an ongoing project to replace the old steel lines with PVC. The City’s capital improvement plan designates $0.4 million for water line replacements scheduled between 2007 and 2009. Overall, the Department of Public Health found the City’s distribution system to by reasonably well operated and maintained. The report recommended that the City establish a formal valve exercising program and complete a cross connection survey.108 The City reported that a valve 105 Department of Public Health, 2006 Annual Inspection Report, p. 3. 106 City of Jackson, Jackson Land Use, Circulation and Zoning Project DEIR, p. 4.12-35. 107 Interview with Max Godde, City of Jackson, Water Superintendent, June 4, 2008. 108 Department of Public Health, 2006 Annual Inspection Report, p. 26. II-70 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON exercising program has been implemented and the cross connection survey is 90 percent complete, as of June 2008.109 Table II-3-6: City of Jackson Water Profile Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water AWA Groundwater Extraction None Water Treatment AWA Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water The service area encompasses the city limits in addition to adjacent territory outside its bounds to the north and west in approximately 30 percent of the community of Martell, excluding any areas to the north of the railroad tracks. While the service area was defined in 1993 to include areas to the south (beyond Middle Bar Road) and east (to approximately Eagle Way) of the City limits, the City is not providing service to those areas. Wholesale Water NA Recycled Water NA Service Area NP sq. miles Population (2008) 4,319 System Overview Average Daily Demand 1.2 mgd Peak Day Demand 2.5 mg Supply The City's supply is limited by the flow into the Martell reservoir, which is 1.3 mgd. Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Scottsville Storage Tank Storage .25 mg Good 1990 Martell Reservoir Storage 1.3 mg Poor 1972 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 1 Storage Capacity (mg) 2 Pump Stations 4 Pressure Zones 7 Production Wells 0 Pipe Miles 30 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies In the long-term the City anticipates needing additional storage for emergency situations. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: The City currently receives treated water from the AWA Tanner Treatment Plant like other providers, including Drytown County Water District. Opportunities: None identified. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. continued 109 Interview with Max Godde, City of Jackson, Water Superintendent, June 4, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-71 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 2,099 1,955 144 Irrigation/Landscape 32 32 0 Domestic 1,721 1,644 77 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 346 279 67 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year) 19951 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total 891 981 1,124 1,228 1,343 1,468 1,605 Residential 492 541 620 NP NP NP NP Commercial/Industrial 279 307 352 NP NP NP NP Irrigation/Landscape 37 40 46 NP NP NP NP Other 84 92 106 NP NP NP NP Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm1 Purchased Water from AWA Surface 1,162 3,318 15,000 Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total 1,013 1,099 1,314 NP NP NP NP Imported/Purchased 1,013 1,099 1,314 NP NP NP NP Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)2 Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP Significant Droughts 1976, 1977, 1988-94 Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergencies only. Drought Plan The City has an emergency water conservation plan, which outlines five steps to conserving water when the system cannot provide adequate water. 1) Voluntary water conservation after informing the public of conservation needs 2) Restriction of irrigation and non-essential uses 3) Complete ban on irrigation and non-essential uses 4) Reduction of consumption by commercial and industrial users by at least 50 percent 5) Use of water only for human consumption and sanitation Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering Yes Conservation Pricing Yes Other Practices None Notes: (1) Annual demand for 1995 was estimated as 88 percent of the amount of water produced (due to 12 percent loss rate). Demand estimates by category were computed based on the average share of usage for that category, according to the Official Statement for the most recently (1998) issued water bond. (2) AWA has rights to 15,000 af for the Amador Water System, which includes Jackson, Amador, Ione, Sutter Creek and the Drytown County Water District. continued II-72 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON Water Rates and Financing Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-071 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Residential Flat Monthly Rate: $12.98 $ 32.57 250 gal/day Usage Rate: $1.60 per ccf for the first 600 cf $2.40 per ccf, over 600 cf Special Rates The City charges higher rates for connections outside of the City limits. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description The City is in the process of updating rates and will be increasing them by the end of 2008. The City sets rates to cover operating expenses, general administrative expenses and capital projects. Most Recent Rate Change 10/20/04 Frequency of Rate Changes Every 4 years Water Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach Fee is set to recoup costs of extending service to the connection and any necessary system capacity expansions. Connection Fee Timing Prior to main extension or connection, whichever occurs first. Connection Fee Amount $2,060/Single Family Unit; $7,020/Single Family Unit to AWA Land Dedication Requirements Developers are required to build necessary infrastructure and transfer it to the City. Development Impact Fee None Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 06-07 Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $1,853,956 100% Total $1,525,811 Rates & charges $1,759,788 95% Administration $88,370 Property tax $0 0% O & M $210,143 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $168,995 Interest $83,052 4% Debt $454,303 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $604,000 Other $11,116 1% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, refer to Chapter 3 in the MSR main document. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-73 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators Water Planning Description Planning Horizon Water Master Plan None UWMP None, not required Capital Improvement Plan 2006 2011 General Plan 1981-2004 Not specified Water Quality Notification Plan 2004 None Disaster Response Plan 2004 None Water Conservation Plan Unknown None Emergency Disinfection Plan 2003 None Service Challenges The City reported a challenge in extending new infrastructure and expanding existing conveyance facilities needed for anticipated developments. In addition, the City has had a challenge updating rates due to Proposition 218 requirements. Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 700 O&M Cost Ratio1 $179,609 MGD Delivered/FTE 0.4 Distribution Loss Rate 12% Distribution Breaks & Leaks2 7 Distribution Break Rate3 23 Response Time Policy 25 minutes Response Time Actual 10 minutes Water Pressure 45+ Total Employees (FTEs) 3 Water Operator Certification The City's water superintendent has a D4 certification for distribution systems. The City is required to have a D2 certified chief operator; the City is exceeding this requirement. Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information4 # Description Health Violations 0 NA Monitoring Violations 2 Failed to complete monitoring for TTHM and HAA5 in July 2004 DW Compliance Rate5 100% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Number of breaks and leaks reported for 2005. (3) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (4) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (5) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2007. II-74 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON WASTEWATER SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City provides wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services to 1,650 connections. The City owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant, and inspects, cleans and repairs sewer collection infrastructure in its service area, such as pipes, manholes and lift stations. The City also conducts related billing, collection and accounting activities. The City contracts with a private company for CCTV inspection of the sewer system. LOCATION The City provides wastewater services within the City bounds. The wastewater treatment plant is located in the southwestern part of the City adjacent to Jackson Creek. There are some septic systems within City bounds.110 The City serves 20 connections outside City bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure includes the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), 21 miles of sewer pipes and two lift stations. The WWTP is located in the southwestern part of the City on Jackson Creek. The plant has a facility design flow capacity of 0.71 mgd (ADWF) at tertiary treatment standards, and can accommodate peak flows of 2.0 mgd. By comparison, existing flow (ADWF) was 0.53 mgd in 2007, and build-out flow is projected to be 2.42 mgd in the existing City bounds. Most of the operating facilities date to 1985 when secondary treatment facilities were demolished and replaced due to age and inadequate capacity.111 The treatment system consists of a mechanical screen, two oxidation ditches, two secondary clarifiers, chlorine injection, tertiary (sand) filters, chlorine contact basins, and dechlorination.112 Solids are directed to an aerated holding tank for digestion and then a belt filter press; sludge is hauled off-site to a landfill for disposal. Treated effluent is discharged to Jackson Creek, which is tributary to Lake Amador. State regulatory agencies have conflicting priorities and objectives relating to the City’s discharge to Jackson Creek. DPH has expressed concerns about discharge to Jackson Creek, as the creek and Lake Amador are used for domestic drinking water purposes, creek flows are relatively low during 110 There were 73 homes on septic systems, according to the 1990 Census, which was the most recent census to inquire about residential sewage disposal. 111 MWH, City of Jackson Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Plan, 2001, p. 4-1. 112 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Jackson Wastewater Treatment Plan, Order No. R5-2007-0133, October 25, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-75 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II summer months and these waters are more than five percent WWTP effluent about 30 percent of the time. DFG is concerned about the City reducing the amount of discharge to Jackson Creek as recreational users and aquatic life are dependent on the water level, and other water sources (e.g., the formerly unlined Amador Canal) have been reduced in recent years. RWQCB required the City to complete a study by 2009 that identifies the minimum discharge to Jackson Creek needed to meet existing downstream water rights and that evaluates the water characteristics needed downstream for agricultural and aquatic purposes. Infrastructure needs were identified in the City’s 2001 wastewater treatment plant facilities plan, but have not been implemented primarily due to uncertainty over the ongoing commitment of regulatory agencies to permit the City to discharge to Jackson Creek. The City implemented certain improvements to its WWTP in 2007 to address effluent violations for ammonia, nitrate and other pollutants in response to enforcement action taken by RWQCB.113 The wastewater collection system consists of approximately 21 miles of gravity sewer lines and one mile of pressure sewer. The collection system consists of three areas, with the westernmost portion of the City reliant on lift stations in the vicinity of Argonaut High School, and the remainder of the system gravity-fed. Flows from the northwest portion of the City are conveyed through an 8- inch line. A 16-inch trunk carries flows from the remainder of the City to the WWTP.114 The City described the majority of the system as in good to excellent condition; however, about 35 percent of the sewers are over 30 years old and were described as in fair to poor condition. On the whole, the system is subject to infiltration and inflow, with a peaking factor as high as 4. The City has prioritized replacement needs based on smoke testing conducted in 2002, and has reduced both dry and wet weather flows somewhat as a result. The City plans to inspect by CCTV 34 percent of the system in 2008 and 2009, and is implementing a sanitary sewer management plan to prevent overflows. 113 Central Valley RWQCB, Administrative Civil Liability Complaint No. R5-2008-0523, 2008. 114 ECO:LOGIC Engineering, Amador County Regional Wastewater Management Plan, Oct. 2005, p. 4-1. II-76 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON Table II-3-7: City of Jackson Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection Jackson City Wastewater Treatment Jackson City Wastewater Disposal Jackson City Recycled Water None Service Area Collection: Jackson City Treatment: Jackson City Recycled Water None Sewer Connection Regulatory/Policies Owners of occupied properties within the city limits must connect to the public sewer system at their own expense (Municipal Code §13.20.050). Onsite Septic Systems in Service Area There were 73 homes on septic systems, according to the 1990 Census, which was the most recent census to inquire about residential sewage disposal. Service Demand 2007 Connections Flow (mgd) Inside Outside Type Total Bounds Bounds Average Total 1,721 1,701 20 0.53 Residential 1,460 1,440 20 NP Commercial 255 255 0 NP Industrial 6 6 0 NP Projected Demand (in millions of gallons per day) 2005 2015 2025 Build-Out Avg. dry weather flow 0.55 0.589 0.672 2.42 Peak wet weather flow 1.98 NP NP NP Note: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-77 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Tertiary Disposal method: Treated effluent is discharged to Jackson Creek, which is tributary to Lake Amador. Facility Name Capacity Condition Yr Built Jackson City WWTP .71 mgd Good 1985 Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) Average Dry Peak Wet Jackson City WWTP 0.55 1.98 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Existing needs include replacement of a bar screen, addition of selector basins and creation of a backwash supply sump. The City may need to develop alternative disposal facilities in the future in response to evolving regulatory requirements. Growth would require the City to expand its treatment facility to accommodate increased flows. With an expansion capacity of up to 1.0 mgd, the WWTP site would not accommodate projected build-out wastewater flows of 2.4 mgd in the existing City bounds, and an additional WWTP facility would be needed. Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 22 Sewage Lift Stations 2 Other: Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies About one-third of the sewer collection system dates back as far as 1936, and is in fair to poor condition. An ongoing capital replacement program addresses older portions of the collection system needing replacement. Infiltration and Inflow The City conducted smoke testing to evaluate areas of potential I/I, and has used the results to plan future sewer line replacements. The City reports that its efforts resulted in declining flows from 0.61 mgd in 2000 to .55 mgd in 2007. The peaking factor indicates there are remaining I/I challenges. Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing Regional Collaboration The City participated in and helped fund a regional wastewater study. The City is conducting a study of downstream water rights and water quality needs (i.e., in the JVID service area and along Jackson Creek) in consultation with various regulatory agencies (DFG, DPH, SWRCB and RWQCB). Facility Sharing Opportunities AWA has proposed a regional WWTP solution for the Jackson, Sutter Creek and Martell areas. Regional WWTP opportunities may be of interest to the City in the future when growing flows overwhelm the City's treatment capacity. Topography presents a potential barrier to facility sharing due to associated pumping costs. continued II-78 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Regulatory Compliance Record, 2000-8 Formal Enforcement Actions 1 Informal Enforcement Actions 1 Enforcement Action Type Date Description of Violations Notice of Violation 3/8/2005 Effluent violations (13), Permit condition (3), 2003-4 Administrative Civil Liability 5/5/2008 Effluent violations (84), 2000-7 Service Adequacy Indicators Sewer Overflows 20071 1 0 Sewer Overflows 20062 NP Treatment Effectiveness Rate3 100% Sewer Overflow Rate4 45 Total Employees (FTEs) 3 Response Time Policy5 as quick as possible Employees Certified? Yes Response Time Actual up to 1 hour Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices The City indicated there are no unusual chemical constituents, such as heavy metals, and no known significant industrial users in the service area. Collection System Inspection Practices The City conducted a smoke testing program around 2002. Two percent of the system was inspected with CCTV in 2007. The City plans to have 34 percent of the system inspected by CCTV in 2008 and 2009. Service Challenges Evolving regulatory requirements present potential challenges, particularly concerns over whether and how much of the treated effluent should be discharged to Jackson Creek. The new regulatory program addressing sanitary sewer overflows has required the City to conduct collection line repairs and identify illegal connections to the wastewater system. Wastewater Planning Plan Description Planning Horizon Wastewater Master Plan Treatment Plant Facilities Plan 2001-2021 Capital Improvement Plan 5-year capital plan Through FY 10-11 General Plan No resource or service element NA Sanitary Sewer Management Plan Timeline, goals & organization NA Emergency Plan Emergency contacts NA Other: Wastewater Facilities Planning Report (2001) Notes: (1) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2007 as reported by the agency. (2) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2006 as reported by the agency. (3) Total number of non-compliance days in 2007 per 365 days. (4) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. (5) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-79 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Rates and Financing Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Demand2 Residential Flat Charges $23.87 250 gpd Rate Zones Wastewater rates are the same throughout the City. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description: Service charges are based on a flat monthly rate of $23.87 per residence. Rates are updated on an as-needed basis. Last Rate Change 2004 Frequency of Rate Changes Every 3-5 years Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach The connection fee is a flat rate based on land use type. Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit issuance. Connection Fee Amount3 Residential: $1,700-2,200 depending on density Land Dedication Req. None Development Impact Fee None Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY 06-07 Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $1,268,826 100% Total $1,163,263 Rates & Charges $1,172,954 92% Administration $115,460 Property Tax $0 0% O & M $547,820 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $172,633 Interest $95,526 8% Debt $101,934 Connection Fees $0 0% Other $225,416 Other $346 0% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include wastewater-related service charges and strength and flow charges. Average monthly charges calculated based on average consumption. Rates are rounded for presentation. (2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are 250 gallons per home per day, and are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. (3) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home. Those outside the City would pay a 50 percent premium if connected under an annexation or service agreement. II-80 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON FIRE AND EMS SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Jackson Volunteer Fire Department (JVFD) provides fire and emergency medical response. The Department also provides training for volunteers in the area of fire suppression, rescues and other related skilled procedures.115 Fire inspection services for commercial, industrial, and residential buildings within City limits are provided by AFPD through contract. Most service calls are received between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Personnel The City has 20 call firefighters in 2008. The staff’s median age is 35 years, and ranges from 20 to 54. Six firefighters (30 percent) are certified by the State at the Firefighter 1 level or higher and 19 (95 percent) are certified at the EMT-1 level or higher. 116 Call firefighters receive $10 per call and $15 for training per session. The two call firefighters in charge of recruiting rely on the media and banners as recruitment methods. The City struggles to retain its target of 20 to 25 volunteers at any given time. The turnover rate in 2007 was 20 percent and in 2006 was 16 percent. In spite of turnover, the City managed to recruit additional volunteers such that there was a net loss of only one call firefighter in 2006 and 2007. Regional Collaboration The City collaborates with other fire providers in the County through the Amador Fire Protection Authority. The most common providers of mutual aid to the City are CALFIRE, AFPD and SCFPD. Jackson has an automatic aid agreement with AFPD to serve 42 square miles located outside City bounds and within AFPD bounds. This area includes portions of the Martell community. The primary response area includes some residential uses on the northern outskirts of the City, a commercial strip mall and large retail stores on the western SR 88 corridor, and rural-residential uses and vehicle accident responses on SR 49 and SR 88. Through this agreement, AFPD pays $145 per service call in 2008, and the amount increases annually based on a contractual agreement up for 115 City of Jackson, Budget FY 06-08. 116 Correspondence with Mike Daly, City Manager, City of Jackson, March 25, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-81 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II renewal December 31, 2009.117 These terms were defined in 2005.118 Prior to this, a staffing arrangement was attempted on a trial basis after a previous per-call agreement ($72 per call). Under the staffing agreement, AFPD provided two paid, full-time firefighters between Sutter Creek and Jackson to compensate the City for service to AFPD bounds. The 2005 agreement was formed because the City was not satisfied with the level of service provided by AFPD during the trial program.119 CALFIRE responds to all calls in the County, including those within the City’s boundary and primary response area. Jackson participates in regional training events with CALFIRE (biannually), Amador FPD (quarterly) and Sutter Creek FPD (monthly). The City hosts a countywide training event once a year; otherwise, the City does not often host regional training exercises due to the small amount of space it can offer. Creating a regional fire department in collaboration with the Amador Fire Protection Authority is a City objective.120 Toward this end, the City is considering consolidation with AFPD and SCFPD.121 AFPD’s automatic aid agreements with both SCFPD and JVFD include a clause in which the parties agree to jointly work on developing a full-time staffed fire authority in the Jackson, Martell and Sutter Creek areas. The three agencies have agreed to meet at least quarterly. Dispatch and Communications All 911 calls made from land lines in Amador County are automatically routed to the Amador County Sheriff’s communication center in Jackson (the Public Safety Answering Point, PSAP). Cell phone 911 calls are answered by the California Highway Patrol in Stockton, and then are routed to the Sheriff. Fire and EMS calls are routed from the PSAP to CALFIRE’s Camino Interagency Command Center, which in turn dispatches a CALFIRE unit as well as the appropriate local jurisdiction responder. JVFD is dispatched to all calls within its primary response area. All fire providers in Amador County, including the City, communicate through the same radio systems. Due to shared radio frequencies, the City is able to communicate with other providers. When multiple service providers respond to an incident, the first unit to arrive on scene is responsible for incident command. The first responder notifies other providers whether and when sufficient personnel have arrived on scene. For incidents such as vehicle accidents, law enforcement becomes responsible for incident coordination once it arrives on scene through universal command 117 City of Jackson, Home Depot Draft Environmental Impact Review, Volume 1, 2007. 118 City of Jackson, Budget FY 06-08. 119 Correspondence with Mike Daly, City Manager, City of Jackson, March 25, 2008. 120 City of Jackson, Budget FY 06-08. 121 Budrick, J, “Fire officials consider unifying,” 2008. II-82 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON protocols; prior to law enforcement arriving on scene, the first responding fire provider remains responsible for incident command. LOCATION The Department serves within its primary response area. This service area encompasses not only its legal bounds (with an area of 3.5 square miles) but also another 45 square miles outside City bounds. The primary response area’s southern boundary is the Amador-Calaveras County line; it extends east of the City to the Clinton area, west to near Jackson Valley Road, and northward through a portion of Martell. The northern boundary extends above SR 88 but does not include all of the “Martell Triangle”, the area formed between SRs 88, 104 and 49. Most automatic aid calls are vehicle accidents and medical emergencies in Martell and along SR 88. INFRASTRUCTURE The City has two stations: Station 131 is located at 175 Main Street and was built in the 1940s; Station 132 is located at 10600 Argonaut Drive and was built in 1992. Station 131 needs to be replaced because engines do not fit inside it.122 Informal discussion of a new station being built within a proposed residential development (Jackson Hills Subdivision) took place before the conditional project approvals were repealed in 2008. 123 In addition to a replacement station, the Department requires new engines. Several engines were purchased in recent years: one in FY 06-07 and another in FY 07-08.124 Additional engines will be necessary in FY 09-10.125 The Department uses a water storage pond for water reserves. All areas within City limits are equipped with fire hydrants, as are residential areas just north of the City and commercial areas west of the City.126 Water pressure is deemed adequate by the Fire Chief in most places; although, it is dependent on topography.127 The City has authorized the Department to purchase its first water tender as of March 2008.128 122 Interview with Chief Morton, City of Jackson, January 17, 2008. 123 Correspondence with Mike Daly, City Manager, City of Jackson, March 25, 2008. 124 City of Jackson, Budget FY 06-08. 125 Interview with Chief Morton, City of Jackson, January 17, 2008. 126 Correspondence with Mike Daly, City Manager, City of Jackson, March 25, 2008. 127 Interview with Chief Morton, City of Jackson, January 17, 2008. 128 Correspondence with Mike Daly, City Manager, City of Jackson, March 25, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-83 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SERVICE ADEQUACY The Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization, classifies fire service in communities from 1 to 10, indicating the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best systems for water distribution, fire department facilities, equipment and personnel and fire alarms and communications receive a rating of 1. The Jackson Volunteer Fire Department has an ISO rating of five. Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster the required response. The response time guideline established by the California EMS Agency is five minutes in urban areas and 15 minutes in suburban or rural areas 90 percent of the time, and as quickly as possible in wilderness areas. The City of Jackson is urban, whereas unincorporated areas within the JVFD primary response zone are classified as wilderness. JVFD’s 90th percentile response time is 8.4 minutes, meeting the rural guideline but exceeding the urban guideline. Its median response time is 4.9 minutes. The fire response time within the urban area is likely faster due to proximity to the fire station, but was not provided. The Department reports that the reliability of a volunteer system has become increasingly difficult, largely due to the demands of increasing calls for service, mandated training, and additional responsibilities, such as handling hazardous materials.129 For many volunteers, their experience with JVFD is a springboard to gain paid employment with other departments.130 The Department reported that it does not have the capacity to serve planned development in the area at the current level of service due to staffing constraints inherent in a call firefighter system.131 There is strong interest in full-time, paid staffing in the fire department. The Fire Chief has requested regular paid positions of Administrative Chief and Captain in order to meet the administrative and organizational needs of the department, for a total proposed City cost of $120,000 to $160,000.132 The Chief reported that recruiting two full-time firefighters would be simple, as existing volunteers would convert to paid full-time employment, if the opportunity were available.133 However, existing financing is limited. A ballot measure for a sales tax increase to fund professional fire service failed to achieve two-thirds voter approval in 2006, receiving instead 62 percent voter approval. The various jurisdictions are considering a similar ballot measure in 2008. 129 City of Jackson, Budget FY 06-08. 130 City of Jackson, Home Depot Draft Environmental Impact Review, Volume 1, 2007. 131 Interview with Chief Morton, City of Jackson, January 17, 2008. 132 City of Jackson, Budget FY 06-08. 133 City of Jackson, Home Depot Draft Environmental Impact Review, Volume 1, 2007. II-84 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON Table II-3-8: City of Jackson Fire Profile Fire Service Service Configuration Service Demand Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 EMS Direct Total Service Calls 1,152 Ambulance Transport American Legion % EMS 73% Hazardous Materials Calaveras and San Joaquin Counties1 % Fire 9% Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CHP, Private % Vehicle Accidents NP Fire Suppression Helicopter CALFIRE % Other 18% Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls NP Fire/EMS Dispatch CALFIRE Calls per 1,000 people 218.8 Service Adequacy Resources ISO Rating 5/9 Fire Stations in City 2 Median Response Time (min) 4.9 Fire Stations Serving City 2 90th Percentile Response Time (min) 8.4 Sq. Miles Served per Station 2 24.1 Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 3 24 Training Total Full-time Firefighters 0 The Department has weekly sessions lasting two to three hours. There is a Total Call Firefighters 24 67-hour initial training class. Classes are also available at the local junior college. The Department's firefighters are moving towards achieving Total Sworn Staff per Station 4 12 Firefighter 1 certification. Service Challenges Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 4.6 Challenges to service include recruiting call firefighters and the lack of FTE Staffing Base Year 2008 staff. Accessibility to some areas is also difficult due to narrow streets and Fire Flow Water Reserves 1.55 mg bridges. Facilities Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus Station 131 175 Main Street Poor Unstaffed 2 Type 1 Engines, Type 5 Rescue Unit Jackson, CA 95642 Station 132 10600 Argonaut Ln. Good Unstaffed Type 1 Engine, Type 3 Engine & Jackson, CA 95642 Telesquirt (75 ft.) Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Facility needs include a new roof at Station 131, bedrooms at Station 132, a meeting/training room, and eventually a new station to replace Station 131. Equipment needs include three new Type 1 engines, a quick-attack mini pumper, and a water tender. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers Current Practices: There is a mutual aid agreement The Jackson Police use Station 132 for meetings. The City collaborates with between AFPD, CALFIRE, the City CALFIRE, AFPD and SCFPD in regional training. of Ione, the City of Jackson, JVFPD, Opportunities: LFPD, and SCFPD. JVFD has an Opportunities for regional collaboration include consolidation with AFPD and automatic aid agreement with AFPD. Sutter Creek or countywide consolidation. Notes: (1) CALFIRE has a MOU with Calaveras County and a secondary MOU with San Joaquin County for hazmat services. (2) Primary service area (square miles) per station. (3) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. (4) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. BY BURR CONSULTING II-85 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The Jackson Police Department (JPD) provides law enforcement services, including traffic enforcement, patrol and investigation. JPD relies on Amador County Sheriff for specialized team services (see Table II-3-9). The Department has 12 sworn officers (one sergeant, one captain, one chief, and nine officers) plus 11 reserve officers. The Chief reports that reserve officers serve 16 hours per month; if they meet this level they may work paid events or fill in for officer during shortages. There are three non-sworn personnel: a traffic enforcement officer, a dispatcher/clerk, and a part-time clerical assistant to the dispatcher/clerk. JPD also relies on 12 volunteers, including seven cadets (16 to 21 year-old trainees), three chaplains and two adult volunteers who assist with the cadet program. On a multi-agency response, the agency with primary jurisdiction is the coordinating lead agency. JPD reports it most often receives assistance from Sutter Creek PD, CHP and the Sheriff’s Office. JPD has received several awards from outside agencies, including two special recognition awards for DUI enforcement from MADD (2004 and 2007) and first place from the Office of Traffic Safety/CHP Chiefs Challenge Award in 2005. Dispatch Amador County Sheriff’s Office is the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for all of Amador County, and also provides dispatch services for all police departments and ambulance services within the County, except for the period Monday to Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, during which Jackson provides its own dispatching. During these hours, 911 calls may be transferred through the Jackson department, but usually the Sheriff’s dispatch continues to dispatch emergency call responses. Emergency Medical Dispatchers (EMDs) at the Sheriff’s Office answer all 911 calls. For calls necessitating a police response, ACSO provides dispatch services for the three local police agencies in the County as well as its own officers, unless during the period discussed previously. Demand The Department reports that service demand has increased in recent years, especially since Dalton Avenue opened as the new access road to the Jackson Rancheria Casino. Signage on the freeways and near the Casino directs traffic to travel through Jackson. Narcotics offenses, DUIs and traffic incidents have increased since this time. The Department reports that it has the capacity to serve planned growth with existing infrastructure, but that one to two new officers will be needed. II-86 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON Figure II-3-9: Jackson Crime Rates per 1,000 Residents, 1996-2006 Serious crime rates 45 (excluding larcenies under 40 $400) in the City of Jackson 35 increased dramatically after 30 2000. The serious crime rate 25 (including both property and violent crime) peaked at over 20 40 crimes per 1,000 residents 15 in 2004. Violent crimes 10 peaked in 2004 as well, with 5 11 violent crimes per 1,000 0 residents. Since then, there 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 has been a significant decline in the crime rates. Most recently, in 2006, the serious crime rate was 33 crimes per 1,000 residents. LOCATION The Jackson Police Department serves within the City’s bounds. The Department has on occasion provided back-up to other service providers outside of the city limits, including the Sheriff and Sutter Creek. INFRASTRUCTURE JPD’s station is in poor condition.134 Some repairs have been completed, but the Chief reports that both the interior and the exterior are problematic. The City Manager has had the station’s leaking roof repaired several times, but reported it is a constant problem. Moisture and mold have caused the exterior wall and ceiling to fall apart in some places. In addition, the station is located in a small building meant for approximately eight people. The office has been expanded by walling-in the deck area, but the Chief reports that the office is cramped. He also reports that a change is unlikely in the near future due to financial constraints. The City’s FY 06-08 budget provided funding for two to three new vehicles. The Department recently purchased a motorbike (2007) and a traffic enforcement motorbike (2006). Funds for the purchases were from payments from the Casino. The Department also has several all-terrain vehicles. The Chief reports that one of the eight police vehicles needs to be replaced, but no additional vehicles are needed. Other infrastructure and equipment includes a lie-detecting system, an interview room and a fail- safe radio system. The Department recently purchased a LiveScan system—an inkless electronic 134 Interview with Scott Morrison, Chief, Jackson Police Department, May 13, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-87 stnediseR 000,1 rep semirC Violent Property AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II fingerprinting system. The Chief reports that once this system is functioning, the Department will be able to remove some strain on the Sheriff’s Office related to using its own LiveScan system for JPD arrests. SERVICE ADEQUACY The effectiveness of a law enforcement agency can be gauged by many factors, including crime clearance rates (the portion of crimes that are solved),135 response times and staffing ratios. Figure II-3-10: Law Enforcement Crime Clearance Rates, 2000-06 Aggregate Jackson PD’s crime clearance rates 100% are comparable to other providers in the County. JPD’s average violent 75% crime clearance rate from 2000-06 for violent crime was 49 percent. For 50% 2006 alone, the rate was 34 percent. Other law enforcement providers in 25% the county have violent crime clearance rates ranging from 42 to 57 0% percent. JPD’s average property crime ACSO Ione Jackson Sutter Creek clearance rates from 2000-06 was 16 percent. Other providers’ average Violent Crime Property Crime rates ranged from 16 to 21 percent. Figure II-3-11: Law Enforcement Providers Average Response Times, 2007 Jackson PD’s average response time for all calls in 2007 was 11 Sutter Creek minutes. For priority one calls, the response time averaged four minutes. Jackson These response times are relatively Ione quick compared to the other local providers, which ranged between nine ACSO and 19 minutes for all calls and between five and nine minutes for 0 5 10 15 20 priority one calls. Response Time (minutes) The number of sworn officers per Priority 1 Calls All Calls capita is also a service level indicator. The average California city has 1.5 paid sworn officers per 1,000 residents.136 Jackson has three paid sworn officers per 1,000 residents, double the state average. Other providers in the County have between 1.4 sworn staff to 3.2 sworn staff per 1,000 residents. 135 Cleared crimes refer to offenses for which at least one person was arrested, charged with the offense, and turned over to the appropriate court for prosecution. A crime is also considered cleared by exceptional means if the offender dies, the victim refuses to cooperate or extradition is denied. II-88 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON Table II-3-12: City of Jackson Police Profile Police Service Service Configuration Service Demand Patrol Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 Dispatch Sheriff, Direct Total Service Calls 2,920 Search and Rescue Sheriff 911 Calls NP Crime Lab Department of Justice Non-Emergency Calls NP SWAT Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 676.2 Temporary Holding Sheriff Arrests 2007 327 Bomb Squad Calaveras County Violent Crime Rate per 1,000 10.2 Canine Services Sheriff Property Crime Rate per 1,000 22.6 Service Adequacy Resources Average Response Time 11:00 Total Staff 15 Avg. Priority One Response Time 4:00 Total Sworn Staff 12 Response Time Base Year 2007 Sworn Staff per 1,000 2.8 Clearance Rate of Violent Crimes1 49% Staffing Base Year 2008 Clearance Rate of Property Crimes 16% Marked Police Vehicles 8 Service Challenges Recent off-road vehicle purchases have eliminated hard-to-serve areas. Facilities Station Location Condition Built Jackson Police 33-D Broadway Poor 1975 Department Jackson, CA Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies The Department needs extensive repairs to its current station. Current Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration JPD participates in the Narcotics Task Force and splits staffing for a school resource officer position with Sutter Creek PD. All law enforcement agencies in Amador County may request outside agency assists. All agencies are also connected on a common communications system. Opportunities for Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration No opportunities were identified. Notes: (1) Clearance rates are aggregated for the period between 2000 and 2006. 136 Authors’ calculations based on FY 03-04 police staffing levels reported by cities to the State Controller’s Office and population estimates from the California Department of Finance. BY BURR CONSULTING II-89 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II ROADWAY SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City directly provides street maintenance and street sweeping services. Major roadway reconstruction projects are performed by contract. The City purchased a street sweeper in 2003; staff sweep areas around downtown at least twice weekly. Outlying areas are swept as needed. LOCATION Street services are provided within the City’s boundaries. The City does not provide street services outside its bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE The City’s key street infrastructure includes 28.4 centerline miles of roads. Nearly 20 miles (69 percent) of roads are of urban and rural local functional classification; all other roads are collector roads. County public works staff note that the County may be maintaining some small areas of roadway that may be within City limits. Circulation within the City is primarily provided by SR 49 in a north-south direction. Other roads providing north-south circulation include Main Street, Argonaut Lane and New York Ranch Road. East-west circulation within the City is provided by SR 88, Stony Creek Road, French Bar Road, and Court Street. There are three signalized intersections in the City; all are maintained by Caltrans. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns and maintains the 249 street lights in the City. Payment of utility costs related to street lights are financed in new subdivisions through Streetlight and Landscaping Assessment Districts. In older areas, costs are paid from the City’s general fund. The City prioritizes street projects largely based on needed utility projects. This minimizes street cuts in new pavement and maximizes service life of newly paved areas. 137 Twelve overlay projects were funded in FY 06-07 for a total allocation of $381,140. This fiscal year’s street maintenance was the most comprehensive in over five years. The City allocated $175,000 to an overlay project on Argonaut Lane in FY 07-08.138 The City reports that new infrastructure is primarily being constructed in new subdivisions, but there are two major capacity-building road projects planned for the coming years. The Sutter Street 137 City of Jackson, Budget FY 06-08, Capital Improvement Program, p. 54. 138 City of Jackson, Budget FY 06-08, p. 34. II-90 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON Extension project will begin by 2011; its cost is projected to be approximately $6 million. This project will better facilitate local circulation in the west Jackson and Martell areas. By 2013, the City will begin the Mission Boulevard extension at a projected cost of $1.5 to $2.0 million. This project will extend Mission Boulevard near the Sutter Amador Hospital. SERVICE ADEQUACY The City aims to have all streets operate at an average daily LOS of “C”, with a lower threshold of “D” permitted on SR 88 east of SR 49. The City requires that new development projects contribute to an LOS level greater than “C” or “D”.139 The City reports that while no City streets are at LOS “E” or “F”, two sections on SR 49 are at LOS “E” and the intersection of Broadway and SR 88 is ranked an LOS “E” or “F”. These areas are maintained by Caltrans. A 10-year Pavement Management System (PMS) was put in place in 1997 and expired in 2007. Current information on pavement condition was not available; however, a pavement condition index score of 60 was reported for the most recent year available (2007). The City reports that its primary challenge for street maintenance is funding. Much State funding is received by the regional transit system rather than local providers. For example, the City received no Local Transportation Funds (LTF) in FY 06-07 for the first time, as all funds were absorbed by the Amador Rapid Transit System.140 Gas tax funding only provides enough for small repairs, not any significant projects. There is an annual increase of approximately $18,000 in Proposition 42 funding due to a larger allocation to cities, which began in 2008.141 Land constraints are also problematic for traffic circulation. SR 49 and SR 88 bring significant traffic through Jackson. These highways are under the control of Caltrans, and are located in narrow corridors surrounded by hillsides and historic properties, making lane widening or expansion projects infeasible. Bypass alternatives have been reviewed but several options have been rejected by the community over concerns regarding undeveloped area impacts or bisecting older areas of developed residential and historic properties. 139 City of Jackson, General Plan Circulation Element Draft Part I, May 2005, p. 7. 140 City of Jackson, Budget FY 06-08, p. 33. 141 Ibid. BY BURR CONSULTING II-91 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-3-13: City of Jackson Roadway Services Street Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Street Maintenance Direct/Contract Signal Maintenance Contract System Overview Total Maintained Miles 28.4 Urban Maintained Miles 17.1 Rural Maintained Miles 11.3 Signalized Intersections 3 Service Demand Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel, 20061 16,560 DVMT per Street Mile, 20062 584 Street Sweeping Frequency Two times per week in downtown area, outlying areas as needed Street Service Adequacy and Operations Service Adequacy Miles Rehabilitated FY 06-07 0.75 Maintenance Cost per Street Mile3 $0 Pavement Condition Pavement Management System Yes PMS last updated4 1997 Miles Needing Rehabilitation 10 Pavement Condition Index, 2007 60 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Extension projects are planned at Sutter Street and Mission Boulevard. No other needs were identified. Level of Service (LOS) Current: Most roadway segments operate at LOS "C" or better; limited areas are at LOS "D" Policy: LOS "C", some permitted areas at LOS "D" New development projects shall contribute to an LOS level greater than "C" or "D" Build-Out: New development is expected to cause both Court Street and North Main Street to operate unacceptably (LOS "D") by 2025. Service Challenges The City reports funding limitations and land barriers to expanding highways running through the City as major service challenges. Facility Sharing Current Practices: No facility sharing practices were identified. Opportunities: No facility sharing opportunities were identified. Development Fees and Requirements Local Fee Per Single Family Unit: $1,318 Per Trip End (Non-Residential): $132 Regional Fee Per Single Family Unit: $2,830 Per Trip End (Non-Residential): $283 Street Light Service Profile Service Configuration Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights 249 Maintained by Contract All Maintained by City None Notes: (1) Daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) in 2006, according to the California Department of Transportation. (2) 2006 DVMT divided by total mileage of County-maintained public road system in 2006. (3) City road maintenance expenditures in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street. continued II-92 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON Street Service Financing General Financing Approach Street services are financed primarily by gas tax revenues and other receipts from the State. Capacity-building roads are financed by the City’s regional and local traffic mitigation fee program. Streets and Roads Financial Information, FY 05-061 Revenues Expenditures Total $623,038 Total6 $625,612 Gas Tax $84,684 Maintenance $434,906 VLF In-Lieu2 $0 Street $0 Traffic Congestion Relief $19,105 Lights & Signals $58,228 Other State Revenues $0 Other $376,678 Federal Revenues $0 Capital $0 Local Revenues3 $0 New Construction7 $0 City Revenues $519,249 Reconstruction $0 Interest $0 Signals & Lights $0 Bond proceeds $0 Other $0 General Fund $519,249 Undistributed Costs8 $0 Assessments4 $0 Plant & Equipment $190,706 Other5 $0 Other Public Agencies $0 Note: (1) Financial information as reported in the Annual Street Report to the State Controller. (2) Includes motor vehicle license fees used for street purposes and/or being accounted for in a street-purpose fund. (3) Includes other funds distributed by the local agencies other than the County and the cities. (4) Includes benefit assessments (also called special assessments) collected to finance street improvements and street lighting under the Landscape and Lighting Assessment Act of 1972, the Improvement Act of 1913 and the Street Lighting Act of 1931. (5) Includes traffic safety funds, development impact fees, redevelopment agency funds, and miscellaneous local sources. Excludes payments from other governmental agencies for contract services. (6) Total before adjustments for reporting changes since prior years. (7) Includes new construction and betterment of streets, bridges, lighting facilities, and storm drains, as well as right-of-way (8) Engineering costs that are not allocated to other expenditure categories or projects because the work is not specific or such allocation is impractical. Administration cost is an equitable pro rata share of expenditures for the supervision and management of street-purpose activities. DRAINAGE SERVICES Jackson is located at the junction of three branches of Jackson Creek. Major drainages in the City include Jackson Creek, North Fork Jackson Creek, South Fork Jackson Creek, New York Ranch Creek, Oneida Creek and Middle Fork Jackson Creek. In the central business district, portions of the natural banks of Jackson Creek have been replaced with masonry walls and in a few places the North Fork has been covered with buildings.142 A portion of the City is within the 100-year flood plain. The floodplain centers on the most developed portion of the City and stretches out in most directions from there, including along 142 City of Jackson, General Plan: Safety Element, 1987, p. S-4. BY BURR CONSULTING II-93 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Jackson Creek, the South Fork of Jackson Creek, and Oneida Creek. Nearly 550 parcels are located in the plain. The Fire Department, Civic Center, County Sheriff Department and Sutter-Amador Hospital are located near the floodplain.143 Flooding is generally confined to narrow areas along the streams, typically less than 150 feet wide. Flood waters seldom rise above the natural banks of the streams.144 However, there have been two flood events in the last ten years. In 1997, heavy rains caused Jackson Creek to flood. Water went over the Pitt Street and Broadway Street bridges and evacuations of homes and businesses along the creek were ordered. The parking garage in downtown Jackson was under water. More recently, there was a wet spring in 2006, but damages in the City were indirect, cutting off the water supply to the City and road damages throughout the County.145 NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Jackson provides stormwater maintenance services and flood control services, as needed. Preventive maintenance services include the maintenance of drainage pipes, inlets, and flood control ditches. The City oversees the annual cleaning of the Jackson creeks.146 The City has a Creek/Floodplain Overlay for their Draft (2004) Land Use Element to encourage open space along the City’s numerous creeks, to encourage public use of the creeks, and to discourage development in areas designated as floodplains.147 LOCATION Municipal drainage services are provided throughout the City and are not provided outside of City bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE The drainage system consists of approximately 15 miles of open storm drains and 10 miles of covered storm drains, with approximately 250 inlets. All inlets are inspected at least once per year. Newer subdivisions have open ditches, which drain into Jackson Creek or other small streams or drainage basins. Sixty percent of the total creek flow during critical flow to Jackson Creek is made up of treated Jackson wastewater treatment plant effluent.148 143 Amador County, Amador County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2006. 144 City of Jackson, General Plan: Safety Element, 1987, p. S-4. 145 Amador County, Amador County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2006. 146 City of Jackson, FY 06-08 Budget. 147 Amador County, Amador County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2006. 148 City of Jackson, Jackson Land Use, Circulation and Zoning Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, July 2007, p. 4.8-2. II-94 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON Infrastructure deficiencies reported by the City include four miles of open ditch that need to be piped, and a variety of existing culverts (approximately two to three miles) that need to be replaced and are budgeted with paving projects as they occur. The main flood control project is replacement of a culvert bridge on Marcucci Lane with a slab bridge. This construction will eliminate a bottle-neck of Jackson Creek during high flow conditions. The projected cost of this project is $750,000. The FY 06-08 budget sets aside funds to replace culverts as necessary and also to digitally map the storm drain system in a GIS platform, similar to the work being undertaken for water and wastewater infrastructure. 149 Drainage infrastructure and maintenance are financed through the City’s general fund. The City reports it has submitted grant applications for funding to correct additional flood areas, such as the FEMA/OES Hazard Mitigation grant program. PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Jackson owns and maintains four parks and a swimming pool, and owns a large undeveloped area. The City provides recreation services to residents via operation of the municipal pool. A contract pool manager organizes and oversees part-time lifeguards and instructors for lessons and supervised public recreation swim time. The City’s Public Works Department maintains municipal parks, open spaces, streets, and buildings. The Department has a staff of nine people, including five maintenance workers. Maintenance services include upkeep of grounds, landscaping, restrooms, playground equipment, barbecues, picnic tables, and benches. The Water Department maintains the pool with three staff. The City is a member of the Amador County Recreation Agency (ACRA), which is a JPA that provides countywide recreation programming and facilitates collaborative planning efforts. The City works with ACRA to develop recreation programs to serve Jackson residents. LOCATION Park facilities are located within city bounds. Detert Park and the municipal pool are located in the central business district of the City. 149 City of Jackson, Budget FY 06-08. BY BURR CONSULTING II-95 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II INFRASTRUCTURE The total park area maintained by the City of Jackson is approximately 18 acres. It consists of two neighborhood parks, one community park and one local open space. Also, the City owns a 155- acre undeveloped area called Oro de Amador. City parks offer a variety of amenities. Detert Park has a play structure, a tennis court, horseshoe pits, restrooms, picnic areas and tables, one baseball field, and a parking lot. Woodside Park has a play structure, a basketball court and a parking lot. Petkovich Park has restrooms. Tailing Wheels Park has picnic tables and picnic areas, pathways and parking. The City’s FY 06-08 budget outlines the improvement plans for Detert Park. These include purchasing and installing new play equipment in the playground area and remodeling the outdated restrooms. Further plans include improvements of the upper parking and picnic areas. A project that has no source of funding is the placement of a protective covering or roof structure at Tailing Wheel Park. No improvements have been budgeted for the other parks. ACRA’s Regional Recreation Plan recommends that the City develop the Oro de Amador site as a multi-use community park, similar to Howard Park in Ione. Development and facilities should be added subsequent to a master plan. No improvements are mentioned for Woodside and Petkovich Park. Improvements at Tailing Wheels Park should be limited to trails, a trailhead and refurbishing the two tailing wheels. The Plan also recommends that the City acquire two five-acre neighborhood parks in the Argonaut Heights and Jackson Highlands neighborhoods. The City of Jackson shares its municipal pool for educational and therapy programs sponsored by the schools and private providers. The school district utilizes the City pool under contract with the City for $1,000 per month. Other services include swim lessons, recreational swim, lap swimming, and facility rental for private parties. The City also shares facilities with ACRA, as it allows the use of Detert Park for a summer day camp recreation program at no cost. SERVICE ADEQUACY The current standard for parkland dedication is 5.9 acres per 1,000 residents (City of Jackson Municipal Code Section 16.56.030). The City has a ratio of 5.8 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, excluding the 155-acre undeveloped area. This meets the City’s adopted standard of five acres per 1,000 residents. The countywide goal for parkland is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. II-96 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON Table II-3-4: Jackson Recreation & Park Profile Park and Recreation Service Configuration Service Configuration Park Maintenance Direct Number of Parks Maintained 6 Recreation Direct Number of Recreation Centers 0 Service Adequacy FY 06-07 Park Acres per 1,000 pop1 5.9 Adopted Policy: 5 acres per 1,000 population 2 Park Acreage Local Open Space 8.4 Neighborhood Parks 3.4 Undeveloped 155.0 Special Use Areas 7.0 Community Parks 6.5 Landscaped 0.0 Park Name Location Condition Acres Woodside Park Off of French Bar Road Excellent 1.9 west of SR 49 Petkovich Park Corner of Broadway & Very Good 1.5 Water Streets Detert Park North end of town on Very Good 6.5 Highways 49/88 Tailing Wheels Jackson Gate Road Good 8.4 Oro de Amador Between N. Main Street & Undeveloped 155.0 New York Ranch Road Municipal Pool Next to Detert Park Very Good NA Service Challenges The City reports that major service challenges pertain to obtaining funding for needed improvements. Facility Needs/Deficiencies The City reports a new park restroom facility as an infrastructure need. ACRA recommended that the City develop the Oro de Amador site into a community park and acquire two new neighborhood parks. Facility Sharing The City of Jackson shares its municipal pool for educational and therapy programs sponsored by the schools and private providers. Other services include swim lessons, recreational swim, lap swimming, and facility rental for private parties. Developer Fees and Requirements Development Impact Fees $8,670 Land Dedication Requirement 5 acres per 1,000 population Notes: (1) Developed park acreage per 1,000 residents according to the Department of Finance (January 2008 estimate). (2) The Amador County Recreation Agency's adopted countywide policy is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. BY BURR CONSULTING II-97 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II CEMETERY SERVICE NATURE AND EXTENT The City owns and maintains Jackson City Cemetery. Maintenance activities include refuse disposal, weed abatement, grounds cleaning, repairing of damaged plots, and locating and marking plots. The City also maintains computerized cemetery records in a database to simplify record retrieval and plot location. Mule Creek State Prison work crews provide paid maintenance assistance for approximately ten days a year. There is a five-member, volunteer cemetery committee that makes recommendations to the City Council regarding cemetery operations and improvements. Burials Figure II-3-4: Jackson Cemetery Burials by Decade There were 1,891 occupied plots, as of 2004.150 300 250 The oldest graves in Jackson Cemetery date back to the establishment 200 of the City in 1854. 150 100 The number of burials has increased over time, peaking in the 1960s. In the 50 last two calendar years, the City 0 accommodated 10 burials. There were six burials in 2006 and four in 2007. Plot Acquisition The City has plots available for purchase. There are four types of plots in Jackson City Cemetery: regular, cremains-single, cremains-full, and child. The regular plot is five feet wide and ten feet long. The City charges its residents $300 for regular plots, $200 for cremains-single plots and $225 for cremains-full plots and child plots. There are higher fees for non-residents. In addition to the cost of a plot, the City Council established a mandatory endowment fee of $50 for all plot types and sizes. 150 California Tombstone Transcription Project, URL accessed on 3/20/08, : http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ca/amador/cemeteries/jacksoncity-dates.txt II-98 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO 0581 0781 0981 0191 0391 0591 0791 0991 Decade slairuB CITY OF JACKSON LOCATION The Cemetery is located within City bounds, northeast of Downtown Jackson, east of Church Street and off Cemetery Lane. There are no restrictions on who may purchase a plot, only a fee differential by place of residence, as mentioned above. INFRASTRUCTURE The City’s key infrastructure consists of a cemetery and maintenance equipment that belongs to the Public Works Department. The City reports that the five-acre Jackson City Cemetery is in fair condition. Volunteers have recently made significant contributions to improvements at the cemetery. High school students and boy scouts have repaired and rebuilt a gazebo on the property and are working to rehabilitate several grave sites. Other improvements made by the City include new historic signs, rebuilding of a wall, and erosion control. The City plans to beautify the Child Grave Site with a new fence and statues. 151 A timeline for these improvements was not provided. The City reported that it does not need new equipment as all equipment used by City’s Public Works Department is also available for cemetery maintenance. The City has no plans to construct additional cemetery facilities. However, the City does have expansion space for the existing cemetery should the need arise, as it owns an adjacent eight-acre lot. The City did not identify any opportunities for shared facilities. SERVICE ADEQUACY The City reported that it has the capacity to provide current and future cemetery service to the area. The City Council established an endowment fee for all plot types and sizes, but the Cemetery Fund still relies on the General Fund for support. 151 Amador Ledger Dispatch, Jackson Welcomes Cemetery Resurrection, March 28, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-99 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • The City of Jackson population grew from 3,989 in 2000 to 4,319 in 2008, an increase of eight percent. The City of Jackson’s general plan forecasts a 2025 population of 6,108, an increase of 41 percent over the 2008 population for the City. The general plan estimate is based on the build-out of 985 planned and proposed dwelling units that existed as of 2004. • At build-out of current planned and proposed development within the City, there will be 759 new dwelling units, yielding a population increase of approximately 1,520. The City’s total population at build-out would be 5,839, an increase of 35 percent over the 2008 population. • Wastewater flow projections for the City of Jackson forecast population growth of seven percent from 2005 to 2015, 22 percent from 2005 to 2025, and 340 percent at build-out. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • Water distribution capacity is adequate to serve the boundary area; however, portions of the water service area outside City bounds would require distribution infrastructure to be served. • Water services appear to be adequate based on water quality, response times, inspection ratings, and the City’s regulatory record. The City needs to expand water storage to enhance emergency preparedness. • Wastewater treatment capacity is adequate to serve projected growth through 2025, but a new plant will be needed to accommodate build-out growth. The adequacy of wastewater disposal capacity is uncertain due to conflicting regulatory pressures related to its discharge of treated wastewater to Jackson Creek. Depending on the outcome, the City may need to develop new facilities in the future. • Wastewater services appear to be adequate based on the City’s regulatory record; however, the City needs to make improvements to its collection system to reduce peak flows and sewer overflows. • The Jackson police facility is in poor condition, and needs additional space and improvements. • Police services appear to be adequate based on response times and crime clearance rates. Additional police officers will be needed to serve future growth. • The Jackson Volunteer Fire Department does not have the capacity to serve planned development at the current level of service due to staffing and facility constraints. II-100 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON • The Fire Department needs expanded facilities, including dormitories and a meeting and training room, as well as a new fire station to store modern apparatus. The City reported a need for multiple vehicles, of which one is budgeted for in FY 07-08. • The Fire Department provides adequate service based on response times, as it has the shortest response times on average of the seven providers. • Existing roadway capacity is generally adequate, although some roads operate at LOS “D,” which is less than the City’s adopted standard. Some segments of SR 49 and SR 88 maintained by Caltrans within the City of Jackson presently operate at an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS “E” or “F”). The City anticipates that segments of Court Street and North Main Street will operate at LOS “D” by 2025. • There are approximately 10 miles of roadway in need of rehabilitation, representing over 35 percent of all city-maintained roads. • Circulation is limited by land constraints. SR 49 and SR 88 bring significant traffic through Jackson; however, these highways are located in narrow corridors surrounded by hillsides and historic properties, making lane widening or expansion projects infeasible. Bypass alternatives have been rejected by city residents. • Drainage infrastructure deficiencies reported by the City include four miles of open ditch that need to be piped, and a variety of existing culverts (approximately two to three miles) that need to be replaced. • The City has a ratio of 5.8 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which satisfies the City’s adopted standard of five acres per 1,000 residents, but is short of the countywide goal for parkland of 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. • The City owns a 155-acre undeveloped site that is planned to be used as a future park. • The City reported that plots are available at Jackson City Cemetery, but did not provide an indication of remaining capacity. There are eight acres of land owned by the City that are available for expansion of the cemetery. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The City reports that financing is not adequate to deliver services. The key fiscal challenge is a significant decrease in sales tax revenue related to the 2007 loss of three businesses, including an auto dealer, to the adjacent unincorporated Martell area north of the City. Economic development and redevelopment are strategies for restoring financial viability. • The City’s water and wastewater rates have not been increased to keep pace with inflation for four years. To maintain adequate service levels in the future, the City should evaluate and increase rates on a regular basis. BY BURR CONSULTING II-101 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II • The City reported that revenues are inadequate to provide desired public safety service levels, including full-time staffed fire stations. The City is considering financing mechanisms to improve fire protection service levels in collaboration with AFPA. • The Fire Department’s development impact fee has not been updated since 2002. The City should consider updating its fire development impact fee to ensure sufficient facility financing to address increased demand as a result of planned and proposed developments. • The City reported that its primary challenge for street maintenance is a lack of funding; however, there is an annual increase of approximately $18,000 in Proposition 42 funding due to a larger allocation to cities, which began in 2008. • Drainage infrastructure and maintenance are financed through the City’s general fund. The City reports it has submitted grant applications for funding to correct additional flood areas. • The City did not report any limitations to its ability to provide park service or cemetery maintenance. The City has established an endowment fee of $50 for all plot types to provide perpetual care of the cemetery facility. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The City practices facility related to water services by receiving water from AWA’s Tanner treatment plant. • The Fire Department currently collaborates to a large degree with other fire service providers in the County and the AFPA. • The Jackson Fire Department is negotiating consolidation or collaboration with AFPD and SCFPD to address urban fire needs in the Jackson, Sutter Creek and Martell areas focused on paid firefighter staffing. • The City does not practice facility sharing for roadway and drainage maintenance or cemetery service, and did not identify any possible opportunities. • The City is a member of the Amador County Recreation Agency (ACRA), which provides countywide recreation programming and facilitates collaborative planning efforts. The City works with ACRA to develop recreation programs to serve Jackson residents. The City also shares facilities with ACRA’s youth summer programs, as it allows the use of parkland at no cost. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Accountability is best ensured when contested elections are held for governing body seats, constituent outreach is conducted to promote accountability and ensure that constituents are informed and not disenfranchised, and public agency operations and management are II-102 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF JACKSON transparent to the public. The City of Jackson demonstrated accountability with respect to all of these factors. • Employee accountability is achieved through annual reviews conducted by supervisors, and six-month reviews for new employees. • Jackson provides water, wastewater and fire services outside its bounds. Annexation of such service areas is a government structure option. • There are overlapping water service areas in the Martell community. AWA and the City of Jackson provide water retail services within the Martell area. The AWA water service area overlaps the City of Jackson’s water service area, which had transferred to the City from a private company. Although AWA’s water service area does not overlap the City of Jackson’s existing SOI, there is a lack of clarity on water service areas. • The Jackson FD maximizes operational efficiencies and minimizes cost by capitalizing on call firefighters and volunteer staff. • The City presently serves an expansive fire service area outside its bounds. Annexation of the City of Jackson to a regional fire provider, such as AFPD, is a government structure option. • The City pursues efficiencies through the efficient use of technology, such keeping computerized cemetery records to simplify record retrieval and plot location. • Operational efficiencies in cemetery service are also achieved through the use of volunteers for maintenance activities. High school students and boy scouts have repaired and rebuilt a gazebo on the property and are working to rehabilitate several grave sites. BY BURR CONSULTING II-103 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 4. C I T Y O F P LY M O U T H The City of Plymouth provides water, wastewater, road maintenance, drainage, parks and recreation, and cemetery services. The City joined AFPD in 1998 for fire service and receives contractual law enforcement service from the Amador County Sheriff’s Office. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION AND BOUNDARY The City of Plymouth incorporated on February 8, 1917. The City is a general law city. The City’s boundary is entirely within Amador County. The City is located along SR 49 at the intersection with Plymouth Shenandoah Road. The bounds are west and south of this intersection, extending approximately 0.5 miles west and 0.75 miles south. The southern portion of the City extends east 0.75 miles of SR 49. The City has a boundary area of approximately 1.4 square miles (896 acres). Table II-4-1: City of Plymouth Annexation Records Amador LAFCO LAFCO records date back to Resolution 1966, and the State Project Name Acres Number 1 Official Date 2 Board of Equalization Colburn-Wheeler Annexation NA 7/8/1960 (B) (BOE) maintains Old McGee Property Annexation NA 2/12/1965 (B) records of officially Matulich Annexation 88.3 73-57 8/8/1973 (L) recorded boundary Greilich Annexation 20.0 74-62 2/21/1974 (L) changes since 1948. Moreno Annexation 13.9 78-108 3/30/1979 (C) The BOE record for Burke Ranch Annexation 56.7 82-164 11/16/1982 (B) the City of Plymouth Myers/Burke Annexation 57.7 82-165, 83-172 1/31/1984 (C) begins in 1960 and City Facilities Annexation 229.6 92-241 7/26/1993 (B) the LAFCO record City-owned parcel annexation NA 11/20/1997 (B) for the City begins in Notes: 1973. LAFCO and (1) "NA" indicates LAFCO records are not available. BOE records indicate (2) "L" indicates that the official date is according to the LAFCO resolution, "C" indicates nine annexations have that the official date is according to the Certificate of Completion, and "B" indicates that the been completed in official date is according to the Board of Equalization filing. Plymouth, as shown in Table II-4-1. Annexation size is known for six of the nine annexations, totaling 466 acres (81 percent of current bounds). The most recent annexation occurred in 1997. II-104 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH The City’s SOI was adopted in 1976. When it was reviewed by LAFCO in 2007, the western and southern portion of the City’s SOI could not be determined precisely from available records.152 The SOI is estimated to be 2.3 square miles, 61 percent larger than bounds. The SOI extends beyond the city limits to the northeast, to the west, and to the south. Upon adoption of the MSR, LAFCO will update the City’s SOI. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The City is governed by a five-member City Council. The members are elected at-large to staggered, four-year terms. The last contested election for a council seat occurred in 2004, when a recall election was held and three council members were unseated. The recalled members had supported a casino proposal against community sentiment.153 The replacement members were elected from five candidates. The 2006 elections were not contested. By way of constituent outreach, the City distributes a monthly newsletter and has a website, which includes economic development and planning information. The City conducted significant outreach with the public for the General Plan update visioning process in 2007. The City reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history, although some accusations of violations in 2003 were investigated and dismissed due to lack of evidence.154 Table II-4-2: City of Plymouth Governing Body Plymouth City Council Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Patricia Shackleton Mayor Nov-08 Patricia Fordyce Vice Mayor Nov-10 Members Greg Baldwin Member Nov-08 Michael O'Meara Member Nov-10 Jon Colburn Member Nov-08 Manner of Selection Elections at large Length of Term Four years, staggered Date: Every other Thursday at Location: City Council chambers Meetings 7:00 p.m. of City Hall Agenda Distribution Posted, online Minutes Distribution Online Contact Contact City Manager Mailing Address 9426 Main Street, Plymouth, CA, 95669 Phone (209) 245-6941 Email/Website info@ci.plymouth.ca.us, http://www.ci.plymouth.ca.us/Index.html 152 LAFCO Resolution 2007-07. 153 Reece, J., “Special Election: Plymouth City Council recall election statements,” Amador Ledger-Dispatch, 2004. 154 Amador County Grand Jury, Grand Jury Final Report, FY 2004-05, p.17. BY BURR CONSULTING II-105 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Regarding customer service, the City Manager serves as the ombudsman. The City did not report the number of complaints received in 2007. The City demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaire, interview and document requests. MANAGEMENT The City implemented a council-manager management approach in 2003. The City Council acts as the legislative and policy-making body for the City. The Council appoints the city administrator, city attorney, and all members of any boards and commissions which serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council. The daily operations of the City are managed by the city administrator, who is responsible for implementing the policies and priorities of the City Council. The City’s management structure was influenced by the FY 02-03 Grand Jury Report, which reported that the City lacked an administrator and appropriate chain of command. After this report, the City made several changes: most notably, the Council agreed to communicate to staff through the City Administrator and office space was allocated for the clerk and administrator.155 By way of performance evaluation, the City conducts a strength-weakness-opportunities-threats (SWOT) analysis process on a quarterly basis. The City reported that its accomplishments include solving its annual post-fair mosquito problem. Plymouth employs 5.5 FTEs. The City reports that it does not have the financial means to support full-time city management. Employees are evaluated annually. Probationary employees are evaluated at three and six months after hire. Plymouth is currently updating its general plan; it is expected to be adopted in 2009. The current general plan was adopted in 1986 and amended in 2001. The City also has a revitalization plan for the downtown area (1997), and in the future may prepare a Historic Downtown master plan as well as a downtown parking study and plan.156 The City’s financial planning efforts include annually adopted budgets. The City reported that its financial practices include annual financial audits. The most recently audited financial statement provided by Plymouth to LAFCO was for FY 03-04. That audit found that the City has not recorded capital assets and depreciation expense. The City reported in early 2008 that its independent auditor was in the process of auditing FY 05-06, and that the City’s FY 06-07 financial statements were ready for the auditor to review. The City provided a copy of unaudited financial results for FY 06-07. Plymouth adopted a five-year capital improvement plan in June 2007. The City reports that the CIP will be updated annually in the future. 155 Amador County Grand Jury, Grand Jury Final Report 2003-2004, p. 99. 156 City of Plymouth, General Plan Update Draft, Chapter 3: Land Use and Character, 2007. II-106 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH The City carries general liability, automobile liability, property coverage, and workers compensation insurance. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Land use in Plymouth is primarily agricultural and low-density residential. Most land in the western half of the City is low-density residential, followed by parks and open space and mobile home parks. The small amount of commercial land use in Plymouth is concentrated Downtown along Old Sacramento Road. The eastern half of Plymouth’s bounds is classified as agricultural land use; nearly all of this land is specified for vineyards. There are many vacant lots in the City along SR 49.157 Unincorporated lands around the City are largely vacant. Land uses on developed land include residential to the east and agricultural uses to the northeast and west.158 Significant employers in the City include a catering company, an inn, and a real estate office. The City reports that development and growth are not affecting service demand, as there has been no significant growth in the last 30 years. Growth has been constrained by a building moratorium that the City put in place in 1987 in response to water supply deficiencies; the City moratorium allowed only 50 additional water connections.159 More recently, growth was slowed by a moratorium on water connections imposed by the California Department of Public Health (Order No. 01-017). Figure II-4-3: Plymouth Population, 2000-8 Population 1,200 The City’s population was 1,033 1,000 in January 2008.160 The City’s 800 population density is 733 per square mile, compared to the countywide 600 density of 64. 400 Plymouth’s population has been above 1,000 since 2001. From 2000 200 through 2003, population grew to a 0 peak of 1,079 residents. Residential 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 building permits increased each year 157 City of Plymouth, General Plan Existing Land Use Character Map, 2007, p. 9. 158 Amador County, General Plan Existing (2007) Land Use Classifications Map, 2007. 159 City of Plymouth, Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study, 2007, p. ii. 160 California Department of Finance. BY BURR CONSULTING II-107 noitalupoP AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II from 2000 through 2003, when 22 permits were granted. Since 2003, the City has experienced negative growth, according to the California Department of Finance (DOF), which estimates a net decline of 50 residents between 2003 and 2008. Accordingly, development has been limited since 2003. In 2004, only one residential building permit was issued; and fewer than five permits were issued each year 2005 through 2007. There has been limited commercial construction in the City since 2000. The value of new commercial construction peaked in 2000 at $191,000. Since that time, the annual total value has averaged under $22,000. The value in 2007 was $18,600. By way of population projections, the general plan update’s land use plan (with proposed SOI) accommodates a population of 5,572. 161 Once the moratorium is lifted, the City projects a five percent annual growth in population within the SOI through 2026.162 Development There are currently five proposals—approved and tentative—for developments within the SOI of the City of Plymouth. In total, the five proposals would add 901 residential units at build-out, as shown in Table II-4-4. Table II-4-4: Planned and Proposed Developments in the City of Plymouth Vicinity Non- General Residential Development Developer Location Acres Units Acres1 Arroyo Woods Jim Buell Outside SOI 101.0 127 0 Cottage Knoll Stephanie McNair Partial SOI 82.4 304 0 Oak Glen Marlon Ginney In Bounds 12.3 47 0 Shenandoah Ridge Bob Reeder Partial Bounds 148.3 136 0 Shenandoah Springs Stephanie McNair In Bounds 23.8 64 0 Zinfandel Bob Reeder Partial SOI 364.7 350 0 Note: (1) Non-residential acres exclude parks and open space. Two of the development areas—Oak Glen and Shenandoah Springs—are located entirely within the City’s boundaries. The Oak Glen subdivision would add 47 units over 12 acres, adjacent to existing residential developments in the north of the City. The Shenandoah Springs subdivision would add 64 units to a 24-acre site also in the north of the City. The Shenandoah Ridge development is located partially within the City’s boundary, and the development plan calls for this area to be annexed to the City. Located partially within the bounds of the City is the proposed Shenandoah Ridge development. Shenandoah Ridge would add 136 dwelling units on the 148-acre site located at the northwest of the 161 City of Plymouth, General Plan Existing Land Use Character Map, 2007, p. I-25. 162 City of Plymouth, Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study, 2007, p. ii. II-108 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH City. The developer also proposes an SOI amendment in order to annex the remainder of the development site to the City. Plans for the development include a park, a nature trails network and large open spaces.163 Located almost entirely within the existing Plymouth SOI is the Cottage Knoll subdivision. Plans for the area include 304 dwelling units over the 82-acre site north of the City (approximately 20 units are located outside of the existing SOI). The proposed development would be bounded to the north and east by Williamson Act lands. Cottage Knoll’s developer proposes to finance street and utility infrastructure needs through a community facilities district (i.e., Mello-Roos).164 Located partially within the existing SOI is the proposed 350-unit Zinfandel development. The proposed 365-acre site includes three parks, a natural trails network and large open spaces.165 The developer has proposed an SOI Amendment, a general plan amendment, pre-zoning, and the annexation of five parcels to bring the 365-acre proposed development within city bounds. Located adjacent to the City, outside of the existing SOI, is the proposed Arroyo Wood subdivision. Plans for the area include 127 dwelling units at build-out of the 101-acre site. This area is included within the proposed SOI expansion for the City of Plymouth. 166 For a list of all planned and proposed developments within Amador County by area, see Table II-30-1. By way of non-residential growth, the Ione Band of Miwok Indians is seeking federal approval to take 228 acres of land into trust for a casino development on the south side of the City. The proposal includes a casino, a hotel, an event center, a wastewater treatment plant, and other facilities to support the casino. Over ten acres of the proposed site are within Plymouth’s bounds along SR 49; the remainder is in unincorporated territory. The casino has been a contentious issue within the City (see Local Accountability and Governance). The Tribe released a draft environmental impact statement in November 2007.167 The City created an ad hoc committee composed of two City Council members and two county supervisors to direct discussions and negotiations with the Tribe.168 163 Shenandoah Development, URL accessed 3/8/08 http://www.shenandoahplymouth.com/ 164 Cottage Knoll Development Website, URL accessed 3/8/08, http://www.cottageknollplymouth.com 165 Zinfandel Development Website, URL accessed 3/8/08, http://zinfandelplymouth.com 166 City of Plymouth, General Plan Update Draft, Chapter 3: Land Use and Character, April 20, 2007. 167 Ione Band of Miwok Indians Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 222.04-Acre Fee-to-Trust Land Transfer and Casino Project, Amador County, CA, 2007. 168 Amador Ledger-Dispatch, Plymouth May Talk to Tribe, May 27, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-109 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Growth Strategies Plymouth’s planning area is much larger than its bounds or SOI.169 The City’s planning area extends in all directions from city bounds. It includes a City-designated area of concern, which extends 0.5 miles east, one mile north, and 0.5 miles south of bounds. The planning area extends 1.5 miles north, 1.5 miles west, and 0.5 miles south of the SOI. The planning area’s approximate area is 11.9 square miles, more than four times the size of the City’s SOI. As part of its general plan update process, the City has drafted an analysis of land use goals with relevant policy recommendations.170 The City plans to establish clear policies for the annexation of land. It will first focus development as in-fill within bounds before focusing on growth areas on the fringe of the current urban area. To facilitate planning, the City would like to adopt a 20-year SOI in conjunction with Amador County, and subsequently annex the lands within it. Plymouth has developed a proposed SOI that would encompass 5,477 acres. This proposed SOI is larger than the City’s current SOI. The proposed SOI reaches beyond City limits in all directions except in a small area in the northwest corner of the City. It includes developments proposed outside of current city bounds (see Service Demand), Williamson Act lands, and parcels between.171 There is currently insufficient water and wastewater to support development in the City, but there are increased development proposals due to the pending availability of adequate water through an agreement with AWA (see Water Services).172 No annexations or SOI adoption will occur until this MSR and the City’s General Plan are adopted. The overall goal of Plymouth’s growth strategies is to maintain the rural, small-town, Western character of the built environment. This entails maintaining a defined edge between urban and rural environments and protecting ridgelines from development. By way of residential development, the City will encourage node-type rather than linear developments. In addition, the City plans to adopt anti-monotony regulations in residential development, required variation in several aesthetic qualities, such as height, roofing materials, and overall design. Commercial development will be concentrated at major intersections and along highway frontages and primary roadways. The City wishes to avoid “strip” development. Smaller-scale neighborhood retail may be constructed along smaller roads. Within the downtown area, the city plans to adopt a minimum (versus a maximum) building height. Lastly, mixed-used planning will be encouraged in the Auto-Urban Commercial District. 169 The planning area is all areas given a future land use designation in the City’s general plan update (Figure 3.2.A). 170 City of Plymouth, General Plan Existing Land Use Character Map, 2007. 171 Ibid, p. 25. 172 Ibid, p. 24. II-110 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH The City’s Downtown Revitalization Plan (1997) recommended establishing clear “gate-ways” to the downtown corridor, particularly from the highway. The plan encourages the downtown as the City’s “historic village core.” Specific strategies include the use of glass on the first floor of buildings to produce a welcoming atmosphere, requiring parking behind rather than in front of buildings, and catering to pedestrian traffic. In addition, new buildings should include “well- articulated architectural elements that reflect the existing ‘gold rush’ era.” The City’s Vision Statement states that in the year 2015, Plymouth will be recognized as a “small town and a comfortable place with a country feeling, friendly people and a sense of community.” The Statement includes that the City’s history will be “evident not only in its well preserved historic buildings but also in newer building projects designed to enhance the City's Motherlode charm.” The City plans to work with businesses and land owners to “cooperatively, but firmly” implement design standards.173 FINANCING The City reported that current financing is insufficient to deliver adequate services, and that economic development and growth are needed to improve service levels. The City’s only funding source for police protection is the annual COPS grant. The City’s general and public works functions are understaffed. The City’s planning, engineering and financial functions are staffed by consultants. The City tracks its activities through separate funds. The general fund is the City’s main operating account. Water and wastewater activities are tracked through separate enterprise funds. The City’s total revenues were $1.9 million in FY 06-07. Revenue sources include grants (36 percent), water rates (18 percent), sewer rates (18 percent), sales tax (8 percent), property tax (8 percent), and vehicle license fees (4 percent). The City received a $500,000 water grant, its $100,000 annual state COPS grant, and a FEMA grant. City sales tax revenue amounted to $12,743 per capita in 2006; by comparison, countywide sales tax was $11,978 per capita. City expenditures were $2 million in FY 06-07. Of this amount, 17 percent was spent on compensation, 15 percent on capital projects, 23 percent on private contracts (e.g., management, planning, finance, and engineering contracts), 38 percent on materials and supplies, six percent on the Sheriff contract, and one percent on debt. The City had $0.3 million in long-term debt outstanding at the end of FY 06-07. The debt was composed of a sewer revenue bond and a sewer-related loan. The bond was issued in 1988 to finance sewer plant construction. The City does not have a formal policy on maintaining financial reserves, and reserve levels are a management decision. The City reported that it has been unable to fund reserves due to stagnant 173 City of Plymouth, Plymouth Vision Statement; referenced in: The City of Plymouth Downtown Revitalization Strategy, 1997, p. 35. BY BURR CONSULTING II-111 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II growth and loss of a sales tax generator (hardware store) in the 1990s.174 The City had $0.47 million in unreserved, undesignated reserves at the close of FY 06-07. This amount is equivalent to 28 percent of expenditures in FY 06-07. In other words, the City maintained three months of working reserves. The City obtains insurance through the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California (PARSAC), a JPA of 37 cities. The City participates in a countywide JPA for recreation services. WATER SERVICES This section describes the nature, extent and location of the water services provided as well as key infrastructure and water sources. The tables provide further information and indicators of the agency’s water service supplies, demand, financing, service adequacy, and facilities. The water chapter in the MSR main document contains analysis and conclusions based on this information. NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Plymouth provides treated water for domestic uses. AWA has operated and maintained the water treatment plant and distribution system through a contract with the City since 2004. The City does not produce or use recycled water, and does not practice conjunctive use. LOCATION Plymouth provides water service within the city limits. The City reported that there are no unserved areas within the City’s limits. In addition, the City serves three connections outside of the City limits, two located on SR 49 and one on Old Sacramento Road. INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure includes a water treatment plant, three active wells, the Arroyo Ditch, a storage tank, and pipelines. City water sources consist of groundwater and surface water from the Cosumnes River through the Arroyo Ditch. The City has appropriative surface water rights to 2,000 acre-feet of water from Big Indian Creek (a tributary of the Cosumnes River) for municipal uses. The City may also have an unquantified amount of pre-1914 water rights on the South Fork of the Cosumnes River and Indian Creek; however, these rights “have not been adjudicated or otherwise authoritatively quantified.”175 174 Interview with City of Plymouth Executive Team, January 2008. 175 Amador County Quitclaim Deed for Arroyo Ditch (Book 577, Page 858), 1989. II-112 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH The Arroyo Ditch was originally built in 1851 to bring water to gold miners and landowners.176 The Ditch was transferred to Amador County in 1962 and quick deeded to Plymouth in the early 1980’s. The ditch is primarily earthen and unlined, with two miles of the seventeen-mile ditch lined with concrete. Peak flows in the ditch generally occur during the winter and spring months, while there is generally no water available during the peak demand times in the summer and fall months. Maintenance has posed a challenge for the City due to the inaccessibility of the ditch and the prohibitive maintenance costs.177 Due to difficulties in maintaining the Arroyo Ditch, the City has relied on groundwater since 2001.178 The City cleaned and repaired a five mile section of the Arroyo Ditch in 2000 and 2001 and pumped minimal water from the ditch in 2002 and 2003. No water has been supplied from the ditch since 2003. However, the ditch is used for groundwater recharge purposes, according to the City.179 Groundwater levels have also posed a challenge to the City. One of the wells has been removed from peak demand periods as the groundwater levels drop below the pump intake level. Another well has high turbidity levels, which is attributed to decreasing groundwater levels. In addition, private wells neighboring the City experience reduced flow and poor water quality during the City’s peak water demand period in the summer. 180 Of the three active wells (A, II-2 and the Hawksview Well), only two (II-2 and Hawksview) were used to supply water in 2005. The wells have a total pumping capacity of 790 gpm; however, based on the Department of Health Services criteria for foothill groundwater, the firm yield is 25 percent of the tested capacity or 198 gpm.181 This capacity is sufficient to provide for the City’s average day demand; however, it is significantly less than maximum day water demands.182 Water from the wells is generally fair to excellent quality.183 The City exceeded the secondary MCL for aluminum in 2005; however, aluminum is not considered to pose a health risk. 184 Due to the lack of a reliable potable water source, the Department of Public Health issued a moratorium on new building in the City in 1987. In 1990, the Department of Public Health partially lifted the moratorium to allow 50 new connections, after the City had drilled an additional well. As of 2007, only 18 connections were available to the water system. 176 City of Plymouth, General Plan Update, 2001, p. 14. 177 DPH, Plymouth Annual Inspection Report, 2005, p. 3. 178 DPH, Plymouth Annual Inspection Report, 2005, p. 1. 179 Interview with City of Plymouth Assistant Planner, Jonathan Camp, August 13, 2008. 180 City of Plymouth, Preliminary Engineering Report, 2005, p. 4-2. 181 Plymouth, Preliminary Engineering Report, 2005, p. 3-14. 182 Ibid. 183 City of Plymouth, General Plan, 2001, p. 14. 184 City of Plymouth, 2005 Consumer Confidence Report, 2006, p. 7. BY BURR CONSULTING II-113 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II AWA has proposed to extend a pipeline from its Tanner Treatment Plant in Sutter Creek to the City. The City Council has approved a proposal to receive treated water from the pipeline extension.185 The pipeline will be 12 inches in diameter, entirely gravity fed, and approximately 11 miles from the Tanner Treatment Plant. The total estimated cost of the pipeline is $10.8 million.186 The City’s share is approximately $5.12 million plus an additional $1.34 million to AWA to expand the capacity of the Tanner Treatment Plant.187 Funding sources for the pipeline are a USDA Rural Utilities Service grant up to $5 million, a $3 million contribution from AWA and City revenue bonds to cover the remaining costs. The City treats all water at the water treatment facility. The facility has treatment capacity of 450 gpm. The facility was identified as being in poor condition.188 The City did not identify specific infrastructure needs or deficiencies at the treatment plant. The City’s water is stored in a 0.5 mg welded-steel ground-level tank. The storage tank was identified by DPH as being in generally good condition, with minor paint chips. The City’s capital improvement plan identified a need for an additional 484,000 gallons of water storage to meet current fire flow, peak flow and emergency storage needs. The new storage is estimated to cost $0.75 million and construction is planned to be completed in FY 08-09. Projected demand in 2030 will require a total of 2.3 million gallons of storage.189 In the event of emergencies, the City would rely on the short-term water reserves mentioned previously, which would last approximately three days based on the City’s average daily use. Until the City is connected to the AWA system, there are no interties with other outside systems. The City’s distribution system was originally constructed over 30 years ago; however, a majority of the mains were replaced in 1984. The system is composed primarily of PVC piping (70 percent) with some portions of asbestos cement (20 percent) and iron (10 percent). The PVC and asbestos cement portions of the system were identified by DPH as being in good to very good condition, while the iron sections were identified as being in poor condition. However, there is a distribution loss rate of 25 percent.190 According to the City’s capital improvement plan, a distribution system analysis is to be completed in FY 07-08 and water main replacement consistent with the analysis to be completed annually through 2012 for a total of $1.3 million. 185 DPH, Plymouth Annual Inspection Report, 2005, p. 28. 186 Amador Water Agency, Draft Budget FY 08-09, June 6, 2008, p. 30. 187 City of Plymouth, Water System Financial Plan and Water Rate Study, 2006, p. 12. 188 Correspondence from City of Plymouth City Engineer, June 11, 2008. 189 City of Plymouth, Capital Improvement Plan, 2007, p. 9. 190 The water loss rate is the difference between produced water and metered sales, with a deduction for water used for water treatment plant backwash. The loss rate is overstated in that it includes an unknown amount of unmetered water use by the City, and does not reflect distribution system improvements made in FY 07-08. II-114 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH Table II-4-5: Plymouth Water Profile Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction Direct Water Treatment Direct Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water The City's boundary is located along SR 49 at the intersection with Plymouth Shenandoah Road. Wholesale Water NA Recycled Water NA Boundary Area 0.9 sq. miles Population (2007) 1,050 System Overview Average Daily Demand 0.17 mgd Peak Day Demand .51 mgd Supply 2,726 af Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Plymouth Treatment Plant Treatment 450 gpm Poor Unknown Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0.5 mg Pump Stations 4 Pressure Zones 1 Production Wells2 3 Pipe Miles NP Other: The Arroyo Ditch is 1 miles and conveys water from the Consumnes River to the City. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The City's primary infrastructure need is a dependable water source. By connecting to the AWA system through the Plymouth Pipeline, the City hopes to resolve this issue. Other infrastructure needs include replacement of the iron pipelines in poor condition and identifying and resolving the cause of the significant distribution loss experienced by the system. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: The City does not currently practice facility sharing for water related services with other agencies; however, the City does contract with AWA for operation and maintenance services. Opportunities: The City is in the process of planning for the Plymouth Pipeline in conjunction with AWA. Once completed, the City will receive treated water from the AWA Tanner Treatment Plant. The pipeline will be used by AWA to serve other developments and communities as well. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. (2) Only active wells are reported. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-115 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 480 477 3 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 Domestic 411 408 3 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 69 69 0 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total NP NP 196 196 238 290 352 Residential NP NP 105 NR NR NR NR Commercial/Industrial NP NP 91 NR NR NR NR Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 NR NR NR NR Other 0 0 0 NR NR NR NR Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum2 Safe/Firm Consumnes Subbasin3 Groundwater 259 726 319 Cosumnes River Surface Water 1 2,000 Unknown4 Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)5 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total NP NP 245 246 298 363 441 Imported 0 0 0 NR NR NR NR Groundwater NP NP 245 NR NR NR NR Surface NP 0 0 NR NR NR NR Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP Significant Droughts 1976, 1977, 1988-94 Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergencies only. Drought Plan NP Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering Yes Conservation Pricing Yes Other Practices No other conservation practices were identified. Notes: (1) Future demand based on the assumption of 4 percent annual growth after 2010 as reported in the City's water rate study. (2) The estimate for maximum supply is based on the maximum treatment capacity of the treatment plant. (3) Based on the Department of Health Services criteria for foothill groundwater, the firm yield is 25 percent of the tested pumping capacity. (4) According to DHS, no firm yield can be assigned to the Arroyo Ditch, due to the irregularity of the flows. (5) Supply was calculated from the amount demanded in the given year plus the amount attributed to distribution loss. continued II-116 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH Water Rates and Financing Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Residential Flat Monthly: $15.60 $ 50.45 250 gal/day Water Use: $3.43 per ccf Special Rates Rates are the same throughout the City. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description Water rates are set to cover fixed and variable costs of operating the water system, including operating costs, debt service, capital costs and maintenance of a healthy capital reserve. Most Recent Rate Change 7/1/07 Frequency of Rate Changes Annual Water Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach Fee is set to recoup the cost of the meter and installation. Any costs incurred in excess of the meter and installation would be billed as well. Connection Fee Timing Upon issue of the building permit Connection Fee Amount $125/Single Family Unit Land Dedication Requirements Developers are required to build necessary infrastructure and transfer it to the City. Development Impact Fee $4,000 per dwelling unit for Arroyo Ditch development Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 06-07 Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $359,850 100% Total $272,427 Rates & charges $347,165 96% Administration $27,895 Property tax $0 0% O & M $219,270 Rent $8,864 2% Capital Depreciation $22,104 Interest $1,737 0% Debt $3,158 Connection Fees $125 0% Purchased Water $0 Other $1,959 1% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, refer to Chapter 3 in the MSR main document. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-117 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators Water Planning Description Planning Horizon Water Master Plan None Financial Plan and Water Study 2006 2016 UWMP None Capital Improvement Plan 2007 2012 General Plan 1987, (amended in 2001) 2015 Emergency Response Plan 2003 NA Water Quality Emergency Plan 2004 NA Emergency Disinfection Plan 2003 NA Service Challenges The City has faced challenges maintaining the Arroyo Ditch to allow for a reliable water source from the ditch. The City plans to resolve this issue by receiving wholesale water from AWA through the planned Plymouth Pipeline. Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 160 O&M Cost Ratio1 $1,289,824 MGD Delivered/FTE 0.06 Distribution Loss Rate2 25% Distribution Breaks & Leaks 3 Distribution Break Rate3 NP Response Time Policy ASAP Response Time Actual Depends on severity Water Pressure 80-90 psi Total Employees (FTEs)4 3 Water Operator Certification AWA staff have maximum certifications of T4 for treatment systems and D2 for distribution systems. The City is required to have a D2 certified chief operator for the distribution system and a T3 certified chief operator for the treatment plant; the City is exceeding the requirement for treatment certification and as of June 2008 was not meeting the requirement for distribution certification. Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information5 # Description Health Violations 0 NA Monitoring Violations 17 A majority of the violations were for monitoring or reporting deficiencies regarding nitrates and nitrites. DW Compliance Rate6 100% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Water loss rate is overstated in that it includes an unknown amount of unmetered water use by the City, and does not reflect distribution system improvements made in FY 07-08. (3) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (4) All water employees are AWA staff which operate and maintain the system by contract. (5) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (6) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2007. II-118 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH WASTEWATER SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City provides wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services. It contracts with AWA for operation of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities. LOCATION The City provides wastewater service within its boundary area. The City serves four connections outside its bounds, including a 24-unit mobile home park. The wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are located in the westernmost portion of the city limits. INFRASTRUCTURE The City’s wastewater facility provides primary treatment of its wastewater flows prior to discharging the treated effluent through land disposal methods. Key wastewater infrastructure owned and maintained by the City includes a treatment plant with three evaporation reservoirs, spray fields, and a collection system. The City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) consists of two aerated facultative ponds, a non- aerated facultative pond, chlorination facilities, and an outlet structure. The WWTP was built in 1968, with a third reservoir added in 1991. The plant is not equipped with emergency generators or remote communication systems. Sludge disposal methods were not provided. After treatment, the effluent is transported to an unlined storage reservoir that is located approximately one-half mile southwest of the WWTP. The reservoir, which was built in 1985, has a capacity of 60 million gallons. The effluent is stored in the reservoir as needed year-round, with the maximum storage occurring during winter months (November to April) when land disposal is prohibited. The reservoir has the capacity to store the equivalent of 10 months of the City’s existing peak month flow.191 Between April and October, the City is authorized to discharge the effluent to spray fields for disposal. The City’s disposal area is approximately 125 acres, of which 85 acres are usable for disposal and the remainder is not usable due to creek setbacks and property lines. The disposal area is located immediately northwest of the storage reservoir. 192 In addition to these fields, 32 acres on the adjacent Mason property is available for the City’s leased use for disposal; however, the City is 191 The peak month flow is based on FY 06-07 data, and does not represent the maximum flow anticipated during years with above- average precipitation. 192 Nolte and Associates, Inc., Conceptual Plan for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal, 2007, p. 8. BY BURR CONSULTING II-119 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II not presently using the Mason property and would need to document its reclamation and disinfection practices with RWQCB prior to using it. The City owns and maintains six miles of sewer collection system, most of which is composed of clay pipe. Pipeline diameters range from 6 to 10-inches.193 The collection system was installed in the late 1960s and early 1970s.194 The system is in fair condition. Field studies conducted in 1985 and 1997 identified structural defects within pipelines and manholes, and inflow/infiltration problems.195 Most of the system is designed to flow by gravity to the treatment facility. There is a pumping facility at the 49er Trailer Park and another pump serves eight homes on SR 49. The City’s regulatory compliance record is checkered. Plymouth has faced 12 enforcement actions since 2000, including a cease and desist order and an administrative civil liability imposed in 2005. Violations leading up to these formal enforcement actions involved discharges to the spray fields during the winter season, discharges to spray field areas too close to adjacent surface drainage courses, failure to address sludge disposal, and failure to conduct monitoring of influent flows, pond freeboard, effluent, and the collection system. 193 ECO:LOGIC Engineering, Amador County Regional Wastewater Management Plan, 2005, p. 4-24. 194 City of Plymouth., City of Plymouth Draft General Plan Update, 2008. 195 Central Valley RWQCB, Cease and Desist Order No. R5-2005-0006, 2005, pp. 5-6. II-120 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH Table II-4-6: Plymouth Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection Plymouth City Wastewater Treatment Plymouth City Wastewater Disposal Plymouth City Recycled Water None Service Area Collection: Plymouth City and adjacent area Treatment: Plymouth City and adjacent area Recycled Water None Sewer Connection Regulatory/Policies Property owners must connect to the public sewer system if the building is within 100 feet of the sewer line (Municipal Code §13.03.150). Onsite Septic Systems in Service Area There were 6 homes on septic systems, according to the 1990 Census, which was the most recent census to inquire about residential sewage disposal. Service Demand FY 07-08 Connections Flow (mgd) Inside Outside Type Total Bounds Bounds Average Total 454 450 4 0.13 Residential 393 390 3 NP Commercial 41 40 1 NP Industrial 0 0 0 NP Institutional 20 20 0 NP Projected Demand (in millions of gallons per day) FY 06-07 2015 2025 Build-Out Avg. dry weather flow 0.11 0.17 0.23 NP Peak wet weather flow 0.56 NP NP NP Note: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-121 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: primary treatment, including aerated pond and chlorination Disposal method: treated effluent is discharged to spray fields between April and October Facility Name Capacity Condition Yr Built Plymouth Wastewater Treatment Plant .17 mgd NP 1968 Storage reservoir 60 mg NP 1985 Effluent disposal field 63 acres NP NP Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) Average Dry Peak Wet Plymouth WWTP 0.11 0.56 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies According to the City's wastewater engineer, the ponds need additional aeration and electrical improvements to accommodate current wastewater flows ($0.2-0.4 million). The storage reservoir lacks capacity for compliance with regulatory requirements. In order to accommodate proposed growth within the existing SOI, the City needs to upgrade to an aerated lagoon treatment system, with pond deepening, reservoir expansion, disinfection capability, spray field expansion, transfer pumping expansion and piping modifications ($1.0-1.5 million). To provide capacity to future growth within the SOI proposed by the City, the City would need to upgrade to a secondary treatment process (e.g., activated sludge plant), and expand spray fields and reservoirs ($10-15 million). To conserve water, implementation of tertiary treatment components would enable the City to provide recycled water. Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 6.0 Sewage Lift Stations 3 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies There are structural defects within pipelines and manholes, and significant inflow/infiltration problems. Portions of the collection system lack adequate capacity for peak wet weather flows. Infiltration and Inflow The I/I problem is considered to be significant. Peak flows may be five times higher than dry weather flows, indicating a severe problem. Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing Regional Collaboration Plymouth collaborates with AWA by retaining a contract operator. Facility Sharing Opportunities Facility-sharing opportunities are minimal, as there are no adjacent wastewater service providers. continued II-122 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Regulatory Compliance Record, 2000-7 Formal Enforcement Actions 2 Informal Enforcement Actions 10 Enforcement Action Type Date Description of Violations Notice of Violation 4/26/2006 Permit conditions (11), deficient reports (2) Administrative Civil Liability 9/16/2005 Effluent violations (7), permit conditions (8), and deficient reports (5) Notice of Violation 7/20/2005 Permit conditions (4), deficient reports (3) Cease and Desist Order 1/27/2005 Effluent violations (5), permit conditions (4), and deficient reports (10) Notice of Violation 11/20/2004 Permit conditions (1) Notice of Violation 11/2/2004 Effluent violations (2), permit conditions (2), and deficient reports (1) Notice of Violation 9/4/2003 Deficient report violations (9) Notice of Violation 10/23/2001 Effluent violations (5) Notice of Violation 9/12/2001 Permit conditions (1) Oral Communication 8/30/2001 Permit conditions (1), deficient report (1) Oral Communication 8/1/2001 Deficient report (1) Notice of Violation 10/8/2000 Permit conditions (6) Service Adequacy Indicators Sewer Overflows 20071 1 Sewer Overflows 20062 NP Treatment Effectiveness Rate3 97% Sewer Overflow Rate4 17 Total Employees (FTEs) 3 Response Time Policy5 None Employees Certified? Yes Response Time Actual NP Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices NP Collection System Inspection Practices A number of major deficiencies, including high I/I and structural defects, were identified during field studies in 1985 and 1997. Those deficiencies were prioritized, but have not yet been corrected. Monitoring, including CCTV and visual inspections, is planned. Service Challenges NP Wastewater Planning Plan Description Planning Horizon Wastewater Master Plan None NA Capital Improvement Plan Jun-07 5-year (through FY 11-12) General Plan None NA Sanitary Sewer Management Plan Goals, organization, emergency NA Emergency Plan None NA Other: Conceptual Plan for Wastewater Treatment & Disposal (2007) Notes: (1) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2007 as reported by the agency. (2) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2006 as reported by the agency. (3) Total number of non-compliance days in 2007 per 365 days. (4) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. (5) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-123 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Rates and Financing Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges CY 20081 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Demand2 Residential $61.37 per dwelling unit $61.37 12 ccf/month Rate Zones Wastewater rates are the same throughout the City. Those outside the City pay a 25 percent higher rate. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description: Sewer rates for non-residential users are based on water use. Sewer rates are increased annually. Future annual rate increases through 2014 are adopted, and may be found in Municipal Code §12.23.012. Last Rate Change 1/1/2008 Frequency of Rate Changes annual Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach The connection fee is a flat rate based on land use type. Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit issuance. Connection Fee Amount1 Residential: $6,715 Land Dedication Req. None Development Impact Fee None Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY 06-07 Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $368,940 100% Total $408,035 Rates & Charges $341,771 93% Administration $49,167 Property Tax $0 0% O & M $284,501 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $51,817 Interest $15,550 4% Debt $22,550 Connection Fees $0 0% Capital Outlay $0 Other $11,619 3% Other $0 Notes: 1) Rates include wastewater-related service charges and strength and flow charges. Average monthly charges calculated based on average consumption. Rates are rounded for presentation. 2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are 250 gallons per home per day, and are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, see Chapter 4. 3) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home. II-124 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIRE AND EMS SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City provides for fire and emergency medical response through a contractual service arrangement with Amador Fire Protection District (AFPD). The current service contract is scheduled to expire in 2010. Plymouth retains ownership of the stations, while the District is responsible for maintenance. LOCATION The contractual service arrangement is for services within the City bounds, and does not provide for services outside City bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE The City’s fire station is in fair condition. The facility is being remodeled in 2008. Upon completion, the station will have a new kitchen and sleeping quarters. Station 122 in Plymouth is shared with Amador County Sheriff. SERVICE ADEQUACY Eight of the 57 AFPD call firefighters serve within the Plymouth city limits. AFPD exceeded urban response time standards of eight minutes in Plymouth, where response times were almost 11 minutes 90 percent of the time. FINANCE The City reimburses AFPD based on the number of parcels within the City’s boundaries. In exchange for providing contract service, the City of Plymouth pays AFPD the equivalent of AFPD’s benefit assessment (if it were charged in the City). In FY 06-07, the City paid AFPD $23,368 for contract services, and spent $13,000 on capital improvements. The operational cost amounted to $22 per capita. By contrast, the City of Ione spent $35 per capita, the City of Jackson spent $37 per capita, and Sutter Creek FPD (Amador and Sutter Creek combined) spent $48 per capita. The median California city spent $116 per capita on operating costs. A proposed sales tax would nearly double the resources available countywide to pay for fire services. If approved by voters, the sales tax would be allocated among the various service providers, with revenues planned to fund staffed stations in Plymouth, Jackson, Sutter Creek and Pine Grove. The revenues to fund the Plymouth station would flow through AFPD. Once these potential revenues are included, the per capita resources in Plymouth are expected to be $75, which is nearly two-thirds of the fire funding for the median California city. BY BURR CONSULTING II-125 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II ROADWAY SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City directly provides minor street maintenance services. Major roadway reconstruction projects are performed by contract. The City did not provide any street maintenance services in FY 06-07. LOCATION Street services are provided within the City’s boundaries. The City does not provide street services outside its bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE The City’s key infrastructure includes seven centerline miles of roads. Over six miles are of the rural local functional classification, with the remainder consisting of urban and rural collector roads. Circulation within the City is primarily provided by SR 49 in a north-south direction. Other roads providing north-south circulation include Empire Street, Popular Street, Sherwood Street, and Wheeler Way. East-west circulation within the City is provided by Main Street, as wells as Burke Drive, Landrum Street, and Locust Street. There are no signalized intersections in the City. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns and maintains the street lights in the City. New street lights are funded through maintenance districts. The City’s 2007 capital improvement plan (for years FY 07-08 through FY 11-12) calls for $3.2 million for street and intersection projects. Projects for FY 07-08 include a slurry seal for Main Street ($30,000) and work on the intersection of SR 49 and Main Street ($1.2 million).196 SERVICE ADEQUACY The City reports that all streets operate at a level that meet or exceed the adopted standard of LOS “C,” although the City anticipates that several road segments may decline to LOS “D.” No roadway segments are anticipated to operate at less than LOS “D” by 2014. A 10-year Pavement Management System (PMS) was put in place in 1995 and expired in 2005. The City reports that it did not implement much of this PMS. The City plans to put a new PMS in place when funds are available, but did not identify a target date. 196 City of Plymouth, Capital Improvement Plan, June 13, 2007. II-126 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH The City’s primary challenge is financing. The City reports it does not have the funds to maintain even its highest priority streets, and it would take a one-time expenditure of $3 million to address the backlog of deferred maintenance. Table II-4-7: Plymouth Roadway Services Street Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Street Maintenance Direct, by Contract Signal Maintenance None System Overview Total Maintained Miles 7.0 Urban Maintained Miles 0.0 Rural Maintained Miles 7.0 Signalized Intersections 0 Service Demand Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel, 20061 3,660 DVMT per Street Mile, 20062 523 Street Sweeping Frequency: Main Street is swept weekly. Street Service Adequacy and Operations Service Adequacy Miles Rehabilitated FY 06-07 0 Maintenance Cost per Street Mile3 $0 Pavement Condition Pavement Management System Yes PMS last updated4 1995 Miles Needing Rehabilitation 5.8 Pavement Condition Index 2006 NA Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies The City reports that it would cost $3 million to fully address the backlog of deferred roadway maintenance. Level of Service (LOS) Current: All roadway segments operate at LOS "C" or better. Policy: LOS "C" Build-Out: The City anticipates that several road segments may decline to LOS "D". Service Challenges The City does not have sufficient finances to maintain even its highest priority streets. Facility Sharing Current Practices: No facility sharing practices were identified. Opportunities: No facility sharing opportunities were identified. Development Fees and Requirements Local Fee Per Single Family Unit: $2,679 Per Trip End (Non-Residential): NP Regional Fee Per Single Family Unit: $3,040 Per Trip End (Non-Residential): $304 Street Light Service Profile Service Configuration Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights NP Maintained by Contract All Maintained by City None Notes: (1) Daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) in 2006, according to the California Department of Transportation. (2) 2006 DVMT divided by total mileage of County-maintained public road system in 2006. (3) City road maintenance expenditures in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street. (4) The 10-year PMS expired in 2005. A new PMS has yet to be implemented as of the drafting of this report. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-127 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Street Service Financing General Financing Approach Street services are financed primarily by state revenues, the City general fund and gas tax revenues. Streets and Roads Financial Information, FY 05-061 Revenues Expenditures Total $422,932 Total6 $620,184 Gas Tax $25,651 Maintenance $108,753 VLF In-Lieu2 $0 Street $0 Traffic Congestion Relief $4,788 Lights & Signals $0 Other State Revenues $306,000 Other $108,753 Federal Revenues $0 Capital $511,431 Local Revenues3 $0 New Construction7 $0 City Revenues $86,493 Reconstruction $114,446 Interest $0 Signals & Lights $0 Bond proceeds $0 Other $396,985 General Fund $86,353 Undistributed Costs8 $0 Assessments4 $0 Plant & Equipment $0 Other5 $140 Other Public Agencies $0 Note: (1) Financial information as reported in the Annual Street Report to the State Controller. (2) Includes motor vehicle license fees used for street purposes and/or being accounted for in a street-purpose fund. (3) Includes other funds distributed by the local agencies other than the County and the cities. (4) Includes benefit assessments (also called special assessments) collected to finance street improvements and street lighting under the Landscape and Lighting Assessment Act of 1972, the Improvement Act of 1913 and the Street Lighting Act of 1931. (5) Includes traffic safety funds, development impact fees, redevelopment agency funds, and miscellaneous local sources. Excludes payments from other governmental agencies for contract services. (6) Total before adjustments for reporting changes since prior years. (7) Includes new construction and betterment of streets, bridges, lighting facilities, and storm drains, as well as right-of-way acquisitions. (8) Engineering costs that are not allocated to other expenditure categories or projects because the work is not specific or such allocation is impractical. Administration cost is an equitable pro rata share of expenditures for the supervision and management of street-purpose activities. DRAINAGE SERVICES The Plymouth area is drained by several small tributaries to Little Indian Creek, which flows westerly to the Cosumnes River. Little Indian Creek and its tributaries are intermittent streams, tending to dry up in late summer. Portions of the City are within the 100-year floodplain. The riparian areas along Little Indian Creek and its tributaries in the southwest of the City are in the floodplain, as is a stretch reaching northeast through the center of the City.197 Per the city engineer, flooding occurs in Plymouth during heavy storms from December through March. 197 Amador County, Amador County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2006. II-128 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Plymouth provides stormwater maintenance services, including blockage removal and the cleaning of stormwater inlets. Stormwater treatment services are not provided. LOCATION Municipal drainage services are provided throughout the City and are not provided outside of City bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE The drainage system in Plymouth consists of historical conduits and open channels. Ditches are located alongside the City’s 5.7 miles of road. In addition, there is one mile of storm drain conduit and two miles of open channel.198 The city engineer reports that the Plymouth drainage system is old and in poor condition.199 Much of the system is undersized, rusted, or filled with silt and not functioning well.200 The system was not designed to handle flooding associated with heavy storms. Much of the storm drain system was installed on a piece-meal basis, yielding a system of unknown materials in unknown conditions. The fairgrounds, in particular, are in need of repair. Once the City fixes its drainage system, the weak system at the fairgrounds will be overloaded.201 State and federal funding related to the 2006 storm events has been allocated to projects noted during damage assessments conducted by state and federal personnel. These projects are as follows: • Replace the substandard roadside storm drain and reconstruct the road surface at Mill and Poplar streets at SR 49; • Add an additional cross culvert and repair the road surface at Sutter Street and Atlantic Street; • Reconstruct the diversion ditch with scour protection at the wastewater treatment plant; and • Remove the substandard temporary culverts, construct a concrete box culvert, and reconstruct the access road to the sprayfield.202 198 Information provided by city engineer. 199 Interview with Roark Weber, City Engineer, City of Plymouth, January 16, 2008. 200 City of Plymouth, Capital Improvement Plan, 2007. 201 Interview with Roark Weber, City Engineer, City of Plymouth, January 16, 2008. 202 City of Plymouth, Capital Improvement Plan, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-129 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The City’s 2007 CIP allocates drainage improvement costs. The CIP assigns $625,000 for drainage maintenance to occur alongside planned street repairs. This maintenance will focus on curbs, gutters and drop inlets. In addition, piping or channel improvements are needed for Arroyo Ditch, estimated at $240,000. Finally, off-road system improvements including storm drains and drop inlets are planned from Poplar Street to the Fairgrounds ($134,000).203 Other repairs include Emerson Drain improvements ($75,000) and local street storm drain improvements ($250,000). In sum, the City reports $1.3 million in needed drainage improvements.204 Once the City’s building moratorium is lifted and development begins, the City will require additional drainage infrastructure to meet the increased demand.205 Capital and operating costs are funded through participation fees and grants. New developments pay mitigation fees. PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Plymouth owns and maintains four public parks and also maintains a state-owned public swimming pool. Park maintenance is performed by the City’s three general maintenance personnel. The City is a member of the Amador County Recreation Agency, which provides countywide recreation programming and facilitates collaborative planning efforts. The City offers local public recreation services through ACRA. The City and school district currently have agreements for the use of school facilities for recreation programming, including a gymnasium at the elementary school. The City and school district may establish an expanded joint use agreement so that school park facilities can be expanded to better serve surrounding neighborhoods. The City plans to pursue an agreement for the joint use of any new schools’ facilities, especially if the new facility would be located in an area without existing park facilities. Amador County Fairgrounds are owned and maintained by the County within City limits. 203 Ibid. 204 City of Plymouth, Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study, 2007, Table 5-A. 205 City of Plymouth, Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study, 2007, p. ii. II-130 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH LOCATION Park facilities are located within city bounds. Norman Waters Park is located in the far southeast portion of bounds; the other parks are all located in the developed areas in the western portion of the City. Non-residents are permitted to use the City’s recreational services and facilities. INFRASTRUCTURE The total City park area in the City of Plymouth is approximately 29 acres. Parkland consists of an open space, one neighborhood park, one landscaped area, and two special use areas. Amenities on City parkland are varied by location. Sharkey Begovich Park has a play structure, restrooms, picnic tables, group picnic areas, and parking. Lodge Hill Park has a community building (a lodge). McGee Park has a gazebo and picnic tables. Norm Waters Park has no amenities; it is an open area. In addition to Plymouth’s parkland, the Amador County Fairgrounds has several facilities that may be rented for special events. Several additions are recommended for Plymouth’s park facilities. The City’s 2007 Strategic Planning Retreat participants identified a lack of ball fields, ball teams and a need for a skateboard park. ACRA’s Master Plan recommends improvements for Lodge Hill Park and Norm Waters Park. Improvements at Norm Waters Park include developing an unpaved trail system and a small trail head. For Lodge Hill Park, recommendations include refurbishing the lodge for community events and adding irrigation, turf, a pathway system, more trees, a picnic shelter, a children’s playground and more picnic sites. The City reports that the Friends of the Lodge, a citizen group, recently received a $220,000 grant to refurbish the lodge as recommended. In addition to making improvements to existing parkland facilities, ACRA’s Master Plan found that the community is lacking a large, multi-use park. It recommends that the City acquire a new 15- acre community park. Recommended amenities include a baseball field, a soccer field, a picnic shelter, and restrooms. SERVICE ADEQUACY The City has a ratio of 28.3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. This is significantly higher than the current countywide parkland ratio of 7.3 acres per 1,000 residents, as well as the countywide goal for parkland of 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. The City seeks to increase the municipal standard to meet the National Recreation and Park Association recommended standard of 6.25 to 10.50 acres of mini-, neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 persons. Of these types of parkland, the City’s ratio is 0.29 acres per 1,000 residents. The City may increase this ratio by increasing the parkland dedication requirement or by providing open space incentives in the form of density bonuses. The City reports that it has the capacity to provide park and recreation services for both the existing service area and for future growth areas. BY BURR CONSULTING II-131 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-4-8: Plymouth Recreation & Park Profile Park and Recreation Service Configuration Service Configuration Park Maintenance Direct Number of Parks Maintained 4 Recreation Direct Number of Recreation Centers 1 Service Adequacy FY 06-07 Park Acres per 1,000 pop1 28.3 Adopted Policy: No City policy 2 Park Acreage Local Open Space 25.0 Neighborhood Parks 0.3 Undeveloped 0.0 Special Use Areas 2.9 Community Parks 0.0 Landscaped 1.0 Park Name Location Condition Acres Sharkey Begovich Community Main Street (across from Excellent 0.3 Park City Hall) Lodge Hill Park Near the Fairgrounds Fair 1.9 Norm Waters Park Burke Drive Fair 25.0 McGee Park Main Street (near City Hall) Excellent 1.0 Public Pool Fairgrounds Good 1.0 Service Challenges Funding and staffing are two major constraints, as is the provision of land outside of private development. Facility Needs/Deficiencies The City reported that it needs a skateboard park, ball fields and ball teams. ACRA recommended that the City needs a new neighborhood park and a new multi-use park. Facility Sharing The City and School District currently have agreements for the use and programming of school facilities, particularly the gymnasium. Developer Fees and Requirements Development Impact Fee NA Land Dedication Requirement Land area in proportion to 5 acres per 1,000 residents (based on number of dwellings and average household size) In-Lieu Fees Fees are based upon the fair market value of land needed to meet the same ratio of persons to acreage of parkland. Notes: (1) Developed park acreage per 1,000 residents per the Department of Finance January 2008 estimate. (2) The Amador County Recreation Agency's adopted countywide policy is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. II-132 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH CEMETERY SERVICE NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Plymouth owns and maintains the Plymouth Cemetery. City maintenance workers maintain the cemetery, with supplemental work provided by probationers and volunteers. There is one probationer working 16 hours per week on general maintenance, as of the drafting of this report. Funeral and interment services are provided by private mortuaries. The City took over the cemetery in the 1980s. No records were kept before that time. Volunteers with the City’s Cemetery Board have mapped the property and updated records. Burials There are 1,100 to 1,175 occupied plots in the cemetery. Most tombstones in the Plymouth Cemetery are from the second half of the 19th century. Thirty-six burials have taken place since 2000. In the last two calendar years, the City accommodated four interments per year. Approximately 30 plots are available in the cemetery; all remaining plots are likely to be occupied within five to seven years. Plot Acquisition The City reported that plots are only available for “old-town” residents, in other words a person who is a descendent of a historical Plymouth family. The City’s Cemetery Board (currently staffed only by the city clerk) determines if a person meets this criterion by research in historical registries. The City reports that in recent years some burials have taken place without City permission. These burials were performed by mortuaries outside the Plymouth area; local mortuaries know to get approval before interment. There are no fees to be buried in the cemetery. LOCATION Plymouth City Cemetery is located at the end of Church Street, within City bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE Plymouth Cemetery is 3.35 acres in size and in fair condition. The City reports that some plots are starting to deteriorate, with bricks crumbling and falling in some locations. The City’s Cemetery Board has attempted to contact families through the Amador County Cemetery Board to alert them of needed repairs. This has yielded minimal success. Minimal repairs are funded through the County’s Cemetery Board. The cemetery is open for visitation 24-hours a day. BY BURR CONSULTING II-133 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Maintenance workers use City-owned equipment for lawn care and other maintenance activities. No equipment is owned exclusively by the cemetery. Volunteers supply their own equipment. The City reported that it does not have plans to construct or expand cemetery facilities. The City also refers residents in need of cemetery services to a private cemetery located in the City of Jackson. SERVICE ADEQUACY The City of Plymouth reported that it has the capacity to provide maintenance to the Plymouth Cemetery, albeit at a minimum service level. No other services beyond routine maintenance are planned. The City did not identify any opportunities to share cemetery facilities with other service providers. The City does not have an endowment care fund for cemetery operations, and is not required to have such a fund. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • The City of Plymouth population grew from 980 in 2000 to 1,033 in 2008, an increase of five percent. At build-out of the projects located within the City’s existing sphere, the population would be 3,177, an increase of 208 percent over the 2008 population. Build-out of all projects in the vicinity would add an additional 302 residents. • The City’s land use plan for the proposed SOI in the general plan update would accommodate a population of 5,572, an increase of 439 percent over the 2008 population. • Wastewater flow projections for the City forecast population growth from 2005 to 2015 of 55 percent, 109 percent from 2005 to 2025, and 600 percent from 2005 to build-out. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The City lacks adequate water supplies, and water storage capacity; however, a planned pipeline and storage improvements would address these deficiencies. • Water services are not presently adequate due to insufficient supplies, and a treatment facility in poor condition; however, these deficiencies will be addressed by a planned pipeline. • The water distribution system is subject to a relatively high water loss rate. The City was unable to provide information on the extent of the system (pipe miles). The City needs to evaluate and correct deficiencies in its distribution system. II-134 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH • Wastewater services are not presently adequate due to a relatively low service level (primary treatment and minimal planning), and a collection system with heavy peak flows and structural defects. The City’s regulatory compliance record has been inadequate. Services and related planning could be improved. • To accommodate proposed growth within the existing SOI, the City needs to upgrade to an aerated lagoon treatment system (at a cost of $1.0-1.5 million). To provide wastewater capacity to future growth within the SOI proposed by the City, the City would need to upgrade to a secondary treatment process, and expand spray fields and reservoirs (at an estimated cost of $10-15 million). • Existing roadway capacity is adequate, as all city-maintained roads operate at a satisfactory level of service. However, the City anticipates some roadways will decline to an unsatisfactory level of service at build-out. • There is a significant backlog of deferred roadway maintenance. The City reports that approximately 5.8 miles of roadway are in need of rehabilitation, or nearly 83 percent of all city-maintained roadways. • The capacity of drainage infrastructure is severely limited. The city engineer reports that the drainage system is old, in poor condition, and is not functioning well. Once the City fixes its drainage system, the weak system at the fairgrounds (maintained by the County) will be overloaded and in need of rehabilitation. • When the City’s building moratorium is lifted and development begins, the City will require additional drainage infrastructure to meet the increased demand. • The City has a ratio of 28.3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is significantly higher than the current countywide parkland ratio of 7.3 acres per 1,000 residents, as well as the countywide goal for parkland of 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. • The City seeks to increase the municipal park standard to meet the National Recreation and Park Association recommended standard of 6.25 to 10.50 acres of mini-, neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 persons. Of these types of parkland, the City’s ratio is 0.29 acres per 1,000 residents. • The Plymouth Cemetery is reaching capacity, as the City reports that there are approximately 30 plots available. Thirty-six burials have taken place since 2000, with approximately four per year in the last two calendar years. The City anticipates that all remaining plots are likely to be occupied within five to seven years. • The City reports that some cemetery plots are starting to deteriorate, with bricks crumbling and falling in some locations. The City’s Cemetery Board has attempted to contact families through the Amador County Cemetery Board to alert them of needed repairs, but this has yielded little success. BY BURR CONSULTING II-135 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The City reported that current financing is insufficient to deliver adequate services, and that economic development and growth are needed to improve service levels. The City’s only funding source for police protection is the annual COPS grant. The City’s general and public works functions are understaffed. The City’s planning, engineering and financial functions are staffed by consultants. • Although Plymouth reported sufficient financing to provide water services, analysis of service adequacy indicates that an assessment and update of rates, fees and efficiency may be necessary to improve service levels for the City. • Roadway maintenance is constrained by a lack of funding. The City reports it does not have the funds to maintain even its highest priority streets, and it would take a one-time expenditure of $3 million to address the backlog of deferred maintenance. • Rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City drainage system is estimated to cost at least $1.3 million. • The City reports that it has the financial ability to provide park services for both the existing service area and for future growth areas. • The financial ability of the City to provide cemetery maintenance is limited. Routine maintenance is performed by the City on an occasional basis, with the City relying on volunteers for additional maintenance. There are no fees to be buried at the cemetery; however, burials are restricted to those that are descendents of a historical Plymouth family. • Minimal cemetery repairs are occasionally funded through the Amador County Cemetery Board. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The City does not practice facility sharing for water services, roadway and drainage maintenance, or cemetery service, and did not identify any possible opportunities. • Plymouth is a member of the Amador County Recreation Agency, which provides countywide recreation programming and facilitates collaborative planning efforts. • Future facility sharing opportunities include the planned Plymouth and AWA pipeline to bring treated water to the City. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Accountability is best ensured when contested elections are held for governing body seats, constituent outreach is conducted to promote accountability and ensure that constituents are informed and not disenfranchised, and public agency operations and management are II-136 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF PLYMOUTH transparent to the public. The City of Plymouth demonstrated accountability with respect to all of these factors. • The City evaluates its performance by conducting a strength-weakness-opportunities-threats (SWOT) analysis on a quarterly basis. The City reported that its accomplishments include solving its annual post-fair mosquito problem. • Operational efficiencies are achieved in the provision of cemetery maintenance through the use of probationers and volunteers for maintenance activities in addition to those provided by the City. • Cemetery service lacks sufficient safeguards for authorization of burials. The City reports that in recent years unauthorized burials have taken place in the Plymouth Cemetery. BY BURR CONSULTING II-137 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 5. C I T Y O F S U T T E R C R E E K The City of Sutter Creek provides wastewater, law enforcement, street maintenance, drainage, and parks and recreation services. The City relies on the Sutter Creek FPD for fire protection and emergency medical services, and relies on Amador Water Agency for water services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION AND BOUNDARY Sutter Creek was formed as a town in 1854 and officially incorporated on March 7, 1913 when the law enabling general law cities was adopted.206 The City is a general law city. The City’s boundary is entirely within Amador County. The City is located at the intersection of SR 49 and SR 104, approximately 1.25 miles northwest of the City of Jackson and 1.1 miles southeast of Amador City. The City’s bounds extend north and northwest along Old Highway 49 and east along Shake Ridge Road. The City has a boundary area of approximately 2.5 square miles (1,600 acres). Amador LAFCO records date back to 1966, and the State Board of Equalization (BOE) maintains records of officially recorded boundary changes since 1948. Over this period, Sutter Creek has completed 38 annexations to its bounds according to LAFCO and BOE records, as shown in Table II-5-1. Annexation size is known for 19 of the 38 annexations; the known total is 1,289 acres (66 percent of current City bounds). Sutter Hill was annexed to the City in 1979. The largest annexation was completed in 2005, with 833 acres. Most recently, LAFCO approved a 43.9- acre annexation to the City in August 2007. The City also intends to initiate the annexation of a multi-acre area in Sutter Hill in 2008. The City’s SOI was confirmed by LAFCO in 2007.207 The SOI covers approximately four square miles, 59 percent larger than the City’s current bounds. The largest SOI extensions from the bounds are on the west side of Sutter Creek. This includes parcels on either side of SR 49, as well as a large westerly extension from SR 104 nearly to Beaver Loop Road. There is also SOI area outside of bounds to the City’s northeast, and a smaller area of land to the east of bounds north of Ridge Road. The SOI does not extend beyond the bounds in the Martell area; it is contiguous with bounds in this region. 206 City of Sutter Creek, FY 07-08 Budget, p. II-7. 207 LAFCO Resolution 2007-08. II-138 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK Table II-5-1: City of Sutter Creek Annexation Records LAFCO Resolution Project Name Acres Number 1 Official Date 2 Pre-LAFCO Annexation NA 12/3/1956 (B) Pre-LAFCO Annexation NA 4/21/1959 (B) Sutter Hill Addition NA 5/12/1905 (B) George Allen Annexation NA 6/8/1960 (B) Columbia Rabe Subdivision Annexation NA 7/17/1964 (B) Oro Madre Subdivision Annexation NA 3/10/1965 (B) Sutter Oaks Unit Number Two Annexation NA 3/15/1966 (B) Nesse Garage Annexation 67-6 11/9/1967 (L) Ridge Road Annexation NA 2/1/1968 (B) Cranfill Annexation 69-17 9/17/1970 (B) Moroni Annexation 69-18 9/17/1970 (B) Thomas Annexation 69-19 9/17/1970 (B) Martin Annexation 69-21 9/17/1970 (B) Becker Annexation 1.0 72-46 6/28/1972 (B) Robello and Calandir Annexation 3.4 72-50 6/21/1973 (B) Robello Annexation 73-55 4/26/1973 (L) Jensen Annexation 4.1 73-57 12/21/1973 (B) Portion of Sutter Creek Road Annexation 73-60 9/27/1973 (L) Sorasol/Klinefelter Annexation 39.6 78-113 6/30/1978 (L) Fuller Annexation 17.4 78-122 3/30/1979 (C) Collins Annexation 78-128 3/28/1979 (C) Sutter Hill Annexation 51.3 79-137 11/13/1979 (C) Italian Benevolent Society Annexation 41.1 79-144 10/21/1980 (C) Boundary Adjustment Annexation 22.7 80-145 1/17/1980 (L) Highway No. 49 & Burr Annexation 4.2 80-147 5/19/1980 (C) Cox and Woodworth Annexation 81-158 3/22/1982 (C) Fitzgerald Annexation 23.5 83-170,171 9/14/1984 (C) Collins Annexation 44.2 84-179 1/9/1985 (C) Collins, Hulse and Hartwick Annexation 11.1 84-182 6/28/1985 (B) Allen Annexation 14.2 86-193 3/27/1986 (L) Sutter Hill Plaza Annexation 24.0 86-194 5/29/1986 (L) Sutter Crest Estates Annexation 95.1 86-195 7/21/1987 (C) Lane & Sarah Allen Annexation 0.5 87-206 10/3/1988 (B) Sutter Crest East Annexation NA 2/5/1991 (B) Old Sutter Hill Road Annexation 87-203 2/6/1992 (B) Noble Ranch/Allen Phase 2 Annexation 833.0 04-01 2/25/2005 (B) Oneto Annexation to City of Sutter Creek 14.6 00-001, 1/9/2007 (C) 06-01 3 Cramer Hill (Allen) Annexation 43.9 2007-10 8/16/2007 (L) Notes: (1) "NA" indicates LAFCO records are not available. (2) "L" indicates that the official date is according to the LAFCO resolution, "C" indicates that the official date is according to the Certificate of Completion, and "B" indicates that the official date is according to the Board of Equalization filing. (3) The Oneto Annexation was reaffirmed by LAFCO in 2006. BY BURR CONSULTING II-139 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The City is governed by a five-member City Council. The members are elected at-large to staggered, four-year terms. The mayor and vice-mayor positions are elected within the Council for one-year terms. There were no contested elections in 2004 or 2006. For information on individual Council members and meeting information, see Table II-5-2. Table II-5-2: City of Sutter Creek Governing Body Sutter Creek City Council Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Tim Murphy Mayor Nov-08 Bill Hepworth Mayor Pro-Tem Nov-10 Members Brent Parsons Member Nov-08 Gary Wooten Member Nov-08 Pat Crosby Member Nov-10 Manner of Selection Elections at large Length of Term Four years, staggered Date: first and third Monday of each Location: Community Meetings month, at 7:00pm Building Agenda Distribution Posted, Online, Email request Minutes Distribution Email request Contact Contact J. Robert Duke, City Manager Mailing Address 18 Main Street, Sutter Creek, California 95685 Phone (209) 267-5647 Email/Website info@ci.sutter-creek.ca.us, http://ci.sutter-creek.ca.us/index.html The City apprises residents of meetings and events through the City’s website and five public bulletin boards distributed throughout the City. In addition, the City has established an email list serve for subscription to news regarding the Gold Rush Ranch development (see Growth). The City reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. Regarding customer service, the city manager serves as the City’s ombudsman, with the public works superintendent serving the role for public works-related matters. Complaints may be submitted verbally or in writing. The City reported that most complaints are related to street repairs, overgrown trees and sewer rates. The City does not track the number of complaints received. The City demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaire, interview and document requests. MANAGEMENT In addition to the City Council and administrative offices, Sutter Creek’s government is organized into a police department, a planning department, a public works department, and a parks and recreation department. The daily operations of Sutter Creek are managed by the city manager, a Council appointee. The city manager is the chief administrator and is responsible for implementing II-140 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK the policies and priorities of the Council, as well as overseeing all City departments. In addition to City Council members, elected officials include the city clerk and treasurer. Sutter Creek has a policy standard of 6.5 City employees to 1,000 City residents; with the 2008 population this standard would call for 19 employees.208 The City has 23 full-time personnel and four part-time personnel. The City reported that increased staffing levels have improved service levels in recent years, a trend that continued in FY 07-08 with the creation of a new assistant city manager position and the upgrade of a part-time planning clerk position to full-time. The assistant city manager position has been filled and is reflected in the 23 full-time personnel. The City reported that employee evaluations are conducted semi-annually. The City does not regularly evaluate agency performance or track agency workload. Sutter Creek is in the process of updating several planning documents. The City’s central planning document is its general plan, which was completed in 1994. The housing element was updated in February 2008. The City is in the process of updating the land use, circulation and infrastructure elements. In addition, the City reported that it was updating master plans for streets and wastewater in FY 07-08. The City’s financial planning documents include annual budgets and annual audits. The City completed a Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study in January 2008 and plans to create a five-year capital improvement plan in FY 07-08. The most recent financial audit provided to LAFCO was from FY 05-06. The auditor reported that the City “has not recorded capital assets for governmental activities nor provided completed historic information for its business-type activities capital assets and accordingly, has not recorded depreciation expense on capital assets,” as required by generally accepted account principles. The City practices risk management by providing for liability insurance. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH The City of Sutter Creek’s land uses are somewhat evenly divided between residential and non- residential uses. Residential use is concentrated north of Patricia Lane on either side of Old Highway 49. Commercial and industrial land uses are concentrated in the Sutter Hill area (the southern portion of the City) and along Old Highway 49.209 County-designated land use outside of the City is largely vacant, as is the case with other cities. There is some agricultural land use to the east.210 208 City of Sutter Creek, Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study, 2008, p. 18. 209 City of Sutter Creek, General Plan Land Use Element, 1994, Map LU-1. 210 Amador County, Amador County General Plan, Existing (2007) Land Use Classifications Map, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-141 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The City’s primary industries are wholesale, retail, agriculture and services.211 Significant employers in the City include visitor accommodations such as hotels and bed and breakfast inns. The City reports that demand for municipal services is increasing along with population, as discussed below. Population Sutter Creek has 2,945 residents, amounting to 7.7 percent of the Amador County population.212 The City’s population density is 961 per square mile, making it the second least dense of incorporated areas in the County behind Amador City. By comparison, the countywide population density is 64 per square mile. Figure II-5-3: Sutter Creek Population, 2000-8 The population in Sutter Creek grew 3,500 by nearly 30 percent from 2000 to 2008. 3,000 The City has demonstrated positive 2,500 growth in each of these years except for the most recent year, as shown in Figure 2,000 II-5-3. Recent population growth 1,500 includes new residents in a new 112-unit 1,000 apartment building. 500 The number of new residential 0 construction permits issued in City 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 bounds over these years followed a similar pattern as population growth. A total of 108 permits were granted in 2000 through 2006, peaking in 2005 with 26 permits and dropping to 14 in 2006. Commercial construction activity has taken place in the City in six of the last eight years. In 2001 and 2002, the City’s value of new commercial construction reached $450,000 and $360,000. Small amounts were recorded in 2004 and 2005, and in both 2006 and 2007 over $580,000 in new commercial construction took place in the City. Assuming a constant growth rate, the City projects a population of 6,453 in city bounds by 2028.213 By build out, which the City assumes to be about 2045, the population is projected to reach 9,460.214 211 City of Sutter Creek, FY 07-08 Budget, p. II-11. 212 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2008. 213 City of Sutter Creek, Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study, 2008, p. i. 214 HDR Engineering, Sutter Creek Wastewater Master Plant, Aug. 2007, p. 3-1. II-142 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO noitalupoP CITY OF SUTTER CREEK Development There were six planned and proposed residential developments entailing a total of 1,602 residential units in the Sutter Creek SOI as of the drafting of this report, as shown on Table II-5-4. Of the six, three proposals have received City approval. The Powder House development will include 107 residential units, including 54 town homes, at Gopher Flat Road and Eureka Street. The Golden Hills Development (formerly Sutter East Crest) has been approved for two of four phases and entails 79 single-family residences. It is also to be located on Gopher Flat Road. Bryson Drive Cottages was approved for 12 units, and was under construction as of mid-2008. Table II-5-4: Planned and Proposed Developments in the City of Sutter Creek SOI Non- General Residential Development Developer Location Acres Units Acres1 Bryson Drive Cottages Sidle Construction/Web Partners In Bounds 1.6 12 0 Crestview Aleytha Collins In Bounds 19.7 48 0 Fitzgerald Estates Pat Fitzgerald In Bounds 23.7 22 0 Gold Rush Ranch Gold Rush Ranch, LLC Bounds/SOI 945.0 1,334 NP Golden Hills Stan Gamble/Trafalger In Bounds 53.8 79 0 Powder House Stan Gamble/Trafalger In Bounds 34.7 107 0 Note: (1) Non-residential acres exclude parks and open space. The largest development proposed is the Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort, which would include 1,334 new single-family homes in 12 neighborhoods across approximately 945 acres. The proposed site consists of two parcels: the 833-acre Noble Ranch parcel and the 112-acre Allen Ranch parcel.215 Of the entire site, 333 acres are not within Sutter Creek’s bounds, and part of the developer’s proposal is to annex these acres to the City (as well as to SCFPD).216 The City anticipates a necessary increase in staffing by 29 employees, in addition to infrastructure needs, should this development be approved.217 The other proposed developments are small by comparison. Crestview and Fitzgerald Estates developments would add a total of 70 single-family homes at build-out, all located within the bounds of the City. By way of non-residential development, three applications have been approved by the County in the adjacent Martell area, outside of the City’s SOI. The Martell Business Park and the Sierra West Business Park (Phases I and II) would together cover 457 acres and contain 91 commercial units. For a list of all planned and proposed developments in Amador County by area, see Table II-30-1. 215 Gold Rush Ranch and Gold Resorts, 2008, URL accessed 4/1/08, www.goldrushranch.com 216 Gee, J. “Sutter Creek to pan through 'Gold Rush',” The Amador Dispatch, July 18, 2007. 217 Interoffice Memorandum re: Phasing Analysis, from Rob Duke to Mark Northcross, March 27, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-143 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Growth Strategies Sutter Creek’s planning area differs from both its bounds and SOI. The area excludes the southwest extension of city bounds and SOI, but includes additional areas to the northwest and southeast of the SOI. The additional northwest area extends along Tonzi Road and covers approximately 0.3 square miles. The additional southeast area abuts the City of Jackson’s SOI and includes the airport. This area covers an additional 0.35 square miles. The City’s current (1994) land use element espouses goals to maintain Sutter Creek’s rural, small town atmosphere, its historic qualities and its current levels of public services and facilities. By way of commercial development, Sutter Creek aims to improve the local economy by recruiting and maintaining tourism and related businesses in the historic areas, and orderly development of non-polluting industries in the Sutter Hill/Martell area. Industrial developments should have “campus-like” atmospheres. The City encourages in-fill development rather than sprawling or strip-type commercial development. To facilitate economic growth, the general plan recommends the appointment of a “business ombudsman”.218 The City is also considering the designation of a portion of the City for a redevelopment project.219 The City’s growth strategies aim to avoid conflict over sales tax revenues in Martell while advancing municipal interests. Favored growth areas are largely to the west of the City, and are intended to accommodate rather than induce growth. Specifically, the City’s annexation strategy includes four main priority areas: the East Ridge Road area, East and West Allen Ranch along both sides of the Bypass, Bowers Ranch (Valley View), and Ridge Road (SR 104) frontage between SR 88 and SR 49. Other areas of interest for Sutter Creek include the lower Ridge Road area to SR 88 and the Sutter Creek Gateway area.220 The City has requested an expedited annexation for the Old Ridge Road area (Sutter Hill East) in order to provide sewer services to residents there, although no application has yet been submitted to LAFCO. The majority of this area is within the City’s current SOI.221 Sutter Creek City Council defined one high-priority SOI expansion area for the City: the Council would like LAFCO to add the West Allen, Bowers and Munn Ranch areas north of Gold Rush to the SOI. The City views this area as the “natural expansion area” for the City in the coming decades. 222 The City reports that it has the infrastructure and capacity to serve each of these growth 218 City of Sutter Creek, General Plan Land Use Element, 1994, p. LU-26. 219 City of Sutter Creek, FY 07-08 Budget, p. I-2. 220 Ibid. 221 Gee, J. “Sutter Creek requests an exception to LAFCO policy.” Amador Ledger-Dispatch, August 21, 2007. 222 City of Sutter Creek, General Plan Land Use Element, 1994, p. LU-26. II-144 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK areas. The City Council anticipates that a reasonable tax split may be negotiated with the County regarding annexation of this area.223 FINANCING The City finances its general government, police, community development, streets, cemetery, and parks operations primarily with vehicle license fees, property taxes and charges for services. Capital needs are funded by development impact fees and grants. The City finances its street needs with gas tax, grant funds and general revenue. The City finances its sewer operations with sewer rates; its sewer capital improvements are financed with sewer connection fees and certificates of participation. The City reports that financing is not adequate to deliver services. The key fiscal challenge is a significant decrease in sales tax revenue since 2006. Specifically, the City identified a need for more economic development. Other financial strategies include timely processing of proposed annexations, review of sewer rates, connection fees and development impact fees to ensure cost recovery is being achieved, and consideration of forming a redevelopment area.224 The City tracks its financial activities separately through various funds. The general fund is the City’s main operating fund. Other major governmental funds include a traffic mitigation fund and community center fund. Wastewater system finances and all golf course related services are tracked through enterprise funds. The City’s total revenues were $3.8 million in FY 05-06. Revenue sources included property taxes (14 percent), sales taxes (11 percent), sewer rates (22 percent), sewer connection fees (12 percent), intergovernmental transfers (12 percent), licenses, permits and fees (11 percent), and charges for governmental services (nine percent). The City’s sales tax revenues are somewhat lower than in the remainder of Amador County. Taxable sales per resident were $11,455 in 2006 in the City.225 By comparison, the countywide average was $12,698, and the statewide average was $15,344. 223 Sutter Creek City Council, Manager’s Report on Municipal Service Review: Annexation and Sphere of Influence Update Strategy, February 19, 2008. 224 City of Sutter Creek, Final Adopted Budget, FY 07-08, 2007, p. I-2. 225 This indicator is calculated as the ratio of taxable sales at all outlets in 2006 to the average annual household population in the City in 2006 (i.e., the average of the January 2006 and January 2007 household population estimates from DOF). BY BURR CONSULTING II-145 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% II-146 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO 1-0002 2-1002 3-2002 4-3002 5-4002 6-5002 7-6002 Figure II-5-5: Annual Growth in Taxable Sales City sales tax revenues have declined significantly since 2004, as shown in Figure II-5-5. Taxable sales per capita decreased from $13,699 in 2004 to $9,520 in 2007. This decline was paralleled in the City of Jackson where taxable sales per capita went from $28,255 to $22,252. This decline can most likely be attributed to the opening of the Martell Shopping Center in the unincorporated territory between the two cities. By contrast, sales tax revenue per capita in the Unincorporated Sutter Creek Jackson unincorporated areas increased from $9,544 in 2004 to $16,572 in 2007. Citywide street lighting and landscaping costs are paid through the general fund. The City levies assessments in Crestview Estates to fund street lighting and landscaping there through a lighting and landscaping district. The City did not provide the amount of assessment per home. The City charges development impact fees for police, fire and general facilities; the 2008 fee is $4,753 per unit for new single-family housing, and $3,101 per unit for new multi-family housing.226 City expenditures were $3.4 million in FY 05-06. Of its total expenditures, 25 percent was spent on sewer operations, 30 percent on police operations, 10 percent on general government, 17 percent on public works and roads, 7 percent on parks and recreation, 4 percent on community development, and 1 percent on debt service. The City had $0.7 million in long-term debt outstanding at the end of FY 05-06. The debt was composed primarily of a wastewater bond used to finance construction of the wastewater collection system. In addition, there was debt associated with a mortgage note payable, a vehicle lease and compensated absences. The City does not have a formal policy on maintaining financial reserves. The City had a $0.3 million unreserved balance in its general fund at the close of FY 05-06. This amount is equivalent to 16 percent of general expenditures in FY 06-07. In other words, the City maintained two months of working reserves. The City’s sewer fund had $1.5 million in unrestricted net assets at the close of FY 05-06, or 137 percent of annual operating expenditures. The City participates in joint financing mechanisms. For risk management, the City participates in the San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority, a public entity risk pool. City investments are pooled in the Local Agency Investment Fund managed by the State Treasurer. Employees are eligible to participate in pension plans offered by California Public Employees Retirement System— 226 City of Sutter Creek, Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study, Jan. 22, 2008. CITY OF SUTTER CREEK a multiple-employer defined pension plan. The City is a member agency in the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA), a JPA that provides wastewater treatment and disposal services to the City as well as Amador City and AWA’s Martell service area. WASTEWATER SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City provides wastewater collection services directly to 1,090 connections, and inspects, cleans and repairs sewer collection infrastructure in its service area, such as pipes, manholes and lift stations. The City also conducts related billing, collection and accounting activities. As a member agency of the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA), the City shares wastewater treatment and disposal facilities with Amador City and AWA’s Martell service area. All three member agencies contribute toward ARSA costs. The City is the largest member agency based on wastewater flow, and staffs ARSA. ARSA partners with the City of Ione, Mule Creek State Prison, the Preston Youth Correctional Facility and the Castle Oaks development. LOCATION The City provides wastewater collection services within its bounds and not outside its bounds.227 There are some septic systems within City bounds.228 The Sutter Creek WWTP is located just within the northwest boundary of the City on Sutter Creek. The WWTP treats flows originating outside the City bounds in the City of Amador and the unincorporated community of Martell. INFRASTRUCTURE Key City-owned infrastructure includes the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), 22 miles of sewer pipes and two lift stations. Key components of the ARSA-owned disposal system are the nine-mile regional outfall and two reservoirs. 227 Although the City provides wastewater treatment services to the City of Amador and CSA 4, the City does not maintain the wastewater collection systems in these communities; hence, the City is not a wastewater collection service provider to the City of Amador and CSA 4. 228 There were 21 homes on septic systems, according to the 1990 Census, which was the most recent census to inquire about residential sewage disposal. BY BURR CONSULTING II-147 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II City of Sutter Creek The wastewater collection system consists of approximately 22 miles of gravity sewer lines and 0.2 miles of pressure sewer.229 The system is subject to infiltration and inflow, with a peaking factor as high as 4.25 (peak day) and 5.81 (peak hour). The City’s capital improvement program anticipates collection system improvement expenses of $100,000 annually to address deficiencies. The Sutter Creek WWTP has a facility design flow capacity of 0.48 mgd (ADWF), and can accommodate peak flows of 1.5 mgd (peak day) or 2.15 mgd (peak hour). By comparison, existing flow (ADWF) in the WWTP service area was 0.4 mgd in 2007, and build-out flow is projected to be 3.5 mgd.230 The plant expansion capacity is limited to approximately 1 mgd due to its location in a steep canyon adjacent to the Sutter Creek streambed; however, an adjacent site has been identified for a future WWTP site. The treatment system consists of a bar screen, primary sedimentation in roto-strainers, clarigester, and trickling filter system constructed in the early 1950s.231 Effluent is chlorinated prior to discharge into the ARSA Regional Outfall. Solids are dewatered onsite; sludge is hauled off-site to a landfill for disposal. The primary regulatory concern relating to the Sutter Creek WWTP relates to discharges to Sutter Creek during flood events. The WWTP is located in a floodplain; in 1997 the plant was flooded causing equipment to be shut down for several days and untreated sewage to be discharged into the creek. The City reported that a flood wall project in May 2008 has alleviated this problem.232 The Sutter Creek WWTP is fairly old. Until recently, it lacked sufficient capacity in the winter to provide for emergency storage of raw sewage. The wet weather flows conveyed to the plant have exceeded the capacity of the City of Sutter Creek plant to store and treat sewage without overflows to Sutter Creek. However, the City reported that the storage pond was expanded in May 2008 to alleviate the peak flow storage inadequacies.233 The RWQCB imposed a cleanup and abatement order in 2001 due to wastewater collection system deficiencies, and the City completed the required improvements by 2005.234 However, the peaking factor remains high. The City plans to replace the WWTP with a new plant with capacity to accommodate growth and peak flows. The City has analyzed various alternatives, including a regional WWTP, and concluded that it would be less expensive for Sutter Creek to rely on a regional or sub-regional plant located in Sutter Creek rather 229 State Water Resources Control Board, California Integrated Water Quality System database. 230 HDR, Amador Regional Sanitation Authority Master Plan, June 2008, Chapter 3. 231 ECO:LOGIC Engineering, Amador County Regional Wastewater Management Plan, 2005, p. 4-9. 232 Correspondence from City of Sutter Creek City Manager, J. Robert Duke, to LAFCO Executive Officer, Roseanne Chamberlain, August 8, 2008. 233 Correspondence from City of Sutter Creek City Manager, J. Robert Duke, to LAFCO Executive Officer, Roseanne Chamberlain, August 8, 2008. 234 HDR Engineering, Sutter Creek Wastewater Master Plan, 2007, p. 4-2. II-148 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK than a regional plant located in the Martell area.235 The City plans to arrange for the new WWTP to be expandable to handle growth and regional flows in the future, and also to allow for conveyance of treated effluent to the Martell area, and plans to locate the new WWTP on property adjacent to its existing plant. Amador Regional Sanitation Authority Once discharged from the City’s WWTP, secondary treated effluent flows through the ARSA regional outfall to the City of Ione for tertiary treatment and disposal. A portion of the effluent is used by ranchers along the pipeline for irrigation. ARSA had discharged to the Preston Youth Correctional Facility for tertiary treatment and disposal until 2002 when Preston’s permit was rescinded due to regulatory non-compliance.236 The outfall is composed of nine miles of pipeline segments and a series of three reservoirs used for effluent storage. The reservoirs are Henderson Reservoir (unincorporated), Preston Forebay Reservoir and Preston Reservoir (at Preston Youth Correctional Facility in the City of Ione). Henderson Reservoir was built in 1888, and raised 12 feet in 1929; the State Division of Safety of Dams asked ARSA to re-evaluate seismic safety of the dam and add a buttress for structural stability. ARSA reported that it is evaluating needs at the dam. The Preston Forebay dam was built in 1923, and leaks when operated with less than 12-feet freeboard; the dam needs to be reevaluated and reinforced with a buttress to restore its function to its design capacity. The reservoirs are owned by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and are used and maintained by ARSA through a lease agreement. The regional outfall is nine miles in length. The 4.3-mile segment between the WWTP and Henderson Reservoir was constructed of iron pipe in 1979, and is in fair condition; CCTV evaluation is needed to determine its remaining life.237 The 3.7-mile segment between Henderson Reservoir and Preston Forebay was constructed of concrete in the late 1920s, is in unknown condition, and needs inspection and most likely repairs. Similarly, the 1-mile segment between Preston Forebay and Preston Reservoir was constructed of steel piping, is in unknown condition, and needs inspection and most likely repairs. ARSA needs to replace the pipe segment between Sutter-Ione Road and Henderson Reservoir, and needs to install a parallel pipeline between the WWTP and Sutter-Ione Road to improve reliability, to slipline the pipeline below Henderson Reservoir to allow for pressurization, and to install flow measurement below Henderson Reservoir.238 235 HDR Engineering, Sutter Creek Wastewater Master Plan, 2007, p. 8-5. 236 Central Valley RWQCB, Cease and Desist Order No. R5-2002-0013, 2002. Preston regulatory non-compliance included failure to meet tertiary treatment standards, failure to meet requirements for a dual-plumbed water system, discharging outside the designated area, and lack of signage alerting the public. 237 HDR Engineering, Sutter Creek Master Plan Technical Memorandum: Summary of ARSA Pipeline Condition Assessment, Oct. 17, 2007. 238 HDR, Amador Regional Sanitation Authority Master Plan, June 2008, p. ES-3. BY BURR CONSULTING II-149 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Between April and September, Preston Reservoir also accepts flows from the Mule Creek Prison WWTP, which in turn treats flows from the prison, the Preston facility and the CALFIRE Academy. From Preston Reservoir, ARSA effluent flows to City of Ione wastewater treatment facilities. During the dry season (April to November), flows are directed to the tertiary Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Plant (COWRP) and are ultimately discharged to land for irrigation of the Castle Oaks Golf Course. During the wet season, flows are stored at Henderson and Preston Reservoirs, and excess flows are directed to the Ione secondary WWTP (crossing Sutter Creek) and discharged to nearby ponds. The City of Ione is required to accept up to 650 af (0.6 mgd) in ARSA flows during a wet year. ARSA has agreed by 2011 to eliminate flows to Ione’s secondary wastewater ponds; in other words, ARSA must store flows or divert them elsewhere between October and March. Under its contract with the City of Ione, the ARSA system discharge into the Ione area could be cancelled with five years notice. To prepare for this, ARSA plans to develop storage and disposal capacity upstream of Preston Reservoir. Specifically, ARSA plans to raise Goffinet Dam by seven feet to provide the capacity (297 af) needed to support ADWF of 0.8 mgd.239 Once flows approach 0.8 mgd, ARSA plans to evaluate additional storage sites unless it should obtain regulatory approval to discharge to Sutter Creek. The ARSA master plan estimated the cost of developing additional storage at $11.3 million. ARSA land disposal sites have capacity to handle flows of about 0.4 mgd. To expand disposal capacity, ARSA has identified several ranches located close to the ARSA pipeline where it plans to initiate negotiations with property owners for long-term agreements to apply treated effluent. 239 HDR, Amador Regional Sanitation Authority Master Plan, June 2008. II-150 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK Table II-5-6: Sutter Creek Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection Sutter Creek Wastewater Treatment Sutter Creek Wastewater Disposal ARSA Recycled Water None Service Area Collection: Sutter Creek city limits Treatment: Sutter Creek, Amador City, Martell Recycled Water Bowers Ranch, Hoskins Ranch Sewer Connection Regulatory/Policies Property owners must connect to the public sewer system. Onsite Septic Systems in Service Area There were 21 homes on septic systems, according to the 1990 Census, which was the most recent census to inquire about residential sewage disposal. Service Demand 2007 Connections Flow (mgd) Inside Outside Type Total Bounds Bounds2 Average Total NP 1,090 NP 0.3 Residential NP 972 NP NP Commercial NP 118 NP NP Industrial NP 0 NP NP Projected Demand (in millions of gallons per day) 2005 2015 2025 Build-Out ADWF - Sutter Creek 0.23 0 .64 0.80 1.05 ADWF - ARSA 0.37 1 .20 1.60 3.50 Peak hour flow - ARSA 2.15 5 .90 6.70 14.50 Notes: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided; ADWF: Average dry weather flow; PWWF: peak wet weather flow (2) The City provides wastewater collection services to a small portion of the Argonaut Heights area. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-151 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Secondary Disposal method: Secondary treated effluent is discharged through the ARSA outfall to land sites. Facility Name Capacity Condition Year Built Sutter Creek WWTP 0.48 mgd Fair early 1950s ARSA Henderson Reservoir 380 af Fair to Poor 1888/1929 ARSA Preston Forebay Reservoir 12 af Poor 1923 ARSA Preston Reservoir 235 af NP NP ARSA Regional Outfall (WWTP to Henderson) 4.3 miles Fair 1979 ARSA Regional Outfall (Henderson to Forebay) 3.7 miles Unknown late 1920s ARSA Regional Outfall (Forebay to Preston) 1.0 mile Unknown NP Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) Average Dry Peak Wet Sutter Creek WWTP 0.40 1.57 (peak day), 2.15 (peak hour) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Interim improvements—converting emergency storage basin into aerated lagoon, adding flow control system in the influent channel, and installing screw press dewatering facility—are expected to increase capacity to 0.6 mgd and to be complete in 2008. The WWTP lacks sufficient capacity for emergency storage of peak flows during winter, and needs an addition 1.6-1.7 mg of storage capacity. Wet weather flows have exceeded capacity in the past and overflowed to Sutter Creek, although efforts to reduce I/I have helped reduce peak flows. The WWTP is aged and lacks sufficient capacity to accomodate anticipated growth in the next 5-15 years. A new tertiary WWTP is planned for 2010. ARSA needs and is developing additional effluent storage and land disposal capacity. ARSA is evaluating the need to reinforce dams at Henderson and Preston Forebay Reservoirs. Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 22.2 Sewage Lift Stations 2 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The City's collection system has capacity problems caused by hydraulic overload and blockages. The system is aged and there are sewer and structures, such as manholes, located in a creek. The layout and location of existing collection facilities limit the City's options for altering the system. Infiltration and Inflow The system is subject to I/I and has a relatively high peaking factor as a result. Peak flows can reach 2.15 mgd (peak hour capacity). Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing Regional Collaboration As a member agency of ARSA, Sutter Creek provides treatment and disposal services to Amador City and the Martell area (CSA 4), and discharges to facilities in the Ione area. ARSA shares Preston Reservoir capacity with Mule Creek State Prison. The City participated in and helped fund a regional wastewater study in 2005. Facility Sharing Opportunities The City plans to develop a new WWTP that would be expandable and could potentially accommodate flows from the AWA Martell service area. The City plans to size conveyance and treatment such that treated flows could be conveyed to the Martell area in the future. AWA favors a regional WWTP in Martell that would serve Sutter Creek as well. ARSA will consider additional storage sites, including a reservoir in the Martell area, once flows approach 0.8 mgd. II-152 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Regulatory Compliance Record, 2000-7 Formal Enforcement Actions 3 Informal Enforcement Actions 10 Enforcement Action Type Date Description of Violations Notice of Violation 10/16/2007 Deficient reports (10), permit conditions (34), sanitary sewer overflows (2 on Apr. 4, 2006, 1 on May 24, 2006) Notice of Violation 3/17/2003 Permit condition Notice of Violation 10/30/2002 Effluent condition Notice of Violation 8/27/2002 Deficient report Notice of Violation 2/13/2002 Sanitary sewer overflow (Jan. 23, 2002) Notice of Violation 10/4/2001 Sanitary sewer overflow (Oct. 2, 2001) Cleanup and Abatement Order 9/20/2001 Sanitary sewer overflow (Sept. 14, 2001) Notice of Violation 3/30/2001 Sanitary sewer overflows (Mar. 15, 2001 and Mar. 28, 2008) Staff Enforcement Letter 1/26/2001 Sanitary sewer overflows (Jan. 14, 2001 and Jan. 23, 2001) Notice of Violation 12/6/2000 Deficient report, sanitary sewer overflow (Nov. 6, 2000) Staff Enforcement Letter 10/16/2000 Sanitary sewer overflow (Oct. 3, 2000) Administrative Civil Liability 10/13/2000 Sanitary sewer overflow (Oct. 3, 2000) Notice of Violation 9/1/2000 Permit conditions (4) Service Adequacy Indicators Sewer Overflows 20071 2 Sewer Overflows 20062 NP Treatment Effectiveness Rate3 37% Sewer Overflow Rate4 9 Total Employees (FTEs) 3.0 Response Time Policy5 as quick as possible Employees Certified? Yes Response Time Actual 29 minutes Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices Restaurant grease traps; analysis and outreach regarding increasing pollutant loads. Collection System Inspection Practices The City inspected its entire system in 2001 using CCTV and smoke testing methods. In 2007, the City inspected 5-10 percent of its collection system. The City's goal is to inspect 20 percent of its system annually using CCTV. Service Challenges Sewer revenues fall short of annual operating expenditures. The City needs an analysis of infrastructure replacement needs, and needs to adjust rates to include funding those needs. Wastewater Planning Plan Description Planning Horizon Wastewater Master Plan 2007 2045 Capital Improvement Plan Last updated 2007 2020 General Plan Public services element 1994 2014 Sanitary Sewer Management Plan Timeline, goals & organization NA Emergency Plan Emergency contacts NA Other: ARSA Master Plan (2008); Operations and Maintenance Manual Notes: (1) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2007 as reported by the agency. (2) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2006 as reported by the agency. (3) The City reported the number of weeks with at least one non-compliance. (4) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. (5) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage. BY BURR CONSULTING II-153 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Rates and Financing Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Demand2 Residential $142.95 per quarter per home $47.65 250 gpd Rate Zones Wastewater rates are the same throughout the City. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description: Service charges are based on a flat rate of $142.92 per residence quarterly. Rates are not recouping costs and will be increased in 2009 to do so. Last Rate Change 7/1/2008 Frequency of Rate Changes Annual Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach The connection fee is a flat rate based on land use type. Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit issuance. Connection Fee Amount1 Residential: $5,300 Land Dedication Req. None Development Impact Fee None Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY 06-07 Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $770,000 100% Total $787,348 Rates & Charges $677,000 88% Administration NP Property Tax $0 0% O & M NP Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation NP Interest $0 0% Debt NP Connection Fees $60,000 8% Other NP Other $33,000 5% Other NP Notes: (1) Rates include wastewater-related service charges and strength and flow charges. Average monthly charges calculated based on average consumption. Rates are rounded for presentation. (2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, see Vol. I, Chapter 5. (3) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home. II-154 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT Sutter Creek Police Department (SCPD) provides law enforcement services, including traffic enforcement, patrol and investigation. The Department also provides a Community-Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving (COPPS) program, incorporating public education activities into regular law enforcement duties. SCPD relies on Amador County Sheriff for specialized team services (see Table II-5-10). The City has a policy to staff 2.4 sworn personnel per 1,000 residents, and 0.25 non-sworn personnel per sworn officer.240 This standard calls for seven sworn personnel and two non-sworn personnel. The Department is exceeding its sworn officer standard with 10 sworn officers, 8 of which are full-time (equivalent to 5.9 FTEs). Of the ten officers, one is the Chief who is also the full-time City Manager, one is a grant-funded narcotics officer and one is a contract School Resource Officer shared by Jackson, Sutter Creek and the Amador County Unified School District. In addition, the City has one reserve officer. There are also four non-sworn personnel. Dispatch Amador County Sheriff’s Office is the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for all of Amador County, and provides most dispatch services for all police departments and ambulance services. Emergency Medical Dispatchers (EMDs) answer all 911 calls. Demand Figure II-5-7: Sutter Creek Crime Rates per 1,000 Residents, 1996-2006 The Department reported that 30 the volume of service calls has 25 increased in recent years for both commercial and residential uses, 20 especially along major collectors 15 and highways, and in the interface 10 area with Martell. The Department also reported that the highway 5 bypass has increased police service 0 needs in the Sutter Hill area. 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006 Despite the recent increase in service demand, the Department reported has the capacity to serve planned development in its bounds. 240 City of Sutter Creek, Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study, Jan. 22, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-155 stnediseR 000,1 rep semirC Violent Property AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Serious crime rates (excluding larcenies under $400) in the City of Sutter Creek have varied year to year, with a slightly higher trend after 2001. The crime rate peaked in 2002, although 2004 was nearly as high. Violent crimes peaked in 2002, with six violent crimes per 1,000 residents. The crime rate decreased in 2005 and in 2006. LOCATION The Sutter Creek Police Department serves within the City’s bounds and provides mutual aid services to the unincorporated community of Martell. INFRASTRUCTURE The Department is housed in approximately 500 square feet in City Hall, which is in good condition. The City’s most recent budget allocated funds to purchase two patrol vehicles in FY 06-07 and a third vehicle in FY 07-08. The City’s Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study (2007) details fees for a new police station, land acquisition, patrol vehicles, and computer equipment. The Department reports that it does not currently need facility upgrades or replacement, but that further growth will generate the need for a new facility. This is not anticipated within the next five years. SERVICE ADEQUACY The effectiveness of a law enforcement agency can be gauged by many factors, including crime clearance rates (the portion of crimes that are solved), response times and staffing ratios.241 Figure II-5-8: Law Enforcement Crime Clearance Rates, 2000-06 Aggregate Sutter Creek PD’s crime clearance 100% rates are comparable to other providers in the County. SCPD’s 75% average violent crime clearance rate from 2000-06 for violent crime was 50 50% percent. For 2006 alone, the rate was 30 percent. Other law enforcement 25% providers in the county have violent crime clearance rates ranging from 42 0% to 57 percent. SCPD’s average ACSO Ione Jackson Sutter Creek property crime clearance rates from Violent Crime Property Crime 241 Cleared crimes refer to offenses for which at least one person was arrested, charged with the offense, and turned over to the appropriate court for prosecution. A crime is also considered cleared by exceptional means if the offender dies, the victim refuses to cooperate or extradition is denied. II-156 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK 2000-06 was 16 percent. Other providers’ average rates ranged from 16 to 21 percent. Figure II-5-9: Law Enforcement Providers Average Response Times, 2007 Sutter Creek PD’s average response time for all calls in 2007 was Sutter Creek nine minutes. For priority one calls, the response time average five Jackson minutes. These response times are Ione comparable to the Jackson and Ione Police Departments and faster than ACSO ACSO. The other providers’ response times ranged between nine and 19 0 5 10 15 20 minutes for all calls and between four Response Time (minutes) and nine minutes for priority one calls. Priority 1 Calls All Calls The number of sworn officers per capita is also a service level indicator. The average California city has 1.5 paid sworn officers per 1,000 residents.242 SCPD has 3.2 paid sworn officers per 1,000 residents, more than double the state average. However, the City’s staffing level includes its Chief who serves a dual role as full-time City Manager, as well as a school resource officer shared with other jurisdictions and a grant-funded narcotics officer. Other providers in the County have between 1.4 sworn staff to 2.8 sworn staff per 1,000 residents. 242 Authors’ calculations based on FY 03-04 police staffing levels reported by cities to the State Controller’s Office and population estimates from the California Department of Finance. BY BURR CONSULTING II-157 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-5-10: Sutter Creek Police Department Service Summary Police Service Service Configuration Service Demand Patrol Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 Dispatch Amador Co. Sheriff Total Service Calls 1,460 Search and Rescue Direct 911 Calls NP Crime Lab Direct Non-Emergency Calls NP SWAT Amador Co. Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 465.8 Temporary Holding Amador Co. Sheriff Arrests 2007 142 Bomb Squad Calaveras County Violent Crime Rate per 1,000 3.4 Canine Services Amador Co. Sheriff Property Crime Rate per 1,000 9.9 Service Adequacy Resources Average Response Time 9 min. Total Staff NP Avg. Priority One Response Time 5 min. Total Sworn Staff 10 Response Time Base Year 2007 Sworn Staff per 1,000 3.2 Clearance Rate of Violent Crimes1 50% Staffing Base Year 2008 Clearance Rate of Property Crimes 16% Marked Police Vehicles 7 Service Challenges No challenges to service provision were reported. Facilities Station Location Condition Built Sutter Creek Police 18 Main Street Good 1928 Department Sutter Creek, CA 95685 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Additional vehicles are needed to meet the City's goal of one vehicle per sworn officer. Current Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration SCPD participates in the Narcotics Task Force and splits staffing for a school resource officer position with Jackson PD. All law enforcement agencies in Amador County may request Outside Agency Assists. All agencies are also connected on a common communications system and utilize the County jail. Opportunities for Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration No opportunities were identified. Note: (1) Clearance rates are aggregated for the period between 2000 and 2006. II-158 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK ROADWAY SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City directly provides street lighting and minor street maintenance services. Major roadway reconstruction projects are performed by private contractors. The City did not provide any street maintenance services in FY 06-07. LOCATION Street services are provided within the City’s boundaries. The City does not provide street services outside its bounds. The City maintains Old Highway 49 within its bounds, as it is now a City street. INFRASTRUCTURE The City’s key infrastructure includes over 19 miles of roads. Nearly 16 miles of these roads are of the urban and rural local functional classification, with the remainder consisting of urban and rural collector roads. The City also owns and maintains 10 street lights. There are two signalized intersections in the City, one at SR 49 and Ridge Road and the other at SR 49 and Valley View. Circulation within the City is primarily provided by Old Highway 49 in a north-south direction. Other roads providing north-south circulation include Sutter Hill Road and Spanish Street. East- west circulation within the City is provided by Sutter Ione Road, Gopher Flat Road, Ridge Road, Church Street, and various local roads. Planned infrastructure improvements within the City include the realignment of Sutter Hill Road ($800,000), to be funded by Caltrans and built by the City with construction anticipated to begin by 2009. The City also had $400,000 in Proposition 1B money available for roadway projects; however, the funds had not been designated for any particular projects as of the drafting of this report. The City estimated that six miles of roadway were in need of rehabilitation. SERVICE ADEQUACY The City reports that all streets operate at a level that meet or exceed the adopted standard of LOS “D,” and that no roadway segments are anticipated to operate at less than LOS “D” at build- out. A 10-year Pavement Management System (PMS) was put in place in 1997 and expired in 2007. The City reports that it had difficulty implementing the PMS due to a lack of funds, but was working to update its PMS as of early 2008. 243 243 Communication with Ghio Weber and Associates, January 16, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-159 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The City reports that an upcoming service challenge will be the construction of an east bypass around the City, due to the high cost of the project. The need for the project is development-driven and will be developer-funded. Table II-5-11: City of Sutter Creek Roadway Services Street Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Street Maintenance Direct and by contractSignal Maintenance Caltrans System Overview Total Maintained Miles 19.2 Urban Maintained Miles 11.1 Rural Maintained Miles 8.1 Signalized Intersections 2 Service Demand Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel, 20061 12,980 DVMT per Street Mile, 20062 677 Street Sweeping Frequency Weekly, on main streets only. Street Service Adequacy and Operations Service Adequacy Miles Rehabilitated FY 06-07 0.0 Maintenance Cost per Street Mile3 $11,022 Pavement Condition Pavement Management System Yes PMS last updated4 1997 Miles Needing Rehabilitation 6.0 Pavement Condition Index5 50-75 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Sutter Hill Road realignment project by Caltrans scheduled to begin in 2009. Level of Service (LOS) Current: All roadway segments operate at LOS "C" or better. Policy: LOS "C" Build-Out: Ridge Road at SR 49 may operate at LOS "D." Service Challenges The main challenge identified by the City is a lack of funding. Facility Sharing Current Practices: None Opportunities: Possible opportunity for sharing a street sweeper. Development Fees and Requirements Local Fee Per Single Family Unit: $3,161 Per Trip End (Non-Residential): $316 Regional Fee Per Single Family Unit: $3,040 Per Trip End (Non-Residential): $304 Street Light Service Profile Service Configuration Street Lighting Direct Number of Street Lights 10 Maintained by Contract None Maintained by City All Notes: (1) Daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) in 2006, according to the California Department of Transportation. (2) 2006 DVMT divided by total mileage of County-maintained public road system in 2006. (3) City road maintenance expenditures in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street. (4) 10-year PMS ended in 2007. The City reports that it is in the process of updating the PMS. (5) Estimated range provided by City Engineer Roark Weber. The City does not currently use a PCI rating system. continued II-160 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK Street Service Financing General Financing Approach Street services are financed primarily by City and gas tax revenues. Street lights are financed through a street light district. Streets and Roads Financial Information, FY 05-061 Revenues Expenditures Total $221,271 Total6 $195,636 Gas Tax $56,523 Maintenance $77,215 VLF In-Lieu2 $0 Street $0 Traffic Congestion Relief $12,423 Lights & Signals $30,968 Other State Revenues $0 Other $46,247 Federal Revenues $0 Capital $3,304 Local Revenues3 $0 New Construction7 $0 City Revenues $152,325 Reconstruction $3,304 Interest $919 Signals & Lights $0 Bond proceeds $0 Other $0 General Fund $27,042 Undistributed Costs8 $130,774 Assessments4 $0 Plant & Equipment $0 Other5 $124,364 Other Public Agencies $0 Note: (1) Financial information as reported in the Annual Street Report to the State Controller. (2) Includes motor vehicle license fees used for street purposes and/or being accounted for in a street-purpose fund. (3) Includes other funds distributed by the local agencies other than the County and the cities. (4) Includes benefit assessments (also called special assessments) collected to finance street improvements and street lighting under the Landscape and Lighting Assessment Act of 1972, the Improvement Act of 1913 and the Street Lighting Act of 1931. (5) Includes traffic safety funds, development impact fees, redevelopment agency funds, and miscellaneous local sources. Excludes payments from other governmental agencies for contract services. (6) Total before adjustments for reporting changes since prior years. (7) Includes new construction and betterment of streets, bridges, lighting facilities, and storm drains, as well as right-of-way acquisitions. (8) Engineering costs that are not allocated to other expenditure categories or projects because the work is not specific or such allocation is impractical. Administration cost is an equitable pro rata share of expenditures for the supervision and management of street-purpose activities. BY BURR CONSULTING II-161 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II DRAINAGE SERVICES Four seasonal drainage courses feed into Sutter Creek within the City. Sutter Creek flows east to west through the community. Small portions of the City are within the 100-year flood plain. The eastern and western portions of City land along Sutter Creek are in the floodplain.244 Minor flooding in downtown/historic Sutter Creek occurs every eight to 10 years.245 Since 1980, there have been at least four riverine flooding events in the City. Sutter Creek exceeded its banks in 1986, 1995, 1997 and 1998. Flooding tends to be isolated to structures located on Main Street (SR 49), Eureka Street, Badger Street and Spanish Street.246 Drainage problems outside the floodplain have caused localized flooding in several areas. In addition, each of the four small drainage courses has had some flooding, but mitigation plans are complete for one and pending for two others. Per the City engineer, flooding occurs in the City during heavy storms from December through March. Concern for the flooding of Sutter Creek and its main tributaries increases as new development goes in. New development increases the speed with which runoff reaches drainage courses by removing natural vegetation and compacting and covering over soils. This impact involves all developments in the drainage area of Sutter Creek.247 NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Sutter Creek provides stormwater maintenance and flood control services. Maintenance services include blockage removal, tree trimming along waterways, and the cleaning of stormwater inlets. Stormwater treatment services are not provided. Flood control services consist of putting out sand bags when necessary. Work crews from Mule Creek State Prison perform maintenance work for open facilities (i.e., ditches). LOCATION Municipal drainage services are provided throughout the City and are not provided outside of City bounds. 244 Amador County, Amador County Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2006. 245 Mokelumne, Amador, and Calaveras Interagency Regional Water Management Plan, 2006. 246 Amador County, Amador County Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2006. 247 City of Sutter Creek, General Plan Safety Element, 1994, p. S-6. II-162 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK INFRASTRUCTURE The drainage system in the City consists of open conduits, cross culverts, and 17.4 miles of storm drains designed to route runoff into Sutter Creek.248 There are approximately 30 inlets, ten of which are inspected each year. Many pipes date from the 1930s, and except in newer areas the system is generally inadequate for handling existing runoff.249 The City engineer reports that there are approximately $10 million in deficiencies to drainage infrastructure within the City. There are two infrastructure projects planned in the City. An open ditch on Gopher Gulch and a storm drain conduit on Broad Street will be renovated in FY 07-08. Capital and operating costs are funded through grants and highway revenues. In addition, the Broad Street Storm Drainage Diversion project is funded and planned for construction in 2009. Upgrading the existing storm drain system in downtown Sutter Creek would involve removing historical structures, however, which is not considered to be acceptable. The project therefore includes a diversion structure to channel runoff around the historic district. A 36- inch diameter storm drain will also be constructed from Gopher Gulch Creek at Gopher Flat Road, along Broad Street, to Sutter Creek in the northeast and northwest quadrants of the city.250 The project is projected to cost $0.5 million (2006 dollars), and is to be funded by an HSIP grant. PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Sutter Creek owns and maintains four parks and provides recreation. The City is a member of the Amador County Recreation Agency, which provides countywide recreation programming and facilitates collaborative planning efforts. LOCATION Park facilities are located within city bounds. Eureka Mine is located on Eureka and Old Sutter Hill Road. Bryson Park is located on Bryson Drive, near Sutter Hill, and Minnie Provis Park is located behind City Hall. Recreation programs take place at the swimming pool located at Amador High School, Minnie Provis Park and Cribbs Field. 248 Communication with Ghio Weber and Associates, June 30, 2008. 249 City of Sutter Creek, General Plan Public Facilities Element, 1994, p. PS-7. 250 Mokelumne, Amador, and Calaveras Interagency Regional Water Management Plan, 2006. BY BURR CONSULTING II-163 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II INFRASTRUCTURE The total park area in Sutter Creek is 201 acres. It consists of two undeveloped parks and two neighborhood parks. Bryson Park has a play structure, a grassy area, a volleyball pit, and restrooms. Minnie Provis Park has a play structure, swings, picnic tables and one baseball field. Eureka Mine is undeveloped parkland. Erickson Ranch is an undeveloped 176-acre park slated for a walking trail project expected to be completed in FY 09-10. Several planning documents have identified park infrastructure needs in the city. The City’s 1994 General Plan identified a need for several parks in the region. Parkland goals included acquiring a new regional park, a community park, some neighborhood parks, a linear parkway, a recreational trail, and a bicycle and pedestrian trail network. The regional park should include baseball and softball diamonds, turf, restrooms, night-time lighting, seating and parking. ACRA’s Master Plan also recommended that the City acquire and develop a new 10-15 acre community park towards the south end of the region. Additional facilities would include a soccer field, a water playground, a picnic area, and a small skate park. The Plan also made recommendations to improve Bryson Park by removing one of the playgrounds and adding swings to the other one. No recommendations were made for Minnie Provis Park. SERVICE ADEQUACY The City has a ratio of 8.6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, including the undeveloped area at Eureka Mine. When the undeveloped area is excluded, the number of park acres per 1,000 residents is 1.4. By comparison, the current countywide parkland ratio is 7.3 acres per 1,000 residents. The countywide goal for parkland is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. The biggest service challenges as reported by the City pertain to funding and economies of scale. Several park and recreation functions are provided by City staff, such as acting as a liaison for various events at the City’s parks and swimming pool, and organization of community events at the City’s parks. The City has opted to participate in ACRA in order to provide organized recreational activities that otherwise could not be provided. II-164 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK Table II-5-12: Sutter Creek Recreation & Park Profile Park and Recreation Service Configuration Service Configuration Park Maintenance Direct Number of Parks Maintained 3 Recreation Direct Number of Recreation Centers 0 Service Adequacy FY 06-07 Park Acres per 1,000 pop1 1.4 (69.3 including Eureka Mine and Erickson Ranch) Adopted Policy: No City policy 2 Park Acreage Local Open Space 0.0 Neighborhood Parks 4 Undeveloped 197.0 Special Use Areas 0.0 Community Parks 0.0 Landscaped 0.0 Park Name Location Condition Acres Bryson Park Bryson Drive Good 1.5 Minnie Provis Park Church Street Good 2.5 Eureka Mine Old Sutter Hill Rd. Poor 21.0 Erickson Ranch NP NP 176.0 Service Challenges Service challenges pertain to a lack of available funding. Facility Needs/Deficiencies The City and ACRA reported that the region needs a new community park. Completion of the trail system at Erickson Ranch is needed and expected to be funded in FY 09-10. Facility Sharing The City shares the swimming pool with Amador High School for use by the swim team and physical education classes. Developer Fees and Requirements Development Impact Fee $8,760 per dwelling unit Land area in proportion to 5 acres per 1,000 residents (based on Land Dedication Requirement number of dwellings and average household size) Fees are based upon the fair market value of land needed to meet In-Lieu Fees the same ratio of persons to acreage of parkland. Notes: (1) Developed park acreage per 1,000 residents per the Department of Finance January 2008 estimate. (2) The Amador County Recreation Agency's adopted countywide policy is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. BY BURR CONSULTING II-165 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II CEMETERY SERVICE NATURE AND EXTENT The City of Sutter Creek owns and maintains Sutter Creek City Cemetery. It provides grave marking and maintenance of cemetery records through the Public Works Staff. The City reported that it does not play any role in maintenance or operation of other facilities. Burials Figure II-5-13: Sutter Creek Cemetery Burials by Decade The oldest known tombstones from Sutter Creek Cemetery date back to 1854. Veterans from the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam rest here. 120 100 There were 876 occupied plots, as of 80 2004.251 The number of burials increased over 60 the years, as shown in Figure II-5-13. Burials 40 peaked in the 1970s. In the last two calendar 20 years, the City accommodated between six and eight interments per year. 0 Plot Acquisition The City has plots available for purchase, but did not provide the number of remaining plots. The City charges $500 per plot. The cemetery inters residents as well as former residents who purchased a plot while they were residents. Only current City residents or previous residents may purchase a plot. LOCATION The Cemetery is located in the northwestern part of the City, at 175 Mahoney Mill Road, within city bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE The Cemetery encompasses two acres and is in good condition. It is always open to visitors. 251 California Tombstone Transcription Project, URL accessed on 3/20/08: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cemetery/ california/amador.html II-166 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO 0581 0881 0191 0491 0791 0002 Decade slairuB CITY OF SUTTER CREEK The City reported that it does not need new facilities, new equipment or upgrades. It does not have plans for future expansion. SERVICE ADEQUACY The City reported that it has the capacity to provide current and future cemetery services to the Sutter Creek area. The City reported that there are no opportunities to share cemetery facilities with other service providers. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • The City of Sutter Creek population grew from 2,303 in 2000 to 2,902 in 2008, an increase of 26 percent. At build-out of current planned and proposed development within the City, there will be 1,602 new dwelling units, amounting to a population increase of approximately 3,420 new residents. Total population would be 6,322 at build-out, an increase of 118 percent over the 2008 population. • Wastewater flow projections for the City forecast population growth from 2005 to 2015 of 178 percent, 248 percent from 2005 to 2025, and 357 percent from 2005 to build-out. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The wastewater treatment plant is aged and lacks sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated growth in the next 5-15 years; however, a new tertiary WWTP is planned for 2010. • Wastewater service levels are presently inadequate; however, the City and ARSA plan improvements to provide the capacity needed to accommodate growth and meet regulatory requirements. Wastewater planning efforts are comprehensive. • Law enforcement service levels appear to be adequate based on response times, crime clearance rates and staffing levels. The City has adequate police facilities, but reported it would need new facilities to accommodate anticipated growth in the next 5-10 years. • The City reported that roadway capacity is adequate, as no roads operate below the established level of service threshold. The City engineer predicts that Ridge Road at SR 49 will operate at LOS “D” at build-out, below the established threshold of LOS “C.” • Nearly six miles of roadways are in need of rehabilitation, amounting to 31 percent of all city-maintained roadways. BY BURR CONSULTING II-167 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II • An upcoming roadway infrastructure need reported by the City is the construction of an eastern bypass around Sutter Creek. The project need will depend on development timing, and the project will be developer-funded. • Drainage infrastructure throughout the City generally requires improvement. The IRWMP identifies a storm drain diversion project in downtown Sutter Creek as a necessary infrastructure improvement; the project is funded and scheduled for construction in 2009. Since 1980, there have been at least four riverine flooding events in the City. • The City has a ratio of 1.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, excluding the undeveloped areas at Eureka Mine and Erickson Ranch. If the undeveloped area is included, there are 69 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. By comparison, the current countywide parkland ratio is 7.3 developed acres per 1,000 residents, and the countywide goal for developed parkland is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. • The City’s 1994 General Plan identified a need for several parks in the region, including acquiring a new regional park, a community park, neighborhood parks, a linear parkway, a recreational trail, and a bicycle and pedestrian trail network. ACRA’s Master Plan also recommended that the City acquire and develop a new 10-15 acre community park. • The City reported that there are plots available for purchase at the Sutter Creek City Cemetery, but did not indicate the number of plots available. Only City current residents or previous residents may purchase a plot. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The City reports that financing is not adequate to deliver services. The key fiscal challenge is a significant decrease in sales tax revenue to the Martell area since 2006. Specifically, the City identified a need for more economic development. • The City reports that the major roadway service challenge it faces will be the construction of an eastern bypass around the City, due to the high cost of the project. However, the project is expected to be development-driven and funded. • The City reports financing constraints as a limiting factor in providing increased park services, but did not indicate whether cemetery services are constrained by a lack of available funding. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The City practices extensive wastewater facility sharing by treating flows originating in Amador City and Martell, sharing disposal facilities with Mule Creek State Prison, and relying on disposal facilities operated by the City of Ione. • The City and AWA have opportunities to share new wastewater facilities and reap economies of scale; however, opportunities appear to be limited by divergent plans. II-168 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO CITY OF SUTTER CREEK • The City is a member of the Amador County Recreation Agency, which provides countywide recreation programming and facilitates collaborative planning efforts. The City reports that it opted to participate in ACRA in order to provide organized recreational activities that otherwise could not be provided. • The City does not practice facility sharing for roadway and drainage maintenance, or cemetery service, and did not identify any possible opportunities. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Accountability is best ensured when contested elections are held for governing body seats, constituent outreach is conducted to promote accountability and ensure that constituents are informed and not disenfranchised, and public agency operations and management are transparent to the public. The City of Sutter Creek demonstrated a high degree of accountability through its constituent outreach efforts and disclosure of information; however, public interest in governing body membership is relatively low as evidenced by the lack of contested elections for the City Council in the last five years. • Employee accountability is achieved through reviews on a semi-annual basis. • The City provides wastewater, police and fire services outside its bounds. Annexation of such service areas is a government structure option. • The City’s wastewater facilities serve the adjacent Martell community where significant growth is anticipated. The City would like this area to be annexable. • The City is conducting interim wastewater improvements to enhance capacity and reduce flows in the short-term. • The City is presently planning new wastewater facilities to accommodate growth and meet regulatory requirements. Timely clarification of its future service area through SOI update will help ensure efficient facility planning for future needs. • Accountability for community service needs is limited in regard to cemetery service, as the City was unable to provide the number of vacant plots available at the Sutter Creek City Cemetery. BY BURR CONSULTING II-169 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 6. A M A D O R F I R E P RO T E C T I O N D I S T R I C T Amador Fire Protection District (AFPD) provides fire, rescue and emergency medical services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION AFPD was formed in 1990 as a dependent special district of Amador County. The District was formed to provide fire, rescue and emergency medical services. The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.252 The principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical, hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives and property.253 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000.254 BOUNDARY AND SOI AFPD’s boundary is entirely within Amador County. The bounds encompass approximately 491 square miles, constituting 85 percent of the unincorporated area in the County. The communities of Amador Pines, Fiddletown, Pioneer, Pine Grove, Volcano, Martell, Drytown, Willow Springs, and River Pines are within the AFPD bounds. Areas outside AFPD bounds include the five cities and territory within three other districts providing fire service: Jackson Valley FPD (72 square miles), Lockwood FPD (19 square miles), and Kirkwood Meadows PUD (16 square miles).255 Jackson Rancheria is federal land, and therefore also outside of AFPD bounds. Other providers serve portions of the boundary area through automatic aid agreements. District bounds were expanded in 1994, when the AFPD absorbed fire services from Pine Acres Community Services District, Pine Grove Community Services District, Volcano Community Services District, and CSA 1. 252 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970. 253 Health and Safety Code §13862. 254 Government Code §56824.10. 255 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of AFPD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. II-170 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT There is no record of LAFCO adopting an SOI for AFPD. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The Amador County Board of Supervisors (BOS) appointed itself as AFPD’s governing board pursuant to an organizational option in the principal act. AFPD is one of three special districts overseen by Amador County BOS. District boards are to internally elect directors to the positions of president and vice-president; the BOS has positions of chair and vice chair fulfill this requirement. For more information on the County BOS, see the Amador County profile (Chapter II-31). District information is accessible on the Amador County website. In addition, local reporters attend approximately 20 percent of meetings. There is no newsletter, but the District occasionally has a column in the Ledger-Dispatch regarding safety issues. The District reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. With regard to customer service, the Chief is the District’s primary ombudsman, although complaints are forwarded to the Board if warranted. Complaints may be submitted to the Chief or Board through a call, a letter or in person. The District reported that no complaints were submitted in 2007. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with all document requests. MANAGEMENT Daily operations are managed by the Chief and two battalion chiefs. The Chief evaluates District performance by tracking response times and conducting monthly reviews of service call volume. The Chief reports to the Board at its regular meetings. Personnel are accountable to the Chief and the battalion chiefs. Battalion chiefs are responsible for conducting annual volunteer reviews and a review of new personnel after an initial six-month probation period, but they lack sufficient time and do not conduct these reviews consistently. Planning Documents AFPD has a mission statement. District financial planning efforts are completed through the County’s annual budgets and annual audited fiscal statements. The most recent audit was completed for FY 05-06. The District produces a five-year capital improvement plan (CIP) annually. The most recent CIP was completed in 2007. It includes standards for all apparatuses and facilities, an allocation plan for existing equipment, and agency objectives. BY BURR CONSULTING II-171 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Present land uses within the District’s boundary area are primarily agricultural, with large areas of Timber Preserve Zone and undeveloped, vacant land. Residential uses are concentrated in the central portion of the District, around Pine Grove and Buckhorn. Commercial land uses are located primarily in Martell, and also in Buckhorn, Red Corral and Pine Grove communities within the District bounds. Nearly all land in the east is vacant; this land is within the Mokelumne Wilderness.256 Farming, ranching and mining are the area’s primary industries. Major employers within District bounds are Amador County and Jackson Rancheria Casino in the Jackson vicinity. Major employers within the District’s primary service area are Sierra Pine (lumber manufacturing) and Volcano Communications Group (utilities) in Pine Grove. There were approximately 18,925 residents in the District’s boundary area in 2008.257 The District’s population density is 39 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. Existing residential structures in AFPD bounds include 9,765 single-family dwellings, 14 duplexes, one four-plex, 39 apartment buildings, and 520 mobile homes.258 Due to automatic aid agreements that other jurisdictions have with AFPD for areas within AFPD bounds, the District serves a smaller population of approximately 16,665.259 The District reports moderately increasing service demand due to development and growth. Population grew by eight percent in the unincorporated portion of Amador County between 2000 and 2008. The most significant growth in the boundary area in recent years was commercial growth in the Martell area related to development of an outdoor retail mall in that community. There are multiple planned and proposed developments within the District. There were 10 approved residential development applications within AFPD bounds, as of the drafting of this report. These plans cover an aggregate of approximately 715 acres of unincorporated territory. Construction plans detail 247 residential units and another 109 units of mixed use (residential, commercial, recreation). Most are clustered in the Pine Grove and Fairway Pines areas. If all residential units are built and occupied, this would be an addition of 568 to 823 residents to the area.260 256 Amador County, General Plan Existing (2007) Land Use Classification Map, 2007. 257 The District population estimate was calculated as the DOF population estimate for unincorporated Amador County less population estimates for JVFPD and LFPD (described in their respective profiles). 258 Amador Fire Protection District, AFPD Memorandum: Residences in AFPD, February 1, 2008. 259 Author’s estimates based on service area (excluding automatic aid areas) population from the Census 2000 and annualized growth rates according to DOF. 260 Population growth projection was calculated using the 2008 average population per household for Amador County, as estimated by DOF. II-172 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Two commercial and industrial development applications had also been approved within the District, as of the drafting of this report. The Martell Business Park and the Sierra West Business Park would together cover 444 acres and contain over 70 commercial structures. Tentative applications not yet approved cover an additional 1,632 units across 800 acres of unincorporated territory. These developments are: Sixteenth Fairway, Fairway Vista, Mokelumne Bluffs, Pine Acres North, Golden Vale, and Wicklow. These developments could add as many as 3,753 residents in the coming years.261 In and around Plymouth there are six proposed residential developments with 1,028 residential units on 733 acres. If all units are built and occupied, the service area population would increase by 2,487 residents in the coming years.262 Altogether, there is a possibility for growth of 7,063 residents from planned and proposed developments in the District. For more information on proposed or planned development, see the Amador County profile (Chapter II-31) and the City of Plymouth profile (Chapter II-4). The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The District reported that the current financing level is not adequate to deliver services, and indicated that additional funding to provide for paid staffing is needed to provide adequate service levels to meet both existing and future demand. AFPD accounting is reported in the aggregate within the County’s financial statement and budget. The District practices fund accounting for each revenue source, including impact fees. Revenues The District’s total revenues were $1.5 million in FY 06-07. Revenue sources include assessments (34 percent), aid from the County (34 percent), impact fees (7 percent), interest, service charges, and property taxes. Approximately 21 percent of revenue is from miscellaneous sources. The District’s benefit assessment varies by land use: vacant lands are charged a maximum annual assessment of $22.16; residential units (single-family or multi-family units) are charged a maximum of $33.30; and mobile home parks and commercial or industrial parcels are charged a base of $83.28 plus a charge based on the number of mobile homes and a fee based on the square footage of any buildings and their use. Annual assessments may vary from these amounts due to square footage and, for commercial or industrial land uses, the level of risk assigned to business type. The schedule is updated annually; the FY 07-08 schedule increased two percent from the prior year. 261 Population estimate calculated with the 2008 DOF average population per household for Amador County. 262 Population estimate calculated with the 2008 DOF average population per household for the City of Plymouth. BY BURR CONSULTING II-173 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The Amador County general fund provides financial aid to AFPD through the County budget process. As Amador Plan costs began increasing around 2002, the amount of the County’s contribution has increased. Although widely assumed to be a payment for Amador Plan costs, the County does not designate a specific purpose to its AFPD contribution. Other significant revenue includes grant monies from the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund, a statewide fund used to allocate monies to communities impacted by tribal government gaming facilities.263 AFPD has received support from this source for several years: $185,000 in 2004; $251,300 in 2005; $166,000 in 2006; and $152,000 in 2007. AFPD collects development impact fees to fund additional fire protection facilities and equipment to meet the increased demand inherent in new development.264 These are one-time fees paid by new development projects in the District. The residential fee is $250 per unit; the commercial fee is $650 plus an additional cost of $0.25 to $0.60 per square foot, depending on risk categorization. Structures larger than 5,000 square feet or three stories in height are assessed individually to determine their impact fee amount, as large structures create unusual fire risk. The District reports that development impact fees have been adequate to meet the financial needs of the District, but an increase may be required in the future.265 Contracts for services provide additional revenue for the District. The current contract between the City of Plymouth and AFPD was signed on July 13, 2005 and is valid through June 30, 2010. AFPD agreed to provide all fire protection, fire suppression, and emergency response services for the City. The District leases the existing Plymouth fire station for a nominal amount (one dollar) and has use of all city equipment. The City pays AFPD an amount equal to the total the District would collect were parcels within the city limits subject to the AFPD benefit assessment schedule. The District performs annual audits of city parcels to update the service charge. Payments are made in two annual installments in December and April.266 The District also charges fees for plan review, inspections and reports. Plan review and inspection fees range from $60 to $185. Fire reports are ten dollars. Penalty amounts for failure to secure required permits or approvals are twice the amount of the original fee. Expenditures AFPD expenditures were $1.6 million in FY 06-07. Of this amount, 13 percent was spent on compensation, 16 percent on capital equipment, 30 percent on “professional and specialized services,” and 31 percent on services and supplies. 263 Pursuant to SB 621, signed into law on October 11, 2003. 264 Pursuant to Amador County BOS Resolution No. 91-401. 265 Interview with Jim McCart, Fire Chief, AFPD, January 17, 2008. 266 Contract between City of Plymouth and AFPD, signed 2005. II-174 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AFPD’s most significant expenditure is the payment to CALFIRE for providing year-round staffing and for dispatch services through the County’s Amador Plan agreement. The current contract between AFPD and CALFIRE extends through June 30, 2008 and has a maximum amount of $779,373.267 AFPD paid $534,788 in FY 06-07 to CALFIRE. Other AFPD expenditures include the cost of service provision and automatic aid agreement payments to the City of Ione, Kirkwood Meadows, the City of Jackson, and Sutter Creek FPD. AFPD pays Ione $2,200 annually to compensate the City for increased insurance costs for its primary response area, which includes land in AFPD bounds. This agreement expires June 30, 2011. The District pays Kirkwood Meadows the same annual payment as Ione plus $72 per response. This agreement also expires on June 30, 2011. AFPD has separate automatic aid agreements with the City of Jackson and Sutter Creek FPD but both include a clause in which the parties agree to jointly work on developing a regular fire authority in the Jackson, Martell and Sutter Creek areas. The three agencies agree to meet at least quarterly. Payments from AFPD are equivalent in these two agreements and are indexed by year of response. Payment per call in 2008 is listed as $145 and in 2009 as $150. Both agreements expire at the close of 2009. Debt and Reserves The principal acts permits fire districts to incur general obligation bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or construction of any real property or other capital expense or for funding or refunding of any outstanding indebtedness. The County reported $137,420 in long-term debt associated with AFPD at the end of FY 05-06. The County took on $378,750 of long-term debt to finance fire engines and apparatus in 2002, with the amount scheduled to be paid off by FY 07-08. As of the close of FY 05-06, the amount due was $137,240. In addition, the District reported that it had borrowed $195,322 in 2004 to purchase land for a new station. The loan is scheduled to be paid off in FY 08-09. The District does not have a formal policy on maintaining financial reserves. AFPD had $586,173 in unreserved, undesignated funds at the close of FY 06-07. The amount is equivalent to 36 percent of all expenditures in FY 06-07. In other words, the District maintained four months of working reserves. FIRE AND EMS SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT AFPD provides fire suppression, fire prevention, emergency medical, and rescue services. For calls involving emergency medical services, AFPD provides basic life support (BLS) until American Legion Ambulance Service arrives to perform advanced life support and ambulance transport. 267 State of California Agreement Number 4CA55072, approved by California Department of General Services on April 25, 2006. BY BURR CONSULTING II-175 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District also provides inspection services for SCFPD and the City of Jackson and collects impact fees for Jackson Valley FPD and Lockwood FPD. The District’s boundaries overlap with the CALFIRE State Response Area in some portions. In these areas of overlap, CALFIRE provides primary wildland fire response and AFPD provides primary structure fire response.268 The majority of calls in 2007 were received between noon and 6:00 pm.269 This corresponds to the time when call response is slowest: weekdays during normal business hours, when volunteers are busy at their full-time jobs. Personnel All sworn personnel in the District are call firefighters. There are a total of 57 sworn personnel, including the fire chief, two battalion chiefs, three assistant chiefs, and two prevention officers. The median call firefighter age is 36 years, with a range from 18 to 64. Twelve sworn personnel (21 percent) are certified by the State at Firefighter Level 1 or higher. Twenty-five sworn personnel (44 percent) are certified at the EMT-1 level or higher. AFPD contracts with the County for one full-time office staff, the District’s only non-sworn personnel. Initial training for firefighting in the District is a 67-hour course, which is held annually and is open to all County providers. State-mandated training is provided by or through AFPD, including medical and hazardous materials training. The District provides emergency vehicle operation training in-house; drivers must take this course no less than once every two years. AFPD battalions each have scheduled training one day per week. Call firefighters must attend at least half of these training events. The payment policy for call firefighters is a flat reimbursement of $8 per response. These funds are intended for undocumented expenses and are paid twice annually. AFPD turnover rates in recent years were 28 percent in 2005, 13 percent in 2006, and 31 percent in 2007. Overall, the last three years have shown a net loss of one call firefighter in the District. Recruitment of call firefighters is accomplished through advertisement in the local newspaper and local cable station, although the District has limited success with these efforts. Most call firefighters are recruited by friends. Many recruits are young people looking for a career. 268 Pursuant to Health and Safety Code §13811. 269 AFPD, Alarm Time Analysis, 2007. II-176 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Regional Collaboration The District’s goal is to fully participate in local and state mutual and automatic aid systems.270 AFPD collaborates with other fire providers in the County through the Amador Fire Protection Authority and through an Amador Plan agreement and has cooperative agreements for the staffing of District-owned apparatuses. Ione volunteers staff a district-owned rescue squad in the City of Ione and Jackson call firefighters staff a District-owned 75-foot aerial apparatus, housed in Jackson. AFPD sends out an air/lightning support squad to structure fires in other jurisdictions. AFPD pays for maintenance and fuel of these two apparatuses. AFPD has automatic agreements with Jackson VFD, Ione FD, SCFPD, and KMPUD. The Fire Chief reported a good working relationship between all involved agencies Lastly, AFPD has an informal mutual aid agreement with Latrobe Fire Protection District in El Dorado County. Dispatch and Communications All 911 calls made from land lines in Amador County are automatically routed to the Amador County Sheriff’s communication center in Jackson (the Public Safety Answering Point, PSAP). Cell phone 911 calls are answered by the California Highway Patrol in Stockton, and then are routed to the Sheriff. Fire and EMS calls are routed from the PSAP to CALFIRE’s Camino Interagency Command Center, which in turn dispatches a CALFIRE unit as well as the appropriate local jurisdiction responder. AFPD is dispatched to all calls within its primary response area. All fire providers in Amador County, including AFPD, communicate through the same radio systems. Due to shared radio frequencies, AFPD is able to communicate with other providers. When multiple service providers respond to an incident, the first unit to arrive on scene is responsible for incident command. The incident commander will give the dispatch center a report on conditions at the scene and the personnel and equipment needed to mitigate the situation. The dispatch center then modifies the initial dispatch by cancelling resources en route or notifying additional providers to respond to the scene. For incidents such as vehicle accidents, law enforcement is responsible for incident coordination once it arrives on scene through universal command protocols; prior to law enforcement arriving on scene, the first fire provider responding remains responsible for incident command. LOCATION AFPD provides service to 71 percent of its boundary area; the remaining areas are served by other providers through automatic aid agreements. AFPD serves the northern area of the County along the western Amador-El Dorado County line including the City of Plymouth, as well as the areas east of Sutter Creek except for the KMPUD area in the northeast and LFPD’s area along the central Amador-El Dorado County line. 270 AFPD, Capital Improvement Plan: 2007-08, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-177 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Territories within AFPD bounds served through automatic aid agreements with other providers include: • 39 square miles in the Sutter Creek vicinity, including portions of Martell, are served by SCFPD; • 45 square miles in the Jackson vicinity, including portions of Martell, are served by the City of Jackson; • 38 square miles in the Ione vicinity are served by the City of Ione; and • 6 square miles in the Kirkwood vicinity are served by the Kirkwood PUD. The River Pines community is served by Pioneer Fire Protection District in El Dorado County as well as by AFPD. Latrobe FPD in El Dorado County responds to assistance requests to Latrobe and Old Sacramento Road in AFPD bounds. CALFIRE responds to all calls in AFPD bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE AFPD operates seven fire stations across the County: two in Pioneer (Stations 111 and 112), two in Pine Grove (114 and 115), two in Plymouth (121 and 122), and one in Fiddletown (123). The District owns four of the seven stations, leases one (122) from the City of Plymouth for $1.00 as part of contractual services to the City, and occupies two others owned separately by Pine Grove Community Services District (114) and Volcano Telephone Company (115). Three stations are in fair condition: the leased Plymouth station and both stations in Pine Grove. The District-owned station in Plymouth and both stations in Pioneer are in good condition. The Fiddletown station was built in 2005 and is in excellent condition. A new station is planned in the Pine Grove area near the intersection of Mt. Zion Road and SR 88. It is planned to be constructed by 2010 for a projected cost of $750,000. An additional station is scheduled to be built in Martell in 2011. The Martell station will also serve as a training center and emergency operations center. The District needs and has formal plans to acquire a two Type 4 engines and a squad vehicle in FY 07-08, a Type 1 engine in FY 09-10, and aerial equipment in Martell in FY 11-12.271 The District reports it also needs an aerial apparatus (minimum of 110 feet), but it has not been planned for purchase due to financing constraints. AFPD shares facilities with multiple agencies: Station 114 in Pine Grove is shared with American Legion Ambulance; Station 122 in Plymouth is shared with Amador County Sheriff; and Station 111 in Pioneer is serving as temporary quarters for CALFIRE. In addition, Station 123 in Fiddletown is open to the community for polling and election events. 271 AFPD, Capital Improvement Plan: 2007-08, 2007. II-178 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Opportunities for future shared facilities at the planned station in Pine Grove include possible partnerships with American Legion Ambulance, Amador County Sheriff, and the Pine Grove Community Group. The planned station in the Martell area will partner with Sutter Creek Fire Protection District, the County Office of Emergency Services, and include a fire training facility for countywide use. AFPD relies primarily on fire hydrants and reservoirs to refill its water tenders during firefighting incidents. There are fire hydrants in Martell, Pine Grove, Pioneer, Plymouth, River Pines, Drytown, Volcano, and Fiddletown. New wineries are required to install 5-20,000 gallon water tanks for fire flow purposes. SERVICE ADEQUACY There are two general indicators of service adequacy for municipal fire providers: ISO rating and response times. The Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization, classifies fire service in communities from 1 to 10, indicating the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best systems for water distribution, fire department facilities, equipment and personnel and fire alarms and communications receive a rating of 1. AFPD’s service goals include achieving an ISO rating of 6 for all areas with qualifying water systems (a hydrant within 1,000 feet) and a rating of 8 for all areas not having water hydrants.272 The District achieved these goals as of the last grading in 2001. In 2004, however, statewide policy eliminated Dwelling Class 8 and made all those with that grade, including certain AFPD areas, a Dwelling Class 8B. Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster a response is required. The response time guideline established by the California EMS Agency is fine minutes in urban areas, 15 minutes in suburban or rural areas, and as quickly as possible in wilderness areas. The District’s primary response zone includes suburban, rural and wilderness classifications.273 AFPD’s 90th percentile response time is 12.7 minutes, meeting the suburban/rural standard. The District reports that it will be unable to meet future growth in service demand without paid staffing to support existing volunteers. The District reported that duplication of services is unavoidable under the Amador Plan agreement. CALFIRE is dispatched in addition to local providers for all calls. The Plan adopted this strategy to ensure appropriate response should insufficient call firefighters be able to respond. Agencies make an effort to limit the impact of duplication by canceling excess equipment and personnel as soon as possible.274 272 AFPD, Capital Improvement Plan: 2007-08, 2007. 273 Mountain Valley EMS, Amador County Ambulance Grid Map. 274 Interview with Jim McCart, Fire Chief, AFPD, January 17, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-179 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II AFPD has achieved greater efficiency in the provision of services through reorganization into two battalions. Battalion 20 has three stations, and Battalion 10 operates four. Upcoming installation of intranet between all stations will also improve efficiency. AFPD was negotiating possible consolidation with Jackson Volunteer FD and Sutter Creek FPD as of February 2008. The goal of this possible consolidation would be to improve services around Jackson, Martell and Sutter Creek. The focus of planning is to provide some level of paid firefighter staffing for the area.275 275 Ibid. II-180 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Table II-6-1: AFPD Fire Profile Fire Service Service Configuration Service Demand Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 EMS Direct Total Service Calls 1,600 Ambulance Transport American Legion % EMS 55.8% Hazardous Materials Calaveras and San Joaquin % Fire 4.9% Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CHP, Private % Vehicle Accidents 15.6% Fire Suppression Helicopter CALFIRE % Other 23.6% Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 6.9% Fire/EMS Dispatch CALFIRE Calls per 1,000 people 100.8 Service Adequacy Resources ISO Rating 6/9 and 8B/9 2 Fire Stations in District 7 Median Response Time (min) 6.4 Fire Stations Serving District 7 90th Percentile Response Time (min) 12.7 Sq. Miles Served per Station 3 53.4 Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 4 58 Training Total Full-time Firefighters 0 Both battalions have scheduled training one day per week. Initial training Total Call Firefighters 57 is a 67-hour course. Drivers must complete emergency vehicle training. Total Sworn Staff per Station 5 8.1 Service Challenges Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 3.6 Maintaining a sufficient and diverse pool of volunteers is challenging. Staffing Base Year 2008 Difficult-to-serve areas, such as those near the City of Ione, are covered Fire Flow Water Reserves NP by other providers per automatic aid agreements. Facilities Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus Station 111 26517 Meadow Dr. Good Unstaffed Engine, Rescue Pioneer, CA 95666 Station 112 23770 Van de Hei Good Unstaffed Two engines, Water tender, Squad Ranch Rd. Pioneer, CA 95666 Station 114 19840 Highway 88 Fair Unstaffed Two Engines, two Squads, Utility Pine Grove, CA 95665 Vehicle Station 115 18655 Ridge Rd. Fair Unstaffed Engine Pine Grove, CA 95665 Station 121 16850 Demartini Rd. Good Unstaffed Two Engines, Water Tender, Squad Plymouth, CA 95669 Station 122 18534 Sherwood St. Fair Unstaffed Two Engines, Squad, Utility Vehicle Plymouth, CA 95669 Station 123 14410 Jibboom St. Excellent Unstaffed 2 Engines, Water Tender Fiddletown, CA 95629 Notes: (1) Amador County has a MOU with Calaveras County and a secondary MOU with San Joaquin County for Hazmat services. (2) AFPD has an ISO Rating of 6 for areas within 1,000 feet of a hydrant and a rating of 8B in areas without a hydrant. (3) Primary service area (square miles) per station. (4) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. (5) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-181 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Fire Service, cont. Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Two new fire stations are scheduled to be built: one in Pine Grove and one in Martell. Also, AFPD plans to install wireless internet in all stations, along with the necessary IT support and software. The District also would benefit from an aerial apparatus. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers Current Practices: There is a mutual aid agreement between AFPD shares several stations with other local agencies, including American AFPD, CALFIRE, the City of Ione, the Legion Ambulance, Amador County Sheriff, and CALFIRE. City of Jackson, JVFPD, LFPD, and SCFPD. AFPD also has an informal mutual aid agreement with Latrobe FPD. AFPD has automatic aid agreements Opportunities: with the Cities of Ione and Jackson, AFPD is considering consolidation with JVPD and SCFPD. The District is KMPUD, and SCFPD. AFPD also has a also amenable to countywide consolidation. cooperative agreement with USFS Eldorado National Forest. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • There has been significant recent growth in the AFPD boundary area, particularly in the community of Martell. • Growth is expected to continue in Martell, as well as the greater Ione area and Plymouth due to multiple proposed and planned developments. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • AFPD currently does not have capacity to serve its entire boundary and relies heavily on other providers for automatic aid in exchange for minimal reimbursement. • AFPD plans to expand it capacity with two planned new stations in Martell and Pine Grove to address current and anticipated growth in those areas. • Infrastructure needs include installation of a wireless network system at each of the stations, and six new vehicles. The District has plans to purchase all of these by 2011, with the exception of an aerial apparatus, due to financing constraints. • Response times could be improved in the City of Plymouth, where AFPD exceeds the California EMS guidelines. • AFPD could improve its Firefighter I certification rate of 21 percent. II-182 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The District reported that the existing service level with call firefighter staffing is inadequate, and that an additional financing source is needed in the AFPD boundary area and for other providers serving the AFPD areas. • The District may require increased revenues to finance future facilities to address development. The District’s development impact fee was last updated in 1991 by the County and is currently the lowest of the seven providers. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • AFPD collaborates with other fire providers in the County through membership in AFPA, extensive automatic aid and mutual aid agreements, and the Amador Plan agreement with CALFIRE. • Opportunities for future facility sharing include the use of the future Martell training facilities as a joint training facility for all County fire providers. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • AFPD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCO requests. • AFPD hopes to improve operational efficiency through enhance connectivity between the various AFPD stations once the wireless network is installed. • A governmental structure option is consolidation of AFPD, the City of Jackson and SCFPD. These providers are contemplating consolidation. BY BURR CONSULTING II-183 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 7. A M A D O R R E S O U RC E C O N S E RVAT I O N D I S T R I C T Amador Resource Conservation District (ARCD) provides natural resource conservation services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION ARCD was formed on October 16, 1950 as an independent special district.276 The District was formed to provide resource conservation services. The District provides technical, programmatic and financial assistance to landowners and land managers of private lands in conserving the County’s natural resources. The principal act that governs the District is Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code.277 The principal act empowers resource conservation districts to control runoff, prevent and control soil erosion, develop and distribute water, and improve land capabilities.278 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000.279 BOUNDARY AND SOI ARCD covers all of unincorporated Amador County as well as portions of Alpine and Calaveras Counties. Amador is the principal county, and Amador LAFCO has jurisdiction. Land within District bounds in Calaveras County is owned by the East Bay Municipal Utility District; it encompasses the Pardee Reservoir, extending toward Campo Seco. The portion of Alpine County in the District is larger, encompassing the eastern and central portions of the county, reaching nearly to the City of Markleeville. In sum, the District covers 696 square miles, 114 of which are outside of Amador County. 276 ARCD reported this as the date it was formed by the Amador County Board of Supervisors. 277 Public Resources Code §9151-9491. 278 Public Resources Code §9151. 279 Government Code §56824.10. II-184 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT The ARCD boundaries overlap cities in recently annexed areas. LAFCO has no record of having detached territory from ARCD when it was annexed to cities.280 Territory was detached from ARCD boundaries at least twice (in 1989 and 2000), according to Board of Equalization (BOE) records.281 BOE records have not been thoroughly reviewed to ensure BOE revisions correctly reflected city bounds at those times. Further, there have been at least three annexations to cities since the most recent detachment from ARCD in 2000 that is mentioned in the BOE record. These annexations occurred in Sutter Creek (Noble Ranch/Allen Phase 2 annexation) and Jackson (Armstrong and Scottsville annexations). ARCD overlaps these three annexation areas at a minimum. LAFCO records forming and describing ARCD’s SOI are unavailable. The most recent known SOI action occurred in 1977. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. The District reported that its Board has discussed expanding the SOI to include all of Calaveras County, but that Calaveras County has not shown interest. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The principal act states that a resource conservation district shall be governed by a five, seven or nine-member board.282 A district board may be elected or appointed by the boards of supervisors in the encompassed counties. The board must elect a president and a secretary.283 280 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of ARCD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. 281 Board of Equalization, change numbers 120A and 00-004. 282 Public Resources Code §9301. 283 Public Resources Code §9306-9307. BY BURR CONSULTING II-185 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-7-1: ARCD Governing Body Amador Resource Conservation District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Steve Cannon President 11/1/2009 Lola Blevins Vice President 11/1/2010 Dan Port Treasurer/Secretary 11/1/2009 Members Carole Marz Director 11/1/2010 (vacant) Director 11/1/2010 Robert Long Associate Director NA Skip Veatch Associate Director NA Manner of Selection Appointed by the County Board of Supervisors Length of Term Four years (staggered) Meetings Date: Third Thursday of each month Location: County Ag Building Agenda Distribution Posted, emailed, online Minutes Distribution Online, by request Contact Contact President Mailing Address 1380 Airport Road, Martell, CA Phone NP Email/Website arcd@volcano.net; http://www.amadorrcd.org/ Accordingly, ARCD is governed by a five-member board of directors. It also is served by two associate directors. One director position has been vacant since 2004. Vacant positions from appointed seats are to be filled by appointment for the remainder of a term by the principal county’s board of supervisors; for ARCD this is Amador County BOS. 284 One associate director is a county supervisor from Alpine County. Director positions may not be filled by county supervisors,285 but supervisors are not precluded from holding an associate director position. The District maintains an informative website to provide information to the public. Press releases are also provided to the Ledger-Dispatch as necessary. The District reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. The District demonstrated partial accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. However, the District did not provide financial statements covering a full annual period. MANAGEMENT The Board of Directors plays an active role in managing the daily operations of ARCD. The District employs one staff member, the South Sacramento-Amador Water Quality Alliance 284 Public Resources Code §9316. 285 Public Resources Code §9357. II-186 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (SAWQA) manager, who reports monthly to the Board. ARCD has legal and fiscal responsibility for the South Sacramento-Amador Water Quality Alliance (SAWQA). The SAWQA manager reports to the ARCD Board on RWQCB activities. For support, the District relies on the personnel and facilities of several federal and state agencies. ARCD created a long-range plan for conservation efforts in the County in conjunction with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency that works in partnership with states and localities to conserve and sustain natural resources.286 The plan covers five years (2006 through 2010) and focuses on the management of agriculture resources, watersheds, woodlands, and wildlife habitats, as well as providing education, conservation advocacy and administration. The plan presents general goals within each area. District financial planning efforts include annual budgets and annual financial audits.287 In previous years, audits were performed every other year. The most recent audit was reportedly completed for FY 06-07, although the District has not provided a copy of the audited financial statement. Management practices include risk management. The District’s insurance includes general liability coverage for its directors. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH The District area is highly agricultural, with large areas of Timber Preserve Zone and the Mokelumne Wilderness. Residential uses are concentrated in the central portion of the District, around Pine Grove and Buckhorn. There are scattered parcels of commercial land use scattered in the District, including in Buckhorn, Red Corral and Pine Grove. Nearly all land in the east is vacant, as is a large portion of land to the west of Ione. Industrial uses are centered in Pioneer and Martell.288 Farming, ranching and mining are the area’s primary industries. Major employers within District bounds include the Mule Creek State Prison, Sierra Pine (lumber manufacturing) and Volcano Communications Group (utilities) in Pine Grove, as well as the Jackson Rancheria Casino, located on tribal land. 286 Long-range plans spanning five years are in accordance with Public Resources Code §9413. 287 Interview with Steve Cannon, President, ARCD Board of Directors, January 25, 2008. 288 Amador County, General Plan Existing (2007) Land Use Classification Map, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-187 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II There were 10,195 acres of farmland and 188,569 acres of grazing land in Amador County in 2006.289 The population within the District was approximately 22,319 in 2008.290 The District’s population density is 32 per square mile, lower than the countywide density of 64. Resource conservation service demand has remained stable or decreased in recent years. The District reported that it forecasts service needs in coordination the Amador County Agricultural Commissioner. Agricultural lands in the County have declined over the years. There was a net loss of 1,571 acres of farmland (13 percent decline) and 2,890 acres of grazing land (1 percent decline) between 1992 and 2006. This trend is expected to continue. There are 23 planned and proposed residential developments in unincorporated Amador County. There are proposals and plans for 2,246 residential units on 18,143 acres (approximately 28 square miles), among the projects with available data. Nearly 16,000 acres is associated with the Rancho Arroyo Seco property in the unincorporated area adjacent to the City of Ione, however, the number of residential units associated with the project had not been proposed as of the drafting of this report. The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. 289 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 290 The population estimate was calculated by adding the 2008 population (DOF) in unincorporated Amador County to one-fifth of the 2008 population (DOF) in Alpine County (an approximation of the fraction of the County within the District). No residents are located on the EBMUD land in Calaveras County. II-188 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT FINANCING The District reported that the current financing level from the County is not adequate to deliver services, and must rely heavily on the efforts of volunteers and financing through grants. The District tracks its financial activities through two separate funds—a general fund and a fund for the South Sacramento-Amador Water Quality Alliance (SAWQA) project. SAWQA is a coalition of agricultural irrigators formed to meet RWQCB waste-reporting requirements in a cost- effective manner. Amador County handles bookkeeping and financial reporting on behalf of the District; however, the District is directly responsible for conducting audits. ARCD received $180,278 in revenue in FY 06-07. The revenue sources were SAWQA coalition member contributions (composing 93 percent of revenue), interest income (4 percent), State reimbursement for mandated costs (2 percent), and aid from the County (1 percent). The District receives $2,000 annually from Amador County for rent expenses. The District does not receive any revenue from property taxes or assessments. ARCD relies on conservation grants for major projects. Three grants have been received in the last ten years for a total of $405,000. These grants provide funding for constructing a fuelbreak for watershed protection ($40,000 in 2004), vegetation management for watershed protection ($350,000 in 2001), and a fuelbreak for watershed protection ($15,000 in 1999). The District reported it had applied for two grants in 2008 for which awards were pending as of the drafting of this report. The first potential grant source for 2008 is $150,000 to develop a plan for vegetation management projects and to conduct relevant activities for the protection of Dry Creek watershed. The second potential grant is a $100,000 community assistance grant to reduce fire danger along Quartz Mountain Road by constructing a fuelbreak. The SAWQA funds were spent on contractors, insurance and special projects. Expenditures were $138,332 in FY 06-07, 97 percent of which was spent on SAWQII-related costs. The primary SAWQA cost was professional services ($116,297); other SAWQA costs included insurance, office expense and travel. The District’s general fund spent $$1,868 on professional services, $1,404 on insurance and $500 on mini-grants. The District anticipated spending its CY 2008 revenue on monitoring site expenses (50 percent), coalition administration fees (25 percent), service contracts (16 percent) and State Board fees (7 percent). The District did not have any long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The District’s reserve policy is to maintain ten percent of the administrative amount of grants received, but in some cases more are held in reserve. The District’s reserve fund status is unknown. The District had a fund balance of $138,038 at the end of FY 06-07. Of this amount, the vast majority represented the SAWQA cash balance. BY BURR CONSULTING II-189 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The District provides technical, programmatic and financial assistance to landowners and land managers of private lands in conserving the County’s natural resources. ARCD plans and directs community-wide conservation programs, including the facilitation of work in conjunction with other government agencies and organizations. The District also assigns priorities to resource development tasks and serves as a community clearing-house for information and services regarding the California Forestry Improvement Program. Specific ARCD activities in recent years have included a workshop assisting local livestock producers to improve viability (“Grass-fed Beef Workshop”), habitat restoration projects, the evaluation of area irrigation water management, educating the public, and providing student scholarships. The District has conducted grant-funded vegetation management and fuelbreak construction projects for watershed protection purposes in recent years. The District employs one staff member, the South Sacramento-Amador Water Quality Alliance (SAWQA) manager. She is paid $30 per hour with a monthly salary cap of $1,500. In addition, the District occasionally hires contractors to perform specific grant activities. Regional Collaboration The principal act states that it was the intent of the Legislature to encourage RCDs to organize in regional associations to coordinate efforts.291 ARCD is a member of several such organizations, as listed below. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) mandated that as of July 22, 2004 all agricultural irrigators must file reports on waste discharge. Irrigators are required to take one of three actions: 1) file a Report of Waste Discharge; 2) file a Notice of Intent for an Individual Waiver; or 3) join a coalition group which has met the conditions set forth by the RWQCB. ARCD collaborated with Amador Agriculture Commissioner, Lower Cosumnes RCD, and Sloughhouse RCD to create SAWQA, a coalition group meeting the RWQCB requirements. By joining an alliance with other irrigating landowners, an individual irrigator can minimize costs while satisfying RWQCB requirements. Landowners can join the alliance for a one-time fee of $40 plus one dollar per acre of irrigated land. These funds are maintained in a budget separate from ARCD.292 Amador RCD is a member organization of the Central Sierra Resource Conservation & Development Council (CSRCD), which was created in 1997 to provide economic and natural resource conservation aid to the people of Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mono 291 Public Resources Code §9417. 292 Amador Resource Conservation District, South Sacramento-Amador Water Quality Alliance, URLs accessed 2/19/08, http://www.amadorrcd.org/Alliance.html and http://www.amadorrcd.org/amador_alliance.html II-190 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Counties. Over 35 organizations and groups are members of the Council. CSRCD completed 13 projects in 2007 for a total cost of $956,491. Several projects focused on watershed management and education. ARCD is one of seven RCDs in the Sierra Coordinated Resource Management Council (SCRMC), a joint powers authority formed to provide conservation planning efforts on a regional level. LOCATION Programs are conducted within District bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE ARCD’s office plans to relocate to a building on Airport Road, and share the space with NRCS because the District’s current building has phone lines in need of renovation and because the County BOS favors the move. The County will pay ARCD’s rent at this new facility. The District believes the move will increase visibility to the public. ARCD has no equipment outside of minimal office amenities (e.g., one laptop computer). The District reports there are no infrastructure needs beyond those that the office move will address. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • Recent growth has been moderate in unincorporated Amador County, with significant growth anticipated as planned and proposed developments are approved and begin construction. • The amount of farmland in Amador County declined by 13 percent between 1992 and 2006. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The District does not own or maintain any public facilities, and has no infrastructure needs or deficiencies. • The District provides various resource conservation services to groups and individuals in Amador County and surrounding areas. BY BURR CONSULTING II-191 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The District reported that the current financing level from the County is not adequate to deliver services. The District depends on grant awards and services to other agencies (i.e., bookkeeping) to collect revenues. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The District shares current office space in the County Agriculture Building. The District will share its new office space with NRCS in Jackson. • The District collaborates with several agencies through JPAs, regional organizations and other agreements. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • The District maintains a website that outlines the purpose and function of the RCD, and contains contact information for the District. • The District is amenable to serving a larger portion of Calaveras County, but reported that Calaveras County has not expressed interest. • Operational efficiencies have been achieved through the use of volunteer efforts for many services. II-192 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY 8. A M A D O R WAT E R AG E N C Y Amador Water Agency (AWA) provides raw and treated water, and wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION Amador Water Agency was formed on July 20, 1959293 through the Amador Water Agency Act.294 AWA was formed as an independent district for the conservation, development, control and use of water for the public good in Amador County. The Legislature drafted the Amador Water Agency Act with the understanding that Amador County’s water problems required countywide water conservation, flood control and development of water resources, and that special legislation was needed due to “peculiar” circumstances in the County. Such circumstances included the existence of various water-related districts and municipalities with established property, works and indebtedness, which had proven unable to individually develop an economical adequate water supply and control floods.295 Accordingly, AWA has several related powers, including but not limited to the following: • To appropriate and acquire water and water rights, to store water in surface or underground reservoirs, to conserve and reclaim water, and to import water (95-4.3); • To take any legal action to ensure that sufficient water is available for use in the County, including irrigation, domestic, fire protection, municipal, commercial, industrial, recreational, and all other beneficial uses and purposes (95-4); • To plan, finance, acquire, construct, operate and maintain facilities for the collection, transmission, treatment, and disposal of sewage, waste, and storm water (95-4.14); • To control the flood and storm waters of the agency, including waters of streams with sources outside the County (95-4.2); and • To form improvement districts (95-14.2). 293 Formation date from Board of Equalization records. 294 Chapter 2137 of the Statutes of 1959. 295 Ibid. BY BURR CONSULTING II-193 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II A limitation of AWA’s powers as stated in its principal act is that the Agency shall not “affect, restrict nor supersede the existence, property, right or power” of another public agency.296 AWA is not presently engaged in flood control or stormwater service. Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000.297 BOUNDARY AND SOI The AWA boundary encompasses the entire County per the Amador Water Agency Act. 298 The AWA water and wastewater service areas are smaller than the boundary area, and are described in the water and wastewater profiles elsewhere in this chapter. There is no adopted SOI for the Agency. After adoption of the MSR, Amador LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the Agency. LAFCO is required to adopt and update an SOI for each local agency within the County.299 A local agency is defined as a city, county or district.300 A water agency is considered a district, as it is not included on the list of districts excluded from the definition.301 LAFCO may take a formal action to exclude various districts from the definition of district;302 however, according to LAFCO records, Amador LAFCO has never taken action to exclude AWA from its definition of a district. Therefore, AWA is subject to Amador LAFCO jurisdiction and to the SOI update requirement. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE AWA is governed by a five-member board of directors. Board members are to be elected by district; these districts align with County supervisorial districts. No seats were contested in the two most recent elections (2004 and 2006). For more information on individual members and meeting information, see Table II-8-1. AWA provides customers with District information through several means. AWA maintains and regularly updates an extensive website informing the public of meetings, minutes, public documents, rates, contact information, and other items. All meeting information is available 296 Statutes of 1959, Chapter 2137 §95-23. 297 Government Code §56824.10. 298 Ibid. 299 Government Code §56425 (a) and (g). 300 Government Code §56054. 301 Government Code §56036(a). 302 Government Code §56036(c). II-194 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY through the website, plus the Agency maintains an email list serve for meeting agendas. The District also sends out quarterly newsletters, including items for community education regarding water conservation. AWA meets with major customers annually and also conducts annual customer surveys. The Agency reported that it had no Brown Act violations in recent history. Table II-8-1: AWA Governing Body Amador Water Agency Governing Body Name Position Term Ends John P. Swift President, District 2 Nov-08 David Thomas Vice President, District 3 Nov-08 Members Madonna Wiebold Member, District 1 Nov-08 Terence W. Moore Member, District 5 Nov-10 Paul Scott Member, District 4 Nov-08 Manner of Selection Elections by district Length of Term Four years (staggered) Date: Second and fourth Location: Agency offices Meetings Thursdays, 9:00 AM Agenda Distribution Online, email subscription, posted Minutes Distribution Online Contact Contact General Manager Mailing Address 12800 Ridge Road, Sutter Creek, CA 95685 Phone (209) 223-3018 Email/Website stearpak@amadorwa.com, http://www.amadorwa.com With regard to customer service, the Agency reported that complaints may be submitted by email to those contacts listed on the Agency’s website, enclosing a written complaint in the bill or addressing a written complaint to the general manager or board of directors. The Agency has a computerized work order program, which tracks the progress and outcome of each complaint. The Agency did not report how many complaints were received in 2007. In 2006, the Agency received 19 complaints regarding water issues. Complaints most often related to pressure, taste, odor, and color. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. MANAGEMENT The Agency employs a total of 65 staff, including a general manager, an engineering and planning manager, an operations manager, a financial services manager, and construction superintendent. AWA’s daily operations are overseen by the general manager, who supervises BY BURR CONSULTING II-195 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II management in four departments: financial services, construction, operations, and engineering and planning.303 The general manager reports directly to the board. The Agency conducts annual employee evaluations. The Agency reported that these reviews are completed on schedule approximately 90 to 100 percent of the time. Workload tracking will begin with the implementation of a new computerized maintenance management system. No timeline was provided for this implementation. AWA’s strategic plan identifies several areas in which the Agency monitors its performance. The Agency tracks public notifications and violations from the State, violations from the Central Valley RWRCB, lost-time injuries, accident reports, avoidable auto accidents, number of public agency and water purveyor training sessions conducted, and wastewater spills and overflows. In addition, annual customer surveys are conducted with a goal of 90 percent satisfaction. The most recent survey recorded customer satisfaction of 93 percent. AWA also benchmarks staffing levels with other utilities. AWA’s planning documents include a detailed five-year strategic plan, a development impact fee nexus study, and urban water management plan, and a mission statement. The Agency has also actively participated in multiple regional planning documents: a watershed management plan and an integrated regional water master plan. It is Agency policy to actively participate in regional planning efforts. Agency financial planning efforts include annual preparation of budgets and annually audited financial statements. The most recent audit was completed in FY 06-07. AWA also has an annual capital improvement plan; it was last updated for FY 07-08. The Agency’s strategic plan sets out infrastructure improvement goals through 2012. Management practices include risk management. The Agency’s insurance includes general liability and machinery insurance. With regard to recent accomplishments, the Agency has received almost $3 million in grants for construction projects since 2000. The funds were used for the Buckhorn Water Treatment Plant expansion, the Amador Transmission Pipeline and a tank and main replacement in La Mel. The Agency also reports several improvements to operational efficiency in recent history, including the outsourcing of billing and billing process tasks, the computerization of the agency’s maintenance management system, the computerization of the agency’s document management and retrieval system, and the acquisition of an updated mapping/GIS program.304 303 Amador Water Agency, Organizational Chart, November 2007. 304 Agency response to LAFCO Request for Information, 2008. II-196 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Existing land use in Amador County consists primarily of forest land, agriculture, and single- family residential. The five Amador County cities as well as unincorporated communities have residential, commercial and some industrial land uses. Timber Preserve Zones are concentrated east of Buckhorn. Approximately 48 percent of the land throughout the County is vacant. The most profitable industries in the County include forest products, hydroelectric generation, legalized casino gambling, and tourism.305 Significant employers include the Jackson Rancheria Hotel and Casino and various governmental services, including Amador County, school district offices, Caltrans, the Department of Motor Vehicles and CHP. Approximately 25 percent of employment in the County is dependent upon tourism.306 Although agriculture (particularly wineries) have increased employment in recent years, overall farmland in the County declined by 5,707 acres from 1984 to 2004.307 The Agency considers water and wastewater connections served to be its customers. The Agency served 6,921 retail water connections and 950 wastewater connections for a total of 7,871 customers as of the close of FY 06-07.308 In addition, the Agency also provides wholesale water to five distributors totaling 3,034 connections: 2,400 connections in the City of Jackson, 62 in Drytown, 406 in Mace Meadows, 107 in Rabb Park, and 360 in Pine Grove. The population within Amador County is 37,943,309 and within AWA’s water service area there were approximately 20,020 residents in 2006.310 The population density in the AWA boundary area is 64 per square mile. The District reported that service demand has been increasing in recent years. Over the past 10 years, water demand has increased an average of 2.9 percent in the Amador Water System and 2.6 percent in the Central Amador Water Project system.311 The number of water and wastewater connections increased by 7.6 percent from June 2004 to June 2007. 312 Significant growth is anticipated within the County in the coming decades. By 2025, the County population is projected to reach 70,950, an increase of 87 percent over 17 years.313 To address the 305 Amador County, History Center, URL accessed 3/11/08, http://www.co.amador.ca.us/depts/archives/history.htm 306 Amador County, General Plan Update: Local Economy Background Working Paper, May 2007, p. LE-35. 307 Amador County, General Plan Update: Agriculture Background Working Paper, December 2006, p. AG-7. 308 Amador Water Agency, Financial Statements, June 30, 2007 and 2006, 2007, p. 7. 309 Department of Finance, January 1, 2008. 310 AWA, Public Water System Statistics, 2007. 311 Correspondence with John Griffin, Supervising Engineer, Amador Water Agency, June 24, 2008. 312 Calculated from data in: Amador Water Agency, Financial Statements, June 30, 2007 and 2006, 2007, p. 7. 313 Amador Water Agency, Urban Water Management Plan, 2005. BY BURR CONSULTING II-197 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II impact of growth on facility capacity, the Agency forecasts growth in water and wastewater use to determine capital needs in its capital improvement plan. The District estimates it could serve an additional 16,000 water connections through the AWS and 3,138 through CAWP.314 Recently completed water supply assessments for pending developments suggest AWS’ existing raw water contractual supplies could be fully allocated by 2030.315 According to development data reported by Amador County and the cities, there are a total of 43 planned and proposed development projects located within AWA service areas. Within the AWS service area, there are 33 planned and proposed residential developments, consisting of approximately 8,237 dwelling units. This would amount to an additional 18,557 residents within the service area at build out. There are also two non-residential projects located within the AWS service area (the Martell and Sierra West Business Parks), which consists of 82 lots. Within the CAWP service area there are eight planned and proposed residential developments, consisting of approximately 360 total dwelling units. Build out of these developments would add approximately 820 additional residents to the service area.316 For a list of planned and proposed developments within AWA service areas, see Table II-8-2. In addition to those projects identified by the County, AWA reports 58 residential development projects and four commercial projects, representing over 5,300 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs). AWA reports 21 of these projects as “will serves” (432 EDUs), 22 as conditional “will serves” (1,224 EDUs), seven as letters of water availability (426 EDUs), and 10 as future projects (3,228 EDUs). Large projects include the Amador Central project, Gold Country Plaza, Valley View Vistas, Castle Oaks, Gold Village, and Ione 101. In addition, the Howard Ranch property located north, west and south of the City of Ione has been sold to developers, and is being called the Rancho Arroyo Seco development; however the proposed number of housing units for the 15,860-acre development site in unincorporated Amador County had not been released as of the drafting of this report. For a list of all planned and proposed developments in Amador County by area, see Table II-30-1. The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The Agency has interest in countywide regionalization of wastewater and recycling services to maximize the benefit of economies of scale. 314 Amador Water Agency, PowerPoint Presentation, 2007. 315 Agency response to LAFCO Request for Information, 2008. 316 Population estimates are calculated by multiplying the total number of residential units by the average household size in Amador County (2.25) according to the Department of Finance, 2008. II-198 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY Table II-8-2: Planned and Proposed Developments within AWA Service Areas Non- General Residential Development Developer Location Acres Units1 Acres2 Amador Water System Service Area Aparicio Subdivision Hertzig & Aparicio Sutter Creek 31.0 5 0 Arroyo Woods Jim Buell Plymouth 101.0 127 0 Broussard Parcel Map Broussard Ione NP 2 0 Bryson Drive Cottages Sidle Construction/Web Partners Sutter Creek 1.6 12 0 Castle Oaks JTS Sutter Creek NP 475 10 Castle Ridge Doug Knutsen/KORAF Corp. Ione 8.6 65 0 Cottage Knoll Stephanie McNair Partial SOI 82.4 304 0 Crestview Aleytha Collins Sutter Creek 19.7 48 0 Fitzgerald Estates Pat Fitzgerald Sutter Creek 23.7 22 0 Gold Rush Ranch Gold Rush Ranch, LLC Sutter Creek 945.0 1,334 NP Golden Hills Stan Gamble/Trafalger Sutter Creek 53.8 79 0 Golden Vale Subdivision Geneva Real Estate Martell 383.0 607 NP Howard NP Ione NP 550 0 Ione 20/Gold Ridge Galleli & Son Ione 20.0 49 10 Jackson Gate Cameron Stewart Jackson 6.5 26 0 Jackson Hills Golf Course and New Faze Development Jackson 516.0 540 0 Residential Community Martell Business Park Sierra Pacific Industries Martell 374.0 56 374 NP NP Amador City 21.0 18 0 Oak Glen Marlon Ginney In Bounds 12.3 47 0 Powder House Stan Gamble/Trafalger Sutter Creek 34.7 107 0 Q-Ranch NP Ione SOI 400.0 822 0 Ringer Ranch (Part of Rancho Amador Ranch Associates Ione 134.0 523 0 Arroyo Seco) Saint Patrick's Green Diocese of Sacramento Jackson 58.0 185 2 Shenandoah Ridge Bob Reeder Partial Bounds 148.3 136 0 Shenandoah Springs Stephanie McNair In Bounds 23.8 64 0 Sierra West Business Park Sierra West Business Park, LLC Martell 70.0 26 70 St. Andrews Place NP Ione NP 25 0 Stonecreek D&L Development Jackson 5.0 8 0 The Home Depot Store The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Jackson 59.0 0 59 Washington Place NP Ione NP 6 0 Waterman Parcel (Part of Amador Ranch Associates Ione 85.0 NP NP Rancho Arroyo Seco) Wicklow Subdivision Lemke Construction, Inc. Martell 201.0 750 30 Wildflower Ryland Homes Ione NP 277 0 Yaegar NP Ione SOI NP 674 0 Zinfandel Bob Reeder Partial SOI 364.7 350 0 Central Amador Water Project Service Area Black Oak Ridge Toma Family Partnership Pine Grove 40.0 7 0 Fairway Pines PD Fairway/Glenmoor Partners Buckhorn 23.9 109 NP Mokelumne Bluffs Sutter Creek Villages, Inc. Pine Grove 137.9 98 0 Petersen Ranch (Revised) Frederick Petersen Pine Grove 141.2 58 0 Revised Pine Grove Bluffs Del Rapini Pine Grove 32.0 28 0 Silver Pointe Richard Reynolds Buckhorn 233.0 46 0 The Pines at Mace Meadows Ciro & Kimberly Toma Buckhorn 4.1 13 0 The Sixteenth Fairway Edward Rockower Buckhorn 5.9 5 0 Note: (1) Unit counts were reported by Amador County and may differ from those of the Amador Water Agency. BY BURR CONSULTING II-199 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II FINANCING AWA finances it water and wastewater operations primarily with rates and secondarily with service charges, assessments and interest income. Capital projects are financed with bonded debt, grants and connection fees paid by new development. The Agency reported that financing is adequate to deliver services to the AWS, CAWP, Lake Camanche, and La Mel water systems, as well as the Martell wastewater systems.317 However, funding was inadequate in the other wastewater systems, wastewater-related financial reserves were negative in the most recent fiscal year and rates have not been increased since 2006. The District tracks its financial activities separately through various funds. Separate funds include a general fund and funds for the Amador Water System (AWS), Central Amador Water Project (CAWP), two water improvement districts (Lake Camanche and La Mel Heights), three wastewater improvement districts (Lake Camanche, Martell and ID 1) and debt finance. AWA total revenues were $13 million in FY 06-07. Revenue sources included water rates (48 percent), water connection fees (6 percent), wastewater rates (7 percent), wastewater connection fees (7 percent), investment income (8 percent), grants (7 percent), and property taxes and assessments (3 percent). The District receives a share of the one percent property tax, which amounted to $0.2 million in FY 06-07. AWA increased its water rates by 5-7 percent in 2007 and 12 percent in 2008. Wastewater rates were last increased in 2006, although AWA plans to increase rates in FY 08-09. Total expenditures were $11.9 million in FY 06-07. Expenditure categories include administration and general (27 percent), capital depreciation (19 percent), maintenance (15 percent), and transmission and distribution costs (14 percent). The District has had significant capital costs in recent years. Replacement of the Buckhorn water treatment plant cost $8.3 million, of which $2.3 million was funded by a grant; the remaining cost amounts to $1,575 per connection. Construction of a pipeline to replace Amador Canal cost about $19 million. New development pays connection fees of ranging from $4,190 to $11,310 per dwelling unit for water to finance capacity expansion needed to serve the new growth. The District had $33 million in long-term debt outstanding at the end of FY 06-07. The debt was composed of two bonds and 11 loans. Most of the debt ($23 million) was associated with a bond issued in 2006, composing 71 percent of outstanding debt. Loans financing Buckhorn Water Treatment Plant ($4.7 million) made up 18 percent of outstanding debt. The principal act states that the agency shall not incur debt or liability exceeding the revenue for any year, excluding bonded indebtedness, the levying of special assessments, or the execution of contracts with the United States, California, Amador County, or member units (95-13). 317 Correspondence with John Griffin, Supervising Engineer, Amador Water Agency, February, 29, 2008. II-200 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY The Agency has an adopted policy of two months of operational and management expenses or 16.7 percent of annual expenses.318 On the whole, AWA had $6.5 million in unrestricted net assets at the close of FY 06-07. This represents 65 percent of operating expenditures and 55 percent of total expenditures. In other words, the District maintained 6.5 months of working reserves. Certain funds had greater reserve ratios and others had negative reserve ratios at the close of FY 06-07. Funds with positive reserves included the general fund, AWS, CAWP, Lake Camanche water improvement district, and the Martell wastewater improvement district. Funds with negative reserves included the wastewater fund as well as the La Mel Heights improvement district and Lake Camanche wastewater improvement district. The wastewater fund had -$0.8 million in unrestricted net assets, representing 140 percent of annual expenditures. AWA is a member of two joint powers authorities, Calaveras-Amador-Mokelumne River Association and the Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Authority. AWA provides contractual services to several local government agencies in Amador County, including water service to Pine Grove CSD, water and wastewater services to Plymouth, water and wastewater services to River Pines PUD, and water and wastewater services to Drytown CSD. Services provided by contract also include water service to PG&E, and AWA also has a mutual aid agreement with EBMUD. WATER SERVICES This section describes the nature, extent and location of the water services provided as well as key infrastructure and water sources. The tables provide further information and indicators of the agency’s water service supplies, demand, financing, service adequacy, and facilities. The water chapter in the MSR main document contains analysis and conclusions based on this information. NATURE AND EXTENT AWA provides treated water directly to four distinct service areas—Amador Water System (AWS), Central Amador Water Project (CAWP), Lake Camanche Village Area, and La Mel Heights. AWA also provides wholesale water to Pine Grove CSD, Rabb Park CSD, and Mace Meadows in the CAWP system, and Drytown CWD and the City of Jackson in the AWS system, as well as contract maintenance services to the City of Plymouth, Volcano CSD, Drytown CWD, River Pines PUD, and Pine Grove CSD. 318 Correspondence with John Griffin, Supervising Engineer, Amador Water Agency, February, 29, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-201 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-8-3: Communities with AWA Water Service The Agency is in the process of obtaining a permit to provide backwash water to the Mace Meadows Golf Course. While the Agency does not produce recycled water at its wastewater treatment plants; recycled water is used in the Agency’s service area. Recycled water use within the Agency’s boundaries consists of irrigation of the Castle Oaks golf course and the Bowers and Hoskins ranches. Recycled water is provided from the City of Ione’s Castle Oaks Reclamation Water Plant and Sutter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Recycled water via spray irrigation is provided in the Lake Camanche area, although it does not meet Title 22 criteria. The Agency has added a section on recycled water to its Water Code that requires users in the Agency’s service areas to use recycled water wherever feasible for future non-potable uses, if available.319 LOCATION AWA provides water related services only within its bounds. The Agency’s service area does not extend beyond the county lines, which is the Agency’s bounds. There are multiple areas within the County that are not served directly by AWA, which are either served by privately owned wells or other City and special district water purveyors. The Agency indicated that a majority of the unserved areas would require line extensions in order to begin service. The needed infrastructure is generally costly compared to the number of units that would bear the burden of the expenses. The Agency reported that it attempts to find grants and low interest loans for these areas. 319 AWA, Urban Water Management Plan, 2005, p. 8-4. II-202 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO tnemtaerT noitubirtsiD elaselohW ecnanetniaM Amador Water System (AWS) City of Ione (cid:57) (cid:57) City of Sutter Creek (cid:57) (cid:57) City of Amador (cid:57) (cid:57) Eagles Nest and Eagles Ranch (cid:57) (cid:57) Ridge Road (cid:57) (cid:57) Sutter Hill (cid:57) (cid:57) New York Ranch (cid:57) (cid:57) Running Gold (cid:57) (cid:57) Martell (northeastern portion) (cid:57) (cid:57) City of Jackson (cid:57) Drytown County Water District (cid:57) (cid:57) Central Amador Water Project (CAWP) Pioneer (cid:57) (cid:57) Buckhorn (cid:57) (cid:57) Red Coral (cid:57) (cid:57) River View (cid:57) (cid:57) Ridgeway Pines (cid:57) (cid:57) Ranch House Estates (cid:57) (cid:57) Pine Park East (cid:57) (cid:57) Gayla Manor (cid:57) (cid:57) Pine Grove Youth Camp (cid:57) (cid:57) Toma Lane (cid:57) (cid:57) Jackson Pines (cid:57) (cid:57) Pine Acres (cid:57) (cid:57) Silver Lake Pines (cid:57) (cid:57) Sierra Highlands (cid:57) (cid:57) Mace Meadows Unit #1 (cid:57) (cid:57) Sunset Heights (cid:57) (cid:57) Mace Meadows Water Association (cid:57) (cid:57) Pine Grove CSD (cid:57) (cid:57) Rabb Park CSD (cid:57) (cid:57) Other AWA Water Systems ID #3 (La Mel Heights) (cid:57) (cid:57) ID #7 (Lake Camanche) (cid:57) (cid:57) Non-AWA Treated Water Systems Volcano CSD (cid:57) River Pines PUD (cid:57) City of Plymouth (cid:57) AMADOR WATER AGENCY The Agency generally provides services to upcountry communities along SR 88 and Ridge Road from the community of Jackson Pines to Ridgeway Pines, and in the lower foothills from Lake Tabeaud west to Ione along SRs 88 and 104 and north to the community of Drytown along SR 49. Connections from Lake Tabeaud to Ridge Road along the Amador Canal and along SRs 88 and 104 between Jackson and Ione are served untreated water for irrigation purposes. In addition, AWA serves the two non-contiguous communities of La Mel Heights and Lake Camanche Village. The cities and communities where AWA provides water treatment, distribution, wholesale or maintenance services are shown in Table II-8-3. INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure for water service includes the Agency’s water supplies, three treatment plants, 178 miles of distribution mains, 24 miles of canals, six wells, 36 storage tanks and three reservoirs. Water Supplies A majority of the Agency’s water comes from the Mokelumne River watershed, which supplies both the AWS and CAWP systems. The Agency relies on groundwater for the La Mel Heights and Lake Camanche service areas. Surface water constitutes approximately 98 percent of the Agency’s water production.320 AWA has rights to a total of 16,150 af of surface water—1,150 af of water from the Mokelumne watershed, in addition to 15,000 af, also from the Mokelumne watershed, through a contractual agreement with PG&E for its pre-1914 water rights. The Agency has post-1914 appropriative water rights for the 1,150 af from three tributaries to the Mokelumne River, including the Bear River, North Fork River and Antelope Creek. The water is diverted from the Tiger Creek Afterbay and used to serve the CAWP system. As the Agency is reaching the diversion limits of this water right and is anticipating further growth and an increase in demand, it is searching for additional surface water sources. The Agency has applied for an increase in its water rights to a total of 2,200 af from this source. The application was pending as of the drafting of this report. If transferred, the rights would be used by AWA to permit storage at Lower Bear Reservoir, a PG&E facility. In addition, AWA is considering substitution of recycled water for a portion of JVID's Mokelumne River water right. AWA proposes to discharge tertiary treated effluent in Jackson Creek during winter months. In 1985, AWA acquired the AWS system from PG&E and the rights to 15,000 af, or a maximum diversion rate of 30 cfs, of water stored at Lake Tabeaud from the Mokelumne River. The water is transferred into the AWS system via the recently completed Amador Transmission Pipeline. The Mokelumne River generally has a high water quality through most of the year, as identified by the Agency. During storm events, the water quality can become turbid.321 320 AWA, Urban Water Management Plan, 2005, p. 3-1. 321 Ibid, p. 7-1. BY BURR CONSULTING II-203 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Groundwater accounts for approximately two percent of AWA’s water supply.322 The Lake Camanche wells pump groundwater from the Cosumnes subbasin. The water quality of the subbasin is generally of excellent quality for irrigation and domestic use.323 However, the Agency has closed two wells as a result of water quality concerns, specifically iron and manganese at one well and bacteria at another. Based on Department of Water Resources groundwater recharge and outflow analysis, the subbasin is losing on average approximately 4,300 af annually.324 During times of extreme drought, the water levels in the wells have dropped and then recovered in subsequent years. However, due to concerns of growth, basin overdraft and water quality, the Agency is planning to phase out the use of groundwater and change to surface water by 2015. Water in La Mel Heights is from an unclassified groundwater aquifer. Due to constraints on the build-out size of the community, the Agency did not indicate concerns regarding the capacity of the future groundwater supply.325 Treatment Systems The Agency owns, operates and maintains three treatment plants for surface water—two in the AWS and on in the CAWP system. The Tanner and Ione treatment plants serve the AWS area and have treatment capacities of 6.1 mgd and 3.3 mgd respectively. Both treatment plants were identified by the Agency as being in fair condition. The Tanner plant is nearing capacity during periods of maximum day demand. AWA plans to expand the plant in 2011 for approximately $16 million, which is to be funded primarily by new development through a community facilities development bond. The plant will originally be constructed with 8 mgd of treatment capacity and be expandable up to 20 mgd. The Ione treatment plant must use stored water to meet maximum day demands.326 In addition, planned and proposed growth will exceed the capacity of the treatment plant. The Ione treatment plant is scheduled to be replaced by the Tanner plant after its expansion. The Buckhorn treatment plant serves the CAWP system and has a treatment capacity of 2.6 mgd. Construction of the plant was completed in 2005, and the plant is in excellent condition according to the Agency. No needs or deficiencies at the plant were identified. There are currently plans for a joint surface water treatment plant project between EBMUD, AWA, and Calaveras County Water District to supply surface water to the Lake Camanche area. This project is still in the planning stages.327 It is expected to involve a surface water treatment plant on the south shore, with a pipeline conveying treated water to the north shore. 322 AWA, Urban Water Management Plan, 2005, p. 3-1. 323 Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, 2006, p. 3. 324 Ibid, p. 2. 325 AWA, Urban Water Management Plan, 2005, p. 3-3. 326 DPH, 2007 Annual Inspection Report – Ione, 2007, p. 6. 327 RMC Water and Environment, Mokelumne, Amador and Calaveras IRWMP, October 2006, p. 3-17. II-204 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY The Agency operates six wells—four in Lake Camanche Village and two in La Mel Heights. Lake Camanche Village wells have a combined pumping capacity of 835 gpm, and the wells in La Mel Heights have a pumping capacity of 76 gpm. The groundwater is treated with well-head treatment systems. Four of the wells were reported as being in fair condition and two of the wells, which were constructed in 2007, were identified as being in excellent condition. The Agency plans to transfer the Lake Camanche area to surface water by 2015 and no longer use the wells.328 Water Storage The Agency owns and maintains 36 storage facilities and three raw water reservoirs. The storage tanks have a combined storage of 8.8 mg of water—4.5 mg in AWS, 3.4 mg in the CAWP, 0.7 mg in Lake Camanche, and 0.1 mg in La Mel. According to the Department of Public Health (DPH), the AWS tanks are in good condition. The La Mel tank was replaced in FY 07-08 due to insufficient storage for peak and fire flows. The Agency has budgeted to make several improvements to the storage tanks in the CAWP and Lake Camanche systems during FY 07-08. In addition, the Agency plans to complete a storage consolidation study, which is currently in process, for the CAWP system in the same FY to increase water storage and eliminate small aged tanks. Distribution and Transmission The distribution system consists of 177 miles in the four service areas—65 in the AWS, 93 in CAWP, 19 in Lake Camanche, and 1.4 in La Mel Heights. The system consists of a variety of materials, including cast iron, cement lined steel, galvanized steel, PVC, and asbestos cement. The AWS distribution system was reported as being in fair to good condition by DPH during an annual inspection in 2007.329 The Agency identified the CAWP distribution system as being aged and undersized in portions and in need of replacement. In addition, the system requires improvements to increase pressure. There are no plans to replace these pipelines in the near future; however the Agency plans to address the pressure issues in 2011. The Agency previously used the 24-mile Amador Canal to transfer raw water from Lake Tabeaud to the Tanner treatment plant. The canal was recently replaced with the Amador Transmission pipeline to eliminate significant transmission loss and vulnerabilities to contamination from livestock and wild animals, and septic tanks along its course.330 The canal is still in use to supply water to 100 raw water connections. EBMUD, PG&E, and AWA agreed to jointly contribute to the replacement of the Amador Canal with the pipeline that is anticipated to eliminate 3,000-6,000 afa in seepage losses from the prior earthen ditch canal. Until AWA needs its full 15,000 af of entitlement, which is currently estimated to be approximately 2030, the conserved water will be available to PG&E and EBMUD for additional hydropower generation and as additional inflow to 328 AWA, Urban Water Management Plan, 2005, p. 177. 329 DPH, 2007 Annual Inspection Report, 2007, p. 20. 330 DPH, 2007 Annual Inspection Report, 2007, p. 6. BY BURR CONSULTING II-205 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Pardee Reservoir.331 The water conserved by this project will be available to EBMUD in most years for diversion into the Mokelumne Aqueduct or through the Pardee and Camanche power plants. AWA has proposed to extend a pipeline from its Tanner treatment plant near Sutter Creek to the City of Plymouth. The City Council has approved a proposal to receive treated water from AWA through the pipeline extension.332 The pipeline will be 12 inches in diameter, entirely gravity fed, and approximately 11 miles from the Tanner treatment plant. The total estimated cost of the pipeline construction is $8.3 million, of which AWA’s share is approximately $3.18 million.333 There will be additional costs for expansion of the Tanner treatment plant. Funding sources for the pipeline are a USDA Rural Utilities Service grant up to $5 million, and a community development block grant for $0.6 million. Future Services AWA has discussed with the County the possibility of it providing water services to the Carbondale Industrial Park. The industrial park would be served by the pipeline which runs from the Ione treatment plant to the community of Eagles Nest in Amador County. To extend services to the area would cost an estimated $1.7 million. AWA has not yet issued a letter of water availability for the park. 331 EBMUD, Summary Financial Information Statement, FY 2007, p. 14. 332 DPH, Plymouth Annual Inspection Report, 2005, p. 28. 333 Plymouth, Water System Financial Plan and Water Rate Study, 2006, p. 12. II-206 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY Table II-8-4: AWA Water Profile Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water AWA Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water AWA Groundwater Extraction AWA Water Treatment AWA Recycled Water2 Ione/Sutter Creek Service Area Description Retail Water Retail water service is provided to the cities of Ione, Sutter Creek and Amador, and upcountry communities along SR 88 and Ridge Road from Jackson Pines to Ridgeway Pines, and in the lower foothills from Lake Tabeaud west to Ione along SRs 88 and 104 and north to the community of Drytown along SR 49. Connections from Lake Tabeaud to Ridge Road along the Amador Canal and along SRs 88 and 104 between Jackson and Ione are served untreated water for irrigation purposes. Wholesale Water City of Jackson, Drytown County Water District, Mace Meadows Water Association, Rabb Park CSD, and Pine Grove CSD. Recycled Water NA Boundary Area3 594 sq. miles Population (2006)4 20,020 System Overview Average Day Demand Peak Day Demand AWS System (Tanner WTP) 2.20 mgd 4.2 mgd AWS System (Ione WTP) 2.29 mgd 2.5 mgd CAWP System 0.95 mgd 1.3 mgd Lake Camanche 0.21 mgd 2.1 mgd La Mel 0.02 mgd 0.03 mgd Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Buckhorn Treatment Plant Treatment 2.6 mgd Excellent 2003 Tanner Treatment Plant Treatment 6.1 mgd Fair 1990 Ione Treatment Plant Treatment 3.3 mgd Fair 1986 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 3 Storage Capacity (mg) 8.7 Pump Stations 18 Pressure Zones 42 Production Wells 6 Pipe Miles 177 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies 1) An aged and undersized water distribution system within the CAWP system 2) Lack of future treatment capacity for anticipated growth in the Ione and Tanner treatment plants 3) Additional water sources needed for the Lake Camanche to address concerns of basin overdraft 4) Rehabilitation of the deteriorating Lake Camanche system Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: The Agency practices facility sharing of its treatment plants by providing wholesale water to independent water purveyors. In addition, the Agency reported that it has on occasion shared equipment and materials with other purveyors. Opportunities: The Agency identified four opportunities for future facility sharing 1) consolidation of the Tanner and Ione treatment plants into a single treatment plant located in Sutter Hill, 2) a shared regional water treatment plant with EBMUD and CCWD in the Lake Camanche area, 3) sharing of the Plymouth Pipeline with the City of Plymouth, and 4) an intertie with the EBMUD system in the Lake Camanche area for emergency backup. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. (2) AWA has applied for a permit to provide Buckhorn Treatment Plant backwash to the Mace Meadows Golf Course for irrigation. (3) The Agency's boundary area includes the entire County, the size of the service area is unknown. (4) Population of the service area as estimated in the 2006 Public Water System Statistics. BY BURR CONSULTING II-207 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 6,807 6,807 0 Irrigation/Landscape 178 178 0 Domestic 6,291 6,291 0 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 335 335 0 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 3 3 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year) 1995 2000 2005 20101 2015 2020 2025 Total NP 11,003 12,494 9,172 10,579 12,200 14,070 Residential NP 1,790 1,779 2,051 2,364 2,723 3,137 Commercial/Ind./Inst. NP 1,683 1,080 1,246 1,437 1,658 1,912 Irrigation/Landscape2 NP 2,308 2,012 2,322 2,678 3,090 3,565 Other3 NP 3,845 4,543 0 0 0 0 Wholesale NP 1,376 3,080 3,554 4,100 4,730 5,456 Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm Mokelumne River/Lake Tabeaud Surface Water 4,238 15,000 Unknown Mokelumne River/Tiger Creek AfterbaySurface Water 1,053 1,150 Unknown Cosumnes Subbasin Groundwater 241 1,347 Unknown Unclassified Groundwater Aquifer Groundwater 23 123 Unknown Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total NP NP 16,431 17,523 17,570 17,623 17,684 Imported NP NP 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater NP NP 281 323 26 26 26 Surface NP NP 16,150 17,200 17,544 17,597 17,658 Recycled NP NP 0 0 0 0 0 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)4 Year 1: 16,423 Year 2: 16,423 Year 3: 16,423 Significant Droughts 1976, 1977, 1988-94 Storage Practices The Agency maintains storage facilities for short-term water needs. In addition, water is stored by PG&E in Lake Tabeaud and Tiger Creek Afterbay for use by the Agency. Drought Plan Historically, drought conditions have not resulted in a cut back in the amount of surface water available to the Agency, and AWA has never had to require rationing of its customers. However, the Agency has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which includes both voluntary and mandatory water rationing. Mandatory rationing requirements are also outlined in the Agency's water code. There are no flow requirements or storage levels that trigger mandatory water rationing. Recommendations for rationing are determined on a case-by-case basis by Agency staff. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering Yes Conservation Pricing Yes Other Practices 1) Water survey programs for residential customers 2) Free residential plumbing retrofit kits 3) System water audits, leak detection, and repair 4) Large landscape conservation programs and incentives 5) Public information programs 6) School education programs 7) Review of plans and water use audits for commercial, industrial and institutional customers 8) Water waste mitigation in the AWA water code Notes: (1) The anticipated drop in demand is due to the construction of the AWS Transmission Pipeline to replace the Amador Canal that has distribution loss rates of almost 50 percent. (2) Irrigation is the Agency's raw water sales. (3) Other is the amount of distribution loss in the Amador Canal. (4) As drought conditions have never resulted in a cut back in the water available to the Agency, the Agency assumes drought supply would be equal to the current supply available. II-208 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY Water Rates and Financing Residential Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 AWS Flat monthly: $20.03 $ 35.37 250 gal/day Usage Rate: $1.51 per ccf CAWP Flat bi-monthly: $67.50 $ 54.88 250 gal/day Usage rates: 1-20 ccf: $2.08 per ccf >20 ccf: $3.12 per ccf Camanche Flat bi-monthly: $47.50 $ 43.87 250 gal/day Usage rates: 1-50 ccf: $1.16 per ccf >50 ccf: $1.94 per ccf La Mel Annual assessment: $180.00 $ 71.76 250 gal/day Flat bi-monthly: $80.00 Usage rates: 1-100 ccf: $1.65 per ccf >100 ccf: $2.45 per ccf Special Rates Rates are different for each of the four water systems. There are no other special rate zones. Wholesale/Other Water Rates City of Jackson: $0.94 per ccf plus monthly charge of $17,389 Drytown CWD: $0.94 per ccf plus monthly charge of $980 Mule Creek: $1.41 per ccf plus monthly charge of $14,258 Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description Rates are set to meet ongoing operation and maintenance costs, existing debt service obligations, and achieve capital improvement program objectives. Most Recent Rate Change (AWS) 7/1/2007 Most Recent Rate Change (CAWP) 7/1/2006 Most Recent Rate Change (Camanche) 7/1/2006 Most Recent Rate Change (La Mel) 7/1/2007 Frequency of Rate Changes Every 1-3 years Water Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach The Agency charges a fee for connecting the meter and an additional participation fee for facility expansion needs. Connection Fee Timing Upon sale of the lot or receipt of the building permit. Connection Fee Amount AWS: $10,250 CAWP: $8,750 (per single-family unit) Camanche: $11,310 La Mel: $4,190 Land Dedication Requirements Developers are required to build necessary infrastructure and transfer it to the Agency. Development Impact Fee None Water Enterprise Operating Revenues, FY 06-07 Operating Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $9,013,275 100% Total $9,244,244 Rates & charges $6,466,494 72% Administration4 $1,179,443 Property tax3 $204,892 2% O & M4 $5,696,851 Fees5 $823,272 9% Capital Depreciation NP Assessments & Standby $143,378 2% Purchased Water $0 Connection Fees6 $18,495 0% Capital Assets $29,333 Interest $172,044 2% Debt $2,189,108 Loans $409,385 5% Reserves $149,508 Other $775,314 9% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions used to calculate average monthly bills are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. (3) Property taxes and other revenues for the AWA "agency general" and "outside services" budget units were allocated to water (88%) and wastewater (12%) based on each respective enterprise's share of direct revenues. (4) The AWA budget category for salaries and wages was allocated to O&M. Costs associated with the agency's general account and outside services were allocated to water (89%) and wastewater (11%). (5) Fees includes engineering and inspection fees as well as participation fees. (6) Connection fees include meter setting fees. BY BURR CONSULTING II-209 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators Water Planning Description Planning Horizon Water Master Plan None UWMP 2005 2010 Capital Improvement Plan 2007 2012 Vulnerability Assessment and Emergency Plan1 NP Service Challenges The Agency identified the following challenges to the provision of water service: 1) Finalizing the water rights application submitted to DWR for expansion of the CAWP system 2) Inadequate treatment capacity based on projected growth, particularly in AWS 3) Inadequate water supply for the Camanche system Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 400 O&M Cost Ratio2 $1,004,736 MGD Delivered/FTE 0.33 Distribution Loss Rate 19% Distribution Breaks & Leaks 26 Distribution Break Rate3 14.7 Response Time Policy 2 hours Response Time Actual Depends on severity Water Pressure 40+ psi Total Employees (FTEs) 17 Water Operator Certification AWA personnel hold up to a T4 classification for treatment systems and a D5 classification for distribution systems. AWA meets the minimum classification requirements for each of its systems. Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information4 # Description Health Violations 2 Exceedance of Haloacetic Acid MCL in 2005, violation of surface water treatment technique in 2003 Monitoring Violations 9 Coliform monitoring 2000 (2); Benzene monitoring 1998; Nitrate monitoring 1998, Gross alpha monitoring 1998; Arsenic monitoring 1997; Lead and copper sampling 2000 (3) DW Compliance Rate5 98% Notes: (1) Vulnerability Assessment plan prepared for each service area. (2) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (3) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (4) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (5) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2007. II-210 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY WASTEWATER SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT AWA provides wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services to unincorporated communities located within its wastewater improvement districts. In addition, AWA provides wastewater collection service to the unincorporated Martell community. The City of Sutter Creek provides wastewater treatment and the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA) provides wastewater disposal services to the Martell area. LOCATION Table II-8-5: Communities with AWA Wastewater Service AWA provides wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services to 10 unincorporated communities, as shown in Table II-8-5. Community The largest of the AWA wastewater systems are the Martell and Lake Camanche Village systems. Two county service areas formerly operated by Amador County were transferred in 2003 from the County to AWA. The Martell system is operated by AWA and organized internally as AWA wastewater improvement district #12. The Lake Camanche Village system is organized as AWA wastewater improvement district #11. Neither of the two CSAs has been formally dissolved. Chapter II-28 discusses CSAs. By contract, AWA provides wastewater operations, maintenance and emergency services to other wastewater service providers, presently the City of Plymouth and River Pines PUD. AWA has provided contract services in the past to Kirkwood PUD, Amador County and the Oaks Mobile Home Park. INFRASTRUCTURE Key AWA infrastructure includes two wastewater treatment plants, leach fields, 33 miles of sewer pipes and 15 lift stations. Lake Camanche Village The WWTP provides secondary treatment with disinfection and spray irrigation. Treatment is conducted with a pond system, including a chlorine contact ditch and an outfall to an unlined storage reservoir. The facility has a design flow capacity of 0.28 mgd, although the storage pond and sprayfield were not designed to meet build-out demand. By comparison, average flow was 0.052 BY BURR CONSULTING II-211 noitcelloC tnemtaerT lasopsiD ecnanetniaM Eagle's Nest (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Surrey Junction (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Wildwood Estates (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Gayla Manor (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Jackson Pines (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Fairway Pines (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Pine Grove (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Viewpoint Estates (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Tiger Creek Estates (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Lake Camanche (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Martell (cid:57) (cid:57) City of Plymouth (cid:57) River Pines PUD (cid:57) AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II mgd in 2007. The plant was built in the 1970s and was described as in fair condition. The WWTP lacks capacity to handle peak flows during rain events. The regulatory agency imposed a cease and desist order in 2003 requiring long-term improvements to the WWTP. There were three documented spills between 2003 and 2006, one of which is believed to have flown into Camanche Lake. In addition, there is a moratorium on wastewater service in the area, and property owners are on a waiting list for additional capacity. AWA and EBMUD are considering a joint project to build a regional wastewater system to accommodate their respective infrastructure needs in the area. The planned first phase is expansion of storage and spray field disposal system to avoid spills and serve approved development in the area. The second phase would upgrade the WWTP to membrane bio-reactor WWTP with disposal to land during dry months and surface water during wet months. AWA contemplates disposal of recycled water to the Jackson Valley Irrigation District service area, and requires conveyance facilities to transport recycled water the 3-mile distance. The total cost of the project is projected to be $23 million. Potential funding sources include the SWRCB small community wastewater grant program, the State Revolving Fund (loans), and wastewater rates and connection fees. AWA plans to implement $0.6 million in capital projects at the WWTP in the short-term. There is no anticipated construction date pending completion of environmental review. The facility has a conventional gravity collection system with 4 lift stations and 6.3 miles of sewer pipe. The collection system was described as in good condition by AWA. Martell Wastewater originating in the Martell area is treated at the City of Sutter Creek WWTP (described in Chapter II-5) and disposed by ARSA (described in Chapter II-29). AWA identified a short-term need for 50,000 gpd capacity, and plans to continue to rely on Sutter Creek for treatment and ARSA for disposal in the short-term. The flow originating in Martell was .076 mgd in 2007. The flow is projected to reach 0.3-0.7 mgd by 2015 and 0.9-1.0 mgd by 2025.334 At build-out, the Martell flow has been estimated at 1.19 mgd and 3.0 mgd by the City of Sutter Creek and AWA respectively.335 To address growth and capacity needs in the Martell area, AWA plans to construct a new WWTP in the Martell area in the long-term and would then no longer rely on Sutter Creek or ARSA. AWA was awarded $3 million toward the cost through the Water Resources Development Act to partly fund the project. AWA plans to begin design and environmental review in 2008. AWA has conducted outreach aimed at attracting the cities of Amador, Jackson and Sutter Creek to rely on a future regional WWTP in Martell; however, the cities reported they are pursuing their own 334 The source for the lower estimate in the range is AWA and for the higher estimate is HDR Engineering (consultant to the City of Sutter Creek), as reported in HDR Engineering, Sutter Creek Wastewater Master Plan, August 2007, p. 3-4. 335 HDR Engineering, Sutter Creek Wastewater Master Plan, August 2007, p. 3-4. II-212 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY solutions to infrastructure needs. AWA reported that it continues its outreach effort with the nearby cities. The cost of a regional facility would be approximately $42 million; the cost of a facility designed solely to meet the needs of Martell would be approximately $20 million. The project was still in the preliminary planning stages, and refined cost estimates were not available when this report was prepared. Assuming the AWA board decides to move forward on the project, it would take approximately three years to complete it. There are small developments along SR 88 between Fairway Pines and Jackson Pines that rely on community leach fields and recirculating gravel filters with spray fields for wastewater, but the systems are strained due to increased loads. Two additional developments have been proposed for the area. AWA hopes to construct a sewer trunk line to collect wastewater from the developments and convey it either to the expanded Sutter Creek WWTP or to the planned AWA WWTP located in Martell. The estimated cost is approximately $8 million, and a funding source has not yet been identified. Gayla Manor Septic tank effluent from 79 homes flows through gravity or force main sewers to two 10,000- gallon recirculation tanks adjacent to the treatment and disposal site. The Gayla Manor WWTP is in fair condition, and provides secondary treatment with disinfection and spray disposal. The treatment facility is designed to handle up to 22,000 gpd. The spray fields become saturated during peak rain events, and have a capacity for only 2,800 gpd. By comparison, the average flow is 8,000 gpd with peak flows of 31,000 gpd. The WWTP has a storage reservoir for peak flows, but lacks capacity to accommodate peak flows. RWQCB issued a cease and desist order in 2004 because the storage level in the ponds encroached on freeboard and there had been spills. To address the RWQCB cease and desist order, AWA plans to construct a 20-acre leachfield to remove wastewater pathogens through biological processes. AWA has financed $0.3 million of the expected $1.1 million cost of capital projects at the WWTP. Financing sources include the SWRCB small community wastewater program grant. AWA is pursuing grant funding through the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. There is one pump station and 1.44 miles of sewer pipe. The system was built in the early 1990s. The collection system was described as in good condition by AWA. AWA reported no I/I problems; however, the RWQCB reported in 2003 that peak flows indicated excessive I/I. AWA Satellite Systems There are eight small communities with separate wastewater systems operated by AWA. Each of these systems involves discharge of septic tank effluent to leachfields. AWA described each of the collection systems as in good condition, having been constructed in the 1990s. • Eagle’s Nest: Septic tank effluent from 8 homes is pumped to a force main and discharged to a community leachfield. There are no pump stations and 1.2 miles of sewer pipe. The system was built in the early 1990s. • Surrey Junction: Septic tank effluent from 7 homes flows by gravity to a community leachfield. There are no pump stations and 0.6 miles of sewer pipe. The system was built in the early 1990s. BY BURR CONSULTING II-213 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II • Wildwood Estates: Septic tank effluent from 34 homes flows by gravity into a collection system. There are no pump stations and 1.03 miles of sewer pipe. The system was built in 1990. • Jackson Pines: Septic tank effluent from 64 homes is collected and pumped to a community leachfield. There are two pump stations and 3.02 miles of sewer pipe. The system was built in the late 1990s. • Fairway Pines: Septic tank effluent from 42 homes is conveyed to a lift station, pumped to a force main, and discharged to Fairway Pines leachfield. Once the leachfield capacity is absorbed, there is an additional leachfield available at Mace Meadows. There is one pump station and 4.4 miles of sewer pipe. The system was built in the late 1990s. AWA reported minimal I/I problems; however, the County Department of Environmental Health reported in 2000 that peak flows indicated a likely I/I problem. • Pine Grove: Septic tank effluent from residential and commercial users (83 EDUs) is pumped to a community leachfield. There are 3.4 miles of sewer pipe. The system was built in the late 1990s, and began operating in 2001. • Viewpoint Estates: Septic tank effluent from 3 homes flows by gravity to a community leachfield. There are no pump stations and 0.3 miles of sewer pipe. The system was built in the late 1990s. • Tiger Creek Estates: Septic tank effluent from 2 homes flows by gravity to a community leachfield. There is one pump station and 0.4 miles of sewer pipe. The system was built in the late 1990s. Water Treatment Plants To address backwash generated at each of its three water treatment plants, AWA identified a need for re-use projects at each of the water plants. The purpose of the projects is to reduce sewer system loads, meet regulatory requirements, prevent contamination and reduce potable water demands. The Buckhorn WTP backwash will be used to irrigate Mace Meadows Golf Course. Specific needs include additional settling ponds, stormwater diversion and irrigation facilities. The IRWMP identified $0.5 million in costs for design of storage solutions at Buckhorn WTP.336 The Buckhorn WTP improvements will be funded by water rates. Construction was not complete at the time this report was drafted. The Ione WTP backwash presently goes into the City of Ione’s secondary WWTP. 336 RMC Water and Environment, Mokelumne/Amador/Calaveras Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, November 2006, p. 5-9. II-214 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY The Tanner WTP backwash will distribute up to 90 afa to local agriculture customers or the planned Gold Rush Golf Course. The backwash presently goes into the Ione Canal serving limited agricultural needs. The IRWMP identified $0.5 million in costs associated with a settling process at the Tanner WTP. The Tanner WTP backwash improvements are being funded by water rates. BY BURR CONSULTING II-215 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-8-6: AWA Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection AWA Wastewater Treatment AWA and City of Sutter Creek (Martell) Wastewater Disposal AWA and ARSA (Martell) Recycled Water None Service Area Collection: Eagle's Nest, Surrey Junction, Wildwood Estates, Gayla Manor, Jackson Pines, Fairway Pines, Pine Grove, Viewpoint Estates, Tiger Creek Estates, Lake Camanche, Martell Treatment: Eagle's Nest, Surrey Junction, Wildwood Estates, Gayla Manor, Jackson Pines, Fairway Pines, Pine Grove, Viewpoint Estates, Tiger Creek Estates, Lake Camanche Recycled Water Lake Camanche (spray irrigation) Sewer Connection Regulatory/Policies When any part of any proposed subdivision lies within 500 feet of a public sewer system, sanitary sewer facilities shall be installed to serve each lot in said subdivision (County Code §17.44.010). Onsite Septic Systems in Boundary Area There were 7,515 homes in unincorporated areas on septic systems, according to the 1990 Census, which was the most recent to inquire about residential sewage disposal. Service Demand 2005 Connections Flow (gpd) Type Active Standby Average Build-Out Total 845 218 198,233 3,204,887 Eagle's Nest 9 5 1,901 3,327 Surrey Junction 8 0 1,164 1,902 Wildwood Estates 34 3 8,082 8,795 Gayla Manor 57 0 18,780 19,731 Jackson Pines 74 5 15,213 18,778 Fairway Pines 62 52 9,983 15,909 Pine Grove 46 38 13,550 34,700 Viewpoint Estates 4 1 713 1,188 Tiger Creek Estates 4 4 475 2,377 Lake Camanche 374 0 52,000 98,180 Martell 173 110 76,372 3,000,000 Projected Demand (in millions of gallons per day) 2005 2015 2025 Build-Out Avg. dry weather flow 0.20 NP 0.603 3.20 Peak wet weather flow NP NP NP NP Notes: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. (2) Build-out projections are based on standby connections and exclude potential growth outside wastewater improvement district areas, as estimated in the 2005 Regional Wastewater Management Plan. II-216 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Secondary Disposal methods: Sprayfields, leachfields, golf course irrigation Facility Name Capacity Condition Yr Built Lake Camanche Village WWTP 0.281 mgd Fair late 1970s Gayla Manor WWTP 0.022 mgd Fair early 1990s Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) Average Dry Peak Day Wet Lake Camanche Village WWTP 0.052 0.121 Gayla Manor WWTP 0.008 0.031 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The Martell area needs 50,000 gpd capacity in the short-term, as much as 1.0 mgd capacity by 2025 and 3.0 mgd for build-out demand. AWA plans to construct a new WWTP to serve Martell. Sutter Creek reported needs for enhanced source control, as elevated loads originating in the Martell area have decreased WWTP capacity. The Lake Camanche Village area needs additional storage and disposal capacity; approximately 68,200 gpd capacity was needed for property owners with service requests as of early 2008, and 166,200 gpd capacity is expected to be needed for future developments. The Gayla Manor WWTP lacks adequate storage and disposal capacity for peak flows. AWA plans to build a new leachfield, beginning construction in 2008. To reduce wastewater flows and enhance water supplies, AWA needs to make conveyance and disposal improvements at its three water treatment plants. Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 32.9 Sewage Lift Stations 15 Other: Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies No collection system infrastructure needs or deficiencies were identified by AWA. Infiltration and Inflow All collection systems were described as in good condition. The Martell system has some I/I problems. There is minimal I/I in the other collection systems, according to AWA. Regulatory agencies have reported I/I problems in the Gayla Manor and Fairway Pines systems. Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing Regional Collaboration The Martell area (CSA 4) discharges to Sutter Creek for treatment and ARSA for disposal. ARSA effluent receives tertiary treatment prior to disposal for golf course irrigation in the Ione area. AWA participated in and helped fund a regional wastewater study in 2005. AWA and EBMUD are collaborating on joint solutions to wastewater capacity needs in the Lake Camanche area. Facility Sharing Opportunities AWA plans to construct a tertiary wastewater treatment facility in Martell with disposal of recycled water in Jackson Valley. To reap economies of scale and enhance recycled water supplies, AWA has conducted outreach aimed at attracting Jackson and Sutter Creek to relying on its planned Martell facility. The City of Sutter Creek and ARSA plan to construct a new wastewater treatment facility in Sutter Creek with disposal of effluent for irrigation purposes, and have conducted outreach aimed at attracting AWA to rely on its planned facilities. BY BURR CONSULTING II-217 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Regulatory Compliance Record, 2000-7 Formal Enforcement Actions 3 Informal Enforcement Actions 14 Enforcement Action Type Date Facility 1 Description of Violations Administrative Civil Liability 1/26/2006 Camanche Permit conditions (10) Notice of Violation 5/3/2005 Camanche Permit conditions (9) Notice of Violation 7/3/2003 Camanche Effluent conditions (5), permit condition Notice of Violation 3/26/2003 Camanche Permit condition Notice of Violation 3/20/2003 Wildwood Deficient reports (4) Notice of Violation 10/4/2002 Mace Mdw Deficient report Notice of Violation 8/22/2002 Camanche Deficient report Notice of Violation 8/8/2002 Camanche Effluent condition Notice of Violation 6/5/2002 Camanche Effluent condition Staff Enforcement Letter 4/24/2002 Camanche Permit conditions (2) Notice of Violation 2/25/2002 Gayla Mnr Effluent condition Notice of Violation 6/12/2001 Camanche Deficient report, effluent conditions (2) Notice of Violation 2/7/2001 Camanche Permit conditions (2) Notice of Violation 2001 Camanche Deficient report, effluent conditions (3) Staff Enforcement Letter 10/25/2000 Camanche Deficient report Notice of Violation 9/12/2000 Camanche Sanitary sewer overflow (Sept. 4, 2000) Notice of Violation 8/22/2000 Camanche Permit condition Service Adequacy Indicators Sewer Overflows 2007 2 0 Sewer Overflows 20063 5 Treatment Effectiveness Rate4 95% Sewer Overflow Rate5 0 Total Employees (FTEs) 6 Response Time Policy6 As quick as possible Employees Certified? Yes Response Time Actual NP Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices New projects with potentially harmful discharges must install appropriate waste interceptors. Restaurants must install sand and grease interceptors. Collection System Inspection Practices New developments are required to videotape all sewer pipelines prior to AWA acceptance. AWA reports that it inspects systems with CCTV equipment on an as-needed basis. AWA plans to implement a preventative maintenance program in August 2009. Service Challenges Increasingly stringent regulatory requirements, lack of reclamation capacity at Lake Camanche WWTP, environmental issues associated with expansion of Lake Camanche WWTP, and lack of storage and leachfield capacity at Gayla Manor WWTP. Wastewater Planning Wastewater Master Plan 2005 regional plan 2025 Capital Improvement Plan 2007 2012 Strategic Plan 2007 2012 Sanitary Sewer Management Plan To be implemented by 2010 NA Emergency Plan Systemwide operation plan NA Other: Operations and Maintenance Manuals Notes: (1) For violation reporting purposes, AWA is separated into four categories: CSA-3 Lake Camanche WWTP, Wildwood Estates Leachfield, Mace Meadows and Fairway Pines Leachfield, and Gayla Manor WWTP. (2) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2007 as reported by the agency. (3) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2006 as reported by the agency. (4) Total number of non-compliance days in 2007 per 365 days. (5) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. (6) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage. II-218 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY Wastewater Rates and Financing Residential Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Monthly Standby Area Rate Description Charge Charge Eagle's Nest Flat monthly charge $73.50 $30.00 Surrey Junction Flat monthly charge $73.50 $27.00 Wildwood Estates Flat monthly charge $73.50 $21.00 Gayla Manor Flat monthly charge $73.50 $34.00 Jackson Pines Flat monthly charge $73.50 $39.60 Fairway Pines Flat monthly charge $73.50 $39.60 Pine Grove Flat monthly charge $89.00 $27.73 Viewpoint Estates Flat monthly charge $73.50 $39.60 Tiger Creek Estates Flat monthly charge $73.50 $32.56 Lake Camanche Flat monthly charge $80.00 $0.00 Martell Flat monthly charge $46.00 $0.00 Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description: Residential sewer rates are a flat amount per home. Commercial charges are updated annually and based on water use in February and March when non-domestic water use it anticipated to be minimal to none. Wastewater rates are updated every 1-3 years. The Martell rate change occurred in July 2007. Last Rate Change 7/1/2006 Frequency of Rate Changes 1-3 years Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach Properties within wastewater improvement districts pay a lower fee in light of standby charges than those outside. Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit issuance. Connection Fee Amount3 Lake Camanche: $16,950 (facilities expansion charge) Martell: $ 8,650 Land Dedication Req. Developer must dedicate clear fee and title to lands where any above- ground facilities, such as lift stations, are constructed, and easements for underground facilities, such as pipes. Development Impact Fee None Wastewater Enterprise Operating Revenues, FY 06-07 Operating Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $1,182,231 100% Total $1,259,076 Rates & Charges $1,003,917 85% Administration 5 $163,177 Property Tax 4 $26,875 2% O & M 5 $1,025,966 Fees (inc. connection fees) $42,417 4% Capital Depreciation NP Assessments/Standby $55,884 5% Capital Assets $10,604 Loans $0 0% Debt $51,540 Interest $29,859 3% Reserves $7,790 Other $23,280 2% Other $0 Notes: (1) Generally, rates include wastewater-related service charges. (2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are 250 gallons per home per day, and are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. By contrast, AWA assumes 200 gallons per home per day in use for an equivalent dwelling unit. (3) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home. (4) Property taxes and other revenues for the AWA "agency general" and "outside services" budget units were allocated to water (88%) and wastewater (12%) based on each respective enterprise's share of direct revenues. (5) The AWA budget category for salaries and wages was allocated to O&M. Costs associated with the agency's general account and outside services were allocated to water (89%) and wastewater (11%). BY BURR CONSULTING II-219 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • The population within the AWA boundary area grew from 35,100 in 2000 to 37,943 in 2008, an increase of eight percent. The population within AWA’s water service areas was approximately 20,000. • If built, planned and proposed developments would add approximately 8,237 units to the AWS water service area and 360 units to the CAWP water service area. By implication, population would increase by 18,557 and 820 in the respective water service areas. • Within its wastewater service area, flows are projected to increase fifteen-fold through build- out, primarily due to anticipated growth in the Martell area. • Within its water service area, demand is projected to increase by 88 percent through 2030. By comparison, the California Department of Finance projects population growth of 44 percent over the same period. Countywide growth of 55 percent is anticipated based on currently planned and proposed developments. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • AWA has minimally adequate capacity to provide service to existing water connections. The Ione and Tanner treatment plants lack treatment capacity for anticipated growth. The CAWP and Lake Camanche systems lack adequate source capacity to serve additional development. • AWA faces challenges due to deteriorating infrastructure and a lack of adequate source capacity in the Camanche water system. • Water services in the AWS, CAWP, and La Mel Heights service areas were identified as generally adequate with well operated and maintained systems. • Water infrastructure needs include improvements to the aged and undersized distribution system in CAWP system, expansion of the Tanner treatment plant, significant improvements to the Lake Camanche distribution system, as well as additional water sources for the area. • Wastewater services appear to be adequate based on overflow rates, peak flows, response times, and planning efforts. The Agency could improve upon it treatment effectiveness, which is below the industry average. • Wastewater infrastructure needs include additional treatment capacity and source control in the Martell area, additional storage and disposal capacity in the Lake Camanche and Gayla II-220 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO AMADOR WATER AGENCY Manor areas, and reduction of backwash from the three water treatment plants. No collection system infrastructure needs or deficiencies were identified. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The Agency reported that financing is adequate to deliver services to the AWS, CAWP, Lake Camanche, and La Mel water systems. Due to anticipated challenges related to deteriorating infrastructure in the Lake Camanche area, rates should by reviewed to ensure continued adequate financing. • AWA reported that financing is adequate to provide wastewater services to the Martell wastewater system, but funding is inadequate in the other wastewater systems. Wastewater- related financial reserves were negative for systems other than Martell in the most recent fiscal year and rates have not been increased since 2006. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The Agency practices extensive facility sharing of its water treatment plants and major pipelines with other water purveyors. In addition, the Agency shares staff, equipment and materials with other purveyors through contract services. With regard to wastewater services, facility sharing practices and collaboration efforts include discharging to ARSA treatment facilities, financing of a regional wastewater study, and collaboration with EBMUD on joint solutions to wastewater capacity needs in the Lake Camanche area. • The Agency identified four opportunities for future facility sharing of water infrastructure 1) consolidation of the Tanner and Ione treatment plants 2) a shared regional water treatment plant with EBMUD and CCWD in the Lake Camanche area, 3) sharing of the Plymouth Pipeline with the City of Plymouth, and 4) an intertie with the EBMUD system. • There are two competing opportunities for wastewater facility sharing in the Martell area. AWA plans to construct a tertiary wastewater treatment facility in Martell. The City of Sutter Creek and ARSA plan to construct a new wastewater treatment facility in Sutter Creek. Both plans are aimed at a consolidated wastewater treatment plant to serve all providers in the area. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • AWA demonstrated a high degree of accountability through its constituent outreach efforts and disclosure of information. • Accountability is somewhat constrained by limited interest in serving on the governing body, as indicated by occasionally contested elections. • Local accountability is limited by the large, countywide nature of the District. Constituents within AWA water and wastewater service areas do not exercise as much local control BY BURR CONSULTING II-221 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II through the election process as in smaller districts. County residents outside AWA water and wastewater service areas participate in elections. • Many small districts rely on AWA to some extent for contract maintenance services or wholesale water service. Many of these districts face some challenges in terms of service adequacy. A service option for such districts is to transfer services to AWA with subsequent dissolution by LAFCO. While AWA is open to such an option, it does not actively seek out possible consolidations. Interested districts must approach AWA. For example, Rabb Park CSD had expressed interest in this governance option, and has recently directed that a proposal be submitted to LAFCO. • There are overlapping water service areas in the Martell community. AWA and the City of Jackson provide water retail services within the Martell area. The AWA water service area overlaps the City of Jackson’s water service area, which had transferred to the City from a private company. Although AWA’s water service area does not overlap the City of Jackson’s existing SOI, there is a lack of clarity on water service areas. • AWA is authorized by its principal act to distribute water anywhere in the County, except that its principal act prevents it from restricting or superseding rights or powers of cities and special districts. LAFCO’s authority to clarify AWA service areas is constrained by the countywide nature of its bounds. A governance structure option is to adopt a “limited service SOI” for AWA which excludes established water retail service areas of other agencies. Accountability for community service needs could be enhanced by clarification through the legislature or the courts. • AWA provides wastewater collection services to the Martell community, where ARSA provides wastewater treatment and disposal services. The County continues to represent Martell through ARSA membership, and AWA has not formally joined ARSA in spite of its present reliance on ARSA facilities. ARSA is planning needed capacity improvements, but AWA has reported that it plans to remove Martell from the ARSA system. A governance option to address this instability and planning quagmire is to form an independent special district for wastewater services covering the ARSA service area. • The 2003 transfer of County Service Areas from the County to AWA does not appear to have been approved by LAFCO, as required. A governance option is to retroactively authorize the transfer and appropriate dissolutions. II-222 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO DRYTOWN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 9. D RY T OW N C O U N T Y WAT E R D I S T R I C T Drytown County Water District (DCWD) provides retail water delivery services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION Drytown County Water District (DCWD) was formed on July 17, 1961, as an independent special district.337 DCWD was formed to provide water services to the unincorporated community of Drytown. The principal act that governs the District is the County Water District Law.338 The principal act empowers the District to “store water for the benefit of the district, conserve water for future use, and appropriate, acquire, and conserve water and water rights for any useful purpose.”339 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.340 BOUNDARY AND SOI The DCWD boundary encompasses the community of Drytown, which is located in northwestern Amador County, approximately three miles south of the City of Plymouth. The boundary area extends west of SR 49, east along Spanish Street and New Chicago Road in the south. The District has a boundary area of approximately 159 acres. The District’s SOI was adopted in 1976, but the resolution does not include any description of the area. LAFCO minutes from the time indicate that the District expressed a desire to concentrate on serving its existing customers and the vacant lots inside the district as they developed, leading the Executive Officer to infer that the SOI was established in 1976 as coterminous. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update the SOI for the District. 337 Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 338 California Water Code §30000-33901. 339 California Water Code §31021. 340 Government Code §56824.10. BY BURR CONSULTING II-223 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE DCWD is governed by a five-member board of directors. Directors are to be elected; although, in practice, there have been no contested elections in recent history (since prior to 1997) and all Directors have been appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Table II-9-1: DCWD Governing Body Drytown County Water District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Edwin Kaffer Chair 2009 Kenneth Poore Vice Chair 2009 Members Linda Lacey Secretary 2009 Sandra Frey Treasurer 2010 Richard Kendall Member 2010 Manner of Selection Election at large Length of Term Four years Date: First Thursday of the month at Location: Drytown School House Meeting 7:00 p.m. Agenda Distribution Posted at Drytown Post Office and in front of the school. Minutes Distribution By request Contact Contact Clerk of the Board Mailing Address P.O. Box 234, Drytown, CA 95699 Phone NA Email/Website NA The District does not perform constituent outreach efforts, and does not maintain a website where public documents can be accessed. With regard to customer service, the District reported that complaints most often relate to water quality and billing (often related to someone incorrectly reading the meter). Complaints may be submitted to a board member or the clerk via mail, phone, or in person. In 2007, the District reported that it received no complaints. The District reported that it had no Brown Act violations in recent history. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to portions of LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with some document requests. MANAGEMENT The District activities are managed by a part-time water manager (10 hours per month) who performs water testing and minor repairs. The District also employs a part-time clerk to the board who conducts billings and provides staff support for board meetings. Both employees make occasional reports to the Board at monthly meetings. The District desires to hire a full-time manager once financing levels permit. II-224 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO DRYTOWN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT The District does not conduct performance or operations evaluation practices, such as tracking workload, monitoring productivity, or employee evaluations. The District did not report any planning efforts, such as a master plan, for its water system. District financial planning efforts include annual preparation of budgets and financial audits every three to five years. The District does not have a capital improvement plan due to limited funds for capital improvements. Capital outlays are planned on an annual basis in the budget. The District attempts to keep improvements to a minimum. Management practices include risk management. The District’s insurance includes liability insurance through the Special District’s Risk Management Authority for coverage up to $2.5 million for all events, with the exception of employee dishonesty, which is covered up to $400,000. The District’s property insurance covers up to $10 million in losses. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Existing land uses in the District’s boundary are primarily suburban residential (i.e., 5 acres per unit on average). Other land uses within the District boundary include commercial properties located along SR 49. Economic activity in the District’s boundary area consists of a bar, a motel and a restaurant. There are 62 water connections within the District bounds, including 59 residential water connections. The estimated population within District bounds is 133.341 The District’s population density is 578 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. The District reported that service demand has been relatively constant in recent years. Future growth is expected to be significant for this small district, and could double the scope of the District’s operations. There are two development projects proposed within District bounds. The St. Elizabeth subdivision will add an additional 11 connections to the District’s system, and has recently started selling lots. The Thomas Estate, which is partially within the District’s bounds, recently proposed a new subdivision. The developer has proposed approximately 58 dwelling units on five-acre lots. Should the new development be approved by Amador County, it is not anticipated to begin construction until after 2013, according to the District. The Thomas Estate is partially within bounds and has indicated interest in annexing the remaining portion to the District. The District reported that it expects to have enough capacity to serve the development. The District reported that it may be interested in expanding its service area by annexing interested areas; however, it indicated that expansion may not be feasible due to limited additional capacity and prohibitively expensive costs to extend infrastructure. Eight non-contiguous parcels, on the western side of SR 49, along Varia Ranch Road, have indicated interest in annexation, because their private wells are drying up. 341 The population estimate for the District is the product of the number of water connections within the boundary area and the average household size (2.3) in Amador County in 2008, according to the California Department of Finance. BY BURR CONSULTING II-225 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING Existing financing is not sufficient to deliver adequate services. The District’s 2007 water rate study found that “the long-term interest of the water system is not well served with the existing very lean operation,” and recommended the District increase rates by 24 percent in FY 07-08, by 12 percent in FY 08-09, and by 12 percent in FY 09-10.342 The District adopted the rate increases in January 2008. Capital costs are not incorporated into the present or proposed rate structure. The District would need to increase rates further to provide for ongoing maintenance, rehabilitation and upgrade of the water system. The District tracks its finances through a single enterprise fund. Total revenue in FY 06-07 was $560,785, of which $47,185 constituted ongoing revenues and $513,600 represented one-time revenues.343 Ongoing revenue sources are water rates (63 percent of ongoing revenue), property taxes (29 percent), and interest (8 percent). In addition, the District received $513,600 in revenues from a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) that was issued to the County; the County provided this revenue to the District for construction of a new water storage tank. Total expenditures for the year were $410,402, of which $34,899 constituted ongoing revenues and $375,503 represented capital expenditures. Ongoing costs are primarily composed of water purchased from AWA (67 percent), administration and general costs (24 percent), and operations and maintenance (7 percent). Since the District has not incorporated capital costs into its rate structure, the reserves are the District’s only financing source for maintenance, rehabilitation and upgrade of the water system. Even with implementation of proposed water rate increases, the District relies entirely on financial reserves for capital needs. In FY 06-07, the District relied on CDBG funds from the County to finance construction of a new water storage tank. The District had no long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The District does not have an adopted policy on its target level for financial reserves. DCWD had a fund balance of $316,910 at the close of FY 06-07, of which $138,907 represented unexpended CDBG grant funds. The unreserved fund balance amounted to more than quadruple the District’s annual ongoing expenditures. The District would appear to have more than four years of working capital, except that reserves are the District’s only existing capital financing source. 342 Reed Group, Water Rate Study, Oct. 5, 2007, Exhibit 4. 343 Drytown County Water District, Special District Financial Transactions Report, FY 06-07. II-226 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO DRYTOWN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT WATER SERVICES This section describes the nature, extent and location of the water services provided as well as key infrastructure and water sources. The tables provide further information and indicators of the agency’s water service supplies, demand, financing, service adequacy, and facilities. The water chapter in the MSR main document contains analysis and conclusions based on this information. NATURE AND EXTENT DCWD purchases treated water from AWA and distributes it to residential and commercial users. The District does not provide water treatment services. The District provides a majority of the necessary maintenance and operation of the water distribution system directly through its part- time water manager, and, in addition, maintains a contract with AWA for additional maintenance support should the need arise. The District does not produce or use recycled water, and does not practice conjunctive use. LOCATION DCWD provides services within its bounds. The District reported that it does not believe its service area extends beyond its boundary area; however, it is possible that the District may have service connections outside of its official boundaries, as the District is not knowledgeable of its LAFCO approved boundaries. The District’s water services are available to all of its boundary area, and there are no unserved areas within the boundary. INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure includes the District’s water storage tank and approximately five miles of distribution pipelines. The District purchases treated surface water from North Fork of the Mokelumne River from AWA. The water is treated at AWA’s Tanner Treatment Plant, passes through the Bunker Hill Road Water Main and flows into the District’s storage tank on the top of Bunker Hill for distribution. The District is not aware of any constraints on the amount that AWA will supply to the District at its current number of connections. The District must apply to AWA for a commitment to serve additional connections. The quality of water is generally good, with occasional occurrences of strong chlorine odors, as reported by the District. Corrosion of lead distribution pipes has led to increased lead levels in the water. DCWD exceeded the regulatory standards for lead in 2002 and 2007. The District conducted a public education program regarding lead in drinking water in October 2007, as directed by DEH. The District, in conjunction with the California Department of Public Health and DEH, BY BURR CONSULTING II-227 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II is currently conducting a study and investigation into the high lead levels. DEH has directed the District to employ an engineer by April 1, 2008 to ensure that the water served is “reliably below the action level for lead and copper.”344 The District owns and maintains a single storage tank of 270,000 gallons that was installed in 2007. The storage tank is in excellent condition, and the District did not identify any storage needs or deficiencies. In the event of emergencies, the District would rely on reserves in the storage tank, which would accommodate peak demand for six days. The only intertie with the system is the AWA pipeline to the storage tank. If the water supply from AWA were to be halted for any emergency situation, there are no other back-up supplies. An additional intertie will be added by the Plymouth Pipeline for back up purposes. All District board members are trained to handle emergency events; although the District does not maintain an emergency response plan. The distribution system consists of 5 miles of mains, which are mostly two-inch diameter. The pipes are old and in poor condition, according to the County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). The distribution system has a significant rate of loss averaging 20 percent between 1995 and 2007. The District is considering rate restructuring that would finance gradual replacement of the entire system over a 50-year timeline.345 344 Correspondence from County Department of Environmental Health Environmental Scientist to DCWD, February 27, 2008. 345 Reed Group, Water Rate Study, October 5, 2007. II-228 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO DRYTOWN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Table II-9-2: DCWD Water Service Profile Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water AWA Groundwater Extraction None Water Treatment AWA Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water The District's service area lies along SR 49 in the community of Drytown. The District serves parcels on both sides of the highway and along Spanish Street, Main Street and New Chicago Road. Wholesale Water NA Recycled Water NA Boundary Area 0.25 sq. miles Population (2007) 136 System Overview Average Daily Demand 37,096 gal. Peak Day Demand 42,673 gal. Supply The District is not aware of any limits on the amount of water that can be purchased from AWA at the current number of connections served. The District was unable to provide the distribution capacity of the system. Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Storage tank Storage 0.27 mg Excellent 2007 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0.27 mg Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 0 Production Wells 0 Pipe Miles 5 miles Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Pipes are old and in poor condition. To minimize distribution losses and reduce the lead level in the water system, the District needs to replace a significant portion of its distribution system. The District should perform an evaluation of the entire system to prioritize replacement. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: The District currently receives treated water from the AWA Tanner Treatment Plant through AWA pipelines, in conjunction with the City of Amador. Opportunities: AWA is in the process of constructing the Plymouth Pipeline. The Plymouth Pipeline is proposed to be connected to the main serving DCWD to provide back up in the event of a water supply failure or main improvements. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-229 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 62 62 0 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 Domestic 59 59 0 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 3 3 0 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total 26.3 25.4 30.9 NP NP NP NP Residential 24.6 23.7 28.8 NP NP NP NP Commercial/Industrial 1.7 1.6 2.0 NP NP NP NP Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm Purchased water from AWA Surface 38.5 NP NP Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total 30.8 38.3 40.0 NP NP NP NP Imported/Purchased 30.8 38.3 40.0 NP NP NP NP Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)1 Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP Significant Droughts 1976, 1977, 1988 - 1994 Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergencies only. Drought Plan The District relies on AWA for all drought planning activities, as water is purchased from AWA. Even during multiple-year droughts, AWA has received its full water rights and has never enacted curtailments. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering Yes Conservation Pricing Yes Other Practices None continued II-230 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO DRYTOWN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Water Rates and Financing Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Residential Flat Bi-monthly: $79.14 for 40,000 gallons $39.57 250 gal/day Water Use: $1.86 per 1,000 gallons in excess of 40,000 gallons Special Rates Water rates are the same throughout the District. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description The rate is calculated to cover operational costs and water purchases from AWA. The rate and proposed rate increases for FYs 08-09 and 09-10 do not include the cost of capital improvements through 2010. Most Recent Rate Change 2008 Frequency of Rate Changes Annually Water Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach New connections pay actual cost for connection, but initially deposit $1,500 for connection costs. Capital improvement fees are also charged. New owners must extend the pipe to the nearest "T" at their own cost. Connection Fee Timing Prior to connection. Connection Fee Amount3 $6,380 for ¾-inch meter. $7,297 for 1-inch meter. Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 06-07 Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $560,785 100% Total $410,402 Rates & charges $29,592 5% Administration $8,448 Property tax $13,805 2% O & M $2,553 Grants $513,600 92% Capital Depreciation $433 Interest $3,570 1% Debt $0 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $23,465 Other $218 0% Capital Investments $375,503 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, refer to Chapter 3 in the MSR main document. (3) Connection fee amount includes both the $1,500 deposit and the capital improvement fee. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-231 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators Water Planning Description Planning Horizon Water Master Plan None UWMP None, not required Capital Improvement Plan None Emergency Response Plan None Service Challenges The District identified encroaching development and limited capacity for additional connections as challenges to providing water services. The County Department of Environmental Health also identified the aging distribution system as a challenge for the District. Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 992 O&M Cost Ratio1 $68,821 MGD Delivered/FTE 0.59 Distribution Loss Rate 20% Distribution Breaks & Leaks2 0 Distribution Break Rate3 0 Response Time Policy ASAP Response Time Actual NP Water Pressure NP Total Employees (FTEs) 0.06 Water Operator Certification The District's water manager has a D4 certification for distribution systems. The District is required to have a D1 certified chief operator; the District is exceeding this requirement. Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information4 # Description Health Violations 0 Monitoring Violations 2 Deficiencies in lead and copper sampling in 2000. DW Compliance Rate5 100% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Although there are problems with pipe corrosion, the District reported no preceptable leaks or breaks in 2007. (3) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (4) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (5) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2006. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • There has been minimal recent growth in the District, and service demand has been relatively stable. • Future growth is expected to be significant due to a new subdivision and a proposed development partially within District bounds, and would double the size of the customer base. • Eight adjacent properties have expressed interest in annexation due to declining well yields, although annexation may not be feasible due to capacity constraints and infrastructure extension costs. II-232 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO DRYTOWN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • Pipes are old and in poor condition. The distribution system water loss rate is 20 percent, which is high compared with the industry standard of 10 percent. To minimize distribution losses and reduce the lead level in the water system, the District needs to replace a significant portion of its distribution system. • The District should perform an evaluation of the entire system to prioritize replacement and determine the maximum capacity that can be served with the existing infrastructure. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The existing rate structure does not provide for capital costs associated with ongoing capital replacement needs. • DCWD water rates are comparable to other Amador County water purveyors, and were recently increased. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • DCWD relies on AWA for treatment and transmission of treated water through AWA facilities. • There is an opportunity for the District to be connected to a new AWA pipeline to Plymouth as an emergency intertie. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Accountability to local voters is constrained by a lack of contested elections. Improvements to accountability could be made by emphasizing public outreach activities and promoting interest in participation on the governing body. • Government structure options include annexation of a portion of the proposed Thomas Estate subdivision located outside District bounds. • A government structure option is annexation of adjacent parcels on Varia Ranch Road with declining well yields; however, it may not be cost-effective for the affected parcels to connect to the District’s system and the District may lack the capacity to serve this area. • The District has faced challenges in the past in providing adequate services. The District is not interested in dissolution, as it wishes to retain local control over water services, and is concerned about impacts on water rates if it should be consolidated into AWA. BY BURR CONSULTING II-233 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 10. E A S T BAY M U N I C I PA L U T I L I T Y D I S T R I C T East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) operates recreation areas on watershed lands in Amador County that are owned by the District. EBMUD provides water and wastewater service to visitors and residents of its recreation areas at Pardee and Camanche North Shore in Amador County, and at Camanche South Shore in Calaveras County. The District generates electricity at Pardee and Camanche Dams. EBMUD is a multi-county district with territory in both Alameda and Contra Costa counties, where it provides water treatment, conveyance and retail services, water recycling, and wastewater treatment and disposal services. An MSR was prepared and MSR determinations adopted for EBMUD by Alameda LAFCO in the District’s principal county.346 AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION EBMUD was formed on May 8, 1923 as an independent special district.347 The District was created to provide water service; in 1944 it began providing wastewater treatment to a portion of its service area in Alameda County. The principal act governing the District is the Municipal Utility District Act.348 Municipal utility districts may potentially provide a wide array of utility services, including light, water, power, heat, transportation, telephone service, or other means of communication, or means for the collection, treatment, or disposition of garbage, sewage, or refuse matter. They are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2000 (i.e., latent powers).349 BOUNDARY AND SOI EBMUD’s boundary area is within Alameda and Contra Costa counties, and contains no territory in Amador County. The District serves recreation areas at its reservoirs in Amador and Calaveras counties outside its bounds. 346 Alameda LAFCo, Nov. 10, 2005. 347 Portions of the agency overview section of the EBMUD profile were originally published in the Alameda LAFCo 2005 Municipal Service Review Volume II—Utility Services (Burr Consulting, Nov. 10, 2005). 348 California Public Utilities Code section 11501 et seq. 349 Government Code §56824.10. II-234 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT The District’s Alameda County boundary area includes the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont, and San Leandro and portions of Hayward. Unincorporated areas in the District bounds include Ashland, Cherryland, Castro Valley, Fairview, San Lorenzo, and the watershed lands east of Oakland. The District’s territory in Contra Costa County includes the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Pinole, Hercules, Orinda, Lafayette, Moraga, Walnut Creek, Danville and San Ramon, as well as unincorporated areas such as Alamo. The District’s SOI was established on April 21, 1983 and included only the City of San Leandro and the unincorporated areas of Ashland, Cherryland, Castro Valley, Fairview and San Lorenzo. The cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and Piedmont, where EBMUD provides water and sewer service, were added to the District’s SOI in 2006 by Alameda LAFCo after adoption of an MSR for the District. The District’s SOI contains no territory in Amador County. The District’s boundary area is 325 square miles. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE EBMUD is governed by a seven-member Board of Directors elected from wards to serve four- year terms. The Directors must be residents of the ward they represent. The Board of Directors meets twice a month on the second and fourth Tuesday. The meetings are not broadcast live on local television. The District posts Board notices, agendas and meeting summaries on the District’s website and these are e-mailed to anyone who signs up for the service. Table II-10-1: EBMUD Governing Body East Bay Municipal Utility District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends John A. Coleman Ward 2 12/31/2010 Katy Foulkes Ward 3 12/31/2010 Andy Katz Ward 4 12/31/2010 Members Doug Linney Ward 5 12/31/2008 Lesa R. McIntosh Ward 1 12/31/2008 Frank Mellon Ward 7 12/31/2010 William "Bill" Patterson Ward 6 12/31/2008 Manner of Selection Election by ward Length of Term Four years Date: second and fourth Tuesday of Location: EBMUD Board Room in Meeting each month, 1:15 p.m. Oakland Contact Contact Dennis Diemer, General Manager Mailing Address P.O. Box 24055, Oakland, CA 94623 Phone 1-866-40-EBMUD (1-866-403-2683) Email/Website http://www.ebmud.com/ custsvc@ebmud.com To keep citizens informed of District activities, EBMUD participates in community events, distributes a newsletter, fact sheets and reports, and maintains a website with updates on current projects and press releases. The District also discloses plans, finances and other public documents via the Internet. The District offers media activities and audiovisual presentations, with audiences BY BURR CONSULTING II-235 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II that include the general community, stakeholder groups, school groups, community leaders, civic groups, and ratepayers. Customer complaints are received by phone, fax and email. The District’s customer service and water quality staff routinely handle complaints. Complaint resolution occurs in one to five business days. Customers can also attend regular board meetings and present complaints to the Board. The District’s annual complaint volume is typically 6,300, which includes complaints about high rates, water quality, water pressure, noise, and leaks as well as information requests. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. MANAGEMENT A general manager and executive team manage EBMUD’s workforce of 1,871. The District evaluates its performance through annual personnel performance evaluations, annual financial audits and financial trend reports. The District also generates semi-annual and annual budget performance reports. Service operations are routinely evaluated, including water operations, treatment and distribution, customer service and response, wastewater treatment and distribution, and construction of pipeline projects. EBMUD has developed performance indicators to monitor workload for specific areas as well as district-wide planning and goal setting. The performance indicators track productivity and error rates for the various types of work performed. Performance measures for core services include water supply, treatment and distribution as well as design and construction costs. District management practices include annual financial audits and benchmarking. The District does not conduct performance-based budgeting. The District has adopted a strategic plan and a mission statement. EBMUD water and wastewater master plans were last updated in 2000 and have a planning time horizon of 10 years. The scope of planning efforts includes system capacity, service demand, costs, water quality and supply. The District collaborated with local water and wastewater providers in developing the 2006 Mokelumne/Amador/Calaveras Integrated Regional Water Management plan. EBMUD adopted a Mokelumne Watershed Master Plan (MWMP) in 2008, and plans to develop additional plans for the area, including a mobile home park and recreation management plan, in the coming years.350 Management practices include risk management. 350 EBMUD, Mokelumne Watershed Master Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, April 2008. II-236 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Existing land uses in the District’s boundary are diverse. On District-owned lands in the Mokelumne watershed, a major use is water, composing 9,000 acres. The remaining 17,000 acres are primarily watershed management areas and natural preserves; secondary uses include recreation areas and mobile home parks. Watershed management areas are rangelands managed for the primary goal of protection of water quality, fire control, and ecological integrity. Natural preserves are areas managed for the creation, restoration, and protection of natural systems (aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats) surrounding Pardee and Camanche reservoirs and their tributaries.351 There were 130 mobile home park sites, 220 camp sites and on the north shore of Camanche Reservoir; there are 77 seasonal recreational vehicle (RV) sites for stays up to nine months and 12 short-term RV sites at Pardee Reservoir. There were 1,350,880 residents in the District and 612,821 jobs in 2005. EBMUD served a total of 381,415 water accounts in 2007.352 There were 1,994 new water connections in 2007. The District’s service demand has been relatively stable in recent years. Water consumption was 215 mg in 2000, and 214 mg in 2007. From 2005 through 2020, water demand is projected to grow by three percent, according to EBMUD’s UWMP. By comparison; population and the job base are expected to grow by 10 and 20 percent, respectively. The District’s existing water supplies are insufficient to meet current and future customer demand during droughts, despite implementation of conservation and water recycling programs. The District’s growth strategies include not annexing new territory due to water supply constraints. In the Mokelumne watershed, the largest concentration of development is adjacent to the District’s Camanche Hills Hunting Preserve and to the entrance to the Camanche North Shore Recreation Area. Additional residential growth anticipated in this northern area in the next several years largely will fall outside of EBMUD-owned lands and the Mokelumne drainage. With approval from the respective counties, subdivisions and other uses could be developed in the rural areas around the Mokelumne Watershed. On EBMUD property, there are temporary accommodations at camping sites, cottages and motel rooms. There are 141 campsites at Pardee, including 12 recreational vehicle sites with electric, water and sewer connections. At Camanche North Shore, there are cottages, motel units and 150 camping sites. Campsite amenities include barbecues, tables, water, hot showers, restrooms and laundry facilities. About 200 mobile homes are located on the Camanche Lake's north and south shores at EBMUD recreation areas; the mobile home parks were established in the late 1960s. On its property within the Mokelumne watershed, the EBMUD Board, by four-fifths vote, may render a local zoning ordinance inapplicable to other proposed uses of its property. EBMUD policies on its watershed lands are that any new development (or redevelopment) will occur in or immediately adjacent to existing developed areas, with a strong preference for sites within developed 351 EBMUD, Mokelumne Watershed Master Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, April 2008, p. 8. 352 EBMUD, Annual Report, 2007, p. 18. BY BURR CONSULTING II-237 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II areas. No new areas will be opened to development unless it is neither feasible nor practical to locate the facility within a developed area, or because of the facility’s utility to the District.353 FINANCING The District tracks its finances through two enterprise funds, one for its water and another for its wastewater operation. Total revenue in FY 06-07 was $343 million.354 EBMUD’s primary revenue source is water rates; these include service charges, volume charges and elevation charges. Other revenue sources include wastewater rates, hydroelectric power sales, and system capacity charges. The District relies on property taxes for five percent of revenues. The District receives a portion of the one percent tax within District boundaries. Total expenditures for the year were $310 million. The District finances capital projects with service charges, connection fees, reserves and bonded debt. The District’s expenditures for Mokelumne watershed management averaged $5.4 million annually, of which $0.5 million is recouped by grazing leases, and recreation charges and $1 million is recouped by mobile home site fees.355 The District had $2.3 billion in long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07, which was composed mostly of general obligation and revenue bonds. The District received a “very strong” (Aa2) underlying rating from Moody’s for its water enterprise bonds and a “very strong” (Aa3) underlying rating from Moody’s for its sewer enterprise bonds. By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $249 million at the end of FY 06-07. The reserves amounted to 80 percent of the District’s expenses in FY 06-07; the District maintained approximately 9.6 months of working capital. The District’s reserve levels meet its stated policy on target reserve levels. The District is involved in joint financing arrangements through various Joint Powers Authorities. The District is a 50 percent participant in the DSRSD/EBMUD Recycled Water Authority. EBMUD, along with the Sacramento County Water Agency and the City of Sacramento, have partnered on the Freeport Regional Water Project, which provides supplemental water to EBMUD during dry years. The District has formed a partnership with Alpine, Amador and Calaveras counties to conduct a study of the upper Mokelumne watershed. The District has partnered with a number of agencies to form the Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition, which is devoted to improving water quality and reliability in the Bay Area. 353 EBMUD, Mokelumne Watershed Master Plan: Final Program Environmental Impact Report, 2008, p. 11. 354 EBMUD, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, FY 06-07. 355 EBMUD, Mokelumne Watershed and Facilities Assessment Report, November 2007, pp. 4-23 – 4-25. II-238 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT WATER SERVICES This section describes the nature, extent and location of the water services provided as well as key infrastructure and water sources. The tables provide further information and indicators of the agency’s water service supplies, demand, financing, service adequacy, and facilities. The water chapter in the MSR main document contains analysis and conclusions based on this information. NATURE AND EXTENT EBMUD’s primary water source is Mokelumne River flows from Amador, Alpine and Calaveras counties. It owns 28,149 acres in the watershed, of which 9,034 acres are flooded by Pardee and Camanche reservoirs and 16,880 acres are upland draining to the reservoirs.356 EBMUD operates reservoirs and aqueducts to export water from the watershed to its primary service area in the East Bay, and also uses the river for hydroelectric development. EBMUD serves groundwater from three wells to residents and visitors to its Camanche North Shore area, and serves other recreation areas through surface water supplies. The District does not produce or use recycled water in the watershed area. The three recreation areas and hunt club are operated by concessionaires, although water treatment facilities and capital replacement and maintenance are the responsibility of the District. LOCATION EBMUD's water system serves approximately 1.3 million people in a 325-square-mile area in Alameda and Contra Costa counties near San Francisco. EBMUD also provides water services to its recreation areas at Pardee and Camanche North Shore in Amador County and Camanche South Shore in Calaveras County, which are located outside District bounds. An annual average of 78 mg of potable water are used in the watershed, 98 percent of this is used in the recreational areas.357 INFRASTRUCTURE EBMUD owns substantial water infrastructure. Key infrastructure includes 13 treatment plants, 161 reservoirs, 91.5 miles of aqueducts, and 4,110 miles of pipeline. EBMUD’s primary water source is Mokelumne River flows; minor sources include East Bay runoff and drought supplies from the Central Valley Project. The Mokelumne River water originates in Amador, Alpine and Calaveras counties. With a watershed encompassing approximately 660 square miles, the annual average flows of the Mokelumne River at Pardee Reservoir is 753,000 af, with the majority of flow derived from Sierra 356 EBMUD, Mokelumne Watershed Master Plan: Final Program Environmental Impact Report, 2008, p. B-2. 357 EBMUD, Mokelumne Watershed and Facilities Assessment Report, November 2007, p. 5-15. BY BURR CONSULTING II-239 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II snowmelt. The Mokelumne River supplies a total of 636 to 1,385 mgd on average; in 1977, the lowest year on record, it supplied 115 mgd. The District has rights to 325 mgd (approximately 364,072 af) annually, subject to prior water rights.358 EBMUD’s position in the hierarchy of Mokelumne water users is determined by a variety of agreements between Mokelumne water rights holders. On average, 98.7 mgd of the supply is distributed to three Sierra foothill counties— Amador, Calaveras and San Joaquin—with senior water rights to the District; this amounts to 107,000 af in average and wet years. PG&E, AWA and JVID hold 20,000 af in water rights senior to EBMUD’s 1949 permit in Amador County.359 Similarly, there are 27,000 af in senior water rights in Calaveras County and 60,000 af in senior water rights in San Joaquin County. EBMUD’s water rights permit requires minimum releases from Camanche Reservoir to protect downstream fisheries. The supply from this source is generally high quality. EBMUD expects its Mokelumne River supply source to decrease in the future, as consumption by senior water rights increases and increased downstream releases are required to protect fish, wildlife and riparian habitat. EBMUD’s Mokelumne River water supply is not sufficient to meet its long-term customer demands during a drought. The conditions that restrict the District’s ability to use its Mokelumne River entitlement include upstream water use by prior right holders, downstream water use by riparian and senior appropriators and other downstream obligations, as well as multi- year drought conditions. EBMUD’s Mokelumne River supply facilities include Pardee Dam and Reservoir, located near Valley Springs, and Camanche Dam and Reservoir, located approximately 10 miles downstream. EBMUD diverts its water supply at Pardee Reservoir, moving stored water into the Pardee Tunnel, Mokelumne Aqueducts, and Lafayette Aqueducts and on to its primary users in the East Bay. EBMUD’s Pardee Reservoir has a capacity of 197,950 af and is operated as a water supply reservoir. The reservoir was built in 1929. EBMUD operates hydroelectric power generation (23.6 mw) at Pardee Dam, which was built in 1930 and expanded in 1983. The District is considering a project of raising the reservoir 33 feet, which would increase reservoir capacity to 371,000 af and generation capacity to 30 mw.360 The project includes replacement of the dam, and construction of an intake tower, powerhouse, bridge, and saddle dams, and is being evaluated as part of the District’s 2008-9 master planning process. The project would be completed as early as 2013. Water is conveyed from Pardee by the Mokelumne Aqueducts to the EBMUD service area approximately 91 miles away. Remaining water flows 10 miles downstream to Camanche Dam and Reservoir. Camanche Reservoir has a capacity of 417,120 af, and was built in 1964. Camanche Reservoir is operated for flood control and to meet instream flow requirements and downstream entitlements. Water supplies from the Mokelumne River are withdrawn for Woodbridge Irrigation District and 358 EBMUD’s rights include a license with a priority date of 1924 to divert up to 200 mgd, and a permit with a 1949 priority to divert up to 125 mgd. 359 EBMUD, Official Statement: Water System Subordinated Refunding Bonds, Series 2007C, 2007, p. 38. 360 RMC Water and Environment, Mokelumne, Amador and Calaveras IRWMP, October 2006, p. 5-18. II-240 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District at Camanche Reservoir, depending on EBMUD supply requirements. EBMUD operates a hydroelectric power plant at Camanche Dam as well, having constructed the generation facilities there in 1983. EBMUD serves groundwater from two wells to residents and visitors to its Camanche North Shore area; a third well is currently not used and on standby status. The groundwater treatment facility was upgraded in 2005. A new surface water treatment plant is currently in planning stages so that the existing groundwater source would be replaced by surface water. There have been no health or monitoring violations at the groundwater system, according to EPA data; however, the groundwater sources are vulnerable to contamination from gas stations and sewer collection systems in the area. The EBMUD water system is operated with adequate technical, managerial and financial capacity, according to a 2001 assessment by the California Department of Public Health. Because of growth in the area and concerns with groundwater quality and basin overdraft, the Lake Camanche Village area is planning to phase out the use of groundwater. There are plans for a joint surface water treatment plant project between EBMUD, AWA, and CCWD to supply surface water to this area beginning as early as 2015. This project is still in the planning stages.361 It is expected to involve a surface water treatment plant on the south shore, with a pipeline conveying treated water to the north shore. EBMUD built a hatchery immediately downstream of Camanche Reservoir, which the California Department of Fish and Game operates. EBMUD, PG&E, and AWA agreed to jointly contribute to the replacement of the Amador Canal with a pipeline that is anticipated to eliminate 3,000-6,000 afa in seepage losses from the prior earthen ditch canal. Until AWA needs its full 15,000 acre-feet of entitlement, which is currently estimated to be approximately 2020, the conserved water will be available to PG&E and EBMUD for additional hydropower generation and as additional inflow to Pardee Reservoir.362 The water conserved by this project will be available to EBMUD in most years for diversion into the Mokelumne Aqueduct or through the Pardee and Camanche power plants. WASTEWATER SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT EBMUD operates wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services at its Camanche and Pardee recreation areas. 361 RMC Water and Environment, Mokelumne, Amador and Calaveras IRWMP, October 2006, p. 3-17. 362 EBMUD, Summary Financial Information Statement, FY 2007, p. 14. BY BURR CONSULTING II-241 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II LOCATION EBMUD has two wastewater treatment plants in the Mokelumne watershed that serve recreation area visitors and residents. An annual average of 26 mg of wastewater is generated in the watershed, 98 percent of this is used in the recreational areas.363 INFRASTRUCTURE The Camanche North Shore plant is a three-pond treatment system with two overflow backup ponds, and a sixth storage pond. Three of the treatment ponds are mechanically aerated, effluent is stored in the fourth, fifth and sixth ponds and then sprayed during irrigation season in a five-acre land disposal area. The disposal area drains to Lake Camanche, according to RWQCB;364 however, EBMUD reported it operates the sprayfields to direct drainage back to a pond and to avoid ponding in the sprayfields. In 2007, the plant processed peak dry weather flows of 44,000 gpd on summer holiday weekends, and an average of 18,075 gpd. There are six lift stations. Significant portions of the collection system, particularly in the mobile home parks, need upgrade. The treatment system also likely requires upgrading to meet regulatory requirements.365 The plant met all permit conditions in 2007. At the Pardee recreation area, there is a small wastewater treatment facility with storage ponds and a one-acre land-discharge site. The Pardee design flow is 11,500 gpd during dry months of May through September, according to the permit; whereas, the maximum dry weather flow is estimated at 21,000 gpd in the District’s master plan. Actual flows in 2007 were 6,760 gpd, with a peak day flow of 21,000 gpd. Improvements in recent years included lined treatment ponds (2000-1), collection system repairs to reduce infiltration and inflow, and a new influent disinfection system and sprayfield in 2004. In 2005, most of the sewer mainlines were cleaned and most laterals were flushed. The Pardee plant met all permit conditions in 2007, except one day for coliform. A third facility on EBMUD-owned land is the Camanche Hills Hunting Preserve, which operates an 8,000 gallon underground storage tank to store wastewater from bird cleaning and processing operations. The operation generates approximately 36,850 gallons of wastewater annually. The wastewater is hauled offsite for disposal. EBMUD requested in FY 07-08 from RWQCB permission to dispose up to 41,200 gallons to over one acre of land during hunting season. EBMUD has discussed development of a regional wastewater treatment facility with local jurisdictions, but indicates that the need for such a facility is unrelated to any increase in development on EBMUD property.366 The proposed facility would treat wastewater from the Camanche North Shore and communities in Amador County. 363 EBMUD, Mokelumne Watershed and Facilities Assessment Report, November 2007, p. 5-15. 364 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Order No. 95-175, 1995. 365 EBMUD, Mokelumne Watershed and Facilities Assessment Report, November 2007, p. 5-20. 366 EBMUD, Mokelumne Watershed Master Plan: Final Program Environmental Impact Report, 2008, p. 24. II-242 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT Existing sewage collection and transmission systems at the recreation areas are old, were not constructed to current engineering standards, are generally inaccessible, and have high infiltration and inflow rates. Some of the pipes and manholes are made of substandard plastic conduit. Major portions of the existing sewage collection and transmission systems will be replaced by EBMUD at a cost of $9 million.367 PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT EBMUD maintains the Middle Bar Take-out and Mokelumne Day Use areas. Concessionaires hold multi-year contracts to operate the Pardee and Camanche recreation areas on District property. Recreation offered at Pardee Reservoir includes fishing, boating and camping. At Camanche Reservoir, recreation options include camping, swimming, wind surfing, water skiing, fishing and picnicking. LOCATION EBMUD recreation areas in the Mokelumne River watershed are: • Middle Bar Boat Take-out Area (on the river between SR 49 and Pardee Reservoir), • Pardee Recreation Area (at the northwest end of Pardee Reservoir) • Camanche North Shore (on the north shore of Camanche Reservoir) • Camanche South Shore (on the south shore of Camanche Reservoir in Calaveras County) • Camanche Hills Hunting Preserve (west of Camanche North Shore) • Mokelumne River Day Use Area (immediately below Camanche Dam) There are District-maintained trails in the recreation areas and parts of the undeveloped areas. INFRASTRUCTURE Marinas on the Camanche North and South shores offer boat rentals, slips, fuel, bait, tackle and supplies. More than 30 miles of trails snake through the EBMUD Mokelumne watershed. 367 RMC Water and Environment, Mokelumne, Amador and Calaveras IRWMP, October 2006, pp. 5-11 to 5-13. BY BURR CONSULTING II-243 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 11. F I D D L E T OW N C O M M U N I T Y S E RV I C E S D I S T R I C T Fiddletown Community Services District (FCSD) provides retail water delivery, wastewater collection, and wastewater treatment and disposal. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION Fiddletown Community Services District was formed on September 10, 1969 as an independent special district.368 FCSD was formed to supply water for any beneficial uses, in the same manner as a municipal water district, including the powers to acquire, control, distribute, store, treat, purify, recycle, recapture, and salvage any water, including sewage and storm waters. Other powers include undertaking a water conservation program and selling and delivering water.369 The principal act that governs the District is the Community Services District Law.370 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).371 LAFCO authorized FCSD to add sewer service to its active powers in September 2004,372 pending a district-wide vote of registered voters as required by CSD law at the time when adding additional services. The law changed on January 1, 2006, allowing LAFCO to add additional services to CSDs without a district vote.373 LAFCO reauthorized sewer service for FCSD in March 2006 pursuant to the updated law.374 368 LAFCO resolution 69-15. Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 369 Water Code §71610-11. 370 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 371 Government Code §61106. 372 LAFCO Resolution 04-03. 373 LAFCO Resolution 06-03. 374 LAFCO Resolution 06-03. II-244 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO FIDDLETOWN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND SOI FCSD is located in northwestern Amador County and is entirely within the County. The District is in the general vicinity of the unincorporated community of Fiddletown, approximately six miles east of Plymouth. The District has a boundary area of approximately 50 acres. The District extends approximately 0.82 miles along Fiddletown Road, encompassing parcels on either side from just west of Quartz Mountain Road to 0.25 miles east of American Float Road. The bounds also include parcels along Jibbom Street between its intersection with Fiddletown Road and American Flat Road’s intersection with Fiddletown Road. In addition, the bounds include approximately seven parcels on either side of American Flat Road south of Fiddletown Road.375 The District’s SOI was adopted in 1976 as coterminous with District bounds. LAFCO records indicate that 6.9 acres were annexed to FCSD’s SOI and bounds in 1971 (Resolution 71-37). A property was also detached from the District in the same year (Resolution 71-38). An annexation of unknown size was approved by LAFCO in 1998 (Resolution 98-258). An annexation of 11 parcels receiving services was approved in 2004, but the District failed to prepare a map for recording, and thus, the process was never completed (Resolution 04-03). The same 11 parcels were approved for annexation and an SOI amendment in 2006, pending receipt of a map and legal description of the parcels from the District (Resolution 06-03). LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE FCSD is governed by a five-member board of directors. Board members are to be elected at large. In practice, however, board members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, as the positions are generally uncontested. No seats were contested in 2004 or 2006. One seat was vacant as of the drafting of this report. The District informs the community of board meetings by posting agendas at the post office and the community center. The District also distributes a newsletter twice per year and puts informational inserts in bills. The District does not maintain a website where public documents can be accessed. The District has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. With regard to customer service, the District reported that complaints may be submitted by a call to the FCSD office or directly to a board member. In 2007, the District reported that it received fewer than 12 complaints. Complaints most often relate to water quality (color or taste) or needed repairs. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to portions of LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. 375 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of FCSD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. BY BURR CONSULTING II-245 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-11-1: FCSD Governing Body Fiddletown Community Services District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends William Easton Chair Nov-08 Herb Boxhorn Member Nov-10 Members Richard Stanley Member Nov-10 Jason Simpkins Member Nov-10 (vacant) Member Nov-08 Manner of Selection Elections at large, appointments if uncontested Length of Term Four years (staggered) Meeting Date: 2nd Tuesday of every month Location: NP Agenda Distribution Posted Minutes Distribution By request Contact Contact Board Secretary Mailing Address P.O. Box 41, Fiddletown, CA 95629 Phone NA Email/Website NA MANAGEMENT The principal act calls for community service districts to appoint a general manager to implement board policies.376 FCSD did not have a general manager position as of April 2008. District staff includes a secretary (20 hours per month) and a water operator (four to five hours per month). A contractor is hired for any major repair work. The District reports that there is no policy on employee evaluations. The District reports that performance of the agency is not tracked aside from employee hours logged and water sampling. The District’s planning efforts are minimal. The District does not have a master plan for its water or wastewater system. District financial planning efforts do not include preparation of annual budgets or financial audits; although, the District reported that it plans to conduct audits beginning with FY 06-07. The District did not provide financial statements to LAFCO, but rather a balance sheet and profit and loss statement for FY 06-07. FCSD financial information did not appear to be prepared in accordance with governmental accounting standards in several respects: a loan from the County was booked as income, there was no information on long-term liabilities, and reserves (i.e., unreserved net assets) were not identifiable. The District does not prepare a CIP, but reports that it informally plans two years into the future in conjunction with the County. 376 Government Codes §61050. Per §61040(e), the general manager may not be a member of the board. II-246 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO FIDDLETOWN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FCSD is the only local agency in Amador County that has failed to file a financial report with the State Controller’s Office (SCO) in recent years. The District last filed with the SCO in FY 02-03. Management practices include risk management. The District spent $4,000 on insurance in FY 06-07, and reported carrying liability insurance and disability insurance. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Existing land uses in the District’s boundary are residential and vacant. The District is zoned for suburban residential (i.e., an average 5-acre lot size).377 Economic activity in the District’s boundary area includes limited retail and governmental services. Employers include a post office, a general store, a rock store, and a winery. There are 66 water connections within the District bounds; all connections are residential. The estimated population within District bounds is 100 full-time residents.378 The District’s population density is 1,280 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. The District reported that service demand has been constant in recent years, because the sewer system cannot be expanded. There has been one new water connection in the last eight years. The District does report a need to plan for fire flow needs. The District reports no plans for development in the future; although, it did report plans to annex seven properties currently being served but outside District bounds. The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The District reported that existing financing sources are sufficient to deliver adequate services, but indicated that additional financing would be needed to finance capital improvements needs. The District would need to increase rates further to provide for ongoing maintenance, rehabilitation and upgrade of the water system. The District tracks its finances through a single enterprise fund. Total revenue in FY 06-07 was $97,059.379 Primary revenue sources were a loan from the County (52 percent), water rates (22 percent), and wastewater rates (26 percent). 377 Amador County, General Plan, Existing General Plan Land Use Classifications Map, 2007. 378 Data provided by the Amador County Department of Environmental Health. 379 Fiddletown Community Services District, Profit and Loss, FY 06-07. BY BURR CONSULTING II-247 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Total expenditures for the year were $90,732. Costs were primarily composed of capital expenses for a new well (49 percent), sewer-related administrative costs (30 percent), water-related administrative costs (5 percent), water operations and maintenance expenses (12 percent), and repayment of debt (2 percent). FCSD financed a new water well in FY 06-07 relying on a loan from Amador County. The District’s general approach to capital financing is unknown. The District’s long-term liabilities could not be identified from the financial information provided. The District reported receipt of a $50,000 loan from the County in FY 06-07, and reported making payment on a loan in the same year. The District does not have an adopted policy on its target level for financial reserves. FCSD reported that its reserves would cover approximately two years of operating expenses. This information could not be confirmed. WATER SERVICES This section describes the nature, extent and location of the water services provided as well as key infrastructure and water sources. The tables provide further information and indicators of the agency’s water service supplies, demand, financing, service adequacy, and facilities. The water chapter in the MSR main document contains analysis and conclusions based on this information. NATURE AND EXTENT FCSD supplies treated groundwater for domestic water service to residential connections. The District owns operates and maintains the domestic water well and distribution system directly with District staff. The District does not produce or use recycled water, and does not practice conjunctive use. LOCATION FCSD provides water service within its bounds to all developed parcels, as well as to seven connections outside of the District’s bounds, concentrated in the western portion of the District. The District’s water services are available to all of its boundary area, and there are no unserved areas within the boundary. INFRASTRUCTURE Key water service infrastructure includes a well, a storage tank and 1.25 miles of distribution pipeline. The District relies entirely on groundwater for water service. All water is pumped from a single well, treated with chlorine and stored in the storage tank. II-248 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO FIDDLETOWN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The District faced challenges regarding the quality of water at its old well. In 2006, the Environmental Health Department (EHD) informed the District of the need to replace or reconstruct the existing well due to consistent coliform contamination during wet weather.380 The new well was installed at the end of 2006 with a loan from the County for $50,000, and was identified as being in excellent condition. The well has a pumping capacity of 120 gpm. The District identified a need for a new back-up generator at the well site. The current generator can provide approximately 24 hours of power during a power outage, according to the District. The District’s storage tank was built in 1969, and was identified by the District as being generally in good condition but in need of refurbishment. In addition, the District identified a need for an additional 25,000 gallons of storage capacity. The District plans to build a new storage tank as the primary water storage facility, and then refurbish the old tank for use as back up storage. The District did no report when it anticipates constructing the new tank. In the event of emergencies, FCSD would rely on the short-term water reserves mentioned previously, which would last approximately two days based on the District’s average daily use. There are no interties with other water systems outside of the District to serve as back-up during emergencies. The District does not have an emergency response plan. The distribution system was originally installed in the 1970s. The composition of the system is unknown. The District reported that the infrastructure needs of the system have not been identified, and the District would like to perform an assessment of the system to identify specific needs. There were no plans for an overall assessment of this kind at the time this report was drafted. Since 2000, the District has had several problems complying with monitoring requirements for total coliform bacteria, lead and copper, natural radioactivity, nitrates and nitrites, as well as others, as reported by EHD. Most recently, in 2007, the District received several notices of violation of monitoring requirements, and did not provide proof of compliance with the notices. Subsequently, a citation for non-compliance was issued by EHD, regarding sampling of radioactivity, lead and copper, manganese and iron, and disinfection byproducts.381 Failure to comply with the citation resulted in another notice of violation August 2007, and another citation for non-compliance in January 2008 for failure to sample manganese, iron and radioactivity. The District was given until March 2008 to comply with sampling and reporting requirements, but had not submitted the required iron and manganese reports as of May 2008.382 380 Correspondence to FCSD from Lance Salisbury, Environmental Scientist, Environmental Health Department, 6/28/06. 381 Environmental Health Department, Citation No. 2007-03, 2007. 382 Interview with Scott Meyer, Environmental Health Department, May 14, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-249 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-11-2: FCSD Water Service Profile Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction Direct Water Treatment Direct Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water FCSD is located in northwestern Amador County, approximately six miles east of Plymouth. The District's service area extends along Fiddletown Road, encompassing parcels on either side from just west of Quartz Mountain Road to just east of American Float Road. The bounds also include parcels along Jibbom Street and American Flat Road. Wholesale Water NA Recycled Water NA Boundary Area 0.08 sq. miles Population (2007) 100 System Overview Average Daily Demand 16,387 gallons Peak Day Demand2 28,741 gallons Supply 18 af is the average annual well production Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Storage tank Storage 30,000 gallons Good 1969 Well #1 Well with pump 120 gpm Excellent 2006 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0.03 Pump Stations 1 Pressure Zones 1 Production Wells 1 Pipe Miles 1.25 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Infrastructure needs include an additional back-up generator at the well, additional storage capacity and an overall assessment of the distribution system to identify needs and prioritize repairs. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: The District does not practice facility sharing regarding water services with other agencies. Opportunities: None identified. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. (2) Based on the average daily water usage in the peak month in 2006. continued II-250 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO FIDDLETOWN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 66 59 7 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 Domestic 66 59 7 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Residential NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Commercial/Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm2 Consumnes Subbasin Groundwater 18 194 48 Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)3 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total 21 16 16 18 18 18 18 Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater 21 16 16 18 18 18 18 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP Significant Droughts 1976, 1977, 1988-94 Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergencies only. Drought Plan The District reported that it has had no problems with a shortage of water in dry years and does not have a drought rationing plan. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering Yes, but meters are monitored only in the summer. Conservation Pricing Yes, between June 1 and October 1. Other Practices The District sends out newsletters during the summer months to remind customers of ways to conserve. In addition, the District reported that it makes efforts to help customers find and resolve leaks. Notes: (1) The District was unable to report the amount demanded annually, as it only monitors the meters between June 1 and October 1. (2) Based on the Department of Health Services criteria for foothill groundwater, the firm yield is 25 percent of the tested pumping capacity. (3) Water supply projections are based on average annual demand, as the District has only had one additional connection in the last eight years and there are no proposed developments within the District's service area. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-251 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Rates and Financing Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-071 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Residential October 2 - May 31 $25.00 7,600 gal/month Flat Monthly: $25.00 June 1 - October 1 Water Use: $25.00 for the first 10,000 gallons $2.00 for every additional 1,000 gallons <15,000 $5.00 for every additional 1,000 gallons >15,000 Special Rates Water rates are the same throughout the District. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description FCSD evaluates costs and increases rates accordingly, as needed. To promote water conservation during the peak seasons, the District recently began charging metered rates between June 1 and October 1. Most Recent Rate Change 2007 Frequency of Rate Changes As needed Water Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach All new connections are charged a flat fee regardless of connection type to recoup time and capital costs associated with the new connection. Connection Fee Timing After the building permit is approved. Connection Fee Amount $3,000/Single Family Unit Land Dedication Requirements None Development Impact Fee None Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 06-07 Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $71,358 100% Total $60,407 Rates & charges $21,336 30% Administration $4,227 Property tax $0 0% O & M $4,525 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation NP Interest $22 0% Debt $1,941 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $0 Other - County Loan $50,000 70% Capital Improvements $44,776 Other $4,938 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, refer to Chapter 3 in the MSR main document. continued II-252 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO FIDDLETOWN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators Water Planning Description Planning Horizon Water Master Plan None UWMP None, not required Capital Improvement Plan None Emergency Response Plan None Service Challenges The District did not identify any challenges to providing water services; although, the Department of Environmental Health reported that the District has had difficulty complying with monitoring and reporting requirements. Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 2 ,640 O&M Cost Ratio1 $276,162 MGD Delivered/FTE 1 Distribution Loss Rate Unknown Distribution Breaks & Leaks 1 Distribution Break Rate2 80 Response Time Policy ASAP Response Time Actual Within 24 hours Water Pressure ~40+ psi Total Employees (FTEs) 0.025 Water Operator Certification The District is required to have a distribution system operator certified at D1 or above. The District's operator possesses a D1 certification. Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3 # Description Health Violations 0 Monitoring Violations 5 Coliform monitoring 2005, 2003, 2001, 1998; Lead and copper sampling 2000 DW Compliance Rate4 100% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (3) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-253 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II WASTEWATER SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The community of Fiddletown relies on individual septic systems for wastewater disposal. Select parcels along Dry Creek and parcels too small for a contained onsite septic system drain through a collection system into a community leach field. The County owns, inspects and maintains the community leach field system located within FCSD’s bounds. The leach field system includes wastewater collection and disposal services. The County reported that it has not been able to access the system, due to locks, for regular inspections since 2006; consequently, no improvements have been made since then. FCSD collects all wastewater rates related to the system. Although District volunteers only occasionally provide necessary maintenance, such as vegetation removal after storms, the District reported approximately $30,325 in sewer administration and operation and maintenance costs in FY 06-07. These expenses were for customer billing, minor repairs and insurance, according to the District. FCSD was recently approved to provide wastewater services in 2006 by LAFCO.383 The County hopes to transfer ownership of the leach field to the District, as it is collecting the revenues associated with the system and can fund the necessary improvements.384 The District indicated that is amenable to taking over the system after the County has made any needed improvements.385 Property owners are responsible for the maintenance of the onsite septic systems which provide a majority of the treatment process. The septic systems then connect to the community collection system. LOCATION Wastewater services are provided within and outside of FCSD’s bounds. Not all parcels within the District are permitted to connect to the community leachfield system. A total of 73 parcels along Dry Creek, as well as neighboring properties too small for an individual septic system are connected or have the right to connect to the system. Of the 73 parcels, there are 46 connected within the District’s bounds and four connected outside of the District’s bounds. In addition, there are 17 parcels within the District and six outside of the District with rights to connect to the system upon development of the parcels. 383 LAFCO Resolution 2006-03. 384 Interview with Mike Israel, Environmental Health Department, Amador County, May 14, 2008. 385 Interview with Jane O’Riordan, FCSD, January 29, 2008. II-254 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO FIDDLETOWN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT INFRASTRUCTURE Key wastewater service infrastructure owned by the County includes the community leachfield and 1.5 miles of collection pipelines. The collection and disposal system was installed in 1999 by Amador County. The system was designed for a maximum of 78 parcels.386 Effluent is collected in individual onsite septic tanks where a majority of the treatment occurs, then is collected into a shallow pressure dosed drain field for percolation into the soil. The system has not been inspected by the County since 2006, as the County has not been able to gain access to the locked area. The County reported that the system was generally in fair condition as of the last inspection, due to deferred maintenance on the system. Infrastructure needs and deficiencies at that time were as follows. • Replacement of the missing downslope monitoring well. • Monitoring of the groundwater to verify no adverse impacts. • Repair or replacement of three flow monitoring devices. • Placement of posts to facilitate locating inspection pipes. • Repair of a broken valve box at Quartz Mountain and Fiddletown Roads. • Removal of berry growth and fallen trees. • Re-priming of all dosing siphons in use. No improvements have been made to rectify these needs. The collection system is composed of 1.5 miles of PVC piping. The County did not report any needs or deficiencies regarding the collection system. There is a monitoring well network to ensure protection of nearby surface and subsurface waters; although, neither the County nor the District have not been monitoring the wells. The County has applied to the State for a State Revolving Loan to replace the septic system with a local sewer system as a preventative measure for impaired and unimpaired water bodies. The District was unaware of this loan application. 386 Amador County, Fiddletown Sewer System Description, 1996, p. 3. BY BURR CONSULTING II-255 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-11-3: FCSD Wastewater Service Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection County Wastewater Treatment County, private septic systems Wastewater Disposal County Recycled Water None Service Area Collection: Within FCSD's bounds and four adjacent parcels. Treatment: Within FCSD's bounds and four adjacent parcels. Recycled Water NA Sewer Connection Regulatory/Policies Only those landowners that originally paid for the system in 1999 have a right to connect to the system. As of 2008, there were 23 landowners that had the right but had not yet connected to the system. Onsite Septic Systems in Service Area All landowners within the District have onsite septic systems. Service Demand FY 06-07 Connections Flow (gallons) Type Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Average2 Total 50 46 4 3,611 Residential 50 46 4 3,611 Commercial 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0 Projected Demand (in gallons per day) 20053 2015 2015 Build-Out Avg. dry weather flow 3,611 NP NP NP Peak wet weather flow 3,611 NP NP NP Note: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. (2) The District and the County do not regularly monitor the meters to the leach field system. The County provided a 3.5 year daily average flow. (3) Based on the 3.5 year average day demand. The County reported that since the collection system is pressurized, there should be no significant difference between dry and wet weather flows. continued II-256 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO FIDDLETOWN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: A majority of treatment is completed in individual onsite septic systems. The treatment level is unknown. Disposal method: All wastewater flow is disposed of in a community leach field to percolate into the soil. Facility Name Capacity Condition Yr Built Fiddletown Leach field 0.02 mgd Fair 1999 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Disposal infrastructure needs identified by the County include replacement of the missing downslope monitoring well, repair or replacement of three flow monitoring devices, repair of a broken valve box, removal of berry growth and fallen trees, and re-priming of all dosing siphons in use. Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 1.5 Pump stations 7 Other: Individual septic systems on each parcel. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The County did not identify any collection infrastructure needs with the exception of posts to clearly mark inspection pipes. Infiltration and Inflow The extent of infiltration and inflow is unknown, as the District and County do not monitor the flow of the effluent. The County did not report any infrastructure needs regarding the condition of the pipelines that may affect infiltration and inflow. The County indicated that as the system is pressurized, dry weather and wet weather flows are likely not signficantly different. Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing Regional Collaboration The County owns the leach field system, which the District occasionally maintains with volunteers. Collaboration efforts could be improved so that the County can access the system for regular inspections. Facility Sharing Opportunities The District did not identify opportunities for future facility sharing opportunities. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-257 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Regulatory Compliance Record, 2000-7 Formal Enforcement Actions None Informal Enforcement Actions None Service Adequacy Indicators Sewer Overflows 20071 0 Sewer Overflows 20062 0 Treatment Effectiveness Rate3 NA4 Sewer Overflow Rate5 0 Total Employees (FTEs) 0 Response Time Policy6 ASAP Employees Certified? NA Response Time Actual Within 24 hours Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices The District did not report any source control practices. Collection System Inspection Practices The system has never been inspected by the District, and due to lack of access has not been inspected by the County since 2006. Service Challenges The District reported challenges related to occasional maintenance of the system with an entirely volunteer staff. The County reported challenges providing maintenance due to a lack of access to the system and a lack of revenue for repairs. Wastewater Planning Plan Description Planning Horizon Wastewater Master Plan None Wastewater Collection Plan None Capital Improvement Plan None Sanitary Sewer Management Plan None Emergency Plan None Notes: (1) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2007 as reported by the agency. (2) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2006 as reported by the agency. (3) Total number of non-compliance days in 2007 per 365 days. (4) Septic systems are not required to maintain the same treatment levels as sewer systems. (5) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. (6) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage. continued II-258 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO FIDDLETOWN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Wastewater Rates and Financing Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Demand2 Residential Flat Monthly: $25.00 $25.00 250 gpd Rate Zones None Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description: Rates were last set by the County when the system was installed. The District plans to update the rates once the system is transferred from the County to the District. Last Rate Change 1999 Frequency of Rate Changes Never changed Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach All parcels adjacent to Dry Creek or too small to install a private septic system are required connect to the system. Each parcel paid the connection fee at the time the system was installed to cover the cost of the system. Connection Fee Timing Paid at the time the system was installed in 1999. Connection Fee Amount1 Residential: $15,000 Land Dedication Req. None Development Impact Fee None Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY 06-07 Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $25,670 100% Total $30,325 Rates & Charges $25,606 100% Administration $24,944 Property Tax $0 0% O & M $5,380 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation NP Interest $26 0% Debt $0 Connection Fees $0 0% Other $0 Other - Refund $38 0% Notes: (1) Rates include wastewater-related service charges and strength and flow charges. Average monthly charges calculated based on average consumption. Rates are rounded for presentation. (2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are 250 gallons per home per day, and are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, see Chapter 4. (3) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home. BY BURR CONSULTING II-259 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • Demand has been relatively constant for both water and wastewater services in the last 10 years. • No new connections for wastewater services are anticipated, because the sewer system cannot be expanded. Demand for water services is also expected to remain relatively constant in the near future, as there are no planned or proposed developments within or adjacent to the District’s boundary. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The existing water and wastewater facilities have the capacity to provide service to the current connections. The water system can accommodate future growth and development. The wastewater system is not expandable and is not intended to serve additional connections. Any significant growth that requires wastewater services would necessitate a new sewer system. • The District lacks a general manager, as required by law, to implement board policies. • Water infrastructure needs and deficiencies include a back-up generator at the well for emergency purposes, additional storage capacity, and an overall assessment of the distribution system to identify needs and prioritize repairs. • The District is facing challenges in complying with monitoring and reporting requirements for its water system. • The wastewater system is not regularly maintained by FCSD staff (which receives the related rate revenue) or County staff (which owns the facilities). Consequently, there are several deficiencies that have not been corrected since 2006. • The Amador County Environmental Health Department identified several wastewater needs and deficiencies in 2006 that have not been rectified to date. Significant needs include replacement of a monitoring well, monitoring of the groundwater to verify no adverse impacts and repair or replacement of three flow monitoring devices. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • Although FCSD reported sufficient financing to provide water services, analysis of service adequacy indicates that an assessment and update of rates, fees and efficiency may be necessary to improve service levels for the District and ensure ongoing maintenance and II-260 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO FIDDLETOWN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT rehabilitation of the water system. The District currently charges relatively low monthly water rates compared with other water purveyors in Amador County. • As the District does not currently maintain the wastewater system, financing is adequate to provide for billing and insurance related to wastewater services. If and when the District retains ownership of the wastewater infrastructure, existing rate revenue is not anticipated to be sufficient for ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • FCSD collects revenues and pays for insurance related to the County-owned sewer system. Collaboration efforts could be improved to ensure County access to the system for regular inspections. • No further facility sharing opportunities were identified. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • The District demonstrated transparency through its cooperation with LAFCO and the MSR process. Accountability to local voters is constrained by a lack of contested elections. Improvements to accountability could be made by promoting interest in participation on the governing body. • The District should consider adopting annual budgets and periodically auditing financial statements to improve operational efficiencies. • FCSD was approved by LAFCO in 2006 to begin wastewater services. A governance structure option is to complete the transfer of ownership of the sewer system from the County to the District to ensure regular monitoring and maintenance by the agency with the related revenue stream. An alternative is to transfer the system to AWA to ensure adequate service levels. Another alternative is to form a County Service Area funded by service charges to operate the Fiddletown wastewater system. . BY BURR CONSULTING II-261 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 12. I O N E M E M O R I A L D I S T R I C T Ione Memorial District (IMD) provides veteran facility services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION AND BOUNDARY The Ione Memorial District was formed on May 1, 1956 as an independent special district pursuant to the California Military and Veterans Code Section 1170 et seq.387 The District was formed to manage facilities for the use of military veterans and others. Through the principal act, memorial districts are empowered to provide and maintain memorial halls, buildings, and other recreation facilities for use by veteran as well as non-veteran individuals and organizations. Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000.388 The IMD boundary is entirely within Amador County. The bounds encompass the area south of Carbondale and west of Pardee Reservoir, including the City of Ione, Buena Vista Rancheria and Lake Camanche. One parcel along the Amador-Calaveras county line is excluded, although the parcel is mostly water.389 The boundary encompasses 112 square miles. The District’s SOI is unknown. LAFCO records indicate the original SOI was adopted in January 1977, but the record does not provide a description or map of its boundaries. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE Per the principal act, memorial districts are to be managed through a five-member volunteer board, the majority of whom must be veterans. Boards must elect a president and a secretary. The District is governed by an elected five-member Board of Directors with staggered terms. Two directors are designated as chairman and secretary, as required; there is also a treasurer. All current directors are veterans. In practice, director positions are rarely contested and are usually appointed 387 Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 388 Government Code §56824.10. 389 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of IMD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. II-262 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO IONE MEMORIAL DISTRICT by the County Board of Supervisors. The last contested election was held in 1998. For information on individual directors, term expirations and contact information, see Table II-12-1. Table II-12-1: IMD Governing Body Ione Memorial District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Jerome Smith Chairman 11/1/09 Jack Gasaway Treasurer 11/2/09 Members Dick Brown Secretary 11/1/11 Darelld Larrigan Director 11/1/11 Richard Gonzalez Director 11/2/09 Manner of Selection At-large elections, appointments Length of Term Four years Meetings Date: Monthly Location: District's Community Hall Agenda Distribution Posted on bulletin board Minutes Distribution By request Contact Contact Manager Mailing Address P.O Box 53, Ione, CA 95640 Phone NA Email/Website NA The District maintains a bulletin board outside of the community hall building. No other outreach activities are performed. The District reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. MANAGEMENT The District is staffed by a part-time contractor who manages and maintains the District buildings and grounds. The contractor is paid a flat rate of $725 per month. He reports to the Board at monthly meetings. District financial planning efforts include annual budgets and annual financial audits. The most recent audit was completed for FY 05-06. Although the District did not provide a copy of any audited financial statements to LAFCO, its audited financial information for FY 05-06 and unaudited financial information for FY 06-07 were provided to LAFCO by the County Auditor- Controller. The District does not prepare capital improvement plans or other planning documents. The District carries a liability insurance policy, for which it spent $5,835 in FY 06-07. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Land use within the District is mostly agricultural, low-density residential and vacant. There are limited amounts of commercial and industrial land uses in the City of Ione. Areas immediately BY BURR CONSULTING II-263 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II outside the City are nearly all vacant, with the exception of institutional uses (prison facilities) near the City. Non-vacant land uses include agricultural and some industrial uses. There are also some scattered suburban residential parcels outside of city bounds. Other portions of the District are highly agricultural, with significant amounts of residential and vacant lands towards the south (near Camanche Village and Camanche North Shore). Camanche North Shore includes approximately three parcels of commercial use; the proposed Buena Vista casino contains one. Mining for silica sand, refractory clay, specialized lignites, and other materials is a major industry near Ione and Buena Vista.390 Major employers in the area include Ione Minerals, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Mule Creek State Prison and Preston Youth Correctional Facility. The estimated population within District bounds is 9,556, of which approximately 5,666 (59 percent) constitutes civilian, non-institutional population and the remainder prisoners.391 The District’s population density is 51 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. IMD did not provide information on changes in service demand, but there has been moderate growth in the City of Ione and countywide. Residential developments are planned and proposed in the District primarily in the City of Ione and vicinity. There are a total of 12 developments planned and proposed within Ione and its SOI, in addition to 16,100-acre Arroyo Seco proposal just outside of the City’s SOI. All of these developments are within the District’s bounds and would add approximately 3,468 dwelling units plus those units proposed on the Arroyo Seco land.392 For more information, see the City of Ione profile (Chapter II-2). The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The District reports that current financing is adequate to deliver services. Per the principal act, the County handles District finances, which it tracks through a single fund. Total revenues were $75,348 in FY 06-07. Revenue sources include property taxes (87 percent), interest (7 percent), and rents and concessions (6 percent). Property tax revenues constituted 87 percent of total revenues, which were over $75,000. The principal act states that memorial districts may collect special taxes and assessments within its bounds.393 390 Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Draft TEIR for Flying Cloud Facility, 2007. 391 The population estimate for the District is the sum of the population in the City of Ione and the estimated population for the Jackson Valley Fire Protection District (JVFPD). The source for the City of Ione population in 2008 is the California Department of Finance, and the remainder was estimated based on the number of parcels with structures in JVFPD and average household size in Amador County. 392 The number of units proposed on the Arroyo Seco land, had not been determined as of the drafting of this report. 393 California Military and Veterans Code Section 1192-1192.5. II-264 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO IONE MEMORIAL DISTRICT Expenditures on utilities, maintenance, and supplies for the same year totaled just under $46,000. IMD carried no long-term debt as of the close of FY 06-07. Memorial districts may issue general obligation bonds to fund facilities for the use of military veterans. The District does not have a formal policy on maintaining financial reserves. However, the District had ample reserves at the end of FY 06-07. The District’s unreserved, undesignated funds at this time amounted to $171,562. This amounted to 375 percent of annual expenditures, or 45 months of working capital. The District planned to spend approximately $50,000 on capital improvements in FY 07-08.394 MEMORIAL SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The District maintains two buildings and facilities, including a park, on District property for the use of Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) District 13, Post 8254, and other veteran and non-veteran use. LOCATION The District maintains property located at 207 South Amador Street in Ione. The property is a full city block east of South Ione Street and south of Main Street. INFRASTRUCTURE There are two buildings, a park and a small lot maintained by District. These properties are owned by the County. The first building is a small hall for the exclusive use of VFW Post 8254. The second is a community hall available to rent for weddings, funerals, and other events. The rental fee is $50, plus a $50 cleaning deposit. Previously hosted events and meetings include a local dance group show, Ione Picnic Association meetings, a food surplus program, Boy Scouts events, First Five meetings, and WIC meetings. The District’s park is located behind the two buildings; it can also be reserved for private use. It has a BBQ and park benches. American Legion Ambulance Service (ALA) has a double-wide trailer on the District’s lot to serve as a local office. The District does not charge ALA rent, but ALA does pay the District approximately $250 to cover the cost of utilities. 394 Amador County, Budget FY 07-08, Schedule 16, p. 224. BY BURR CONSULTING II-265 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District reports that all facilities are in good condition. Several upgrades have been completed over the years, including cementing the basement. Equipment housed at the hall includes an ice machine, tables and chairs, a refrigerator, a lawn mower, a weed whacker, a floor polisher, and a vacuum. The District reports that no other equipment or infrastructure is needed. SERVICE ADEQUACY The District’s property appears to be well-maintained, based on a January 2008 site visit by the LAFCO consultant. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • There has been moderate growth in Ione and unincorporated areas in the District. Significant growth is anticipated as planned and proposed developments in and around Ione are approved and begin construction. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • District facilities appear to be in good condition. The District reported no infrastructure needs or deficiencies. • The existing facilities have the capacity to serve present and future probable demand. The District has no plans to expand the facilities. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The District has maintained the buildings to adequate levels in the past, and the District has sufficient financial reserves to maintain its buildings and grounds in the future. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • IMD practices facility sharing with American Legion Ambulance Service. No facility sharing opportunities were identified. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Accountability to local voters is constrained by a lack of contested elections. Improvements to accountability could be made by emphasizing public outreach activities and promoting interest in participation on the governing body. II-266 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO IONE MEMORIAL DISTRICT • IMD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCO requests. • No governmental structure options were identified. BY BURR CONSULTING II-267 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 13. JAC K S O N VA L L E Y F I R E P RO T E C T I O N D I S T R I C T Jackson Valley Fire Protection District (JVFPD) provides fire and basic life support services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION JVFPD was formed on October 13, 1950 as an independent special district.395 The District was formed to provide fire and basic life support services to the Jackson Valley community. The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.396 The principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical, hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives and property.397 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000.398 BOUNDARY AND SOI JVFPD’s boundary is entirely within Amador County. The bounds encompass approximately 72 square miles in the southwest portion of Amador County, southwest of the City of Ione. The boundary area includes the communities of Camanche Village, Camanche North Shore, and Buena Vista, and the recreation areas of Camanche and Pardee reservoirs. The northernmost boundary reaches Jeep Trail; the easternmost boundary reaches past the turn in Stony Creek Road. 399 Four annexations and two detachments have been recorded by LAFCO since its creation in the mid-1960s. All six recorded boundary changes occurred in the 1970s. 395 Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 396 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970. 397 Health and Safety Code §13862. 398 Government Code §56824.10. 399 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of JVFPD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. II-268 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO JACKSON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The District’s SOI is unknown. LAFCO records indicate the original SOI was adopted in January 1977, but the record does not provide a description of its boundaries. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The principal act stipulates that a fire protection district’s board of directors must have an odd number of members, with a minimum of three and a maximum of 11.400 Directors may be appointed or elected to staggered four-year terms. Boards are to elect directors internally to the positions of president and vice-president. A secretary or clerk position is also listed in the principal act, but this person may be a director or staff. JVFPD is governed by a five-member board of appointees, but does not have an elected vice-president. The District reports that its board members’ seats are not limited in term. When a board member quits, the District advertises for interested parties and the Board of Supervisors approves replacement members. Current board members are listed with positions in Table II-13-1. Table II-13-1: Jackson Valley FPD Governing Body Jackson Valley Fire Protection District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Jayke Herfel Chair NA Paul Michetto Member NA Members Vicki Gerdes-Farmer Member NA Ken Hazlet Member NA Chris Rantwell Member NA Manner of Selection Nominated by other JVFPD Board Members, approved by the County BOS. Length of Term Four years Meetings Date: Every other Wednesday Location: Station 171 Agenda Distribution Posted outside Station 171 Minutes Distribution By request Contact Contact Fire Chief Mailing Address 2701 Quiver Drive, Ione, CA 95640 Phone NP Email/Website jvfd@volcano.net The District performs constituent outreach through several community activities, including multiple holiday events and a fire prevention week. The District does not maintain a website where public documents can be accessed. The District reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. With regard to customer service, the District reported that complaints may be submitted to the Chief or Board through letter or in person. The Chief is the District’s primary ombudsman, but 400 Health and Safety Code §13842. BY BURR CONSULTING II-269 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II complaints submitted to him may be passed to the Board if necessary. Two complaints were submitted in 2007: one regarding service and one requesting carpet cleaning after service. The District demonstrated partial accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with select document requests, but financial statements and the capital improvement plan were not provided. MANAGEMENT District operations are managed by the fire chief, who evaluates District performance on a daily basis. Specifically, the District monitors productivity by tracking service calls and response times. These records are reported to the Camanche Village Homeowners’ Association and to the Board at its regular meetings. All personnel are accountable to the chief, who provides employee evaluations during probationary periods and in case of reprimand. The Legislature has awarded two plaques to JVFPD in the last five years in recognition of the District’s service to the community. In addition, the State Legislator’s Office issued a letter to the Chief identifying him as First Responder of the Year in 2006. The District reported that a mission statement was in progress as of the drafting of this report. The District has not adopted any other planning documents to date. The District reported that its financial planning efforts include annual budgets, annual financial audits, and capital improvement plans. The District also reported that the most recent audit was completed for FY 05-06, and was in the process of completing an audit for FY 06-07. The District reports that it prepares a CIP, but did not provide a copy of its CIP to LAFCO. The District reported that its CIP is updated every ten years and that it was being updated as of the drafting of this report, but that it may be put on hold due to uncertainty involving development of a proposed casino on the Buena Vista Rancheria in the District bounds. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH The District area is highly agricultural, with significant amounts of residential and vacant lands towards the south (near Camanche Village and Camanche North Shore). Land uses along Camanche Reservoir’s north shore are varied. Camanche North Shore includes approximately three parcels of commercial use; Buena Vista contains one acre. Ranching is the area’s primary industry. A major employer in the area is East Bay Municipal Utility District, along with several local restaurants and a small market. II-270 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO JACKSON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The District serves approximately 2,140 residents,401 including the protection of 950 structures on 1,500 parcels.402 The District’s population density is 30 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. The District reports moderately increasing service demand due to approximately 50 new homes being constructed each year. Growth has been concentrated in Camanche Village. There are currently no planned or proposed residential developments within District bounds. New non-residential development has been proposed for the Flying Cloud Casino project of the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians. The proposed casino would be constructed outside of Ione. The County BOS rejected a proposed Intergovernmental Services Agreement regarding the proposal in March 2008. As of the drafting of this report, the County is pursuing a federal lawsuit against the Tribe on the grounds that the site is not a legitimate reservation. The Tribe may move forward by asking an arbitrator to evaluate the opposing cost estimates at issue.403 The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The District reports that the current level of financing is sufficient for volunteer service provision; funds are insufficient for full-time staffing. The District reported that there are five funds used to track District financials, including a general fund, an impact fee fund, and a building fund. This report relies on actuals reported in the County’s budget for FY 06-07. Fire protection districts are authorized to collect revenue from special taxes, property assessments for fire services or capital improvements, and fees for service.404 Assessments are $30 per year in FY 07-08. JVFPD’s total revenues were $198,382 in FY 06-07. Revenue sources include property taxes (40 percent), assessments (29 percent), service charges (26 percent), and interest revenue (2 percent). In the future, service charges will be a more significant source of revenue. JVFPD reported that it began charging a fee of $250 per personnel hour for incidents in January 2008. There is a minimum of a one-hour charge. As of March 2008, three bills had been issued. The District reports 401 The District population estimate was calculated by multiplying the reported number of structures by the average 2008 household size in Amador County (per the Department of Finance). This may be an overestimate as not all structures may be homes. 402 Interview with Thom Reed, Fire Chief, JVFPD, January 16, 2008. 403 Associated Press, “Amador County strikes down deal with tribe over proposed casino”, March 5, 2008. 404 Health and Safety Code §13911-19. BY BURR CONSULTING II-271 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II that the recipient of services pays these fees, although no fee is charged if a patient refuses services. Residents of the District are only charged if the call involves a DUI or if police are required to respond (i.e., a violent call). JVFPD’s total expenditures in FY 06-07 were $120,013. Expenditures included employee compensation (17 percent), services and supplies (59 percent), and capital investments (25 percent).405 The District had no long-term debt at the close of FY 06-07. By way of reserves, the District reported that its policy is to maintain at least a three-month reserve. The District’s reserves were $47,866 at the close of FY 06-07. The undesignated reserves represented 23 percent of annual expenditures. In other words, the District maintained three months of working capital. 405 Amador County, Budget, FY 07-08, Schedule 16. II-272 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO JACKSON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE AND EMS SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT JVFPD provides fire prevention and suppression services. For calls involving emergency medical services, JVFPD provides basic life support (BLS) until American Legion Ambulance Service arrives to perform advanced life support and ambulance transport. The District’s boundaries overlap with the CALFIRE State Response Area throughout its bounds, except a few parcels in the Federal Response Area. By law, in areas of overlap CALFIRE provides primary wildland fire response and JVFPD provides primary structure fire response.406 The District reports that its highest call volumes occur in the summer months and in December. Personnel All sworn personnel in the District are call firefighters. There are a total of 14 call firefighters, including the fire chief and an assistant chief. The chief and the assistant chief each work approximately 80 hours per month. Non-sworn staff is limited to one part-time administrator, who works 15 hours per month. Pursuant to the principal act, the Amador County treasurer acts as the District’s treasurer.407 Training is provided in conjunction with other providers as well as within the District. Call firefighter training is approximately 240 hours. The County offers an initial training through a 67- hour course, which is held annually and is open to all service providers in the County. Training is often conducted in collaboration with other providers, most frequently the Ione Fire Department. All JVFPD volunteers must attend at least 50 percent of the District’s weekly training sessions, which each last two to three hours. The District aims to have all personnel certified by the State at the Firefighter Level 1; currently five are certified. The District also pays for EMS classes; the District plans for all personnel to be EMT-1 certified by the close of FY 07-08. Seven personnel are currently certified at the EMT-1 level. Each call firefighter receives $1,000 worth of safety equipment purchased by the District. They also receive $15 per training meeting and an annual allocation of $75 for boots. Captains receive $100 per month. Call firefighter turnover is high as many move on to professional jobs. The District did not provide the number of volunteers and volunteer separations and hires for 2006 and 2007, but did 406 Pursuant to Health and Safety Code §13811. 407 Health and Safety Code §13854. BY BURR CONSULTING II-273 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II report that on average one volunteer leaves every 18 months (equivalent to an annual rate of approximately five percent). Regional Collaboration The Jackson Valley Fire Protection District collaborates with other fire providers in the County through the Amador Fire Protection Authority and through an Amador Plan agreement. The plan results in duplicated services between local providers and CALFIRE in order to prevent insufficient response. JVFPD provides automatic aid to the community of Clements in San Joaquin County through an informal verbal agreement. The District intends to formally define the area in the future. The District also provides mutual aid to Foothill Fire District in Calaveras County, an area of approximately 30 square miles. JVFPD reports that this agreement is being updated as of the drafting of this report. The District also collaborates with other providers by participating in joint, regional training. Dispatch and Communications All 911 calls made from land lines in Amador County are automatically routed to the Amador County Sheriff’s communication center in Jackson (the Public Safety Answering Point, PSAP). Cell phone 911 calls are answered by the California Highway Patrol in Stockton, and then are routed to the Sheriff. Fire and EMS calls are routed from the PSAP to CALFIRE’s Camino Interagency Command Center, which in turn dispatches a CALFIRE unit as well as the appropriate local jurisdiction responder. JVFPD is dispatched to all calls within its primary response area. All fire providers in Amador County, including JVFPD, communicate through the same radio systems. Due to shared radio frequencies, JVFPD is able to communicate with other providers. When multiple service providers respond to an incident, the first unit to arrive on scene is responsible for incident command. The first responder notifies other providers whether and when sufficient personnel have arrived on scene. For incidents such as vehicle accidents, law enforcement becomes responsible for incident coordination once it arrives on scene through universal command protocols; prior to law enforcement arriving on scene, the first responding fire provider remains responsible for incident command. LOCATION The District provides service to its primary responsibility area as through an automatic aid agreement with AFPD. This area is similar in size and shape to JVFPD legal bounds. The District also provides service outside its bounds. The District provides mutual aid responses to the Ione area, although the specific locations assisted were not provided. JVFPD also has agreements to serve portions of two neighboring counties: mutual aid to Foothill Fire District in Calaveras, and the Clements community in San Joaquin. JVFPD provides mutual aid most often to the Ione and AFPD with 15 and 6 responses, respectively. II-274 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO JACKSON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT INFRASTRUCTURE JVFPD operates two fire stations. Station 171 was built in 1953 and is in poor condition. Station 172 was built in 1986 and is in good condition. Both stations are in need of various repairs. The District does not presently have sufficient resources to fund these repairs. Existing equipment includes three fire engines and two water tenders at the two stations. The District reports it needs a new utility truck or fire chief vehicle. The District relies on Lake Amador and Pardee Reservoir for water reserves. There are no areas within the District with fire hydrants. SERVICE ADEQUACY There are two general indicators of service adequacy for municipal fire providers: ISO rating and response times. The Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization, classifies fire service in communities from 1 to 10, indicating the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best systems for water distribution, fire department facilities, equipment and personnel and fire alarms and communications receive a rating of 1. JVFPD has an ISO rating of seven. Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster a response is required. The response time guideline established by the California EMS Agency is five minutes in urban areas, 15 minutes in suburban or rural areas, and as quickly as possible in wilderness areas. The District and its primary response zone are classified as wilderness, with the exception of the Camanche North area, which is rural. JVFD’s 90th percentile response time is 17.1 minutes, which does not meet the rural guideline. However, the District reported that its response times in Camanche Village are faster than outlying areas, so the District may indeed by reaching the guideline in the Camanche North area. JVFPD’s median response time is 10.4 minutes. The District reported service challenges include high rates of call firefighter turnover and training requirements. The provider reported that there are occasionally delays between a call reaching the PSAP and being dispatched, and indicated the delay problem has improved since 2004. The Fire Chief would like the District Board to hold meetings more frequently and to increase call firefighter training in order to improve efficiency. The Chief also would like to recruit call firefighters throughout the District to improve response times farther from Camanche Village.408 408 Interview with Thom Reed, Fire Chief, JVFPD, January 16, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-275 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-13-2: Jackson Valley FPD Fire Profile Fire Service Service Configuration Service Demand Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 EMS Direct Total Service Calls 333 Ambulance Transport American Legion % EMS 60% Hazardous Materials Calaveras and San Joaquin Counties1 % Fire 8% Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CHP, Private % Vehicle Accidents 18% Fire Suppression Helicopter CALFIRE % Other 14% Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 13% Fire/EMS Dispatch CALFIRE Calls per 1,000 people 135 Service Adequacy Resources ISO Rating 7/9 Fire Stations in District 2 Median Response Time (min) 10.4 Fire Stations Serving District 2 90th Percentile Response Time (min) 17.1 Sq. Miles Served per Station 2 34.2 Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 3 15 Training Total Full-time Firefighters 0 Certification requires 240 hours of training. The District has weekly classes, Total Call Firefighters 14 lasting a minimum of 2 hours. The District also pays for EMS classes. Total Sworn Staff per Station 4 7.0 Service Challenges Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 5.7 Challenges for the District include high volunteer turnover and consistent Staffing Base Year 2008 training. Difficult-to-serve areas include Lake Pardee due to the distance Fire Flow Water Reserves 1 million gal and windy roads. Facilities Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus Station 171 2480 Quiver Drive Poor Unstaffed 2 Type 2 Engines, Ione, CA 2 Water Tenders Station 172 5700 Buena Vista Rd Good Unstaffed Type 2 Engine Ione, CA Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Station 171 needs electrical repair and sewer plumbing repair. Station 172 needs a new roof and HVAC repair. Station door locks need repair. The District also needs either a utility truck or a fire chief vehicle. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers Current Practices: There is a mutual aid agreement CHP and Sheriff have access to the fire stations as needed. between AFPD, CALFIRE, the City of Ione, the City of Jackson, JVFPD, LFPD, and SCFPD. JVFPD provides Opportunities: automatic aid to Clements in San No opportunities were identified. Joaquin County and mutual aid to Foothill Fire District in Calaveras County. Notes: (1) CALFIRE has a MOU with Calaveras County and a secondary MOU with San Joaquin County for hazmat services. (2) Primary service area (square miles) per station. (3) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. (4) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. II-276 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO JACKSON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • Recent growth has been modest. There will be significant non-residential growth should the Amador County Board of Supervisors approve the proposed Buena Vista Casino ISA. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The District does not presently have the capacity to serve a proposed casino. However, provisions in the proposed casino ISA would provide the additional infrastructure and staffing needed. • The District provides minimally adequate service given financial and staffing constraints. • Response times could be improved as the District exceeded California EMS standards in the North Camanche Shore area and reported the highest response times among the seven providers. • One of the two JVFPD fire stations has been identified as being in poor condition. Several repairs are needed at both stations. The District does not presently have sufficient resources to fund these repairs. The District also reported a need for a new utility truck. • The District has an out-of-date capital improvement plan that is in need of updating to plan for and finance significant infrastructure needs. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The District reports that the current level of financing is sufficient for volunteer service provision; although, significant capital needs indicate that the current financing level is not adequate to provide services. Funds are insufficient for full-time staffing. • The District should consider updating its assessment, which was adopted in 1999, to ensure recovery of costs. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • JVFPD currently collaborates with other fire service providers in the County through the AFPA. There is an opportunity for JVFPD to collaborate further with Ione FD to pool financing resources and share paid staff. • CHP and the Sheriff have access to JVFPD stations as needed. BY BURR CONSULTING II-277 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • JVFPD has not had sufficient governing body interest to hold a contested election in recent years. • The District demonstrates a high degree of public outreach. Several special events are hosted, as well as a fire prevention week. • The JVFPD maximizes operational efficiencies and minimizes cost by capitalizing on call firefighters and volunteer staff. II-278 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT 14. JAC K S O N VA L L E Y I R R I G AT I O N D I S T R I C T Jackson Valley Irrigation District (JVID) provides wholesale water supply, distribution of raw water to irrigation, industrial and domestic users, and distribution of bottled water to domestic users. JVID has agreements with private companies to operate its hydroelectric dam and Lake Amador recreation facilities. Its recreation concessionaire operates domestic water treatment and wastewater services at Lake Amador. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION AND BOUNDARY JVID was formed in October of 1956 as an independent special district to provide irrigation services to the Jackson Valley area.409 The principal act that governs the District is the Irrigation District Law.410 The principal act empowers such districts to provide water “for any beneficial use” and may do any act to put to any beneficial use any water under its control. In addition, irrigation districts may provide water-related drainage services and, under certain circumstances, electric and wastewater services. Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise those services authorized by the principal act but not already provided by the district in 2000 (i.e., latent powers).411 BOUNDARY AND SOI The JVID boundary is located in southwestern Amador County, west of the Pardee Reservoir and east of the Amador-San Joaquin County line. Lake Amador is located within the northeast portion of the District. Communities in the vicinity of JVID include Buena Vista and the Buena Vista Rancheria, Camanche Village and Camanche North Shore.412 The boundary of JVID encompasses the residential community of Buena Vista Estates. The District has a boundary area of approximately 13,665 acres (21 square miles). 409 Formation date is according to District. 410 California Water Code §20500-29978. 411 Government Code §56824.10. 412 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of JVID includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. BY BURR CONSULTING II-279 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II LAFCO records of the District’s boundary history include four annexations and three detachments, as shown in Table II-14-1. Table II-14-1: JVID LAFCO Record LAFCO Resolution Project Name Acres Number Official Date1 Smith Annexation 22 70-35 1/15/1971 (C) Oliver Detachment 70-34 10/22/1970 (L) Vimini, et. al. Annexation 10 72-42 3/7/1972 (L) Fuller and Strohm Annexation 72-44 3/21/1972 (L) East Bay Municipal Utility District Detachment 91 NA2 Moldrem Annexation 48 79-139 8/23/1979 (C) Gold Country Mobile Home Detachment 30.5 92-234 9/16/1994 (B) Notes: (1) "L" indicates that the official date is according to the LAFCO resolution, "C" indicates that the official date is according to the Certificate of Completion, and "B" indicates that the official date is according to the Board of Equalization filing. (2) No signed LAFCO resolution has been located to date. The District’s SOI was adopted in 1977, but the resolution does not include any description of the sphere’s boundary. Based on the lack of clarity in the LAFCO record for JVID, the Executive Officer surmises that the actual SOI area adopted in 1977 cannot be ascertained. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE JVID is governed by a five-member board of directors. Directors are elected at large by landowners, who are allowed one vote per parcel. In the event of an uncontested election or to fill a vacancy, directors are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The most recent contested election was held in 2003. The District informs constituents via directly mailings one week before meetings, and through special notices for vacant positions and elections information. The District does not maintain a website where public documents can be accessed. With regard to customer service, the District reported that complaints most often relate to low water pressure and billing issues. Complaints may be submitted to the general manager via mail, phone, fax, email, or in person. The District reports that it receives less than 20 complaints in an average year. The District reported that it had no Brown Act violations in recent history. II-280 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT Table II-14-2: JVID Governing Body Jackson Valley Irrigation District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends George Lambert President 12/31/2011 Henry Willy Vice President 12/31/2011 Members Larry Costick Member 12/31/2011 Tim Curran Member 12/31/2009 Todd Ohm Member 12/31/2009 Manner of Selection Elections and appointments at large Length of Term 4 years Date: first Wednesday of each month, Location: 6755 Lake Amador Dr., Ione Meeting 7:00 p.m. CA 95640 Agenda Distribution Posted on office door and mailed to District members one week before meetings. Minutes Distribution Mailed with agenda as part of District newsletter. Contact Contact Board President Mailing Address 6755 Lake Amador Dr., Ione CA 95640 Telephone (209) 274-2037 Email/Website jvid@volcano.net The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to portions of LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. MANAGEMENT The District is managed by a part-time general manager who works two days per week. District staff includes a full-time maintenance worker and a full-time office manager. The general manager meets with the maintenance worker on a weekly basis, and monitors workload and accomplishments as needed. Employee evaluations are performed on an annual basis. The District’s planning efforts are limited. The District does not have a master plan for its water system, and does not prepare a capital improvement plan. Capital improvement needs are addressed on an annual basis in the budget. The District does have operations plans and an emergency response plan. District financial planning efforts include annual preparation of budgets. The District reports that it conducts financial audits on an annual basis. The most recent audited financial statement provided by the District was for CY 2006. The auditor reported that due to the limited number of personnel involved with the accounting process, JVID has not maintained an adequate segregation of duties to allow for sufficient internal control over financial reporting.413 413 Jackson Valley Irrigation District, Financial Statements, December 31, 2006, p. 11. BY BURR CONSULTING II-281 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Management practices include risk management. The District’s insurance includes a commercial package with Special District Risk Management Authority that provides limits of liability of $2.5 million annually. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Existing land uses in the District’s boundary are primarily agricultural, although there are also scattered residences. Economic activity in the District’s boundary area includes farming, fish farming and rock quarries. Agricultural activity within the District includes alfalfa, walnuts, vineyards, and pasture. Major employers within the District are Fanbasstic, Inc., which runs the recreation area and facilities at Lake Amador, and the various farming operations within the District. A cement factory, Goose Hill Rock, is located within the JVID water service area. There are approximately 120 to 150 single family homes located within District bounds with 61 homes receiving raw water from the District. The estimated population within District bounds is 345 with approximately 140 receiving service from the District.414 The District’s population density is 16 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. In addition to residents, visitors frequent the Lake Amador Recreation Area where there are 190 overnight campsites. The District reported that service demand has been relatively stable in recent years. There has been no significant recent growth. However, there have been annexation requests that the District described as often related to wells that have dried out. The Camanche Road area in Buena Vista Estates has expressed interest in annexation, although it is likely cost-prohibitive for this area to connect to the JVID system.415 Future residential growth is expected to be limited, as there are no planned or proposed housing developments located within the District’s bounds. A casino with 950 slot machines is proposed just outside of JVID bounds on Coal Mine Road, just south of Buena Vista Road, by the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians. The Board of Supervisors considered, but did not adopt an agreement with the casino proponents in 2008. The casino question is scheduled for arbitration in 2008.416 If reliant on groundwater, the proposed casino could potentially cause groundwater 414 The population estimate for the District is the product of the number of homes within the boundary area and the average household size (2.3) in Amador County in 2008, according to the California Department of Finance. 415 Interview with JVID Office Manager, January 28, 2008. 416 Marks, J., “Third time's not the charm for casino agreement,” Amador Ledger Dispatch, March 13, 2008. II-282 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT overdraft in the vicinity; if so, it plans to apply to JVID for a water contract.417 However, JVID does not intend to supply the proposed casino, which is located outside its bounds.418 The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING JVID reports that current financing is sufficient to deliver services, but does not cover the costs of supplying treated water. The District reports that pipeline reserves at the end of 2007 fell short of the District’s goals. The District tracks its finances through a single enterprise fund. Total revenue in CY 2006 was $367,995. Revenue sources were water sales (40 percent), assessments (19 percent), hydroelectric power revenue (17 percent), rents from Lake Amador (12 percent), bottled water sales (6 percent), interest (4 percent), grants (2 percent), and property taxes (less than 1 percent). Water sales revenue was composed of sales for agricultural and fish farm uses, as well as sales to the Oaks Mobile Home community within District bounds. The District received approximately $30,000 in annual revenue from water sales outside District bounds to agricultural users and a cement factory. The District charges an annual assessment of $2.98-$17.88 per acre, with the rate varying based on distance to and accessibility of the creek and distribution lines. Water rates and assessments were last increased in 1991.419 Cost inflation was approximately 55 percent through 2007.420 The District has managed to maintain service levels, partly because it paid off its dam loan in 2001, and no longer makes the $56,000 annual debt payments. JVID receives 38 percent of net revenues from Hydro Tech, a company that manages and operates the Jackson Creek Dam hydroelectric plant. The District receives five percent of the first $1 million in gross income and six percent of gross income in excess of $1 million from its Lake Amador recreation concessionaire, Fanbasstic. Total expenditures for the year were $363,992. Costs are primarily composed of administration and general costs (43 percent), operations and maintenance (22 percent), capital depreciation (27 percent), water purchases (6 percent), and debt retirement (3 percent). 417 Jones and Stokes, Final Tribal Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California Gaming and Entertainment Facility, May 2007, p. 3P-14. 418 Jones and Stokes, Final Tribal Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California Gaming and Entertainment Facility, May 2007, p. J-3-138. 419 Interview with JVID Office Manager, January 28, 2008. 420 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, West, All Items, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-283 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District’s capital budget in 2008 of $34,000 includes maintenance of dam outlet/spillway access roads and distribution pipelines, and replacement of pumps. Such capital improvements are financed by rates and assessments. JVID plans to build a new pipeline to serve Mokelumne River water to domestic customers; this project is financed by a $2 million Prop. 50 grant. New connections must pay the cost of extending infrastructure. The District had long-term liabilities of $98,078 at the end of CY 2006. The liabilities consist of bonded debt ($90,573), reimbursement liability ($5,049) and compensated absences. The bonded debt is a 1979 general obligation bond issued by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for drought relief, and is interest-free. The reimbursement liability is debt owed by JVID to six property owners who installed irrigation hookups at their own expense; JVID reimburses connection fees paid by these owners from water sales revenue. JVID’s debt was 26 percent of its annual expenditures. The District does not have an adopted policy on its target level for financial reserves, although it generally tries to maintain approximately $300,000 in operating reserves. TPCD had unrestricted net assets of $556,620 at the close of CY 2006; that amounted to 153 percent of annual expenditures, or 18 months of working capital. At the close of CY 2007, the District had reserves of $445,000, of which $190,000 was capital reserves for pipeline replacement and vehicles and $254,000 was operating reserves.421 WATER SERVICES This section describes the nature, extent and location of the water services provided as well as key infrastructure and water sources. The tables provide further information and indicators of the agency’s water service supplies, demand, financing, service adequacy, and facilities. The water chapter in the MSR main document contains analysis and conclusions based on this information. NATURE AND EXTENT JVID supplies raw water to agricultural, fish farm, industrial and domestic uses. JVID sells bottled water to domestic users that are not connected to private wells. Its contractor, Hydro Tech, operates a hydroelectric facility owned by the District, generating power between May and September. The County has required residences to connect to private wells for domestic water since the early 1980s; however, previously the County allowed residences to connect to Lake Amador as a water source. As a result, there are approximately 60-62 homes that rely on Lake Amador for domestic water. The water is not suitable for drinking water purposes, as it contains treated wastewater effluent and is not treated to drinking water standards. Under a 2001 order from the California DPH, affected residents are required to buy bottled drinking water. JVID supplies bottled water at cost to the affected customers. In addition, JVID supplies raw water to a mobile 421 Jackson Valley Irrigation District, 2008 Budget, p. 8. II-284 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT home community outside its bounds. Otherwise, JVID is not responsible for domestic water service within its boundary area; residences rely on private water wells for domestic water. JVID supplies raw water to the Oaks Mobile Home Park and Lake Amador Recreation Area.422 Both communities operate their own private water treatment systems. JVID plans to pipe treated water from its Mokelumne River source to supply these customers through a project financed by a safe drinking water State Revolving Fund grant. The pipeline is expected to be completed by 2009. The District does not produce or use recycled water; however, a portion of its water source is wastewater effluent from the City of Jackson treated at tertiary levels. JVID does not practice conjunctive use. LOCATION JVID provides water services to a portion of its boundary area, and to some properties outside the bounds. JVID served 3,932 acres inside its bounds in 2006.423 The area served composes 29 percent of the 13,665 acres within the boundary area. JVID also serves areas outside its bounds, including 259 agricultural acres, the 209-home Oaks Mobile Home Park and a cement factory located nearby on Jackson Valley Road.424 INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure includes the District’s water supplies, a reservoir, 30 miles of distribution lines, and hydroelectric generation facilities at Jackson Creek Dam. The primary water sources are Jackson Creek and the Mokelumne River. A portion of the flows through Jackson Creek are composed of wastewater effluent from the City of Jackson, which is treated to tertiary levels. JVID has rights to store up to 36,000 af of Jackson Creek flows.425 It may divert flows to Lake Amador between November and May at a maximum rate of 110 cfs. Due to reservoir capacity constraints, the District typically uses about 10,000 af of this right. The safe yield is 8,500 af. Jackson Creek water quality has declined somewhat in recent years, with a greater portion of the source composed of treated wastewater effluent. Upstream flows in Jackson Creek have declined in recent years as a result of AWA piping the Amador Canal, which had previously leaked significant water into Jackson Creek.426 Growth in the City of Jackson’s wastewater service area has also 422 LARA is operated by a private concessionaire, Fanbasstic, under a lease agreement with JVID that expires in 2040. By contract, Fanbasstic is responsible for compliance with regulatory requirements relating to its domestic water and wastewater systems. 423 Jackson Valley Irrigation District, 2006 Annual Director’s Report, 2007. 424 Ibid. 425 Water Rights Permits 11224 and 11589. 426 Regional Water Quality Control Board, Order R5-2007-0133, 2007, p. F-6. BY BURR CONSULTING II-285 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II increased the volume of effluent.427 Future flows will be affected by the City’s evolving plans for wastewater treatment and disposal. JVID has rights to divert up to 3,850 af of Mokelumne River at a diversion rate of 50 cfs; the diversion is authorized year-round for domestic and stock watering uses, and between March and October for irrigation uses.428 However, JVID does not hold rights to store this water. JVID’s diversion rights are appropriative, based on a 1927 application, and are subject to reversion to upstream needs. Reversion to upstream needs is determined by SWRCB, and any reversion of more than 2,200 af must be accompanied by a substitute water source. AWA applied for reversion of 1,050 af, and is considering substitution of recycled water for a portion of JVID's Mokelumne River water right. AWA proposes to discharge tertiary treated effluent in Jackson Creek during winter months. JVID is evaluating its water rights through a study funded by the County. Mokelumne River water flows by gravity from Pardee Reservoir to Lake Amador. The District requests and usually receives 3,850 af annually from EBMUD, although it is subject to availability and none was provided in 2007 because it was a dry year. The water quality of the Mokelumne River is generally good, and is described by EBMUD as snowmelt. JVID does not provide water treatment services directly. Domestic water customers—Oaks Mobile Home Park and Lake Amador Recreation Area (LARA)—provide their own treatment services. A planned pipeline would supply the domestic customers with raw water from Pardee Reservoir, which is an approved source of drinking water. However, the LARA domestic treatment system and storage facilities would not be upgraded with existing SRF funding for the Pardee pipeline project. The cost of upgrading the LARA treatment system is approximately $150,000. Lake Amador is a 22,000 af reservoir that was built in 1965. The dam height is 193 feet. The dam is inspected annually by the State and FERC. Domestic water storage for the LARA facility is inadequate. DPH has estimated it would cost $100,000 to address this need. The distribution network consists of 30 miles of pipeline and 2 pump stations. There are 12-15 fire hydrants located throughout the District. The District’s emergency response plan includes inundation maps, and contact flow charts. JVID tests its emergency response to dam failure annually, conducts a functional exercise on dam collapse every 5 years, and conducts face-to-face updates every year with all parties involved. In the event of emergencies, JVID would rely on existing water sources, groundwater and/or bottled water. 427 California Department of Public Health, Preliminary Engineering Report: Jackson Valley Irrigation District, October 12, 2007. 428 California State Water Resources Control Board, Decision 1490, January 25, 1979. II-286 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT Table II-14-3: JVID Water Service Profile Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water JVID Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water JVID Groundwater Extraction Private Water Treatment Private Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water Irrigated areas within District bounds (3,932 acres) and 252 acres outside Wholesale Water Lake Amador Recreation Area, Oaks Mobile Home Park (outside bounds), cement factory (outside bounds) and retail water service area. Recycled Water None Boundary Area 21.4 sq. miles Population (2007) 345 System Overview Average Daily Demand 9.42 mgd Peak Demand July is peak month Supply 39,850 af Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Lake Amador reservoir 22,000 af Good 1965 Jackson Creek Dam hydroelectric 0.46 mw Fair 1982 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 1 Storage Capacity (mg) 7,169 Pump Stations 2 Pressure Zones None established Production Wells 0 Pipe Miles 30 Other: Fish raising facilities Recreation facilities: boat ramp, 190 campsites with water and sewer Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies A meter on the District's main line does not function, and needs to be replaced. Water supplied to the Lake Amador Recreation Area (LARA) and Oaks Mobile Home Park is not approved by the State for domestic use. A planned pipeline will supply water from Pardee Reservoir at a $2 million cost funded by an SRF grant. The LARA water treatment system is old and needs to be upgraded ($150,000 cost). LARA need additional water storage ($100,000). Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: JVID cooperated with DPH in evaluating alternative water sources for domestic water users in the service area. JVID relies on EBMUD for releases of Mokelumne River water to its service area. Opportunities: AWA is considering substitution of recycled water for a portion of JVID's Mokelumne River water right, which involves sharing of JVID facilities with AWA for wastewater disposal purposes. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-287 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Demand and Supply Service Connections, 2006 Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 181 172 9 Irrigation/Landscape 177 170 7 Domestic 1 0 1 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 1 0 1 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 2 2 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total 9,191 9,807 11,450 NP NP NP NP Residential NP 56 64 NP NP NP NP Commercial/Industrial NP 0 21 NP NP NP NP Irrigation/Landscape 5,779 7,375 8,289 NP NP NP NP Fish Farms NP 2,377 3,075 NP NP NP NP Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm Jackson Creek surface 10,000 3 6,000 8 ,700 Mokelumne River surface 3,850 3,850 0 Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total 9,191 9,807 11,450 13,850 13,850 13,850 13,850 Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surface 9,191 9,807 11,450 13,850 13,850 13,850 13,850 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)1 Year 1: 8 ,700 Year 2: NP Year 3: NP Significant Droughts 1976, 1977, 1988-94 Storage Practices Lake Amador Drought Plan Reduce acreage supplied with water, curtail water proportionate to availability. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering No Conservation Pricing Users pay rates based on estimated amount of water used. Other Practices None identified. continued II-288 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT Water Rates and Financing Agricultural & Irrigation Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Crop Annual Rate Description Alfalfa $65.90/acre including water rates and $17.88/acre assessment (Class 1) Pasture $63.28/acre including water rates and $17.88/acre assessment (Class 1) $58.81/acre including water rates and $13.41/acre assessment (Class 2) $54.34/acre including water rates and $ 8.94/acre assessment (Class 3) $51.36/acre including water rates and $ 5.96/acre assessment (Class 4) Vineyard $32.90/acre including water rates and $8.94/acre assessment (Class 3) Walnuts $36.70/acre including water rates and $8.94/acre assessment (Class 3) Special Rates Customers pay lower rates if they pump directly from the creek, and pay higher rates for water pumped to a distribution pond through the Kreth line. Customers outside the boundaries pay higher water rates, but do not pay assessments. $10/month standby charge for parcels within bounds that are not actively served. Wholesale Water Rates $30/af for industrial uses. $42/af for raw domestic water. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description The District evaluates the need for rate and assessment increases annually through its budget process. Most Recent Rate Change 1991 Frequency of Rate Changes as needed Water Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach New users must pay the cost of connection. Connection Fee Timing Upon application Connection Fee Amount Cost Land Dedication Requirements As needed Development Impact Fee NA Water Enterprise Revenues, CY 062 Expenditures, CY 06 Source Amount % Amount Total $367,995 100% Total $363,992 Rates & charges $168,065 46% Administration $154,843 Property tax $388 0% O & M $78,891 Grants $7,078 2% Capital Depreciation $96,980 Interest $13,992 4% Debt $10,000 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $23,278 Assessments $68,574 19% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges, usage charges, and assessments. (2) Other revenue sources include hydroelectric power revenue (17 percent) and rents from Lake Amador (12 percent). Bottled water sales (6 percent) are included in the rates and charges category. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-289 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators Water Planning Description Planning Horizon Water Master Plan None NA UWMP None - not required NA Capital Improvement Plan None NA Emergency Response Plan Contact plan, inundation maps NA Service Challenges 1) Water supply does not meet existing demand, and would not accommodate additional customers requesting connections. 2) Water pressure tends to drop in high-irrigation summer months. 3) JVID does not have information on water use because its main meter does not function. Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 75 O&M Cost Ratio1 $8,371 MGD Delivered/FTE 3.9 Distribution Loss Rate NP Response Time Policy 15 minutes Response Time Actual 10-15 minutes Water Pressure low and variable in summers Total Employees (FTEs) 2 .4 Water Operator Certification The LARA water treatment operator is certified by the State as a T2 operator. Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information2 # Description Health Violations 9 Surface Water Treatment 2003 (8), 2004 Monitoring Violations 1 Coliform monitoring 2004 DW Compliance Rate4 NP Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System, on the LARA system. (3) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2007. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • There has been minimal growth in the District’s boundary area in recent years. • Service demand has been relatively stable, although there have been annexation requests related to well that have dried out. • Future residential growth is expected to be limited, as there are no planned or proposed developments within the District. • A proposed casino located adjacent to, but just outside of District bounds, would affect the District, if approved. If its proposed groundwater use causes groundwater overdraft, the proposed casino would apply to JVID for a water contract. However, the proposed casino is located outside District bounds and the District does not intend to supply it with water. II-290 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • JVID does not have adequate water supplies or distribution systems to serve its entire area, and serves about 22 percent of the boundary area. • JVID’s future water supply is uncertain. Although JVID has diversion rights to Mokelumne River water, it lacks storage rights. AWA has applied for reversion of a portion of JVID Mokelumne River rights, and proposes to substitute this with a supply of recycled water. JVID water supply declined after the Amador Canal was piped. The City of Jackson supplies a portion of the JVID water supply in the form of tertiary-treated wastewater effluent; future such supplies depend on decisions of regulatory agencies. The impacts of wastewater effluent on the JVID water supplies should be evaluated. • JVID supplies bottled water to 62 homes that rely on untreated surface water from Lake Amador for domestic water. A planned pipeline would supply Mokelumne River water to a mobile home park and the Lake Amador Recreation Area (LARA) by 2009. • The LARA water treatment system is old and needs to be upgraded, and the system needs additional water storage. • A meter on the District's main line does not function, and needs to be replaced so the District can effectively monitor and report on water use. • The District could improve its operations and service level by preparing a master plan and capital improvement plan. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • Financing is sufficient to provide existing services, but does not cover the costs of supplying treated water. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • Mokelumne River water is distributed to JVID via EBMUD facilities at Pardee Reservoir. JVID water supplies are affected by City of Jackson wastewater effluent, and potential reversion of Mokelumne River rights to AWA. • AWA is considering substitution of recycled water for a portion of JVID’s Mokelumne River water right. If this should occur, JVID facilities would be shared with AWA for wastewater disposal purposes. BY BURR CONSULTING II-291 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • JVID has sufficient governing body interest to hold occasional contested elections in recent years. • The District’s outreach efforts are limited to mailings prior to board meetings and special notices. • JVID serves areas outside its bounds, including adjacent agricultural uses, a cement factory and a mobile home park, where users do not participate in District elections. A government structure option is annexation of such areas. • JVID does not serve the majority of its boundary area due to inadequate water supplies. A government structure option is detachment of unserved areas. • There are homes served by raw water within the boundary area. An option is expansion of District services to include distribution of treated water. The District’s recreation concessionaire operates a domestic water system. However, the District reported that it opposes this option due to its perception of negative fiscal impacts, limited water supplies and impacts on voting practices. II-292 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO KIRKWOOD MEADOWS PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT 15. K I R K WOO D M E A D OW S P U B L I C U T I L I T Y D I S T R I C T Kirkwood Meadows Public Utility District (KMPUD) provides fire, water, wastewater, electric and gas utilities, solid waste, mosquito abatement, cable television, snow removal, public buildings, and parks and recreation services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION KMPUD detached from El Dorado Irrigation District on July 1, 1985 and became an independent special district.429 The principal act that governs the District is the Public Utility District Act.430 The principal act empowers the District to acquire, construct, own, operate, control, or use works for supplying light, water, power, heat, transportation, telephone service, or other means of communication, or means for the disposal of garbage, sewage, or refuse matter.431 In addition, the District may acquire, construct, own, complete, use, and operate a fire department, street lighting system, public parks and other recreation facilities, and provide for the drainage of roads, streets, and public places.432 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000.433 BOUNDARY AND SOI KMPUD stretches into three counties: Amador, Alpine and El Dorado. Alpine is the principal LAFCO and has jurisdiction over the District. KMPUD’s bounds encompass approximately 1.1 square miles (704 acres) in the three counties.434 KMPUD bounds within Amador County are 429 Alpine LAFCO Resolution 84-1. 430 Public Utilities Code §15501-17501. 431 Public Utilities Code §16461. 432 Public Utilities Code §16463. 433 Government Code §56824.10. 434 El Dorado LAFCO, Water, Wastewater and Power Municipal Services Review, 2007, p. 1-1. BY BURR CONSULTING II-293 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II located in the far northeast of the County, beginning just south of Silver Lake and stretching northward into the other counties435 The District’s SOI within Amador County was not identified. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE KMPUD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors. The Directors are elected by district to staggered, four -year terms. The most recent contested election took place in November 2005. Voter turnout for the election was 80 percent of the registered voters in the District. See Table II-15-1 for information on individual supervisors, term expirations, and contact information. Table II-15-1: KMPUD Governing Body Kirkwood Meadows Public Utilities District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Peter Dornbrook President Dec-09 Laurence Lacey Vice President Dec-11 Members Richard Reuter Treasurer Dec-09 Leo Smith Secretary Dec-09 Frank Majors Asst. Secretary Dec-11 Manner of Selection Elections by division Length of Term Four years Meetings Date: First Thursday of each month Location: NP Agenda Distribution Online, posted Minutes Distribution Online, posted Contact Contact General Manager Mailing Address P.O. Box 247 Kirkwood, CA 95646 Telephone (209) 258-4444 Email/Website kmpud@volcano.net, http://www.kmpud.com/ The District informs constituents through website, where public documents can be accessed, including agendas and minutes. KMPUD board meetings are televised on community channel 19. The District also publishes a quarterly newsletter that is included in customer bills for utility services, but the latest version posted on the website dates from 2005. Other District community outreach efforts include contributions to the local newspaper that comes out every two months, involvement in other community and agency meetings, and hosting of fundraiser events for the fire department. The District reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. 435 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of KMPUD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. II-294 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO KIRKWOOD MEADOWS PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT The District displays contact information on its website and the community channel 19 for customer complaints and questions. Most complaints are referred to the assistant manager to be resolved. Complaints usually related to larger than usual bills in the case of leaks. The District reported that there are not many water quality or wastewater complaints. Only water related complaints are tracked for the District’s report to the State Department of Public Health; however, the District estimates that it received approximately 12 complaints regarding all services in 2007. The District demonstrated partial accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency cooperated with select document requests and responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires. MANAGEMENT The District employs a total of nine full-time year round staff, seven seasonal staff, and 15 call firefighters. Daily operations of the District are managed by a general manager, who is appointed by the Board. The general manager oversees the daily operations of the District and reports to the board at regular meetings. The District also employs an assistant manager, a part-time fire chief, a superintendent, two operations personnel for water and wastewater activities, a mechanic, two clerical staff, and seven seasonal staff for snow removal. Employees are evaluated annually by the general manager. The District does not formally track staff productivity; although, employees must complete a salary sheet twice a month for billing purposes. The District does not perform evaluations of districtwide operations. The District’s planning efforts include a 1997 fire service master plan and a Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. The District’s Board also adopts long-term goals to guide District efforts. The District’s financial planning documents include annually adopted budgets, although the FY 07-08 budget was not adopted until November 2007. The District’s financial statements are audited annually; the FY 06-07 audit was provided to LAFCO. KMPUD does not maintain a capital improvement plan, but approves an annual capital budget for each department. The District reported that it has improved efficiency in recent years (since 2002) by building a new 12 unit employee housing complex, which allows employees to live near the District facilities and mitigates the impact of adverse weather on work productivity. The District has also developed a call schedule for the firefighters, which has resulted in increased responses to service calls. The District participates in a pooled insurance program through the Association of California Water Agencies. The Joint Powers Insurance Authority is a risk sharing pool only available to public entities. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH The portion of KMPUD within Amador County is vacant land with limited residential and commercial land use around Silver Lake. The area is zoned as open forest. There is some general forest (Timber Preserve Zone) as well. The Kirkwood community area within Amador is zoned as a special planning area. BY BURR CONSULTING II-295 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The unincorporated community of Kirkwood is in Alpine County, within the Eldorado National Forest. Kirkwood is a mountain resort community. Peak activity and population occur during snow season. The village core includes a combination of residential, lodging and commercial uses serving residents and guests. The most significant employer with District bounds is Kirkwood Ski & Summer Resort, followed by Kirkwood Community Association (a property management company), Kirkwood Lodging (condo rentals) and Kirkwood Accommodations (condo rentals). Other businesses include tourist-oriented businesses such as inns and ski schools, as well as a general store and a few restaurants. The State Department of Transportation has an office in Kirkwood, as well. There are 150 residents in KMPUD bounds, but seasonal daily population maximums may reach 6,500 persons.436 The District’s population density is 17 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64 in Amador. The District reported that growth has been consistently increasing in the last few years, resulting in an increase for District provided services. There have been an average of five to six new single family residences and one condominium unit with 12 to 50 units annually, according to the District. Growth is concentrated in the village core, which is located in both Amador and Alpine counties. Future growth and development is expected to continue to increase at a similar rate seen recently with a several new single family dwelling units and an occasional condominium. There are no major planned or proposed subdivisions in the Amador portion of the District. The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. Growth strategies within the Amador County portion of the District are defined by the County in the Kirkwood Specific Plan. For comprehensive planning throughout the community, the three counties (Amador, Alpine and El Dorado) meet monthly to review and act as needed on matters pertaining to land use in Kirkwood. The District hopes to expand its SOI to include the area at the top of Ski Lift 2, located to the southeast of the District’s boundaries. The resort is planning to construct a restaurant in the area and the District hopes to provide utilities. FINANCING The District reported that current financing levels are inadequate for fire services and solid waste service. The District is in the process of reviewing solid waste collection rates, as well as the fire assessment and fire development impact fee. Rates for water and wastewater services were reported as being adequate to provide service in the near future. The District tracks its finances separately for the three governmental services—fire, parks and mosquito abatement. Financing for business activities are tracked separately as well, through funds for water, wastewater, solid waste, snow removal, and employee housing. 436 Kirkwood Meadows Public Utility District, 2007 Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program, 2008, p. 2. II-296 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO KIRKWOOD MEADOWS PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT The District’s total revenues were $2.2 million in FY 06-07—$181,796 for governmental activities and $2 million for business activities. Primary revenue sources include property tax (33 percent), water and wastewater rates (29 percent), snow removal rates (11 percent), and fire department revenue including assessments, impact fees and contributions (eight percent). KMPUD has a fire protection service charge which is used to cover equipment, insurance, personnel costs and will also help to begin a fund for expansion.437 In addition, KMPUD receives funds from AFPD for responding automatically in AFPD’s bounds. AFPD pays Kirkwood Meadows PUD $2,200 annually plus $72 per response. District expenditures were $1.7 million in FY 06-07. Of this amount, 36 percent was spent on services and supplies, 20 percent on administration, 19 percent on wastewater treatment, and 12 percent on water pumping, treatment and distribution. The District had $1.1 million in long-term debt outstanding at the end of FY 06-07. The debt consisted of $0.3 million for an employee housing loan. The District will complete payments on the loan in 2012. An additional $0.8 million was for a loan to financing snow removal equipment. The loan will be repaid in 2016. In addition to long-term debt held by the District, the District also established a community facilities district (CFD), which issued bonds in 1999 and 2000 to finance sewer treatment plant improvements. Each property within the CFD is assessed to repay the bonds. The District does not have a formal policy on maintaining financial reserves. KMPUD had $1.4 million in unrestricted net assets at the close of FY 06-07—$0.6 million in the enterprise funds and $0.8 million in the governmental fund. This amount is equivalent to 66 percent of expenditures in FY 06-07. In other words, the District maintained almost eight months of working reserves. The District participates in a joint financing mechanism as a member of the Association of California Water Agencies—a risk sharing insurance pool. 437 Alpine County, Kirkwood Specific Plan, 2003. BY BURR CONSULTING II-297 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II WATER SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The District provides domestic and irrigation water services to 848 active water connections, of which 634 are residential, 45 are commercial, and 169 are irrigation (residential and agricultural). 438 KMPUD receives its water supply entirely from groundwater wells. LOCATION The District provides water services only within district boundaries, which includes portions of Alpine, El Dorado and Amador counties. KMPUD does not provide water services outside of its boundaries. INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure used to provide water services includes four active wells, two storage tanks and approximately nine miles of pipelines. The District owns and maintains four wells that pump water from an unclassified aquifer. The wells have a combined capacity of 220 gpm. In 2007, the District pumped a total of 23.95 mg of groundwater with a maximum day flow of 0.1 mgd. The District also maintains an inactive well. DPH has recommended that the District abandon this well according to State standards. In addition, DPH recommended that the District improve site security for Wells 4 and 5. According to correspondence between the District and DPH, each of the deficiencies identified in the report have been addressed or will be addressed by the end of 2008. The Lodge and Dangberg storage tanks were installed in 1997 and 1991 respectively. The tanks have a combined storage capacity of .95 mg. The Dangberg tank was identified as being in poor condition, and the District planned to remove it in 2008. The pipelines are primarily composed of PVC and asbestos cement. The pipelines were identified as being in fair condition by DPH. The District experienced two main leaks or breaks in 2007. The District reported that the breaks were caused by construction accidents. The distribution has seven pressure zones with pressures that range from 50 to 130 psi. The Kirkwood Meadows PUD water system was identified as generally well maintained and operated by DPH. 438 Kirkwood Meadows Public Utility District, Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for Year Ending December 31, 2007, p. 2. II-298 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO KIRKWOOD MEADOWS PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT WASTEWATER SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT KMPUD collects, treats and disposes of wastes generated from residential and commercial units, including the Kirkwood Ski Resort.439 LOCATION KMPUD’s wastewater treatment plant serves only the area within its boundaries in Alpine and Amador Counties. The District does not provide wastewater services outside of its boundaries. INFRASTRUCTURE Key wastewater infrastructure includes a WWTP, leachfields and nine miles of collection lines. The WWTP provides tertiary treatment and disinfection. 440 Treated effluent is disposed of in subsurface leachfields and sludge is dewatered and disposed of off-site in a landfill. KMPUD upgraded its WWTP in the fall of 2005 to a membrane bioreactor treatment process. The treatment plant has a monthly average design capacity of 0.19 mgd, with a peak flow design capacity of 0.27 gpd. Monthly average influent flows in 2006 ranged from 0.02 gpd to 0.09 gpd. The WWTP has a high degree of reliability. All key facility components have redundant standby units so that treatment can proceed at full capacity even when a piece of equipment is out of service. In addition, KMPUD generates its own electrical power with onsite diesel generators. Treated effluent is pumped into eight subsurface leachfields.441 The leachfields can dispose of a monthly average flow of .19 gpd and a peak daily flow of .43 gpd. According to the RWQCB, the system has sufficient disposal capacity to provide services given the current flows.442 The original wastewater collection system was installed 35 years ago. It is composed of primarily PVC and asbestos cement pipe. The collection system suffers from infiltration during the spring when snowmelt is occurring. Infiltration represents approximately 30 percent of the total wastewater flow.443 The District completed an assessment to prioritize lines in need of replacement. The District plans to begin the replacement program in 2008 and continue cleaning and smoke testing five percent of the system annually. 439 WDR Order R5-2007-0125. 440 WDR Order R5-2007-0125 Information Sheet. 441 WDR Order R5-2007-0125 Information Sheet. 442 CVRWQCB, Order No. R5-2007-0125. 443 KMPUD, Inflow and Infiltration Assessment Report, October 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-299 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II FIRE AND EMS SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The Kirkwood Volunteer Fire Department provides year-round structural fire protection services under the direction of KMPUD. The Department is also responsible for snow removal around fire hydrants.444 KMPUD pays outside consultants to review fire protection systems and services. Several agencies provide backup support for the volunteer department. Amador Fire Protection District provides assistance by request per a mutual aid agreement. The Department has automatic aid agreements with the Markleeville and Woodfords volunteer fire departments. Lake Valley Fire Department in the South Lake Tahoe area is also notified for response to Kirkwood.445 The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) provides wildland fire response in the Kirkwood vicinity from Lumberyard Station, 16 miles west of Kirkwood. The second responding station for wildland fires is the joint CALFIRE – USFS station located at Dewdrop, 27 miles west of Kirkwood.446 The Department has one paid employee, the fire chief, who works 16 hours per week. Fifteen call firefighters work under the chief. The average age of call firefighters is 32 years, with an average tenure of three years. The turnover rate for call firefighters in 2007 was 38 percent, and in 2006 it was 27 percent. However, staffing has remained constant due to successful recruitment of call firefighters. The Department recruits new call firefighters through word-of-mouth and flyers. Call firefighters generally attend 100 to 200 hours of training per year. Firefighters meet on Wednesday nights at 5:30 pm for regular training events. Volunteers are trained per the State’s Fire Training Certification for Volunteer Firefighters curriculum as well as with the International Fire Service Training Association’s training manual. Attendance for specialty training is difficult due to work conflicts. Call firefighters are given $10 for weekly training attendance and $20 for each call response. In addition, call firefighters may sign up for on-call shifts and earn $15 per hour for the 12-hour shifts. There are four 12-hour shift positions each day. Peak incident hours are on weekends. Response times are slowest during the resort area’s slow season (late spring through October) because of the lack of employment available in the area. In addition to the tax allocation received from each County, the Department receives fire funding from annual assessments and development impact fees for projects within Amador and 444 KMPUD Board of Directors, Meeting Minutes, April 13, 2006, p. 5. 445 Alpine County, Kirkwood Specific Plan, 2003, p.46. 446 Alpine County, Kirkwood Specific Plan, 2003. II-300 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO KIRKWOOD MEADOWS PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT Alpine Counties. The fire assessment fee is four cents per square foot of improvement on each lot, residential and commercial. Assessment revenues are used for equipment and facility construction. Impact fees are 47 cents per square foot of new construction. This revenue is put into a trust fund for the purchase of new equipment or construction.447 The Department reports that is able to serve planned developments in the area. To improve service, the Department would like to add paramedics so as to provide more advanced medical care. Dispatch and Communications All 911 calls made from land lines in Amador County are automatically routed to the Amador County Sheriff’s communication center in Jackson (the Public Safety Answering Point, PSAP). Cell phone 911 calls are answered by the California Highway Patrol in Stockton, and then are routed to the Sheriff. Fire and EMS calls are routed from the Sheriff’s Office to CALFIRE’s Camino Interagency Command Center, which in turn dispatches a CALFIRE unit as well as the appropriate local jurisdiction responder. KMPUD is dispatched to all calls within its primary response area. All fire providers in Amador County, including KMPUD, communicate through the same radio systems. Due to shared radio frequencies, KMPUD is able to communicate with other providers. When multiple service providers respond to an incident, the first unit to arrive on scene is responsible for incident command. The first responder notifies other providers whether and when sufficient personnel have arrived on scene. For incidents such as vehicle accidents, law enforcement becomes responsible for incident coordination once it arrives on scene through universal command protocols; prior to law enforcement arriving on scene, the first responding fire provider remains responsible for incident command. LOCATION KVFD serves areas throughout KMPUD’s bounds. Within Amador County, KVFD has a primary response area of approximately six square miles in the northwest tip of the County. The area encompasses Silver Lake and southward to Plasse. INFRASTRUCTURE The current fire station is in the KMPUD administration building. The facility is in good condition. A public conference room is available for use in the building. The District reports that no new facilities are needed or planned at this time. No infrastructure or equipment needs were reported by the Department, although the Department does not have wildland fire equipment. 447 Alpine County, Kirkwood Specific Plan, 2003, p.91. BY BURR CONSULTING II-301 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-15-2: KMPUD Fire Profile Fire Service Service Configuration Service Demand Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 EMS Direct Total Service Calls 128 Ambulance Transport American Legion % EMS 41% Hazardous Materials Calaveras and San Joaquin Counties1 % Fire 2% Air Rescue & Ambulance HelicopterCHP, Private % Vehicle Accidents 11% Fire Suppression Helicopter CALFIRE % Other 46% Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls NP Fire/EMS Dispatch CALFIRE Calls per 1,000 residents 79 Service Adequacy Resources ISO Rating 4/NP2 Fire Stations in District 1 Median Response Time (min)3 12:00 Fire Stations Serving District 1 90th Percentile Response Time (min) NP Sq. Miles Served per Station 4 7 Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 5 16 Training Total Full-time Firefighters6 1 Regular meetings are held weekly. Specialty courses are offered Total Call Firefighters 15 throughout the year. Training is attended 100 to 200 hours/year. Total Sworn Staff per Station 7 15 Service Challenges Total Sworn Staff per 1,0008 79 Maintaining call firefighter staffing levels is the largest challenge. Difficult Staffing Base Year 2008 to serve areas include Silver Lake due to road and weather conditions. Fire Flow Water Reserves 1.1. MG Facilities Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus Kirkwood 33540 Loop Rd Good Volunteer NP Meadows Kirkwood, CA Fire Service Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies The District reported that it does not have any infrastructure needs or deficiencies related to fire service; although the District does not have wildland fire equipment. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers Current Practices: There is a public conference room available in the Markleeville and Woodfords VFDs, administration building for use by outside organizations. KMPUD collaborates AFPD and Lake Valley FD with AFPD by providing automatic aid to the area outside of its bounds. Opportunities: No future facility sharing opportunities were identified by the District. Notes: (1) CALFIRE has a MOU with Calaveras County and a secondary MOU with San Joaquin County for hazmat services. (2) The District was unable to report its rural ISO rating. (3) The District provided the average response time to the valley area and reported that response time outside of that area are longer. (4) Primary service area (square miles) in Amador County per station. (5) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. (6) One paid firefighter works 16 hours per week. (7) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. (8) Total staff per year-round residents. Total staff per peak population during winter season declines to 2.1 staff per 1,000. II-302 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO KIRKWOOD MEADOWS PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The District operates and maintains the Kirkwood Playground when weather permits on leased land. LOCATION KMPUD provides parks and recreation services within District bounds. The park maintained by the District is located within the District’s boundaries in Alpine County. Residents and non- residents may use the park for free. INFRASTRUCTURE The District owns and maintains playground equipment on a leased 0.25-acre lot. The equipment is taken down and stored in winter months. The District did not identify any park infrastructure needs or deficiencies. BY BURR CONSULTING II-303 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 16. L O C K WO O D F I R E P RO T E C T I O N D I S T R I C T Lockwood Fire Protection District (LFPD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION LFPD was formed on August 12, 1986 as an independent special district.448 LFPD was formed to provide fire protection, fire suppression and basic life support services. The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.449 The principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical, hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives and property.450 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000.451 BOUNDARY AND SOI LFPD bounds cover unincorporated territory in north-central Amador County. The bounds encompass approximately 19 square miles along the central Amador-El Dorado County line. LFPD is located east of the unincorporated Fiddletown community and north of Volcano. Bounds generally follow Shake Ridge Road, extending from Quartz Mountain Road to the CDF Fire Station at Dew Drop.452 LAFCO has no records of changes to the District’s bounds since its formation. 448 Formation date is from LAFCO records. 449 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970. 450 Health and Safety Code §13862. 451 Government Code §56824.10. 452 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of LFPD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with the District and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. II-304 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO LOCKWOOD FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The District’s SOI is not described in its formation resolution and there are no later LAFCO records pertaining to LFPD bounds. Based on the bounds of the adjacent fire district, the Executive Officer surmises the SOI is likely coterminous with LFPD bounds. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The principal act stipulates that a fire protection district’s board of directors must have an odd number of members, with a minimum of three and a maximum of 11.453 Directors may be appointed or elected to staggered four-year terms. Boards are to internally elect directors to the positions of president and vice-president. Accordingly, a five-member Board of Directors with elected leadership governs LFPD. LFPD directors are to be elected at-large, but in practice are appointed due to lack of contested seats. Current board members are listed with positions and term expirations in Table II-16-1. Table II-16-1: Lockwood FPD Governing Body Lockwood Fire Protection District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Andrea Jones President Nov-09 Chris Schneider Vice-President Nov-09 Members John Asmus Director Nov-11 Darryl Ann Dutton Director Nov-11 Homer Forbes Director Nov-09 Manner of Selection Appointments by Board; elections at large Length of Term Four years Meetings Date: Third Tuesdays Location: Station 151 Agenda Distribution Online, posted Minutes Distribution Online Contact Contact President Mailing Address P.O. Box 221, Volcano, CA 95689 Phone (209) 296-5122 Email/Website http://www.lockwoodfire.org The District performs constituent outreach through a quarterly newsletter, “Smoke Signals”, and an informative District website, community postings and word-of-mouth. Outreach and fundraising activities have included flea markets, a spaghetti feed, and a chili cook-off. The District reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. With regard to customer service, the District reported that in general complaints are limited and that communication by constituents with the District is most often inquiries as opposed to complaints. Complaints may be submitted to the President or the Board. The District reported that it received no complaints in 2007. 453 Health and Safety Code §13842. BY BURR CONSULTING II-305 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. MANAGEMENT District operations are managed by the fire chief. District performance is monitored with the use of the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS), which logs the type of service calls received. Response times are not a focus of performance evaluation because of hazardous weather and windy roads. No specific response time targets or guidelines are set due to these limitations. The Chief performs personnel evaluations as on-the-spot individual critiques. The Board evaluates the Chief on an as-needed basis. District financial planning efforts include annual budgets, annual financial audits and capital improvement plans. The most recent audit was completed in 2007. The District prepares its capital improvement plan with a 10-year planning horizons, although the District reported the 2008 revision may only span five years. The District provided LAFCO a copy of a CIP that was last updated in 2004. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Present land uses in District bounds are mostly agricultural, vacant and suburban-residential (i.e., five-acre lots on average), and include some timber preserve zones. The timber preserve zone is located in the northernmost part of the District.454 Logging is a key industry in the area. A major business in the District is Big Trees Market. The District serves approximately 1,250 parcels and a total of 1,200 housing units, of which approximately 1,100 are occupied. Unoccupied homes are primarily vacation homes that are occupied sporadically.455 According to the District, there are approximately 1,000 residents within District bounds.456 The District’s population density is 53 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. Service demand has not increased due to development or population growth in recent years; there are no large communities within bounds. No developments are planned or proposed in the area. Brockman Mill Road has expressed interest in being annexed to the District; this area is currently in the AFPD bounds and primary service area. 454 Amador County, General Plan Existing (2007) Land Use Classifications Map, 2007. 455 Communication with Andrea Jones, Director, March 19, 2008. 456 LFPD Website, URL accessed 2/12/08, http://www.lockwoodfire.org/index.htm. II-306 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO LOCKWOOD FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The District operates on a minimal budget, but reported being able to provide an adequate service level. Although the District does not currently have sufficient funds for the purchase of future apparatus and additional personal protective equipment due to financing constraints, it anticipates the continued use of community donations and successful grant requests to accommodate these purchases. Until additional funding is identified through grants or other alternatives, the District cannot hire and equip any additional call firefighters.457 Additional financing would be needed if the community wishes to increase the service level to paid fire fighters. The District tracks its finances through three governmental funds. The general fund is the primary operating fund. The District tracks impact and mitigation fees through special revenue funds. The District tracks acquisition or construction of major capital facilities or equipment through its capital improvement fund, such as funds from FEMA grants and assessments applied for capital improvements. Fire protection districts are authorized to collect revenue from special taxes, property assessments for fire services or capital improvements, and fees for service.458 Total revenues in FY 06-07 were $121,261. Revenue sources are assessments (62 percent), payments by AFPD (8 percent), donations (8 percent), mitigation fees (8 percent), impact fees (7 percent), and interest (5 percent). Assessments were collected on 1,250 parcels, occupied and vacant. Rates were $70 for improved parcels and $40 for unimproved parcels, for a total of $75,465.459 LFPD voters approved the assessment in 2002, when 71 percent approved Measure D. Half of the assessment revenue is currently used for capital improvements. New developments have the option of paying a $900 mitigation fee to be used for water supplies or installing a 2,500-gallon water tank for firefighting use.460 Total mitigation fee revenue in FY 06- 07 was $9,900. New primary residences pay a maximum of $600 in development impact fees (or $0.30 per square foot). Impact fee revenue in FY 06-07 totaled $8,750. As part of an aid agreement with AFPD, the District receives a minimal annual payment from AFPD, which covers a portion of LFPD workers’ compensation charges. 457 Interview with Andrea Jones, President, LFPD Board of Directors, January 17. 2008. 458 Health and Safety Code §13911-19. 459 LFPD, Annual Financial Statement, FY 06-07, p. 8. 460 LFPD, Fee Schedule, 2003. BY BURR CONSULTING II-307 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District’s expenditures were $93,798, excluding depreciation, in FY 06-07. Primary expenditures were vehicle expenses and supplies (43 percent), debt service and interest (41 percent), and capital purchases (15 percent). Employee compensation accounted for only one percent. The District had $234,485 in long-term debt as of June 30, 2007. The debt is a capital lease obligation for loans for the District’s second fire station, a fire engine and a portion of a water tender purchase that was refinanced. The debt is scheduled to be paid off in 2016.461 LFPD has no official reserve policy, but makes an effort to keep reserve funding available.462 Unrestricted net assets as of the close of FY 06-07 totaled $115,335. This amount is 123 percent of annual expenditures, and amounts to working capital of 15 months. FIRE AND EMS SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT LFPD provides fire protection, fire suppression and basic life support. For calls involving emergency medical services, LFPD provides basic life support (BLS) until American Legion Ambulance Service arrives to perform advanced life support and ambulance transport. The District also provides community burn assistance and inspects commercial sites within LFPD bounds for AFPD.463 Although CHP carries primary responsibility for traffic enforcement services, the District reported that it also provides this service. The District’s boundaries overlap with the CALFIRE State Response Area throughout its bounds, except for a few parcels of Federal Response Area. By law, CALFIRE provides primary wildland fire response and LFPD provides primary structure fire response.464 For information on further collaboration with CALFIRE, see Regional Collaboration. Most service calls are received during evenings and weekends. Volunteer response is least reliable during regular business hours. Personnel Sixteen call firefighters, including the Chief, comprise the District’s sworn personnel. The District reported that it cannot hire any additional call firefighters due to financing constraints 461 LFPD, Annual Financial Statements, FY 06-07, p. 11. 462 Interview with Andrea Jones, President, LFPD Board of Directors, January 17. 2008. 463 Ibid. 464 Pursuant to Health and Safety Code §13811. II-308 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO LOCKWOOD FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT precluding purchase of additional personal protective equipment.465 Grants, donations and community fundraising may be used to offset equipment and training costs. Three support personnel include a secretary, an administrative assistant, and a website manager. Positions are mostly voluntary, but nominal compensation is available for some positions. For example, the secretary receives a $50 monthly stipend. The Chief also earns a monthly stipend, although he currently donates that amount back to the District. LFPD has a training officer, and aims to provide new volunteers with the 259-hour education component of training needed to become a State-certified Firefighter 1. Personnel require at least six months of volunteer firefighter experience to become a State-certified Firefighter 1. For call firefighters to maintain their status within the District requires attendance at one training session monthly. The District holds training sessions on a weekly basis, with approximately ten firefighters attending each session on average. LFPD has access to all-day training events in collaboration with other service providers, including CALFIRE and AFPD, and hosts these events quarterly. Occasionally, classes are held at the CALFIRE Academy in Ione. EMT training is provided through locally-recognized providers. Of the call firefighters five are Firefighter I certified and five are EMT I certified. Call firefighter turnover in 2007 was 33 percent. On net, the District recruited enough volunteers to replace those who separated. Call firefighter recruitment strategies include outreach via the District’s newsletter and website as well as word-of-mouth. Regional Collaboration As with all fire providers in the County, LFPD is a part of AFPA. A countywide mutual aid agreement benefits LFPD in the northeastern portion of its bounds, where CALFIRE Battalion 20 responds also.466 The District has an automatic aid agreement with AFPD. In exchange for LFPD call staffing, AFPD pays a portion of LFPD’s workers’ compensation costs. The District collaborates with CALFIRE and AFPD in regional training events. Dispatch and Communications All 911 calls made from land lines in Amador County are automatically routed to the Amador County Sheriff’s communication center in Jackson (the Public Safety Answering Point, PSAP). Cell phone 911 calls are answered by the California Highway Patrol in Stockton, and then are routed to the Sheriff. Fire and EMS calls are routed from the PSAP to CALFIRE’s Camino Interagency Command Center, which in turn dispatches a CALFIRE unit as well as the appropriate local jurisdiction responder. LFPD is dispatched to all calls within its boundaries as well as its automatic aid areas. 465 Interview with Andrea Jones, President, LFPD Board of Directors, January 17. 2008. 466 Interview with Andrea Jones, President, LFPD Board of Directors, January 17. 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-309 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II All fire providers in Amador County, including LFPD, communicate through the same radio systems. Due to shared radio frequencies, LFPD is able to communicate with other providers. Currently Sutter County and Amador County share the same radio frequency. While a County separates Sutter and Amador counties, which meets frequency guidelines, an overlap occurs when the two areas are trying to use the same signal. The frequency is a secondary signal for Amador County and a primary signal for Sutter County. When multiple service providers respond to an incident, the first unit to arrive on scene is responsible for incident command. The first responder notifies other providers whether and when sufficient personnel have arrived on scene. For incidents such as vehicle accidents, law enforcement becomes responsible for incident coordination once it arrives on scene through universal command protocols; prior to law enforcement arriving on scene, the first responding fire provider remains responsible for incident command. All hazardous material incidents are overseen by CHP. LOCATION The District provides service within its bounds. In addition, through an automatic aid agreement with AFPD, the District provides services outside of its bounds generally from Louise Drive to Quartz Mountain and from Ponderosa Drive to Brockman Mill, in addition to Amador Pines and from Dew Drop to SR 88. CALFIRE often responds more quickly than LFPD in the northern part of the service area due to fire station proximity. INFRASTRUCTURE The District operates two fire stations, both of which are located on Shake Ridge Road. Station 151 was built in 2001 and is scheduled for remodeling in 2008, although it is reported as being in good condition.467 Station 152 was built in 2006 and is in excellent condition. Water reserves include four tanks totaling 20,000 gallons at Station 1. There is a hydrant at Station 2 that accesses a 150,000-gallon tank in the Mella subdivision. There are also hydrants in Mella, which are linked to the same well. Mella also has an older 20,000-gallon reserve water tank. Privately owned, but publicly accessible water sources include a total of 97,000 gallons. The District’s two water tenders have 4,000 gallons capacity each and each engine has approximately 1,250 gallons. The District’s capital improvement plan includes plans for 1) a large generator for district wide emergency use during power outages, 2) an additional squad vehicle and Chief’s vehicle, 3) six new spot lights, 4) an enclosed and secure fuel area, 5) a new roof at Station 2, 6) exhaust systems in both stations, 7) automatic station doors, 8) additional water sources, and 9) replacement of older an older water tender by 2018. 467 LFPD, Capital Improvement Plan, FY 03-04. II-310 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO LOCKWOOD FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The District reported a need for street numbers on properties in the area and maps showing which street numbers are associated with each parcel in the service area, as well as private water sources. Financing restricts some infrastructure and equipment needs for LFPD. SERVICE ADEQUACY There are two general indicators of service adequacy for municipal fire providers: ISO rating and response times. The Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization, classifies fire service in communities from 1 to 10, indicating the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best systems for water distribution, fire department facilities, equipment and personnel and fire alarms and communications receive a rating of 1. LFPD has an ISO rating of 8/9. Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster a response is required. The response time guideline established by the California EMS Agency is five minutes in urban areas, 15 minutes in suburban or rural areas, and as quickly as possible in wilderness areas. The District is classified as wilderness. LFPD’s 90th percentile response time is 16.9 minutes. Its median response time is 10.9 minutes. The District reported service challenges including windy roads, a prevalence of locked gates, snow, blocked roads, unimproved roads, financing constraints, board member transitions, and a lack of street numbering on properties served and/or maps showing which street number is associated with each parcel in the service area. BY BURR CONSULTING II-311 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-16-2: Lockwood FPD Fire Profile Fire Service Service Configuration Service Demand Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 EMS Direct Total Service Calls 200 Ambulance Transport American Legion % EMS 54% Hazardous Materials Calaveras and San Joaquin Counties1 % Fire 5% Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CHP, Private % Vehicle Accidents 8% Fire Suppression Helicopter CALFIRE % Other 34% Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 30% Fire/EMS Dispatch CALFIRE Calls per 1,000 people 143 Service Adequacy Resources ISO Rating 8/9 Fire Stations in District 2 Median Response Time (min) 10.9 Fire Stations Serving District 2 90th Percentile Response Time (min) 16.9 Sq. Miles Served per Station 2 11.5 Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 3 19 Training Total Full-time Firefighters 0 The District has weekly training events and a training officer. LFPD Total Call Firefighters 16 participates in regional training with CALFIRE, AFPD and American Total Sworn Staff per Station 4 8 Legion. Service Challenges Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 11 Challenges for the District include finding sufficient financing, volunteer Staffing Base Year 2008 staffing, and Board member turnover. Roads are sometimes narrow and there is a lack of street numbering in the area. Dispatch is not always Fire Flow Water Reserves5 287,000 gal. notifying the correct first responder. Sherwood Forest is a difficult-to- serve area due to blocked access; CALFIRE responds there. Facilities Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus Station 151 23141 Shakeridge Rd Good Unstaffed Type 1 Engine, Type 3 Engine, Water Volcano, CA tender (4,000 gal.) Station 152 19315 Shakeridge Rd Excellent Unstaffed Type 3 Engine, Water tender (4,000 Volcano, CA gal.), command vehicle Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies The District’s capital improvement plan includes plans for 1) a large generator for districtwide emergency use during power outages, 2) an additional squad vehicle and Chief’s vehicle, 3) six new spot lights, 4) an enclosed and secure fuel area, 5) a new roof at Station 2, 6) exhaust systems in both stations, 7) automatic station doors, 8) additional water sources, and 9) replacement of older an older water tender by 2018. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers Current Practices: There is a mutual aid agreement District facilities are available for approved community functions, elections, between AFPD, CALFIRE, the City of County Board election meetings, and emergency resources. The District hosts Ione, the City of Jackson, JVFPD, training events quarterly, and participates in regional training hosted by LFPD, and SCFPD. There is also an CALFIRE and AFPD, fire marshall classes, classes at the CALFIRE Academy, automatic aid agreement with AFPD. and EMT certification offered by Mountain Valley EMSA. Opportunities: The District could open stations as emergency shelters in severe weather (e.g., blizzards). Notes: (1) CALFIRE has a MOU with Calaveras County and a secondary MOU with San Joaquin County for hazmat services. (2) Primary service area (square miles) per station. (3) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. (4) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. (5) Reserves include public water and private water sources. II-312 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO LOCKWOOD FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • Service demand has not increased due to development or population growth. No developments are planned or proposed in the area. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The District presently has the capacity to serve the area with its existing facilities. As there is no significant growth planned or proposed within the District’s bounds in the near future, the currently facilities will accommodate service in the short-term. • The District provides adequate services given constrained financing. Among the seven fire providers in the County, the District has the highest sworn staff ratio per capita. • LFPD’s response time is nearing the California EMS rural guideline time; although, the entire District is classified as wilderness. • The District identified several infrastructure needs including three new vehicles, a generator for emergencies, several improvements to the stations and additional water sources. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The District operates on a minimal budget, but reported being able to provide an adequate service level. Additional funds are necessary to hire and equip any additional call firefighters and purchase major apparatus needed in the future. • The District should consider updating its assessment and ensuring the assessment adjusts with inflation to recover costs. • Additional financing would be needed if the community wishes to increase the service level to paid staff. • As new financing sources to will be distributed based on calls and population, LFPD will receive minimal additional revenues. The District hopes to pool those resources with AFPD to provide paid fire coverage of a station. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • LFPD collaborates with other fire providers in the County, providing and receiving automatic and mutual aid and through the AFPA. BY BURR CONSULTING II-313 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II • The District makes its station available for various community events, and would like to operate as an emergency shelter for the area as well. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • The District demonstrates a high degree of public participation in special events, although public interest in the governing body could be improved as indicated by a lack of contested elections. • The District appears to operate in an open manner that facilitates the public’s ability to learn about and participate in District affairs. • A potential governmental structure option is the consolidation of LFPD with AFPD. II-314 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE ACRES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 17. P I N E AC R E S C O M M U N I T Y S E RV I C E S D I S T R I C T Pine Acres Community Services District (PACSD) provides maintenance of private roads, street lighting services and oversight of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION AND BOUNDARY PACSD was formed on November 6, 1964, as an independent special district.468 PACSD was formed to provide street and roadway improvements, police protection, mosquito abatement, street lighting, recreation, fire protection, domestic water supply, and sewage and garbage disposal. The District initiated street maintenance, street lighting, fire protection, and retail water services at the time of formation; however, in 1994 and 1995 the District halted fire protection and water services, respectively, and these services were assumed by the Amador Fire Protection District and Amador Water Agency, respectively. Police protection, mosquito abatement and sewage and garbage disposal were never implemented by the District. The principal act that governs the District is Community Services District Law.469 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).470 PACSD’s boundary is located approximately one mile southeast of the community of Pine Grove in the vicinity of Pine Grove Tabeaud Road, east of Mt. Zion. The bounds begin near SR 88 (at the intersection of Maudren Lane and Pine Grove Tabeaud Road) and stretches southeasterly to along of Clinton Bar Road.471 The District covers approximately 841 acres, or approximately 1.3 acres. 468 BOS resolution 941. Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 469 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 470 Government Code §61106. 471 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of PACSD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this city or district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. BY BURR CONSULTING II-315 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II LAFCO records indicate two annexations to the District have occurred. The first, the Rodman annexation, occurred in 1969 and included an unknown amount of land. The second annexation, the Bets, et al. annexation, occurred in 1979 and included approximately 60 acres. However, it is unclear if this annexation was ever completed with a recorded certificate of completion.472 LAFCO records of PACSD’s sphere are not clear. The original SOI was adopted in April 1976, but no map is attached to the resolution in the LAFCO archives. Per the Executive Officer, a map in the District’s file dated March 1976 depicts an SOI coterminous with District bounds. The Executive Officer surmises the SOI is most likely coterminous with District bounds. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE PACSD is governed by a five-member board of directors who are to be elected at-large to four- year terms. In practice, however, all board members since 1994 have been nominated by the District and appointed by the Board of Supervisors, as each of the positions were uncontested. See Table II-17-1 for information on individual board members and term expiration. Table II-17-1: Pine Acres CSD Governing Body Pine Acres Community Services District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Earl Silliman Chair 1/1/2011 Thalice Hatten Treasurer 1/1/2009 Members O'Dell Landers Secretary 1/1/2011 Jim Green Member 1/1/2011 Herb Drefs Member 1/1/2009 Manner of Selection Members are elected at-large; if uncontested, may be appointed by County BOS Length of Term 4 years Date: Second Tuesday every other Location: District Office Meeting month at 7:00 pm Agenda Distribution Posted outside office Minutes Distribution By request Contact Contact Board Chair Mailing Address P.O. Box 384, Pine Grove, CA 95665 Phone NA Email/Website NA The District informs constituents through an annual newsletter and occasional events, such as neighborhood potlucks. The District reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. 472 LAFCO resolutions 69-12 and 79-133. II-316 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE ACRES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. The District reported that it tests the fire siren monthly. MANAGEMENT The principal act calls for community service districts to appoint a general manager to implement board policies.473 PACSD did not have a general manager position as of March 2008. The District has been staffed by volunteers since fire and water services were discontinued in 1995. There were 14 volunteers staffing the District as of February 2008. Volunteer staffing for brush removal and clean up services are occasionally augmented by California Youth Authority wards. The PACSD Board manages three distinct road improvement zones to oversee street improvement and maintenance efforts. Each improvement zone is directed by a road committee consisting of volunteer property owners within the zone. The committees determine needed improvements for their respective zones and solicit bids from contractors. All committee decisions are subject to Board approval. The District has not produced any planning documents such as a master plan; but reported that it compiled and maintains the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the Pine Acres subdivisions. It is not known when the District assumed CC&R enforcement activities Financial planning efforts include annually adopted budgets, annual financial statements, and capital improvement plans (contained within the budget). The District’s financial statements are audited every five years. The last audit occurred in FY 02-03, and the next audit is scheduled for FY 07-08. The Amador County Auditor-Controller began providing financial reporting services to the District in 2006, and maintains PACSD funds in a trust account. The District does not have an adopted capital improvement plan, but instead builds a reserve for regular capital needs, such as resurfacing that needs to be completed every 10 years, and plans annually for improvements based on road committee recommendations. Management practices include risk management. The District’s insurance includes liability coverage of the roads and meeting house, errors and omissions insurance for the directors, and coverage for any volunteers providing services. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH There is little economic activity within PACSD bounds, as land use is limited to suburban residential and open space for recreation purposes.474 Commercial activity within the District’s 473 Government Codes §61050. Per §61040(e), the general manager may not be a member of the board. 474 Amador County, General Plan Existing (2007) Land Use Classifications Map, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-317 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II bounds is limited to a day care center and a campground. Economic activity in the surrounding area includes farming and several small businesses in Pine Grove, including a drug store, auto body shop, realtor, and a dentist’s office. There were 504 assessed parcels in 2008, of which seven are vacant. Of these, 377 parcels are in Zone 1; 95 parcels in Zone 2; and 32 parcels in Zone 3. The total number of residents in the District in 2008 was approximately 1,120.475 The population density of the District is 852 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. The District reported that service demand is increasing, and is expected to continue to increase due to growth in adjacent areas outside District bounds. Traffic has increased within the area due to Jellystone Park (formerly Pine Acres Resort), a family-oriented privately operated camping facility in the northeast portion of the District. The 20-acre park presently offers six cabins, eight motel rooms, 82 RV full hook-ups, camping facilities, public rest rooms and showers, a pool and an 18- hole miniature golf course. Other amenities are planned and the park will be the site of numerous events throughout the year. There has been no recent growth in the District, and there are few open parcels for potential development with District bounds. New development in the area surrounding the District—both residential and commercial—is expected to further traffic congestion, as increased traffic is expected on Tabeaud Road and SR 88. The only development proposed in the immediate area is Pine Acres North, which would be constructed south of SR 88 and contain approximately 100 residential units. Pine Acres North is located outside District bounds to the north. The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The District reports that its current financing level is adequate to deliver services, although not sufficient to allow the District to hire a general manager. The District tracks its finances through a single general fund for road maintenance and street lighting activities. Separate cash accounts exist for the three separate zones, so that the District ensures that funds raised from a zone are used within that zone. Total revenues in FY 06-07 amounted to $42,261. Revenue sources are property assessments (90 percent), interest (seven percent) and miscellaneous (three percent). The District does not receive revenue from property taxes. Assessments were approved in by the voters in 1980, 1983 and 1995 for road improvement zones 1, 2 and 4, respectively. The assessment is $100 per year for properties in road improvement zones. Parcels not receiving road maintenance only pay 475 The population estimate is the product of the total occupied parcels and the average household size for Amador County, according to the California Department of Finance, 2008. II-318 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE ACRES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT administrative fees. The assessment is not adjusted for inflation. Restructuring of these assessments would be subject to voter approval requirements. Total expenditures in FY 06-07 were $4,471, which consisted of insurance (49 percent), utilities (20 percent), snow removal (13 percent), maintenance services (11 percent), and office expenditures (seven percent). The District repaves the roads approximately every 10 years, and saves its resources for the prior 10-year period to perform these capital improvements. Although no major capital improvements were budgeted for FY 07-08, the District plans to repave Quail Drive and Robin Lane in FY 08-09. The District reported no long-term debt outstanding at the end of FY 06-07. The District did take out a loan to fund a water tank, prior to AWA taking over the water service. The debt associated with the loan was transferred to AWA along with the water services in 1995. The District contends that residents’ rates were increased by AWA to cover repayment of the loan. The District does not have an adopted reserve policy, but tries to accumulate enough to fund regular resurfacing efforts. Current reserves total $88,048, which is double the District’s annual revenue. ROADWAY SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The District’s primary services are road maintenance and snow plowing, which are provided by contractors. The District has an annual contract for snow plowing services, which are provided when needed. PG&E owns and maintains the two street lights within the District, and the District pays for the electricity. LOCATION PACSD maintains roads within the three road improvement zones, all located within District bounds. Not all roads within the District are in road improvement zones. The Wildwood subdivision roads are maintained by the County, including snow plowing. The subdivision does not receive services from the District, although it lies within the District bounds; it had formerly received water services through the District. INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure owned or maintained by the District includes a district office, 9.5 miles of private roads and two PG&E-owned street lights. The District office is housed in an old fire house. PACSD does not own any equipment to perform street maintenance as all work is done by contractors. The District does not anticipate purchasing any equipment in the near future. BY BURR CONSULTING II-319 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The roads are generally in excellent condition, since they were all resurfaced in the last three to four years. Some roads not in the improvement zones are not yet paved, as the homeowners have chosen not to pay for paving. No street needs or deficiencies were identified. PG&E installed two street lights in Zone 1 at no cost in 2006. There are no needs or deficiencies associated with the street lights. SERVICE ADEQUACY The District reports that it has the means to provide services adequately. The District maintains an adequate reserve to fund needed street improvements. Preventative maintenance to minimize excessive costs is provided on a regular basis. The District is generally open to constituent input through the improvement committees. The District identified two challenges to providing adequate street services, including vandalism of stop signs and increasing oil prices, which impacts the cost of maintenance. II-320 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE ACRES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Table II-17-2: Pine Acres CSD Street Profile Street Service Profile Street Lighting Service Configuration Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights 2 # Maintained by Contract 2 # Maintained by County 0 Street Maintenance Service Configuration Street Maintenance Direct Drainage Maintenance NA Service Demand Street Sweeping Frequency: The District does not provide street sweeping. Snow plowing is provided as needed. Circulation Description There are 4 miles of maintained roads located in Zone 1, approximately 3 miles in Zone 2, and about 1 mile in Zone 3. Primary roads in the PACSD zones include Palomino Road, Arrowhead Road, Gold Strike Road, and Clinton Bar Road. Other roads include El Del, Arrowhead, Goldstrike, Clinton Bar, Burnt Cedar, Hilltop, Quail Drive, Robin Lane, and Old Springs Road. System Overview Street Centerline Miles 9.5 Signalized Intersections 0 Privately maintained roads 9.5 Bridges 0 Publicly maintained roads 0.0 Other NA Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Repairs are made as needed. There are no pending needs or deficiencies. Service Adequacy Street Miles Rehabilitated FY 06-07 11% Costs per Street Mile 1 $4,785 Road maintenance performed in FY 2006-07 consisted of paving one mile in Zone 1. All roads have been repaved within the last 4 years. The next anticipated resurfacing will be in 2012 or 2013. Service Challenges Increased cost of oil makes provision of street maintenance more costly. Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing Existing Facility Sharing: The District cooperates with the Fire Safety Council to collect brush rather than burning it. Informally, the District encourages support for Mt. Zion lookout tower. Facility Sharing Opportunities: No opportunities for sharing facilities were identified. Notes: (1) CSD expenditures on road maintenance in FY 06-07 divided by centerline miles of street. BY BURR CONSULTING II-321 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II CC&R SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The District provides oversight of compliance Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). It is not clear when the District began performing CC&R enforcement activities. Each property owner is responsible for compliance with CC&Rs associated with the property. The title company is supposed to provide the homeowner with a copy of the CC&Rs at the time of purchase. The CC&Rs applicable in the Pine Acres area vary by property, with seven separate CC&Rs applicable in the boundary area. Applicable CC&Rs in the Pine Acres area include the following: • no noxious or offensive activities • no buildings other than one single-family detached residence and private garage • no business, commercial or manufacturing enterprises are allowed • no trailers may be used as a permanent residence • no billboards or advertising signs • no farm animals or breeding New property owners are not consistently notified of the CC&Rs by the real estate agent or title company. The District notifies new property owners in the area of the CC&Rs, and has also sent the CC&Rs to the various real estate agents in the area. The District has held meetings with property owners not in compliance with the CC&Rs and collaborates with County code enforcement personnel on cases involving code violations; although the budget for FY 07-08 and financial statement for FY 06-07 does not indicate any expenditures on CC&R related services CC&R oversight is not an authorized service for PACSD. The principal act does not authorize CC&R oversight services generally for CSDs. Although the act does authorize such services among certain CSDs which had been providing CC&R services as of January 1, 2006, PACSD is not among the grandfathered agencies and cannot legally provide CC&R enforcement.476 476 Government Code §61105 provides “special statutory powers” to certain grandfathered districts, allowing for “special services and facilities that are not available to other districts.” Government Code §61105(e) lists the community services districts that are authorized to provide CC&R oversight. Because PACSD is not a grandfathered agency under Government Code §61105(e), and CC&R oversight is not an authorized power under Government Code §61100, PACSD is not authorized to perform CC&R oversight. II-322 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE ACRES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT LOCATION The District provides this service within its bounds, and does not provide the service outside its bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE There is no infrastructure associated with provision of this service SERVICE ADEQUACY The District reports that it was successful in convincing a day care center to remove its sign. There remain cases of individuals not in compliance with CC&Rs, including a garage addition with an apartment and a homeowner with 15 cars on the property. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • There has been no recent growth in the District, and there are few open parcels for potential development with District bounds. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • Present and planned capacity of public facilities is sufficient, and service provision is adequate, as the District has resurfaced all paved roads (in the road improvement zones) within the last three to four years. • All paved roads are reported to be in excellent condition, and the District did not report any infrastructure needs or deficiencies. • Some roads in the improvement zones are not yet paved, as the homeowners in that zone have chosen not to pay for paving. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The current financing level is adequate to deliver road maintenance services; however, the District reports that it lacks the resources to hire a general manger. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The District does not presently share facilities, and no such opportunities were identified. BY BURR CONSULTING II-323 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • The District is not authorized to perform CC&R oversight. • The District lacks a general manager, as required by law, to implement board policies; however, the District reports that all decisions relating to the district are made by the PACSD board and the property owners through the road improvement zones. • No government structure options are apparent, as there are no other road maintenance districts adjacent to PACSD. District maintained roads do not meet the design standards to be accepted into the County’s public road system. • Operational efficiencies are achieved through the use of volunteer staffing for brush removal and clean up services. II-324 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE GROVE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 18. P I N E G ROV E C O M M U N I T Y S E RV I C E S D I S T R I C T Pine Grove Community Services District (PGCSD) provides retail water delivery and public park services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION AND BOUNDARY Pine Grove Community Services District (PGCSD) was formed on November 19, 1965, as an independent special district.477 PGCSD was formed to provide “domestic and commercial supply of water, and fire protection facilities, including hydrants.”478 In 1994, PGCSD fire service was transferred to Amador Fire Protection District. The principal act that governs the District is Community Services District Law.479 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not already being performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).480 LAFCO approved the PGCSD’s provision of water, park and recreation services on February 23, 2006, as these services had been provided by the District by the end of 2005. The PGCSD boundary includes the community of Pine Grove, which is located in central Amador County, along SR 88 and Ridge Road. The boundary area encompasses portions of the community zoned for low-density and suburban residential, and commercial uses. The boundary extends east to west along Ridge Road (SR 104) and SR 88 from Ponderosa Way to Mt. Zion Road, 477 Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 478 Board of Supervisors resolution 1088. 479 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 480 Government Code §61106. BY BURR CONSULTING II-325 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II north along Lupe Road and Pine Grove Volcano Road, and south along Irishtown Road and Spagnoli Mine Road.481 The District has a boundary area of approximately 524 acres. LAFCO records of the District’s boundary history include 20 annexations and one detachment, as shown in Table II-18-1. Table II-18-1: PGCSD LAFCO Record LAFCO Resolution Type Project Name Acres Number Official Date1 Annexation Taylor et al Annexation 70-25 2/3/1970 (L) Annexation Ross, Sargent, et. Al. Annexation No. 4-X 70-28 7/9/1970 (C) ' Annexation Anderson, Toma, et. Al. Annexation No. 5 70-30 10/5/1970 (C) ' Annexation Coffin Annexation No. 6 70-31 1/28/1971 (C) ' Annexation Nicklas Annexation 71-40 12/1/1971 (C) ' Annexation Langston Annexation 0.65 78-109 8/15/1978 (C) ' Annexation Baker, Stanley, Ford Annexation 78-114 3/12/1979 (C) ' Annexation Blankenheim Annexation 78-116 8/16/1978 (C) ' Annexation Oak Knoll Annexation 6.89 79-142 12/14/1979 (C) ' Detachment Phillips, Anderson and Griffith Detachment 4.02 80-146 4/14/1980 (C) ' Annexation Ramos Fellerson Annexation 3.31 80-149 8/18/1980 (C) ' Annexation Birt-Kone Annexation 2.41 81-156 6/10/1981 (C) ' Annexation Botts, et. Al Annexation 6.21 81-162 2/24/1982 (C) ' Annexation Weigant-Novaky Annexation 82-167 2/17/1983 (C) ' Annexation Zeidler Annexation 1.37 83-169 10/24/1983 (C) ' Annexation Pine Grove Shopping Center Annexation 8.07 87-205 9/24/1987 (L) Annexation Weigart and Novaky Annexation 10.11 85-191 2/17/1987 (B) Annexation Kruger Annexation 21.07 88-210 11/2/1988 (B) Annexation Ponderosa Heights Annexation 12.59 91-227 8/19/1992 (B) Annexation Ponderosa Heights Water Project #2 27.06 94-248 3/19/1996 (B) Annexation Carlin Annexation 500.00 00-002 9/28/2000 (B) Note: (1) "L" indicates that the official date is according to the LAFCO resolution, "C" indicates that the official date is according to the Certificate of Completion, and "B" indicates that the official date is according to the Board of Equalization filing. The District’s SOI was adopted in 1976, but the resolution does not include any description of its boundary. Undated maps showing various sphere boundary lines are found in the LAFCO files, but it is unclear whether these were proposals or whether one might have been the adopted sphere of influence. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update the SOI for PGCSD. 481 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of PGCSD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. II-326 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE GROVE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE PGCSD is governed by a five-member governing body. Directors are to be selected via elections at large; however, in practice positions have not been contested in the last 10 years and members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Table II-18-2: Pine Grove CSD Governing Body Pine Grove Community Services District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Paul G. Johnston President 1/1/2009 Robert G. Blair Vice President 1/1/2011 Members Jeannie Hayward Finance Advisor 1/1/2011 Roy D. Ragan Member 1/1/2009 Jay D. Ollig Member 1/1/2009 Manner of Selection Elections and appointments at large Length of Term 4 years Meeting Date: Second Monday of each month Location: District office Agenda Distribution Posted at District office and Post Office Minutes Distribution By request and at monthly meetings Contact Contact Board President Mailing Address P.O. Box 367, Pine Grove, CA 95665 Phone (209) 296-7188 Email/Website pgcomser@volcano.net The District informs constituents by posting agendas at its office and at the Post Office. Minutes are available by request and at monthly meetings. Public outreach efforts also include an annual newsletter, as well as flyers or mailings as special issues arise. The District has a page on the community of Pine Grove website, but no public documents are accessible on that site. With regard to customer service, complaints may be submitted to the District in writing, or in person to the office manager. Customers with complaints may also attend District meetings. The District reported that complaints most often relate to billing issues, and that it received approximately 12 complaints in 2007. The District reported that it had no Brown Act violations in recent history. All new board members receive a copy of the Brown Act. Every January, the office manager notifies the members of any changes in the law pertaining to the Brown Act. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to portions of LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. BY BURR CONSULTING II-327 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II MANAGEMENT The principal act requires that districts have five-member governing boards and appoint a general manager to implement board policies.482 The District is managed by a part-time water manager and a part-time office manager; neither employee is considered a general manager. Both employees work approximately 20 hours per week. The water manager and office manager report directly to the board at regular meetings, and perform written reports monthly based on a task list outlined for their positions. PGCSD performs official employee evaluations on an annual basis, and informally evaluates the performance of its employees monthly at its meetings. The District did not identify specific measures it has taken to improve operational efficiency. The District’s planning efforts includes a Public Facilities Plan. Although the District does not adopt a formal capital improvement plan, it reported informal capital improvement planning efforts to address future needs in the next one to five years. Capital improvements are also addressed annually in the District’s budget. District financial planning efforts include annual preparation of budgets and annually audited financial statements. The most recent audited financial statement provided by the District was for FY 05-06. In the financial statements the auditor found three reportable conditions: 1) the District was overcharging commercial users due to a billing error, 2) the District had not adopted a capital asset policy that conforms to GASB 34 standards, and 3) due to the limited number of personnel involved with the accounting process, PGCSD had not maintained an adequate segregation of duties to allow for sufficient internal control over financial reporting.483 The District reported that these issues were addressed at Board meeting and corrective action was taken. Management practices include risk management. The District’s insurance includes a commercial package policy for general liability, auto liability and wrongful acts coverage that provides limits of liability of $1 million per occurrence and $3 million aggregate annually. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Existing land uses in the District’s boundary are primarily low-density and suburban residential (i.e. from three units per acre to five acres per unit, on average), and commercial properties. Commercial areas are concentrated along SR 104, through the center of the District boundary. The District reports that it serves approximately 50 commercial properties. 482 Government Codes §61040 and 61050. 483 Pine Grove Community Services District, Financial Statements, FY 05-06, p. 12. II-328 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE GROVE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Economic activity within the District includes retail, medical, legal, and telecommunications services. Employers include the Pine Cone Drug Store, Sanghara’s Market, McCrory’s Funeral Home, Aces Waste Services, and Volcano Telephone. There are 310 water connections to residential properties within District bounds. The estimated population within District bounds is 698.484 The District’s population density is 853 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. The District reported that service demand has increased in recent years. Service demand has increased with development, as many property owners have split their five-acre parcels into four separate lots. For planning purposes, PGCSD assumes eight to 10 new connections or three percent growth annually to forecast service needs. Growth within the District is expected to continue as planned developments begin construction. Planned developments within District bounds include the Pine Groves Bluffs development (28 dwelling units) and the Petersen Ranch development (58 dwelling units). The District anticipates an additional 10 commercial units as part of the Pine Groves Bluffs development. In addition, there are at least three planned or proposed residential developments located outside of but adjacent to PGCSD bounds in the southeast that the District has identified. The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The District reported that existing financing sources are sufficient to deliver adequate services, but indicated that it has challenges keeping up with AWA rate increases. The District tracks its finances through an enterprise fund for water services and a general fund for park services. Total revenue in FY 05-06 was $245,060. Primary revenue sources were water sales (72 percent), assessments (16 percent) and annexation fees (four percent). The District does not receive revenues from property taxes. Total expenditures for the year were $303,415. Costs were primarily composed of operation and maintenance of the distribution system (45 percent), water purchases from AWA (21 percent) and administrative costs (19 percent). The District’s financial statement indicates debt payments of $9,877 for principal and interest; however, it does not disclose any long-term debt outstanding at the end of FY 05-06. 484 The population estimate for the District is the product of the number of water connections within the boundary area and the average household size (2.3) in Amador County in 2007, according to the California Department of Finance, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-329 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District does not have an adopted policy on its target level for financial reserves. At the end of FY 05-06, the District had unrestricted net assets of $286,561 or 95 percent of annual expenditures. The District has almost one year of working capital. WATER SERVICES This section describes the nature, extent and location of the water services provided as well as key infrastructure and water sources. The tables provide further information and indicators of the agency’s water service supplies, demand, financing, service adequacy, and facilities. The water chapter in the MSR main document contains analysis and conclusions based on this information. NATURE AND EXTENT PGCSD purchases treated water from AWA through the Central Amador Water Project (CAWP) and distributes it to residential and commercial users. The District does not provide water treatment services. The District provides necessary maintenance and operation of the water distribution system directly through its part-time water manager. Major capital improvements or repairs are completed by AWA for reimbursement. The District does not produce or use recycled water, and does not practice conjunctive use. LOCATION PGCSD provides services within its bounds. The District’s service area does not extend beyond its boundary area. There are less than 10 parcels within District bounds that are still on private wells and are not served by the District. INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure includes the District’s office, three storage tanks, 11 miles of distribution pipeline, and a well. PGCSD purchases treated surface water from Tiger Reservoir from AWA. The water is treated at AWA’s Buckhorn Treatment Plant, passes through the CAWP transmission pipeline and fills the three storage tanks serving the District. The District is not aware of any constraints on the amount that AWA will supply to the District with its current boundaries. During times of water shortage AWA has the prerogative to ration water to the District; however, that has never occurred. The District must apply to AWA for a commitment to serve additional connections outside of bounds. The District reported that water purchased from AWA is generally of excellent quality and there have been no contaminant issues. Occasionally, customers complain of turbidity. The District exceeded copper and lead action levels at four locations in 2006;485 however, the issue was due to 485 Macleod, L., High Level of Lead Found in Local Water, 2006. II-330 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE GROVE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT corroded pipes on the homeowners’ property and was not the responsibility of the District, according to the District.486 The District uses groundwater for non-potable uses. The District maintains a single well at the District office. The well is used primarily to fill the AFPD water tender and to provide bulk water to developers for construction sites. The well was built prior to 1960, but was refurbished in 2005 and is in good condition, as identified by the District. The District owns and maintains three interconnected storage tanks with a total storage capacity of 801,000 gallons. The tanks were installed between 1987 and 1997 and are all in good condition, according to the District. All tanks are installed with SCADA, which relays information to operators at the Buckhorn Treatment Plant. There were no reported storage tank needs or deficiencies. In the event of emergencies, the District would rely on reserves in the storage tanks, which would accommodate peak demand (last measured in 2001) for approximately 3.7 days.487 There is a single intertie between the District and external water: the CAWP pipeline to the storage tanks. The District pumped water from a single well prior to receiving water from AWA, which is now classified as inactive and used only for non-potable purposes. If the water supply from AWA were to be halted for any emergency situation, in order to use water from the well for back-up purposes, the District must apply to re-classify the well as active. The distribution system consists of 11 miles of PVC (65 percent) and asbestos-cement (35 percent) pipes. DPH identified the pipes as being in generally good condition; however, the District reported that the pipes are undersized with four to six-inch mains in some areas and in need of replacement with eight to 12-inch pipes. The District lacks funding to replace all of its undersized pipes; consequently, replacement is done on an as-needed basis. The District plans to begin regular upgrading and upsizing of the existing pipelines by 2011. The District identified a challenge maintaining sufficient pressure for fire flow and is in the process of identifying options to maintain the ISO recommended flow of 1,000 gpm for residential areas and 1,500 to 2,000 gpm in commercial areas. The District reported that it plans to apply in 2008 for grants to finance a project to improve fire flow. DPH identified the District’s water system as “generally well maintained and operated.”488 486 Interview with Roy Ragan, Board Member, PGCSD, January 29, 2008. 487 PGCSD, System Analysis, 2001, p. 1. 488 DPH, PGCSD Annual Inspection Report, 2004, p. 18. BY BURR CONSULTING II-331 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-18-3: Pine Grove CSD Water Profile Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water AWA Groundwater Extraction Direct Water Treatment AWA Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water The PGCSD boundary includes the community of Pine Grove, located along SR 88. The service area extends west along SR 88 from Ponderosa Way to Mt. Zion Road, north along Lupe Road and Pine Grove Volcano Road, and south along Irishtown Road and Spagnoli Mine Road. Wholesale Water NA Recycled Water NA Boundary Area 0.8 sq. miles Population (2007) 698 System Overview Average Daily Demand 0.16 mg Peak Day Demand2 0 .46 Supply The District is not aware of any limits on the amount of water that can be purchased from AWA at the current District bounds. The capacity of the District's distribution system was not provided. Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Storage Tank 1 Storage 98,000 gal. Good 1987 Storage Tank 2 Storage 283,000 gal. Good 1987 Storage Tank 3 Storage 420,000 gal. Good 1997 Well Nonpotable Well 140 gpm Good Prior to 1960 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0.80 mg Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 1 Production Wells 1 Pipe Miles 11 miles Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Infrastructure needs identified by the District include improved water pressure for fire flow and replacement of undersized four and six-inch mains. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: The District currently receives treated water from the AWA Buckhorn Treatment Plant through AWA pipelines, in conjunction with other CAWP members. In addition, the District shares its building with AFPD and American Legion Ambulance during the daytime hours, and the District rents out space on the top of one of its storage tanks for space for a cellular tower. Opportunities: The District did not identify any future opportunities for facility sharing. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. (2) Peak day demand calculated from peak month flow in July and August 2007. continued II-332 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE GROVE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 360 360 0 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 Domestic 310 310 0 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 50 50 0 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total NP NP 154.0 164.5 174.9 185.4 195.9 Residential NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Commercial/Industrial NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm Purchased water from AWA Surface 164.6 NP NP Hard rock well - non-potable Groundwater NP 226 NP Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total 116.1 150.2 161.3 NP NP NP NP Imported 116.1 150.2 161.3 NP NP NP NP Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)1 Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP Significant Droughts 1976, 1977, 1988-94 Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergencies only. Drought Plan The District relies on AWA for all drought planning activities, as water is purchased from AWA. Even during multiple-year droughts, AWA has received its full water rights and has never enacted curtailments. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering Yes Conservation Pricing Yes Other Practices The District circulates a newsletter during the summer to promote conservation and puts up a sign during times of high usage. Notes: (1) Projections based on the Districts assumptions of approximately eight additional connections annually and an average use per connection of 1900 cf every 60 days. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-333 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Rates and Financing Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-071 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Residential Flat Bi-monthly: $50.00 for 500 cubic feet $ 66.13 7,600 gal/month Water Use: $0.031/cubic foot (501-1000 cf) $0.035/cubic foot (1001-2000 cf) $0.040/cubic foot (above 2000 cf) Special Rates Water rates are the same throughout the District. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description The rate is based on flat bi-monthly fee for maintenance and a charge for volume of water used to encourage conservation. Most Recent Rate Change 2006 Frequency of Rate Changes3 As needed Water Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach New connections pay for the cost of increased demand on facilities and $200 for a new meter. Connection Fee Timing Upon close of escrow Connection Fee Amount $5,200/Single Family Unit Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 05-06 Expenditures, FY 05-06 Source Amount % Amount Total $236,060 100% Total $310,812 Rates & charges $186,537 79% Administration $59,689 Property tax $0 0% O & M $136,940 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $37,367 Interest $6,089 3% Debt $9,877 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $66,939 Reimbursements $4,794 2% Other $0 Assessments $38,640 16% Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, refer to Chapter 3 in the MSR main document. (3) The District reported that it reviews rates annually, but only changes rates when needed. continued II-334 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE GROVE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators Water Planning Description Planning Horizon Water Master Plan 2001 UWMP None, not required Capital Improvement Plan None Emergency Response Plan None Water Quality Emergency Plan 2004 NA Service Challenges The District identified a challenge maintaining sufficient pressure for fire flow and is in the process of identifying options to maintain a pressure of at least 20 psi. In addition, frequent AWA rate increases combined with high overhead charges are a challenge to maintaining adequate financing at a reasonable rate to customers, as reported to by the District. Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 720 O&M Cost Ratio1 $876,420 MGD Delivered/FTE 0 Distribution Loss Rate 5% Distribution Breaks & Leaks 4 Distribution Break Rate2 36.4 Response Time Policy ASAP Response Time Actual <1 day Water Pressure 20 psi + Total Employees (FTEs) 0.5 Water Operator Certification The District employs a D1 certified water manager. The District is required to have a D1 certified chief operator; the District is meeting this requirement. Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3 # Description Health Violations 1 Exceeded Haloacetic Acid MCL in 2005. Monitoring Violations 3 Insufficient haloacetic acid and total trihalomethanes monitoring in 2004; and lead and copper sampling 2000 DW Compliance Rate4 100% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (3) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2006. BY BURR CONSULTING II-335 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT Pine Grove CSD owns and maintains one park. ACRA provides recreation programs to District residents. District volunteers provide daily park maintenance. The District is not a member of the Amador County Recreation Agency (ACRA). LOCATION Pine Grove Community Park is located within District bounds, on SR 88. It is adjacent to the Pine Grove CSD office. Residents and non-residents of the District can use the park free of charge and for the same rental fees. INFRASTRUCTURE PGCSD key park infrastructure consists of a single neighborhood park of 1.1 acres. It has a playground, picnic tables, barbecue pits, a horseshoe court, and a restroom. It is open 24 hours. The District identified the park as being in excellent condition. The District plans to upgrade and expand the current park. The District plans to use the office space currently used by the Fire Department and the Ambulance for park expansion and restroom upgrades once the agencies move to a new facility. New improvements consist of an additional restroom, a new line of trees and a hedge for visual and safety enhancements, new parking spaces and sidewalks, and pavement for walkways. In addition, the District recommends extending the park onto Church Street, which is proposed to be abandoned for additional useable space. The Amador County Regional Recreation Plan makes no recommendations for improvements or changes at the neighborhood park. The plan recommends that an additional park is needed in the Pine Grove community to provide a broader range of facilities and activities. The additional 22-acre park is to be run by ACRA. SERVICE ADEQUACY The District reported that it is able to maintain its park at adequate levels. The District has a ratio of 1.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. This is less than the current countywide parkland ratio of 7.3 acres per 1,000 residents. The countywide proposal for future parkland is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents.489 489 ACRA, Master Plan, 2006, p. 4-14. II-336 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE GROVE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Table II-18-4: Pine Grove CSD Park Profile Park and Recreation Service Configuration Service Configuration Park Maintenance Direct Number of Parks Maintained 1 Recreation ACRA Number of Recreation Centers 0 Service Adequacy FY 06-07 Park Acres per 1,000 residents1 1 .5 Adopted Policy: 13.7 acres per 1,000 population, countywide2 Park Acreage Local Open Space 0.0 Neighborhood Parks 1.1 Undeveloped 0.0 Special Use Areas 0.0 Community Parks 0.0 Landscaped 0.0 Park Name Location Condition Acres Pine Grove Community Park SR 88 Excellent 1.1 Service Challenges The District did not identify any service challenges. Facility Needs/Deficiencies The District reported that the Park needs improvements that include adding a line of trees, hedging, additional parking, sidewalks, pavers, and a restroom. Facility Sharing The District did not identify facility sharing opportunities. Developer Fees and Requirements Development Impact Fee $4,300/dwelling unit fee charged by Amador County. Land Dedication Requirement Five acres per 1,000 residents In-Lieu Fees None Notes: (1) Developed park acreage per 1,000 residents. (2) Amador County Recreation Agency Master Plan. BY BURR CONSULTING II-337 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • Service demand has increased with development, as many property owners have split their five-acre parcels into four separate lots. For planning purposes, PGCSD assumes three percent growth annually to forecast service needs. • Growth within the District is expected to continue as planned developments totaling 86 dwelling units and 10 commercial units begin construction. In addition, the District hopes to serve three planned or proposed residential developments located outside of but adjacent to its bounds. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The District’s park is well maintained with no maintenance deficiencies. The District plans to make landscaping improvements and expand the park as allowed by funding. • The District’s current developed parkland ratio to residents is less than the countywide average and proposed ACRA ratio. The District plans to expand the park to meet additional capacity needs. Additional community park service needs will be addressed by an ACRA operated community park. • Water infrastructure needs include improved water pressure for fire flow and replacement of undersized four and six-inch mains. • The District should consider an overall assessment of the system to determine the maximum capacity of the existing system and any necessary improvements or capacity expansions to accommodate the anticipated significant increase in demand. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The District reported that existing financing sources are sufficient to deliver adequate services, but indicated that it has challenges keeping up with AWA rate increases. In addition, the District shares its building with AFPD and American Legion Ambulance, and the District rents out space for a cellular tower. • PGCSD rates are the third highest among Amador County water purveyors, and were recently increased. II-338 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO PINE GROVE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • PGCSD relies on AWA for treatment and transmission of treated water through AWA facilities. • No future opportunities for facility sharing were identified. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • PGCSD has not had governing body interest to hold contested elections in recent years. • The District conducts significant outreach efforts to inform constituents of ongoing issues through a regular newsletter, mailings with bills and a website. • A government structure option is the annexation of the three proposed developments to the southeast of the District where it hopes to provide water service. BY BURR CONSULTING II-339 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 19. R A B B PA R K C O M M U N I T Y S E RV I C E S D I S T R I C T Rabb Park Community Services District (RPCSD) provides retail water delivery services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION RPCSD was formed on November 12, 1973, as an independent special district.490 RPCSD was formed to provide domestic and irrigation water, collection, treatment or disposal of wastewater and stormwater, the collection or disposal of garbage or refuse matter, fire protection, park and recreation, street maintenance and lighting, drainage, the conversion of existing overhead electric and communication facilities to underground locations, and to contract for ambulance service to the District.491 The District has initiated retail domestic water delivery, but not the other services. The principal act that governs the District is Community Services District Law.492 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).493 BOUNDARY AND SOI The RPCSD boundary is located north of the community of Buckhorn, in the upper foothills of Amador County. The boundary area is located east of SR 88, just north of the Mace Meadow Golf Club, and includes properties located along Nob Hill Court, Antelope Drive, Skyview Court, 490 LAFCO resolution 73-56. Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 491 Board of Supervisors resolution 3499, Section 7. 492 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 493 Government Code §61106. II-340 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RABB PARK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Jacqueline Drive, Circle View Drive, and Meadowmont Drive.494 The boundary area consists almost of entirely residential properties. The District has a boundary area of approximately 118 acres. There have been four annexations to the District’s bounds since formation—the 1978 Unit 3 Annexation, the 1987 VanderMeulen Annexation (1.6 acres), the 1987 Murdy Annexation (1.2 acres), and the 1996 Meneely Annex (one acre). The Unit 3 Annexation and the Meneely Annex are in Board of Equalization records, but the others are not. There is no adopted SOI for RPCSD, based on research performed by the Executive Officer. LAFCO minutes from the meeting when the District’s SOI was considered suggest that the SOI was intended to be units one to five of the subdivision map, but that is not substantiated in any other records in the LAFCO archives. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE RPCSD is governed by a five-member board of directors. Directors are to be selected via elections at large; elections are held biennially in odd numbered years. In practice, however, board members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, as the positions are generally uncontested. There have been no contested elections in memorable history, according to the District. Table II-19-1: Rabb Park CSD Governing Body Rabb Park Community Services District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Frank Denney President 11/30/2011 Evan Rohrer Vice President 11/30/2011 Members John Martin Director 11/30/2011 Charles York Director 11/30/2009 Caroline Rohrer Director 11/30/2009 Manner of Selection Members are elected at large via biennial elections in odd numbered years. Length of Term 4 years Meeting Date: Third Wednesday of each month Location: Homes of board members Agenda Distribution Posted on the community bulletin board. Minutes Distribution By request Contact Contact Board President Mailing Address 27419 Antelope Drive, Pioneer, CA 95666 Phone NA Email/Website NA 494 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of RPCSD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. BY BURR CONSULTING II-341 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District informs constituents by posting agendas on the community bulletin board. Minutes are available to the public by request. The District reports that it used to circulate a newsletter to community members, but has discontinued this practice. The District does not maintain a website where public documents can be accessed. With regard to customer service, the District reported that complaints most often relate to the smell and taste of the water. Complaints may be submitted to the District office or the president via mail, phone, or in person. The District reported that it receives an average of one or two complaints per year. Complaints are addressed by District personnel and logged in the District’s maintenance report. The District reported that it had no Brown Act violations in recent history. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to portions of LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. MANAGEMENT The principal act requires that districts appoint a general manager to implement board policies.495 The District did not employ a general manager as of March 2008. The District’s water system is managed by two part-time maintenance workers, who each work approximately 20 hours per month. One maintenance worker attends every board meeting and gives a report. District staff also includes a part-time bookkeeper. The District’s efforts to improve operational efficiency include the hiring of certified maintenance workers in 2003. Previous maintenance had been performed by a non-certified individual. Additional improvements in operational efficiency include the installation of water meters in 2003, which have reduced the amount of water used by customers. The District reports that it does not conduct formal employee evaluations or performance evaluations. Employee evaluations are conducted on an informal basis at monthly board meetings and performance evaluations are conducted by the Department of Public Health via its annual inspection of the District’s water system. The District’s planning efforts are limited. The District does not have a master plan for its water system but does have an emergency/disaster response plan. District financial planning efforts include the annual preparation of budgets and auditing of financial statements. The most recent audited financial statement provided by the District is for FY 06-07. The auditor did not identify any reportable conditions in FY 06-07. The District has not prepared a capital improvement plan; instead, the District plans annually for about $5,000 in capital outlays. 495 Government Codes §61040 and 61050. II-342 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RABB PARK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Management practices include risk management. The District spent $2,870 on general liability insurance in FY 06-07. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Existing land uses in the District’s boundary are primarily suburban residential (i.e., 5 acres per unit on average) with two properties zoned for commercial located along SR 88. The District reports that there is no economic activity within the District and that all 107 water connections are residential. The estimated population within District bounds is 241.496 The District’s population density is 1,339 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. The District reported that service demand has increased in recent years, from 50 homes at formation in 1973 to 107 in 2008. The District added a total of three connections between 2005 and 2007, averaging slightly less than one percent growth annually. Growth has taken place throughout the District, and has not been limited to a particular area. Future growth is expected to be limited, as there are no proposed or planned development projects within the District. There are approximately 30 undeveloped lots within the District, on which the District plans for one to three additional connections annually to forecast service needs. The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The District reported that existing financing sources are sufficient to deliver adequate services, but indicated that additional financing would be needed to finance capital improvements needs. The District’s auditor recommended a rate increase to provide for ongoing maintenance and future capital needs.497 The District tracks its finances through a single enterprise fund. Total revenue in FY 06-07 was $62,829. Revenue sources are water rates and fees (88 percent), standby fees (seven percent) and interest (three percent). Total expenditures for the year were $62,394. Costs were primarily composed of AWA water purchases and fees (35 percent), operation and maintenance costs (49 percent) and administrative costs (10 percent). 496 The population estimate for the District is the product of the number of water connections within the boundary area and the average household size (2.3) in Amador County in 2007, according to the California Department of Finance, 2008. 497 Rabb Park CSD, Annual Financial Report FY 06-07, 2007, p. 10. BY BURR CONSULTING II-343 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District had no long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The District attempts to keep capital expenditures to a minimum, due to financing constraints. Capital outlays are generally financed with operating revenue and reserves. The District does not have an adopted policy on its target level for financial reserves. At the end of FY 06-07, the District had unrestricted net assets of $121,305 or 194 percent of annual expenditures. The District would appear to have almost two years of working capital, except that reserves are the District’s only existing financing source for capital contingencies. WATER SERVICES This section describes the nature, extent and location of the water services provided as well as key infrastructure and water sources. The tables provide further information and indicators of the agency’s water service supplies, demand, financing, service adequacy, and facilities. The water chapter in the MSR main document contains analysis and conclusions based on this information. NATURE AND EXTENT RPCSD purchases treated water from AWA through the Central Amador Water Project (CAWP) and distributes it to residential users. The District does not provide water treatment services. The District provides necessary maintenance and operation of the water distribution system directly through its two part-time maintenance workers. Major capital improvements are completed by contractors. The District does not produce or use recycled water, and does not practice conjunctive use. LOCATION RPCSD provides services within its bounds. The District’s service area does not extend beyond its boundary area. The District’s water services are available to all of its boundary area, and there are no unserved areas within the boundary. INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure includes the District’s storage tank and two miles of distribution pipes. RPCSD purchases treated surface water from Tiger Reservoir from AWA. The water is treated at AWA’s Buckhorn Treatment Plant, passes through the CAWP transmission pipeline and fills the two storage tanks serving the District. The District is not aware of any constraints on the amount that AWA will supply to the District with its current boundaries. During times of water shortage AWA has the prerogative to ration water to the District; however, that has never occurred. The District must apply to AWA for a commitment to serve additional connections outside of bounds. The water received from AWA is generally excellent quality, as reported by the District. The District was experiencing high chlorine levels after upgrades to the Buckhorn Treatment Plant in 2006; however, that issue has been resolved by AWA. In addition, the District exceeded the HAA5 (a disinfection by-product) maximum contaminant level (MCL) in 2005 and 2006. The MCL for II-344 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RABB PARK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HAA5 is 0.060 milligrams per liter. By comparison, the average level of HAA5 after three quarters of monitoring was 0.0845 milligrams per liter. The District reported that is has been in compliance with MCL requirements since that time. Two water storage tanks serve the District totaling 105,000 gallons in storage capacity. The District is responsible for the inside of its storage tank on Circle View Drive, and AWA is reportedly responsible for the outside of the tank. The bolted steel tank was constructed prior to 1966, with a new liner installed in 2001, and was identified as being in fair condition by the District. The District also receives water from an AWA storage tank outside of District bounds. The District identified the tank as being in poor to fair condition. Both tanks are installed with SCADA, which relays information to operators at the Buckhorn Treatment Plant. The District identified a need to replace the AWA storage tank and increase storage capacity for emergency situations. In the event of emergencies, the District would rely on reserves in the storage tanks, which would accommodate peak demand for approximately three days. There is a single intertie between the District and external water: the CAWP pipeline to the storage tanks. The District pumped water from two wells prior to receiving water from AWA. If the water supply from AWA were to be halted for any emergency situation, the District plans to use the two wells as back-up; however, the wells were classified as inactive in 2003. In order to use the wells, the District must apply to re- classify the wells as active. The wells are not equipped with electrical power or the capability to chlorinate the water should an emergency arise. The District maintains an emergency response plan and a water quality emergency notification plan for emergency events. The distribution network consists of two miles of PVC distribution pipelines. The pipes are in good condition, according to DPH. Approximately 25 percent of the system, concentrated in the southern portion of the District, is comprised of two-inch mains that provide inadequate delivery pressure and pressure at the District’s hydrants. The District would like to replace all of the two inch mains with four or six-inch mains. The District currently lacks financing to replace all of the two-inch mains, and consequently replaces the pipes as needed and when financing permits. Overall, DPH identified the RPCSD system as being well maintained and operated.498 498 DPH, RPCSD Annual Inspection Report, 2007, p. 18. BY BURR CONSULTING II-345 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-19-2: Rabb Park CSD Water Profile Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water AWA Groundwater Extraction None Water Treatment AWA Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water The District's service area lies along SR 88 north of Mace Meadows. The service area includes parcels along Meadowmont Dr., Circle View Dr., Jacqueline Dr., Antelope Dr., Sky View Ct., and South Antelope Dr. Wholesale Water NA Recycled Water NA Boundary Area 0.2 sq. miles Population (2007) 248 System Overview Average Daily Demand 15,879 gal. Peak Day Demand2 31,875 gal. Supply The District is not aware of any limits on the amount of water that can be purchased from AWA at the current District bounds. The distribution capacity of the District's system was not reported. Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built RPCSD Storage Tank Storage 0.045 mg Fair 1966 AWA Storage Tank Storage 0.060 mg Poor to fair NP Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0.1 mg Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 1 Production Wells3 2 Pipe Miles 2 miles Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The District identified a need to replace the two-inch pipes to increase delivery pressure and fire flow. In addition, the District would like the AWA storage tank to be replaced to add additional storage capacity. If the District would like to use the two wells for back up purposes, DPH recommends installing electrical and treatment capabilities. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: The District currently receives treated water from the AWA Buckhorn Treatment Plant through AWA pipelines, in conjunction with other CAWP members. Opportunities: The District did not identify any future opportunities for facility sharing. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. (2) Based on the average daily water usage in the peak month in 2006. (3) Both District wells are inactive. continued II-346 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RABB PARK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 107 107 0 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 Domestic 107 107 0 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total 19.7 23.2 17.8 19.3 20.7 22.2 23.7 Residential 19.7 23.2 17.8 19.3 20.7 22.2 23.7 Commercial/Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm Purchased water from AWA Surface 22.0 NP NP Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total 21.5 25.2 19.4 NP NP NP NP Imported 21.5 25.2 19.4 NP NP NP NP Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP Significant Droughts 1976, 1977, 1988 - 1994 Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergencies only. Drought Plan The District relies on AWA for all drought planning activities, as water is purchased from AWA. Even during multiple-year droughts, AWA has received its full water rights and has never enacted curtailments. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering Yes Conservation Pricing Yes Other Practices None Notes: (1) The District installed meters in 2001 and was not monitoring use prior to that. Demand for 1995 and 2000 was calculated based on the 2005 8 percent distribution loss rate of water purchased from AWA. Projections are based on the average of one additional connection per year and the average demand of a connection in 2006. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-347 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Rates and Financing Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-071 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Residential Flat Quarterly: $100 $ 48.53 7,600 gal/month Water Use Quarterly: $2.00 per 1,000 gallons Special Rates Water rates are the same throughout the District. The District charges a standby fee of $160 per year on undeveloped lots. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description The rates are based on a flat fee for maintenance and a rate for water usage to cover the cost of purchasing water from AWA. Most Recent Rate Change 2004 Frequency of Rate Changes As needed Water Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach The District's connection fee is relatively low in part due to standby charges paid by undeveloped properties. Connection Fee Timing Prior to connection to the system. Connection Fee Amount $500/Single Family Unit Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 06-07 Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $62,829 100% Total $62,394 Rates & charges $59,875 95% Administration $6,223 Property tax $0 0% O & M $30,293 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $3,801 Interest $1,987 3% Debt $0 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water3 $22,077 Other $967 2% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, refer to Chapter 3 in the MSR main document. (3) Purchased water includes AWA annual charges and water purchases. continued II-348 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RABB PARK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators Water Planning Description Planning Horizon Water Master Plan None UWMP None, not required Capital Improvement Plan None Emergency Response Plan 2003 NA Water Quality Emergency Plan 2006 NA Service Challenges The District identified compliance with State reporting requirements as a challenge to providing service. Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 428 O&M Cost Ratio1 $1,906,370 MGD Delivered/FTE 0 Distribution Loss Rate2 8% Distribution Breaks & Leaks 4 Distribution Break Rate3 200 Response Time Policy ASAP Response Time Actual 1-2 days Water Pressure 20 psi to 110 psi Total Employees (FTEs) 0.25 Water Operator Certification The District's system was previously operated by an uncertified part-time employee. The District hired two D1 certified maintenance workers in 2003. The District is required to have a D1 certified chief operator; the District is meeting this requirement. Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information4 # Description Health Violations 0 Monitoring Violations 1 Lead and copper sampling deficiencies in 2000 DW Compliance Rate5 100% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Distribution loss rate in 2005. (3) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (4) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (5) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2006. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • There has been significant growth in the District over the last several decades. • Future growth is expected to be limited, as there are no proposed or planned developments. However, some growth is anticipated, as there are 30 undeveloped lots within the District. BY BURR CONSULTING II-349 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • Approximately one mile of distribution pipes are undersized, and need to be replaced to improve water pressure and fire flow. • The District appears to have adequate storage capacity. One of its two storage tanks is in fair to poor condition, and needs replacement. The District reported a need to replace the storage tank and expand storage capacity. • The District should perform an evaluation of the entire system to prioritize replacement. • District planning efforts are inadequate, and do not meet state standards for technical, managerial and financial ability. The District has not prepared a master plan or capital improvement plan. • The District lacks a general manager, as required by law, to implement board policies. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The existing rate structure does not provide for capital costs associated with ongoing capital replacement needs. • District water rates are comparable to other Amador County water purveyors, but have not been increased in four years. The District could improve its financial ability by periodically evaluating rates and structuring inflation-triggered rate increases. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The District relies on AWA for treatment and transmission of treated water through AWA facilities. • There is an opportunity for the District to share additional resources with AWA through the consolidation government structure option. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Accountability to local voters is constrained by a lack of contested elections. Improvements to accountability could be made by emphasizing public outreach activities and promoting interest in participation on the governing body. • The District has faced challenges in the past in providing adequate services. The District is considering consolidation with AWA in order to increase service levels. II-350 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RANCH HOUSE ESTATES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 20. R A N C H H O U S E E S TAT E S C O M M U N I T Y S E RV I C E S D I S T R I C T Ranch House Estates Community Services District (RHECSD) provides street maintenance services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION AND BOUNDARY Ranch House Estates Community Services District (RHECSD) was formed on December 30, 1977 as an independent special district.499 RHECSD was formed to provide fire protection, recreation, street maintenance and water services. Fire protection and recreation services were never initiated. As recently as 1990, the District provided water service, but it subsequently transferred the service to AWA. The current services provided by RHECSD are street maintenance. The principal act that governs the District is Community Services District Law.500 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed at the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).501 The RHECSD boundary is located at Ranch Road and SR 88, approximately three miles east of the community of Pine Grove. The bounds encompass parcels to the southeast of SR 88 along Meadowbrook Drive.502 The District has a boundary area of approximately 55 acres. LAFCO records indicate there have been three annexations to the District, totaling 102 acres. The first annexation occurred in 1978 and entailed 16 acres. Annexations occurred in 1984 and 1989, consisting of 69 and 18 acres, respectively.503 499 LAFCO resolution 77-95. Formation date is from Certificate of Completion. 500 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 501 Government Code §61106. 502 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of RHECSD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. BY BURR CONSULTING II-351 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The RHECSD SOI was adopted in 1982. LAFCO minutes indicate the SOI included 566 acres of territory beyond the District bounds. There are no other LAFCO records describing the specific sphere location or any subsequent alterations. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The principal act requires that districts have five-member governing boards, including a president and vice-president.504 RHECSD did not meet these requirements as of March 2008. In recent history, the CSD was governed by a four-person board, but the previous president recently moved from the area, and two additional members were in the process of resigning in early 2008. The District has tried to fill the board vacancies by posting notices on the community bulletin board. RHECSD directors are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors unless there is more than one interested party, in which case an at-large election is held. There have been no contested elections in recent history. Board members are elected to four-year terms. See Table II-20-1 for information on the board member and District contact information. Table II-20-1: Ranch House Estates CSD Governing Body Ranch House Estates Community Services District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Anita Durflinger Treasurer NP Bob Bartley1 Member NP Members Jenny Bartley1 Member NP (vacant) Member NA (vacant) Member NA Manner of Selection Appointed by the BOS; elections if more than one interested party Length of Term Four years Meeting Date: Twice per year Location: NP Agenda Distribution Posted Minutes Distribution By request Contact Contact Board Treasurer Mailing Address PO Box 1076, Pine Grove, CA 95665 Phone NA Email/Website NA Note: (1) Bob and Jenny Bartley were in the process of resigning from the Board as of the drafting of this report. 503 LAFCO resolutions 78-130, 84-181, and 89-218. 504 Government Code §61040, §61043. II-352 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RANCH HOUSE ESTATES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The principal act requires that boards convene at least four times a year or every three months.505 RHECSD reported meeting twice per year, which does not meet the principal act requirement. The District reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. The District did not report any constituent outreach efforts. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. MANAGEMENT The principal act calls for community service districts to appoint a general manager to implement board policies.506 RHECSD did not have a general manager position as of March 2008. RHECSD has no employees. The Board contracts out for maintenance services as needed. The District has not adopted any planning documents, such as a master plan or mission statement. The District did not report any financial planning efforts. The County manages District finances and produces an annual budget; however, District plans for maintenance services are not reflected in the budget. The District is responsible for audits. The financial statements for the District were most recently audited for FY 05-06. There is no formal capital improvement plan adopted by the District. Planning for capital improvements occurs on an as-needed basis. Board members annually walk the span of the courts, which are the roadways off Meadowbrook Drive maintained by the District, to check for cracks or other maintenance needs. The District did not report whether its management practices include risk management, or identify the insurance that it holds. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH There is little to no economic activity within RHECSD bounds, as land use is entirely suburban residential (5 acres per unit).507 Economic activity in the surrounding area includes farming and several small businesses in Pine Grove, including a drug store, auto body shop, realtor, and a dentist’s office. 505 Government Code §61044. 506 Government Codes §61050. Per §61040(e), the general manager may not be a member of the board. 507 Amador County, General Plan, Existing (2007) Land Use Classifications Map, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-353 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District serves approximately 158 residents and encompasses 78 parcels with 70 homes.508 The bounds include homes located on Meadowbrook Drive, which is a County road running through the District. The population density in the District is 1,835 per square mile (although the District encompasses only one tenth of a mile). Comparatively, the County’s population density is 64 per square mile. The District reported that there has been no increase in growth or demand for service within the District’s bounds. RHECSD is a built-out residential community with no significant potential for development. The closest development proposed is Pine Acres North, which would be constructed south of SR 88 and contain approximately 100 residential units. The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The District reports that its current financing level is adequate to deliver services. The District tracks its finances through a single general fund for road maintenance activities. Accounting for the District’s single fund is maintained by the County, through the Count Auditor’s office. Total revenues in FY 06-07 amounted to $24,434. The primary revenue sources are property sales (83 percent), property assessments (14 percent) and interest (three percent). The District sold property to the County to supplement finances. In other years, the District only receives revenue from property assessments. The District charges $51 per parcel on 71 of the 78 parcels within the District.509 The District did not identify what year the assessment was approved by the board. Expenditures totaled $13,342 in FY 06-07. The principal expenditure was for the chipsealing of two courts. The District has no long-term debt. There is no formal District policy on maintaining financial reserves. RHECSD had $31,116 in undesignated reserves at the close of FY 06-07, which is equivalent to 230 percent of expenditures in the same FY. In other words, the District maintained over two years of working reserves. 508 The population estimate is the product of the total occupied parcels and the average household size for Amador County, according to the California Department of Finance 2008. 509 The seven unassessed parcels do not front district-maintained roads. II-354 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RANCH HOUSE ESTATES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ROADWAY SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT RHECSD provides road maintenance services. Repairs are completed by a contractor. LOCATION RHECSD provides road maintenance on four courts off of Meadowbrook Drive. The District does not serve Brook Court or the portion of Meadowbrook Court east of Brook Court, as these roads are maintained by the County. The seven unassessed parcels do not front district-maintained roads. The District does not provide services outside of its bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE The District provides street maintenance on four small roads totaling 0.5 miles extending from Meadowbrook Drive—Dogwood Court, Valley View Court, Shadow Glen Court, and Rolling Hills Court. The District reports that two roads were chip sealed in 2007. The most recent chip seal for the other two roads was in 2003; they are reported as being in good condition. There are no current infrastructure needs. The roads do not meet the design standards to be accepted into the County’s public road system. SERVICE ADEQUACY The District reports that it has the means to provide services adequately. The District maintains an adequate reserve to fund needed street improvements. Preventative maintenance to minimize excessive costs is provided on a regular basis. To comply with the Community Services District Law, the District should hold board meetings at least four times annually and designate a general manager. In addition, the District would benefit from a community outreach program to recruit board members to achieve a five-member governing body in compliance with the principal act. BY BURR CONSULTING II-355 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-20-2: Ranch House Estates Street Profile Street Service Profile Service Configuration Street Maintenance Direct Drainage Maintenance NA Service Demand Street Sweeping Frequency: Service not provided. Circulation Description The District serves four courts or cul-de-sacs stemming off of Meadowbrook Drive. System Overview Street Centerline Miles 0.5 Signalized Intersections 0 Privately maintained roads 0.5 Bridges 0 Publicly maintained roads 0.0 Other NA Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies There are no current infrastructure needs according to the District. Service Adequacy Street Miles Rehabilitated FY 06-07 50% Costs per Street Mile 1 $26,684 Road maintenance acitvities in FY 06-07 included the chipsealing of two of the four courts. Service Challenges The District faces challenges in maintaining a full governing board due to a lack of constituent interest. Facility Sharing Current Practices: None identified. Opportunities: The District is considering transferring financial administration activities to the County. Notes: (1) CSD expenditures on road maintenance in FY 06-07 divided by centerline miles of street. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • There has been no growth within the District as the area is entirely built-out. No future growth is anticipated. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • Present and planned capacity of public facilities is sufficient, and service provision is adequate, as the District has chip-sealed all roads within the last five years. • All roads are reported as being in good to excellent condition, and the District did not identify any infrastructure needs. II-356 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RANCH HOUSE ESTATES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The District reports that its current financing level is adequate to deliver services. Current financial levels have allowed the District to provide regular road maintenance and keep roads in good condition. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The District does not currently share facilities and did not identify any opportunities for shared facilities. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Accountability to local voters is constrained by a lack of members on the board of directors, not having a designated president or vice-president on the board, and not meeting at least once every three months. The District also lacks a general manager to implement board policies. • The District has tried to fill board vacancies by posting notices on the community bulletin board, but reports that community interest in serving on the board is low. • No alternative government structure options are apparent, as there are no other road maintenance districts adjacent to RHECSD, and the roads do not meet the design standards to be accepted into the County’s public road system. BY BURR CONSULTING II-357 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 21. R I D G E WO O D AC R E S C O M M U N I T Y S E RV I C E S D I S T R I C T Ridgewood Acres Community Services District (RACSD) provides street maintenance services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION AND BOUNDARY Ridgewood Acres Community Services District (RACSD) was formed on September 16, 1974 as an independent special district.510 RACSD was formed to provide street maintenance and water services. Water services were transferred to Amador Water Agency in 2003. The District currently provides street maintenance services. The principal act that governs the District is Community Services District Law.511 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).512 The District is located along Ridgeway Drive, which extends south of SR 104, just west of New York Ranch Road. The District is approximately 4.5 miles northeast of SR 104’s intersection with SR 49. Ridgeway Drive is a circular route, and the bounds are limited to parcels on either side of this road. 513 The bounds encompass approximately 43 acres (0.07 square miles). LAFCO records indicate one detachment, which occurred in 1974 and detached just over one acre from the District. There are no records of annexations to the District. RACSD’s sphere was adopted in 1974. Based on a map included in LAFCO minutes, the Executive Officer surmises the District’s SOI excludes a small portion of the current District 510 Secretary of State Certificate #3630 certifying election results. 511 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 512 Government Code §61106. 513 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of RACSD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. II-358 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIDGEWOOD ACRES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT bounds. The map indicates that three parcels along Ridge Road are not included in the sphere, but the remainder of the sphere is coterminous with the bounds. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The principal act requires that districts have five-member governing boards.514 Accordingly, RACSD is governed by a five-member board of directors. If the election is not contested, the members are appointed by the County BOS to staggered, four-year terms. See Table II-21-1 for information on individual board members and term expirations. Table II-21-1: Ridgewood Acres CSD Governing Body Ridgewood Acres Community Service District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Tim Sammons President NP Mike Hackett Director NP Members Joe Robles Director NP Delbert Schulze Director NP Donna Schulze Director NP Manner of Selection Nominated by CSD Board, appointed by County BOS, Length of Term Four years Meetings Date: quarterly Location: NP Agenda Distribution Mailed or hand-delivered to home owners. Minutes Distribution By request Contact Contact President Mailing Address P.O Box 1170, Ione, CA 95640 Phone NA Email/Website NA The District uses letters or word-of-mouth to update homeowners on current issues. The District reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. MANAGEMENT The principal act calls for community services districts to appoint a general manager to implement board policies.515 RACSD did not have a general manager position as of March 2008. 514 Government Code §61040. 515 Government Codes §61050. Per §61040(e), the general manager may not be a member of the board. BY BURR CONSULTING II-359 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District has no employees. The Board contracts with a private company to perform all necessary maintenance. Maintenance and capital needs are determined by the Board at quarterly meetings. The District has not produced any planning documents such as a master plan; but reported that it maintains, distributes and enforces the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the Ridgewood Acres subdivisions. Enforcement of CC&Rs cannot be legally provided by the CSD.516 The District financial planning efforts include regular audits. The District reported that financial audits are performed every five years; and that the most recent audit was completed in 2002. The District does not adopt an annual budget or a capital improvement plan. Plans for capital improvements over a seven-year period are made informally at Board meetings. The District did not report whether its management practices include risk management, or identify the insurance that it holds. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH There is no economic activity in the District; land use is entirely suburban residential.517 The District’s closest economic centers are the City of Sutter Creek and Pine Grove, which are equidistant (five miles) in opposite directions along SR 104. The District serves approximately 59 residents.518 Twenty-nine parcels are assessed out of 34 in the District. Two of the 26 homes in the District are on double-lots. The District’s population density is 870 per square mile; however, the District’s size is less than one-tenth of a square mile. Comparatively, the countywide population density is 64 per square mile. The District reports that there has been no growth in the District since 1962. It is anticipated that there will continue to be no growth within the District as all parcels are already developed. One development application has been approved by the County to the northwest of the District boundaries along SR 104—the Aparicio Subdivision. The development would spread five residential units over 31 acres. This development is not likely to affect the District, as the District road does not provide access to other areas. The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. 516 Government Code §61105 provides “special statutory powers” to certain grandfathered districts, allowing for “special services and facilities that are not available to other districts.” Government Code §61105(e) lists the community services districts that are authorized to provide CC&R oversight. Because RACSD is not a grandfathered agency under Government Code §61105(e), and CC&R oversight is not an authorized power under Government Code §61100, RACSD is not authorized to perform CC&R oversight. 517 Amador County, General Plan, Existing (2007) Land Use Classifications Map, 2007. 518 The population estimate is the product of the total occupied parcels and the average household size for Amador County, according to the California Department of Finance 2008. II-360 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIDGEWOOD ACRES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FINANCING The District’s finances are tracked in a single fund. A second water enterprise fund was recently closed out and consolidated with the general fund. Financial reporting and bookkeeping services are provided by the County. The District reported that the current level of financing was sufficient for the most recent services provides, but will not be sufficient to provide necessary chipsealing services in 2014, as the contract cost is anticipated to increase by approximately 100 percent. Total revenues were $3,057 in FY 06-07. Sources of income were property assessments (98 percent) and interest (two percent). Each parcel within the District is assessed $110 annually. Five parcels within the District are not levied the annual assessment, because the residents have access to roads not maintained by the District.519 The assessment is not updated for inflation. The District would like assessments to increase to $225 per parcel per year to address increasing costs of maintenance. The matter was discussed at a Board meeting in August 2007, but the District reported that residents did not respond favorably. In FY 06-07, District expenditures were $17,020. A majority of the costs incurred were for road maintenance contracting. Expenditures were significantly higher than other years, as the District chipsealed the road, which is generally completed every six to seven years. The District had no long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The District has no formal policy on reserves, but aims to accumulate enough to fund regular chipsealing efforts. At the end of FY 06-07, District reserves totaled $7,637, which is equivalent to 45 percent of expenditures in that year. ROADWAY SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The District provides road maintenance services to one road, including paving and brush removal. Maintenance services are generally provided by contractors. Chipsealing is provided for the road every six to seven years. Volunteers occasionally trim trees to allow truck access on roads. LOCATION The District provides services within the District’s boundaries. The District does not provide services outside of bounds. 519 Based on a comparison of parcels submitted to the County Auditor for assessment and District bound records by LAFCO staff. BY BURR CONSULTING II-361 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II INFRASTRUCTURE The District maintains approximately 1.1 miles of roadway. The roads were chip-sealed in 2007 for just over $17,000 through a contract with the County. The District reports that this price was particularly low and will most likely increase to $30,000 in the next seven years. No new roads are planned, and there are no other infrastructure needs. The next chip seal will likely be needed in 2013 or 2014. The District roadway does not meet the design standards to be accepted into the County’s public road system. SERVICE ADEQUACY The District reports that it has had the means to provide adequate services in the past but anticipates requiring increased financing to fund increased maintenance costs. The District has maintained an adequate reserve to fund needed street improvements. Preventative maintenance to minimize excessive costs is provided on a regular basis. As required by the Community Services District Law, the District should consider hiring a general manager.520 520 Government Codes §61050. Per §61040(e), the general manager may not be a member of the board. II-362 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIDGEWOOD ACRES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Table II-21-2: Ridgewood Acres Street Profile Street Service Profile Service Configuration Street Maintenance Direct Drainage Maintenance NA Service Demand Street Sweeping Frequency: Service not provided. Circulation Description The District maintains Ridge View Drive, which is a loop that connects to SR 104 at each end. System Overview Street Centerline Miles 1.1 Signalized Intersections 0 Privately maintained roads 1.1 Bridges 0 Publicly maintained roads 0.0 Other NA Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies The road is repaved every seven years, which was most recently completed in 2007. There are no current infrastructure needs. Service Adequacy Street Miles Rehabilitated FY 06-07 100% Costs per Street Mile 1 $15,455 Road maintenance performed in FY 06-07 consisted of repaving Ridge View Drive. The next repaving will be in FY 13-14. Service Challenges The District anticipates that maintenance costs will increase by 100 percent in the next seven years and an assessment increase will be necessary to finance adequate services. Facility Sharing Current Practices: None identified. Opportunities: The District is considering transferring financial administration activities to the County. Notes: (1) CSD expenditures on road maintenance in FY 06-07 divided by centerline miles of street. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • There has been no growth within the District since 1962 and no future growth is anticipated. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • Present and planned capacity of public facilities is sufficient, and service provision is adequate, as the District chipseals its roadway every six to seven years. • The District reports that the roadway is in good to excellent condition, as it was chipsealed most recently in 2007. The District anticipates that no major maintenance will be needed until 2013 or 2014. BY BURR CONSULTING II-363 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The District reported that the current level of financing will not be sufficient to perform future maintenance due to increased costs. • Residents were not receptive to a District-proposed assessment increase in August 2007. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The District did not report any current or possible shared facilities. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • The District lacks a general manager to implement board policies. • Operational efficiencies are achieved by the use of volunteers to trim trees and clear brush. • The District is amenable to consolidation with other local street maintenance providers or dissolution with the transfer of services to the County. 521 No alternative government structure options are apparent, however, as there are no other road maintenance districts adjacent to RACSD, and the roadway does not meet the design standards to be accepted into the County’s public road system. 521 Interview with Tim Sammons, January 21, 2008. II-364 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIVER PINES PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT 22. R I V E R P I N E S P U B L I C U T I L I T Y D I S T R I C T River Pines Public Utility District (RPPUD) provides retail water delivery, wastewater collection and wastewater treatment and disposal services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION RPPUD was formed on July 24, 1961, as an independent special district. 522 RPPUD was formed to provide water services to the River Pines community. The sewer system was completed in 1988. The principal act that governs the District is the Public Utility District Act.523 The principal act empowers the District to acquire, construct, own, operate, control, or use works for supplying light, water, power, heat, transportation, telephone service, or other means of communication, or means for the disposal of garbage, sewage, or refuse matter.524 In addition, the District may acquire, construct, own, complete, use, and operate a fire department, street lighting system, public parks and other recreation facilities, and provide for the drainage of roads, streets, and public places.525 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000.526 BOUNDARY AND SOI The RPPUD boundary encompasses the community of River Pines, which is located in northern Amador County just inside the Amador-El Dorado county line. The boundary area encompasses the portion of the community zoned for low-density residential uses, and excludes outlying parcels zoned for suburban-residential use. The boundary extends north to the South Fork of the Cosumnes River, east to Meadow View Road, south to include parcels on Spring Land and Circle 522 Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 523 Public Utilities Code §15501-17501. 524 Public Utilities Code §16461. 525 Public Utilities Code §16463. 526 Government Code §56824.10. BY BURR CONSULTING II-365 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Avenue, and west to include parcels on Pigeon Trail and Emigrant Trail Roads.527 The District has a boundary area of approximately 84 acres. The District’s SOI was adopted by LAFCO in 1976, but the resolution does not include any description of the sphere boundary. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE RPPUD is governed by a five-member board of directors. Directors are elected, although they are appointed if necessary to fill vacancies. The most recent contested election was held in 2007. Table II-22-1: RPPUD Governing Body River Pines Public Utility District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Jackie Keehnen Chair Dec-09 Lylis McCutcheon Vice Chair Dec-09 Members Anita Ebbinghausen Director Dec-11 Mary Beth Van Voorhis Director Dec-11 Carol Albaugh Director Dec-09 Manner of Selection Members are elected at large via biennial elctions in odd numbered years Length of Term 4 years Date: second Wednesday of each month, Location: River Pines Community Meeting 6:30 p.m. Center, 22900 Canyon Way Agenda Distribution Posted at the U.S. Post Office bulletin board in town Minutes Distribution Upon request Contact Contact General Manager Mailing Address P.O. Box 70, River Pines, CA 95675 Phone (209) 245-6723 Email/Website rppud@centralhouse.net The District informs constituents by word of mouth. Candidates for board position typically conduct outreach by visiting constituents in person. The District does not maintain a website where public documents can be accessed. With regard to customer service, the District reported that complaints most often relate to water quality and billing. Complaints may be submitted to the general manager via mail, phone, fax, email, or in person. In 2007, the District reported that it received three complaints, two relating to water taste/odor and water turbidity, and another related to billing. 527 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of RPPUD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. II-366 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIVER PINES PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT The District reported that it had no prosecuted Brown Act violations in recent history. However, in the past, there have been decisions within the scope of the District’s responsibilities made without accompanying board actions. Several board members were recalled and voted out of office in 2005. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. However, the District was unable to respond to all LAFCO requests for information due to limited records and information. MANAGEMENT The District is managed by a part-time general manager who works approximately 20 hours per week (Monday-Wednesday). The manager has 21 years experience in water and sewer operations and maintenance. He meets with staff daily and sets weekly objectives for staff. District staff includes a water maintenance worker (12 hours per week) who supervises a wastewater operator (20 hour per week) and two water operators (one full-time and the other is presently on leave). A wastewater treatment contractor works approximately 5-10 hours per week. The District’s efforts to improve operational efficiency currently involve plans for personnel reduction. The District also plans to curtail use of its new well (Well 6R) during winter months to reduce its utility and testing expense when surface water is available. Remaining independent of AWA is another District goal to promote cost efficiency. The primary management challenge cited is the difficulty recruiting qualified employees in a small community. The District did not report any performance evaluation practices, such as tracking workload, monitoring productivity, or evaluating operations. RPPUD conducts employee evaluations annually, and evaluates new employees after they complete their first three months. The District’s planning efforts are minimal. The District does not have a master plan for its water or wastewater system, and does not prepare a capital improvement plan. RPPUD hired a new general manager in 2008, who plans to conduct a rate study and prepare a capital improvement plan. District financial planning efforts include annual preparation of budgets. The District conducts financial audits on an occasional basis, but reports that it plans to conduct annual audits in the future. The most recent audit was completed in FY 03-04. The auditor reported that RPPUD has not maintained a detailed listing of its fixed assets, which is needed to correctly compute depreciation, or conducted an annual inventory of fixed assets, which is needed for proper control of District resources, particularly removable items. A draft audit report for FY 06-07 recommended the District inventory its fixed assets, budget its revenues, and require invoices for each transaction, among other accounting improvements. Management practices include risk management. The District’s insurance includes liability coverage of the buildings and property. BY BURR CONSULTING II-367 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Existing land uses in the District’s boundary are primarily low-density residential (i.e., 3 units per acre on average) with four commercial properties located on Shenandoah Road, three public service properties, and vacant parcels scattered throughout the community. Economic activity in the District’s service area includes retail and governmental services. Employers include the River Pines Market, RPPUD, and the U.S. Postal Service. There are approximately 200 water connections within the District bounds. The estimated population within District bounds is 446.528 The District’s population density is 3,412 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. The District reported that service demand has been relatively stable in recent years. Future growth is expected to be limited, because there are only a few undeveloped properties within the District’s bounds. There were 85 standby accounts within District bounds in early 2008 and another five standby accounts outside bounds. There are no proposed or planned development projects within the District, although there is a planned 25-unit development just outside District bounds. The District reported that it is open to annexing if development outside its bounds pays the full cost of connecting to the system. Otherwise, the District is not interested in expanding its service area, indicating that facilities are undersized for serving the existing customer base, the cost to connect is prohibitively expensive, and financial reserves are minimal. The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING RPPUD reports that current financing is sufficient to deliver services, and that all capital costs are incorporated into the rate structure. However, the District has significant unmet capital needs, some of which have not been evaluated, indicating likely underfunding of capital replacement. The District tracks its finances through two enterprise funds, one for water and the other for wastewater. Total revenue in FY 06-07 was $307,354. Revenue sources are water and sewer rates (72 percent), property taxes (7 percent), standby charges (3 percent), service charges, and interest. In addition, revenue source not specified compose 13 percent of revenue.529 Total expenditures for the year were $289,335. Costs are primarily composed of employee compensation (28 percent), maintenance services (15 percent), professional and legal services (8 percent), clerical services (8 percent), utilities (8 percent), and insurance (5 percent). 528 The population estimate for the District is the product of the number of water connections within the boundary area and the average household size (2.3) in Amador County in 2008, according to the California Department of Finance. 529 RPPUD, Financial Statements, FY 06-07, p. 3. II-368 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIVER PINES PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT The District had long-term debt of $254,932 at the end of FY 06-07. RPPUD debt includes loans from DWR and Amador County. The DWR loan for $190,000 financed construction of a new well, and is interest-free. RPPUD has a loan from Amador County for water ($64,932 outstanding) with an interest rate of 3.5 percent, which is scheduled to be repaid by 2012. RPPUD’s water debt outstanding was 148 percent of its annual water expenditures. The District does not have an adopted policy on its target level for financial reserves. TPCD had a fund balance of $630,412 at the close of FY 06-07. The District did not provide information on the portion of its fund equity that is reserved, so actual reserves are unknown. The fund balance amounted to 218 percent of annual expenditures, or 26 months of working capital. The District reported that it had run out of funds temporarily during FY 07-08, and had borrowed for cash flow purposes. Subsequently in 2008, the District received $420,000 from the County associated with official transfer of the wastewater collection system to the District. At the close of FY 07-08, the District reported that it RPPUD participates in a joint financing arrangement with the County. RPPUD and the County formed a JPA for purposes of water capital financing. WATER SERVICES This section describes the nature, extent and location of the water services provided as well as key infrastructure and water sources. The tables provide further information and indicators of the agency’s water service supplies, demand, financing, service adequacy, and facilities. The water chapter in the MSR main document contains analysis and conclusions based on this information. NATURE AND EXTENT RPPUD supplies treated water to domestic users. Water services include groundwater pumping, treatment of surface and groundwater, distribution and billing. The District does not produce or use recycled water, and does not practice conjunctive use. The District relies on AWA staff (via contract) for emergency maintenance services and technical services; for example, AWA conducted repairs in 2007 of leaking distribution lines. RPPUD contracted with AWA for certain backup managerial and technical services to qualify for a State Revolving Fund loan to finance capital improvements in 1999. In the past, the District relied on a private company for billing and accounting, although the District plans to transition this to be handled by District staff in FY 08-09. LOCATION RPPUD provides services within its bounds. The District’s service area extends beyond its boundary area; there are 19 connections served across the river in El Dorado County. The District’s water services are available to all of its boundary area. There are parcels not presently electing to receive service; there were 85 standby accounts within District bounds in early 2008 and another five standby accounts outside bounds. BY BURR CONSULTING II-369 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure includes the District’s water supplies, a surface water treatment facility, two wells with treatment facilities, and distribution lines. The District’s water sources are groundwater and surface water. The groundwater source is a shallow, fractured rock aquifer underlying the River Pines community. Groundwater is extracted at two wells (Well No. 2 and Well No. 6-R). Well No. 2 was drilled in 1976 and replaced in 2008; its yield of 35 gpm does not satisfy District demand alone when Cosumnes River water is unavailable. Well No. 2 needs a storage shed and incorporation of well production data into the SCADA system. Well No. 6-R was dug in 1998, and yields 60 gpm. Well No. 6-R needs a SCADA system for improved system reliability, a permanent system for handling discharges from the waste tank, and access road improvements; the property needs to be condemned as RPPUD has an easement for the property at present. Both wells need downhole transducers to monitor the water level. The groundwater at Well No. 6-R is classified as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. Safe annual yield is unknown, as water production records are poor quality and no hydrogeological studies have been conducted in the last two decades.530 Groundwater quality at one of the wells (Well 6-R) is subject to microbiological contamination associated with coliform. That well is located about 15 feet from a pond that collects stormwater and was subject to a boil water order from the Department of Public Health from 2002 through 2006. The District primarily served water from Well No. 6-R in 2007. The treated water met all primary drinking water standards, but did not meet secondary standards for iron and aluminum. The drinking water source is most vulnerable to contamination from gas stations and high-density septic systems.531 The water is treated prior to distribution to consumers. The District diverts surface water from the South Fork Cosumnes River, which flows through the east part of the community. The District holds water rights to divert up to 126.4 af from the South Fork Cosumnes River for municipal purposes, and may divert at a maximum rate of .204 cfs.532 The District’s water right requires it to maintain a minimum instream flow of 15 gpm, and to install a device to measure instream flow. In addition, RPPUD has rights to divert an additional 3 af in water from the same source for recreational use during the summer months.533 The District does not presently have rights to store diverted Cosumnes River water, but could apply for such rights in the future to enhance water reliability. RPPUD has another 15 af in water rights from Slate Creek, a tributary to the south fork of the Cosumnes River, which may be used year-round for domestic 530 Correspondence from RPPUD General Manager Heinz Hamann, July 2, 2008. 531 California Department of Public Health, Water Assessment, March 2001. The reported vulnerabilities are those with a vulnerability score of 15 or more. 532 State Water Resources Control Board, permit 20878, last updated Nov. 6, 1996. 533 State Water Resources Control Board, license 1338, last updated Aug. 24, 1966. II-370 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIVER PINES PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT purposes.534 The Slate Creek source is not presently used. The Cosumnes River surface water source is generally good quality; however, it is affected by livestock in upstream fields. The daily average flow of the South Fork Cosumnes River varies over the course of the year. The greatest flows occur between January and April; during rainy weather, the District often relies on its groundwater source due to turbidity in the surface water and associated treatment issues. The daily average flow exceeded the instream flow requirement of 15 gpm even in the driest months (0.6 cfs in September), based on river gage monitoring by U.S. Geological Survey between 1958 and 1980.535 Since then, flows have declined, and there are times when there is no surface flow in the river. From July to November, the river is typically dry at the surface. In 2001, the river became unusable due to extremely low flow, and RPPUD increased its reliance on groundwater sources. In 2007, the District relied on surface water in June and early July, but did not divert surface water in the remainder of the year, and instead relied on groundwater. The RPPUD surface water treatment system consists of chemical pre-treatment, a slow sand filtration system, and disinfection.536 RPPUD diverts the South Fork Cosumnes River through an infiltration gallery which directs water into a pipe located beneath the streambed and to the treatment plant. When turbidity of the raw surface water is high, a pre-treatment system may be used to reduce turbidity prior to regular treatment. The pre-treatment system consists of an in-line mixer, coagulation, and pressure sand filtration (at 40 gpm capacity). However, RPPUD typically relies on groundwater during high-turbidity periods. The slow sand filter plant removes particulates, which are deposited in the top of the filter sand bed, and operates at a capacity of 100 gpm. The slow sand filter's infiltration gallery needs to be covered, the chlorine analyzer needs to be replaced, the autodialer needs to be replaced, and operations data needs to be incorporated into the SCADA system. A flow meter needs to be installed downstream of the diversion point to comply with the water rights permit. The existing single-cell filter needs to be separated into two cells for redundancy so the system is operational during maintenance. Groundwater is treated with chlorine to address bacteriological concerns. Groundwater at Well No. 6-R is filtered with Rosedale filtration equipment. The District has a total of 170,000 gallons of storage capacity. By comparison, peak day demand is 284,000 gallons. In other words, the District’s stored water capacity would accommodate up to 60 percent of a day of peak demand. The District does not consistently maintain water reserves in all of its storage facilities, as demonstrated by a 2007 regulatory violation associated with serving old water that had been left in a partially filled contact tank that is one of the District’s storage facilities.537 One of the storage tanks needs to be replaced. There are no interties between the 534 State Water Resources Control Board, license 1748, last updated Aug. 24, 1966. 535 Daily average flow was calculated by U.S. Geological Survey for a gage located just downstream of River Pines that was operational from 1958 through 1980 (State Water Resources Control Board, Decision 1634, 1996, p. 8). 536 California Department Public Health, 2005 Annual Inspection Report: River Pines Public Utility District, Oct. 4, 2005. 537 California Department of Public Health, Notice of Violation No. 03-10-07NOV-003, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-371 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II RPPUD system and neighboring water systems. Both storage tanks need to be inspected; the Jaybird tank was last inspected in 2000 and the Circle Ave. tank was last inspected in 1998. Both tanks likely require interior maintenance. The Jaybird tank needs exterior paint. The distribution network consists of 4.8 miles of water mains. The largest distribute main is undersized, and needs to be upgraded to the current six-inch diameter standard. The most recent (2005) state inspection notes that most of the mains were in good condition, but that approximately 10 percent of the mains were constructed of iron and reported to be corroded and undersized. Portions of the system are undersized and were installed in the late 1920s. The number of leaks has increased; the District needs a comprehensive leak detection program. There are nine dead-ends in the distribution system, each of which is flushed every six months; these need to be interconnected to nearby mains to improve flows. RPPUD needs to replace aging valves, and install additional valves to reduce impacts on customers during maintenance. There are two separate pressure zones—one in the River Pines community and another in the portion of the service area in El Dorado County. Fire flow is deficient, as indicated by the impact on water pressure when hydrants are opened, although the District needs to conduct modeling to determine precisely how deficient and to identify solutions and associated costs.538 Generally, the District lacks certain equipment needed for water operations. The District does not own the proper equipment (e.g., backhoe, jackhammer) for performing most types of distribution system repairs. Additionally, the District reported that new vehicles with racks and utility boxes are needed. The District’s regulatory record includes deficiencies. In 1998, the District destroyed a well due to bacteriological contamination, and drilled a new well 30 feet from the destroyed well which was also subject to bacteriological contamination. DPH conducted a technical, managerial and financial (TMF) assessment of the District in 1999, and concluded that RPPUD had TMF deficiencies. At that time, DPH found the District lacked a source capacity evaluation, growth projections, technical engineering evaluation, capital improvement plan, capital replacement plan, and expenditure control procedures, among other deficiencies. RPPUD contracted with AWA for technical assistance; however, the various plans listed as TMF deficiencies in 1999 were not provided to LAFCO. DPH issued a notice of violation to the District in 2007 for having served old, stagnant water that had been left in a well contact tank for more than six months, and indicated that RPPUD “ran poor operations during this time and needs a good operations plan for preventing this and other situations in the future.”539 RPPUD reported that it had subsequently prepared a plan. For emergencies, such as water breaks and traffic accidents that knock out hydrants, RPPUD’s policy is to respond as quickly as possible. RPPUD staff arrives on scene within one hour; for incidents outside normal working hours, arrival on scene may take longer if RPPUD needs to call in an outside service like AWA. Depending on the nature of the emergency, the resolution times vary from immediate (shut a valve) to as long as 4-8 hours. 538 Interview with RPPUD General Manager Heinz Hamann, January 28, 2008. 539 California Department of Public Health, Notice of Violation No. 03-10-07NOV-003, 2007, p. 5. II-372 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIVER PINES PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT Table II-22-2: RPPUD Water Profile Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water River Pines PUD Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water River Pines PUD Groundwater Extraction River Pines PUD Water Treatment River Pines PUD Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water River Pines Wholesale Water River Pines Recycled Water NA Boundary Area 0.1 sq. miles Population (2008) 446 System Overview Average Daily Demand 0.0325 mgd Peak Day Demand 0.3 mgd Supply NP af Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Slow sand filter surface treatment 100 gpm Fair 1994 Well No. 02 well 35 gpm Good 1976 Well No. 06R well 65 gpm Excellent 1998 Jaybird storage tank 75,000 gal Fair 1982 Circle Ave. contact contact tank 20,400 gal Fair 1954 Circle Ave. storage storage tank 63,000 gal Fair 1964 Well No. 06R contact contact tank 12,000 gal Excellent 2005 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0 .17 Pump Stations 4 Pressure Zones 2 Production Wells 2 Pipe Miles 4 .8 Other: 18 fire hydrants Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The slow sand filter's infiltration gallery needs to be covered, the chlorine analyzer and autodialer need to be replaced, and operations data needs to be incorporated into the SCADA system. A flow meter needs to be installed downstream of the diversion point to comply with the water rights permit. Well No. 6-R needs a SCADA system, a permanent system for handling wastewater from the waste tank, and access road improvements; property condemnation is needed as the District only has an easement. Well No. 2 needs a storage shed and incorporation of well production data into the SCADA system. Both wells need downhole transducers to monitor the water level. Each treatment facility needs electrical improvements. Iron water mains are corroded. Older distribution lines are in poor condition and need to be replaced. Fire flow is deficient (e.g., one hydrant being open has a significant impact on water pressure); modeling is needed to identify capital needs and costs. Facilities are undersized for existing demand. Storage tanks are in poor condition. The Circle Ave. storage tank needs to be replaced with a tank with 0.2-0.25 mg capacity. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: RPPUD contracts with AWA for as-needed services Opportunities: There may be opportunities to share equipment with service providers in El Dorado County. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-373 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 209 190 19 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 Residential 204 185 19 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 5 5 0 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year) 2000 2005 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total NP 35 36 37 39 40 41 Residential NP 34 35 36 37 38 40 Commercial/Institutional NP 1 2 2 2 2 2 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm South Fork Cosumnes River surface water NP 1 29 NP Slate Creek surface water NP 1 5 NP Groundwater wells groundwater NP 1 37 NP Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) 2000 2005 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total NP NP 41 NP NP NP NP Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater NP NP 37 NP NP NP NP Surface NP NP 4 NP NP NP NP Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)1 Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP Significant Droughts 1976, 1977, 1988-94 Storage Practices District water storage capacity amounts to 60 percent of peak day demand. Drought Plan None Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering Yes, 100 percent of connections are metered. Conservation Pricing Rate schedule includes water use charges, with gradually higher rates for greater use. Other Practices None Notes: (1) Firm or safe water supply from the surface water source and aquifer is unknown. Limits of water during drought are unknown. continued II-374 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIVER PINES PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT Water Rates and Financing Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Residential $34.95/month base + use charge $ 57.95 7,600 gal/month Special Rates Customers outside the boundaries pay 50 percent higher water rates. $10/month standby charge for parcels within bounds that are not actively served. Wholesale Water Rates NA Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description The District has an increasing block rate schedule; greater water use pays higher rates. The District reported it is conducting a rate study and anticipates a rate increase in FY 08-09. Most Recent Rate Change May-05 Frequency of Rate Changes Every 3-5 years Water Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach Properties paying standby charges pay $4,500 for a new connection. Connection Fee Timing Due prior to connection. Connection Fee Amount $7,500/Single Family Unit Land Dedication Requirements Any new developer would be required to build water lines to RPPUD specifications and dedicate those lines to the District. Development Impact Fee None Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 06-07 Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $193,268 100% Total $172,542 Rates & charges $133,466 69% Administration $55,450 Property tax $23,045 12% O & M $84,275 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $29,660 Interest $96 0% Debt $3,158 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $0 Other $0 0% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions used to calculate average monthly bills are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-375 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators Water Planning Description Planning Horizon Water Master Plan None NA UWMP None NA Capital Improvement Plan None NA Emergency Response Plan Emergency contacts Last updated 2006 Other Plans Operations plan for the slow sand filtration plant Service Challenges The most significant challenge at the treatment plant is continuity of operating knowledge due to past employee turnover; to address this, the District plans to develop an operations manual and attempt to prevent turnover. Distribution system piping is not standardized, creating challenges for distribution system maintenance. Standardized piping would simplify distribution system maintenance. Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 199 O&M Cost Ratio1 $2,592,981 MGD Delivered/FTE 0.03 Distribution Loss Rate 11% Distribution Breaks & Leaks 2 Distribution Break Rate2 41.6 Response Time Policy as quick as possible Response Time Actual 4-8 hours Water Pressure 20 psi Total Employees (FTEs) 1.05 Water Operator Certification The District is required to have a D1 certified chief operator for the distribution system and a T2 certified chief operator for the treatment plant. District staff have certifications of T2 for treatment systems and D2 for distribution systems. The District is meeting the requirement for treatment certification and exceeding the requirement for distribution certification. Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3 # Description Health Violations 0 NA Monitoring Violations 2 Haloacetic Acid and total trihalomethanes monitoring, 2005 DW Compliance Rate4 100% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (3) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2007. II-376 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIVER PINES PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT WASTEWATER SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT RPPUD provides wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services. The District primarily provides services directly with its own staff. The District personnel lack certification in maintenance of collection systems, and rely on AWA for contract services related to collection maintenance. The community relied on septic systems until FY 87-88 when the sewer system was completed. RPPUD and the County developed the system because septic systems were failing, soils and small lots made septic systems infeasible and due to public health hazards associated with septic systems.540 State and federal grants funded the costs of developing the sewer system. Amador County planned, acquired easements, developed and owned the wastewater collection system until 2008 when it was transferred to RPPUD. RPPUD now owns the collection system and bears responsibility for all aspects of the wastewater system. LOCATION RPPUD offers wastewater services throughout its boundary area. As of 2008, there was one connection served outside District bounds. There were 19 inactive (standby) sewer accounts in the RPPUD system. INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure includes the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), sewer pipes and lift stations. The District’s WWTP has a facility design flow capacity of 0.035 mgd (ADWF), and can accommodate peak flows of 0.088 mgd. By comparison, existing flow (ADWF) was 0.02 mgd in 2007, and peak flow is 0.03 mgd. The treatment system consists of a bar screen, two 1.25-af aerated ponds, a secondary clarification pond and a storage reservoir, and a 17-acre spray field.541 Treated effluence is disinfected prior to disposal. The disposal system consists of eight sprinkler circuits. Solids accumulate in the ponds are removed occasionally; sludge is hauled off-site to a landfill for disposal. The wastewater collection system consists of an unknown number of miles of gravity sewer and approximately 1.5 miles of force main. The system is subject to infiltration and inflow, although the peaking factor of 1.8 is lower than the industry standard of 3.0. There are three major pumping 540 An estimated 60 of 215 septic systems had failed when the wastewater collection system was developed (Baracco and Associates, Environmental Impact Report: River Pines Wastewater Facilities Project, June 1984, p. 3) 541 Central Valley RWQCB, Waste Discharge Requirements for River Pines Wastewater Treatment Plant: Order No. 85-291, 1985. BY BURR CONSULTING II-377 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II stations: East Side, Horseshoe Lane and Slate Creek. In addition, there are seven small “grinder” pump stations, which are located along the Cosumnes River; these pump wastewater through a force main up to the gravity collection system. Table II-22-3: RPPUD Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection River Pines PUD Wastewater Treatment River Pines PUD Wastewater Disposal River Pines PUD Recycled Water None Service Area Collection: River Pines Treatment: River Pines Recycled Water None Sewer Connection Regulatory/Policies Properties with structures are required to connect to the sewer system. Onsite Septic Systems in Service Area The District is not aware of any septic systems within the service area. Service Demand 2007 Connections Flow (mgd) Inside Outside Type Total Bounds Bounds Average Total 184 183 1 0.020 Residential 179 178 1 0.019 Commercial 3 3 0 0 .001 Institutional 2 2 0 0 .000 Projected Demand (in millions of gallons per day) 2007 2015 2025 Build-Out Avg. dry weather flow 0.020 0.021 0.023 NP Peak wet weather flow 0.036 0.038 0.041 NP Note: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. continued II-378 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIVER PINES PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Secondary Disposal method: Secondary treated effluent is discharged to sprayfields. Facility Name Capacity Condition Yr Built Wastewater Treatment Facility 0.035 mgd Good 1985 Equalization basin (storage reservoir) 4 mg Fair 1985 Spray field 17 af Good 1985 Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) Average Dry Peak Wet RPPUD WWTP 0.024 0.0432 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The main motor control center at the wastewater plant is corroded, and needs to be cleaned by qualified personnel. The treatment ponds need new aerator timing devices, spare aerator motors, and spare parts for primary aerators. Rodent control is needed in two ponds, and duckweed control is needed in one pond. There is significant duckweed in the storage basin, which affects pollutant loads (i.e., BOD), and needs to be reduced or eliminated. The sprayfields need annual vegetation abatement; a solenoid is needed to control operations at one of the sprayfields. Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles NP Sewage Lift Stations 10 Other: 1-2 miles of force main Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Improvements to allow for emergency notification of failures is needed at lift stations and grinder stations. Automatic transfer switch boards are obsolete and need upgrade. Night lighting is needed at lift and grinder stations for employee safety. Wastewater collection maintenance equipment and employee training is needed so the District can comply with new regulatory requirements in a cost- effective fashion. A lifting device is needed to remove manhole covers. A SCADA system with autodialers is needed to alert personnel when lift stations fail. Infiltration and Inflow The District reported significant I/I during wet weather, however, its WWTP has enough wet weather capacity to handle peak flows that result. Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing Regional Collaboration The District contracts with AWA for wastewater collection system maintenance services. Facility Sharing Opportunities No facility-sharing opportunities were identified. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-379 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Regulatory Compliance Record, 2000-7 Formal Enforcement Actions 0 Informal Enforcement Actions 4 Enforcement Action Type Date Description of Violations Notice of Violation 7/29/2002 Permit condition 2002 Oral Communication 12/13/2001 Deficient report 2001 Notice of Violation 3/14/2001 Deficient reports 2001 (31) Staff Enforcement Letter 9/14/2000 Deficient report 2000 Service Adequacy Indicators Sewer Overflows 20071 0 Sewer Overflows 20062 NP Treatment Effectiveness Rate3 100% Sewer Overflow Rate4 0 Total Employees (FTEs) 1.05 Response Time Policy5 as quick as possible Employees Certified? Yes Response Time Actual 0.75 - 1.5 hours Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices NP Collection System Inspection Practices The only portion of the collection system that is regularly inspected are the grinder stations and lift stations. Collection system piping is not inspected. Service Challenges District personnel do not have collection systems maintenance certification, and rely on AWA contract personnel for this function. The District lacks collection system maintenance equipment, and cannot operate the only piece of maintenance equipment (a Camel-Jett) as District vehicles are not large enough to tow it. Wastewater Planning Plan Description Planning Horizon Wastewater Master Plan None NA Wastewater Collection Plan None NA Capital Improvement Plan None NA Sanitary Sewer Management Plan None NA Emergency Plan emergency contacts NA Other: Operations and Maintenance Manual Notes: (1) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2007 as reported by the agency. (2) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2006 as reported by the agency. (3) Total number of non-compliance days in 2007 per 365 days. (4) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. (5) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage. continued II-380 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIVER PINES PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT Wastewater Rates and Financing Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Demand2 Residential Flat Charge $44.50 250 gpd Rate Zones There is only 1 rate zone. Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description: Each connection pays $44.50 monthly. Last Rate Change 8/1/2005 Frequency of Rate Changes Occasional Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach The connection fee was last updated in 2004. Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit issuance. Connection Fee Amount1 Residential: $7,748 Land Dedication Req. None Development Impact Fee None Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY 06-07 Expenditures, FY 06-07 Source Amount % Amount Total $114,086 100% Total $116,793 Rates & Charges $101,707 89% Administration $20,484 Property Tax $0 0% O & M $96,310 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $0 Interest $5,275 5% Debt $0 Connection Fees $0 0% Other $0 Other $7,104 7% Notes: (1) Rates include wastewater-related service charges and strength and flow charges. Average monthly charges calculated based on average consumption. Rates are rounded for presentation. (2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are 250 gallons per home per day, and are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, see Chapter 4. (3) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home. BY BURR CONSULTING II-381 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • The District has experienced minimal growth in recent years. Water demand has declined since its peak in 2001, apparently due to increased water conservation. • Future growth consists of infill opportunities on vacant parcels. There were 85 standby accounts within District bounds in early 2008 and another five standby accounts outside bounds. • The District reported that it is concerned about expanding its service area because facilities are undersized for serving the existing customer base; however, the District is open to considering proposals to expand its service area when new development absorbs all costs of infrastructure extension and expansion. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • RPPUD needs to install a flow meter downstream of the diversion point to comply with its water rights permit. The RPPUD surface water treatment facility needs various improvements and upgrades. Iron water mains are corroded and undersized, and need replacement. Older distribution lines are in poor condition and need to be replaced. Fire flow is deficient; modeling is needed to identify capital needs and costs. The District lacks basic equipment, such as a backhoe, and needs to acquire it and/or share such equipment with neighboring providers. • Existing water storage capacity is inadequate, meeting less than one day of peak demand in spite of a lack of interties connecting the community to other water systems. Storage tanks are in poor condition; the Circle Ave. storage tank needs to be replaced with a tank with 0.2- 0.25 mg capacity. Storage tanks have not been inspected in 8-10 years, and need regular inspection. • The District faces challenges in delivering adequate water services. Past regulatory violations and evaluations reveal poorly operated water services, and failure to keep storage facilities filled with potable water reserves. • District planning efforts are inadequate, and do not meet state standards for technical, managerial and financial ability. Although the regulatory agency identified a need for the District to develop a water capacity evaluation, capital improvement plan or prioritized list of infrastructure needs, and growth projections in 1999, such plans have not been developed to date. • The District should perform an evaluation of the entire water system to prioritize capital replacement needs and establish appropriate rates. II-382 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO RIVER PINES PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT • The District has adequate wastewater treatment and disposal capacity to meet existing and projected demand. • Treatment ponds and sprayfields are in good condition, but need spare aerator motors and improved rodent and vegetation control. • The wastewater collection system is 23 years old, and is not regularly inspected due to lack of qualified personnel, lack of equipment and financing constraints. RPPUD contracts with AWA for collection system maintenance. The District needs a SCADA system with autodialers to alert personnel to lift station failures. • The District appears to provide adequate wastewater services based on its overflow rate, response times, and compliance record. However, the District is not proactive with respect to collection system maintenance, lacks basic information and tools related to its collection system, and has not begun to implement new regulatory requirements for the collection system. Staff training or increased funding of the AWA services contract is needed to provide adequate wastewater collection services. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The current rate structure does not appear to finance adequate service levels. The District faces challenges in regulatory compliance. The District has not prepared a capital improvement plan, established a capital replacement fund or evaluated suspected infrastructure needs. • Rates have not been increased in several years, and need to be evaluated. • Financial reserves were inadequate, as indicated by the District’s emergency cash flow and related borrowing needs in FY 07-08. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The District contracts with AWA for emergency and technical services. • The District identified opportunities to share equipment with nearby service providers in El Dorado County. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • The District demonstrated accountability in that there is adequate interest in its governing body to provide for contested elections. Outreach efforts are typically informal and minimal. The District’s transparency to the public is limited by a lack of planning documents. Improvements to accountability could be made by emphasizing public outreach activities and planning efforts. BY BURR CONSULTING II-383 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II • The District serves connections outside its bounds in El Dorado County. A government structure option is annexation of the area served outside bounds. • The Amador County Grand Jury recommended annexing nearby residences to extend sewer services, and reduce septic contamination in water supplies per District ordinance 02-004. The District has not expressed interest in this governance option. • The District has faced challenges in the past in regulatory compliance and providing adequate services. The District is not interested in dissolution, as it wishes to retain local control over water and wastewater services. II-384 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO SUNSET HEIGHTS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 23. S U N S E T H E I G H T S C O M M U N I T Y S E RV I C E S D I S T R I C T Sunset Heights Community Services District (SHCSD) provides street maintenance, drainage, street lighting, weed abatement, and snow removal services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION Sunset Heights Community Services District (SHCSD) was formed on July 16, 1981 as an independent special district.542 SHCSD was formed to provide water distribution and road services to the residents of the District. Water distribution (including facility ownership, operation and maintenance) was transferred to AWA in October of 2006.543 The principal act that governs the District is Community Services District Law.544 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. The CSD provides street maintenance, drainage, street lighting, weed abatement, and snow removal services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).545 BOUNDARY AND SOI The SHCSD bounds are located entirely within Amador County. The District is located two miles west of the community of Pine Grove, where Bowman Road intersects Ridge Road. The District bounds encompass parcels along the full length of Bowman Road, which extends south of 542 LAFCO resolution 80-151. Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 543 Transfer date provided by District. 544 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 545 Government Code §61106. BY BURR CONSULTING II-385 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Ridge Road for approximately 0.75 miles, in addition to several streets that branch off this main road.546 The boundary area encompasses approximately 114 acres or 0.2 square miles.547 The District reported that two properties (the Schnell and Miller properties) east of Marc Drive were annexed to the District and were being assessed. LAFCO has no record of these annexations. There are no LAFCO records of the District’s SOI. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will adopt a SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The principal act requires that districts have five-member governing boards, including a president and vice-president.548 Accordingly, SHCSD is governed by a five-member governing body. If the election is not contested, directors are nominated by the board members and appointed by the County Board of Supervisors to four-year terms. See Table II-23-1 for information on individual supervisors, term expirations and contact information. Table II-23-1: Sunset Heights CSD Governing Body Sunset Heights Community Services District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Chuck Lowrie President 11/30/09 Betty Brandson Director 11/30/11 Members Tara Farish Director 11/30/11 Loren Lukens Director 11/30/09 Dennis Miller Director 11/30/09 Manner of Selection Appointments Length of Term Four years Date: Every two months Location: Rotated among the homes of Meeting the directors Agenda Distribution Posted on notice board at the intersection of Marc Drive and Lynn Lane Minutes Distribution By request Contact Contact Board President Mailing Address 17910 Sharon Court, Pine Grove, CA 95665 Phone NP Email/Website NA 546 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of SHCSD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. 547 Morlan Civil Engineering, Road Maintenance Assessment Diagram of the Sunset Heights CSD, October 25, 1999. 548 Government Code §61040, §61043. II-386 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO SUNSET HEIGHTS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT District constituent outreach efforts include community meetings and input on issues such as assessments and level of service desired. For example, a public meeting was held on May 18, 2004 to decide amongst six maintenance scenarios and assessment amounts for District road services, and the District adopted the alternative recommended by residents. The District reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. MANAGEMENT The principal act calls for community service districts to appoint a general manager to implement board policies.549 SHCSD did not have a general manager position as of March 2008. The District employs a part-time bookkeeper. The Board contracts with private companies to perform necessary maintenance and snow removal. Maintenance and capital needs are determined by the Board at regular meetings. District planning documents include the Sunset Heights Roadside Brush Management Plan (1985). This plan specifies a minimum of 10-foot high and two-foot setback of vegetation for all roads. It also calls for maintaining the appearance of vegetation along roads and also privacy screening in front of lots. The District also has a road benefit assessment plan (2005). District financial planning efforts include biennial audited financial statements, and capital improvement plans with a 15-year horizon. The most recent audit provided by the District is for FY 06-07. The audit identified inadequacies in the fixed asset records of the District, which constrained the auditor’s ability to review assets and depreciation expenses; no other reportable conditions were identified. It should be noted that the District transferred its water system to AWA in FY 06-07, including the system’s fixed assets. The latest CIP was adopted in 2007 with a planning horizon of 2026. The District does not adopt an annual budget; although the CIP has estimated completion dates for projects, which is used for budgeting purposes. Management practices include risk management. The District carries a $2 million commercial general liability insurance policy. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH The existing land uses in the District are agricultural and residential. Residential uses include both suburban (5-acre lots on average) and low-density (1-acre lots on average).550 The closest economic activity is located in Pine Grove along SR 104. There are no major employers in the 549 Government Codes §61050. Per §61040(e), the general manager may not be a member of the board. 550 Amador County, General Plan Update, Existing (2007) Land Use Classifications Map, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-387 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II boundary area, as the community’s CC&Rs prohibit business activity. The District reports that there is one home-based landscaping business operating out of a residence in the area, and the District is concerned about employee truck traffic speeding on District roads.551 The District reports that the CHP has informed the District that a civil suit would be necessary to pursue the violation of CC&Rs. A civil suit is cost prohibitive, however, and the District has taken no action. There are approximately 124 residents living on the 55 parcels in the District.552 The District’s population density is 694 per square mile, although the District is less than one-fifth of a square mile. Comparatively, the countywide density is 64 residents per square mile. The District did not report an increase in growth or service demand within the District, with the exception of the increased truck traffic from the landscaping business. The District is expected to experience little to minimal growth in the near future, as there are no planned developments in the area. One resident would like to add four homes to his 37 acres in the southeast portion of the District; however, it is not anticipated to occur for another five to 10 years, sometime between 2013 and 2018. The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The District has the financial ability to deliver services, having recently increased its road assessment and indexed future increases to inflation. The District is concerned about the impact of escalating oil costs on paving costs. If paving costs increase faster than inflation, the District may need to increase assessments in the future to maintain service levels. The District tracks finances through a single fund. The most recent financial statement provided by the District dates from FY 06-07. The District’s total revenues were $19,783 in FY 06-07. Assessments for road maintenance, annual district expenses, culvert replacement and periodic road striping are the primary revenue source for the District. The District also received interest income. The District does not receive a share of the one percent property tax. The District increased its annual assessment rate from $100 to $372 in 2005 with voter approval. The adjustment was made to accommodate the high cost of oil. The assessment amount was calculated by adding all expected expenses through the District’s CIP horizon (through 2020) and evenly dividing this amount across time and parcels.553 The assessment is adjusted for inflation, as 551 Interview with Chuck Lowrie, Board Member, Sunset Heights CSD, January 29, 2008. 552 Population estimated calculated with number the reported number of parcels and the 2008 DOF average household size for Amador County. 553 SHCSD, Road Benefit Assessment, 2005. II-388 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO SUNSET HEIGHTS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT measured by the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area CPI. The assessment is collected on 49 of the 55 parcels in the District’s bounds. In FY 07-08, the assessment is $390. Expenditures in FY 06-07 totaled $29,930. The primary expense was for road maintenance services (composing 89 percent of costs). Other expenses include insurance (11 percent) and street lights (less than one percent). The District had no long-term debt outstanding at the end of FY 06-07. The District did not report an adopted policy on maintaining financial reserves. The District’s bank balance was $14,744 at the end of FY 06-07. This amount represented 47 percent of annual expenditures. The District’s financial reserves decreased significantly in FY 06-07 as a result of its transfer of its water system, including the cash reserves of the water system, to AWA. ROADWAY SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The District maintains seven roads within its boundaries. SHCSD hires contractors for road maintenance, including brush management. District policy is to perform major road work, including asphalt concrete overlays and aggregate roadbase rehabilitation, every 15-20 years. LOCATION The District provides services within its boundaries, although it does not maintain Sunrise Court, which is located in bounds. Sunrise Court is maintained privately by the homeowners along the road. The District assesses two parcels outside of its boundaries, east of Marc Drive for road maintenance services. These two parcels are located along Gy Tam Lane, which can only be accessed via Marc Drive. These parcels were apparently annexed by the CSD without going to LAFCO. INFRASTRUCTURE The District maintains a total of 1.4 miles of roadway. Primary efforts are focused on the main roads which serve a majority of the parcels, including Bowman Road, Marc Drive, and Lynn Way. The remaining roads—Steven Lane, Sharon Court, Sunset Road East and West—each serve six or fewer parcels. All roads, with the exception of Sharon Court and Sunset Road East, are paved with 2-inch thick asphalt concrete. Sharon Court roadway consists of chipseal and Sunset Road East is a dirt road. Sharon Court is expected to be paved by 2010, and Sunset Road East is expected to be paved by 2017. SHCSD leases one street light, which was installed approximately 20 years ago. The District pays PG&E $24 per month for electricity and maintenance of the light. BY BURR CONSULTING II-389 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Road-related equipment owned by the District includes a striper for road lanes and stencils for the painting of the speed limit on the roads. The road striper and stencils are used exclusively by the District, and not by private contractors. The District reported no road-related infrastructure needs. Planned improvements between 2010 and 2026 are expected to total $194,769. Planned rehabilitation projects include the repaving of all District roads and the laying of asphalt fabric between coats. Routine maintenance activities include patching and crack sealing. SERVICE ADEQUACY The District reports that it maintains an adequate reserve to fund needed street improvements and that preventative maintenance is provided on a regular basis. The District identified traffic enforcement as challenge to providing services to the area. CHP does not regulate speed in the area, because it is outside of the agency’s purview. Underage drivers on ATVs and other motorized vehicles are also an issue in the District. II-390 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO SUNSET HEIGHTS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Table II-23-2: Sunset Heights CSD Road Service Summary Street Service Profile Street Lighting Service Configuration Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights 1 # Maintained by Contract 1 # Maintained by County 0 Street Maintenance Service Configuration Street Maintenance Direct Drainage Maintenance Direct Service Demand Street Sweeping Frequency: Service not provided. Circulation Description Bowman Road extends south of the main thoroughfare, SR 104. Marc Drive extends from Bowman Road and forms a loop with Lynn Way back to Bowman Road. The remaining four roads extend from Bowman Road and Marc Drive into cul-de-sacs. System Overview Street Centerline Miles 1.4 Signalized Intersections 0 Privately maintained roads 1.4 Bridges 0 Publicly maintained roads 0 Other NA Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies No needs or deficiences were reported. Service Adequacy Street Miles Rehabilitated FY 06-07 18% Costs per Street Mile 1 $9,275 Road maintenance performed in FY 06-07 included rehabilitation of Steven Lane, Marc Drive South and a portion of Bowman Road. Service Challenges The District did not identify any challenges to providing service. Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing Existing Facility Sharing: The District did not identify any existing facility sharing practices. Facility Sharing Opportunities: The District did not recognize any opportunities for future facility sharing. Notes: (1) Average annual CSD expenditures on road maintenance through FY 25-26, as estimated in the District's CIP divided by centerline miles of street. BY BURR CONSULTING II-391 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II DRAINAGE SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT The District maintains culverts and drainage channels along its seven roads. Maintenance is performed directly by the Board of Directors as needed to clear leaves. One Director, Mr. Dennis Miller, takes primary responsibility for this task. All property owners are encouraged to clean ditches along their own properties. LOCATION The District provides drainage maintenance services within District bounds. Services are not provided outside of bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE The District maintains the ditches and five culverts along Bowman Road, Marc Drive, Lynn Way, Stevens Lane, Sharon Court, Sunset Road East (a fire road) and Sunset Road West. The District reported no infrastructure needs. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • There has been no recent growth within the District, and minimal future growth is anticipated. One resident plans to subdivide his 37-acre parcel to add four homes, although this is not anticipated to occur until 2013 at the earliest. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • Present and planned capacity of public facilities is sufficient, and service provision is adequate, as the District has performed all needed maintenance on the roadways. • The District reports that all paved roadway segments are in good condition, and there are no major infrastructure needs or deficiencies. Sunset Road East (a dirt road for fire access) is scheduled to be paved by 2017. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The District has the financial ability to deliver services, having recently increased its road assessment and indexed future increases to inflation. II-392 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO SUNSET HEIGHTS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT • The District is concerned about the impact of escalating oil costs on paving costs. If paving costs increase faster than inflation, the District may need to increase assessments in the future to maintain service levels. • The District has planned for all financial expenses through 2026 in its CIP. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • SHCSD does not share facilities and did not identify any opportunities. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • The District reported that two properties east of Marc Drive were “annexed” to the District; however, LAFCO has no record of this action. Absent a formal LAFCO proceeding, these parcels are not within the boundary. The District reports that these two properties currently pay assessments for road maintenance, and have paid assessments since formation of the CSD. A search of the LAFCO archives confirmed that LAFCO has no record of these parcels being annexed to the District. A recommended government structure option is to have these parcels officially annexed to the District by LAFCO. • The District lacks a general manager, as required by law, to implement board policies. • Roadway drainage maintenance is performed on a volunteer basis. All property owners are encouraged to clean ditches along their own properties, and additional maintenance is performed by a member of the Board of Directors as needed. BY BURR CONSULTING II-393 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 24. S U T T E R C R E E K F I R E P RO T E C T I O N D I S T R I C T Sutter Creek Fire Protection District (SCFPD) provides fire and emergency response services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION SCFPD was formed in 1906 and is an independent special district.554 The District was formed to provide fire and emergency services. The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.555 The principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical, hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives and property.556 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000.557 BOUNDARY AND SOI The SCFPD boundary area is limited to two non-contiguous areas: the first encompasses the City of Sutter Creek and the second encompasses Amador City and minimal unincorporated territory west of Amador City. The cities are in central-west Amador County, and together encompass approximately three square miles.558 The boundary area is approximately 3.1 square miles. By comparison, the service area is 55 square miles. 554 Formation date reported from District. 555 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970. 556 Health and Safety Code §13862. 557 Government Code §56824.10. 558 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of SCFPD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. II-394 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO SUTTER CREEK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT LAFCO records indicate there have been seven annexations to the District since LAFCO was created, affecting a total of 97 acres.559 The most recent annexation occurred in the 1990s and involved 44 acres. The District’s SOI is unknown. LAFCO records indicate the original SOI was adopted in December 1976, but the record does not provide a description of its boundaries. There is no record of LAFCO amending the SCFPD SOI when Amador City was annexed to the District bounds. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The principal act stipulates that a fire protection district’s board of directors must have an odd number of members, with a minimum of three and a maximum of 11.560 Directors may be appointed or elected to staggered four-year terms. Boards are to internally elect directors to the positions of president and vice-president. Accordingly, SCFPD is governed by a five-member, elected board of directors. The Board has a chair and vice-chair. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Table II-24-1. Table II-24-1: SCFPD Governing Body Sutter Creek Fire Protection District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Edward Arata Chair Nov 2011 Harold Gamble Vice Chair Nov 2009 Members Reed Shugart Director Nov 2009 Ron Watson Director Nov 2011 Bob Ward Director Nov 2011 Manner of Selection At-large elections Length of Term Four years Meetings Date: As needed Location: NP Agenda Distribution Posted Minutes Distribution Provided on request Contact Contact Chair Mailing Address P.O. Box 365, Sutter Creek, CA 95685 Phone (209) 267-0285; (209) 267-0587 Email/Website suttercreekfire@sbcglobal.net With regard to customer service, complaints may be submitted to the District via phone or letter. The District is not aware of any complaints submitted in 2007. The District reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. 559 LAFCO resolutions 69-16, 69-20, 69-22, 72-45, 72-47, 72-51, 83-173. The resolution and adoption date for the seventh annexation were not found in the LAFCO archives. 560 Health and Safety Code §13842. BY BURR CONSULTING II-395 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency cooperated with document requests and responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires. MANAGEMENT The Chief and three battalion chiefs manage the daily operations of the District. SCFPD does not perform employee or performance evaluations. The District has a mission statement, which is simply “Save lives, protect property, and be safe.” District financial planning efforts include annual budgets and biannual financial audits. The most recent audit was completed in FY 04-05; the District reported that a FY 06-07 audit was pending at the time this report was drafted. The District does not have a capital improvement plan. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Existing land uses in the SCFPD boundary area are primarily single-family residential, and include commercial, industrial, mining, and institutional uses. Commercial and industrial land uses are concentrated in the Sutter Hill area and along Old Highway 49.561 Large, vacant parcels are located on the outskirts of Amador City.562 Land uses in the District’s service area, which includes about 52 square miles outside the District’s bounds, are predominantly agricultural and vacant, and include commercial and industrial uses in the Martell area.563 Major employers in the District’s bounds include the City of Sutter Creek, and hotels in Sutter Creek and Amador City. There are several small restaurants and shops in both cities. The District’s service area includes a portion of the unincorporated Martell community with its many retailers. The District’s population is approximately 3,110—the combined population of the two cities in 2008.564 The District’s population density is 917 per square mile, substantially higher than the countywide density of 64. Within the District’s services area, which extends outside of its bounds, there are approximately 4,570 residents.565 561 City of Sutter Creek, General Plan Land Use Element, 1994, Map LU-1. 562 Amador City, General Plan Land Use Element, 2007. 563 Amador County, General Plan, Existing General Plan Land Use Classifications, 2007. 564 Department of Finance, January 1, 2008 estimates. Population in the minimal unincorporated territory served by the District was not available. 565 Author’s estimates based on service area (excluding automatic aid areas) population from the Census 2000 and annualized growth rates according to DOF. II-396 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO SUTTER CREEK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SCFPD has experienced significant growth. The population in the District’s boundary area grew by 27 percent from 2000 to 2007, much faster than the 10 percent population growth rate experienced in the County as a whole. The SCFPD service area includes the Martell area, where significant retail development occurred in recent years. The District reported that service demand is increasing due to developments both inside and near its bounds and that it does not have the capacity to serve this growth due to financing constraints. The District reported that service demand is increasing due to developments both inside and near its bounds and that it does not have the capacity to serve this growth due to financing constraints. There were six planned and proposed residential developments in the Sutter Creek vicinity at the time this report was drafted. These developments would add 1,602 residential units, of which Gold Rush constitutes over 80 percent of these proposed units. For more information on these developments, see the City of Sutter Creek profile in Chapter II-5. There are few lots available for development within Amador City, but a development was pending outside its bounds as of the drafting of this report. These plans detail 18 units on 21 acres. For more information, see the Amador City profile (Chapter II-1).The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The District reports that current financing levels are not adequate to deliver services currently, and would not accommodate projected increases in service demand. Total revenues were $237,592 in FY 06-07. The primary revenue source is property taxes, comprising 77 percent of total revenue. Service charges composed 17 percent of revenue; this revenue source includes payments by AFPD for automatic aid responses by SCFPD in the AFPD service area. AFPD paid $145 per service call in 2008, and the amount increases annually based on a contractual agreement. Interest income constituted four percent of revenue. Although the District did not report any mitigation fee revenue in FY 06-07, it has received mitigation fees in past years. For examples, mitigation fees composed five percent of revenue in FY 04-05. The District’s expenditures in FY 06-07 were $221,389. Expenditures were composed of employee compensation (26 percent), services and supplies (42 percent), debt payments (21 percent), and capital expenditures (11 percent). The category of services and supplies includes protective clothing, maintenance expenses, and utilities, among others. If the Gold Rush Development is approved, the development will establish a new revenue stream for fire protection services. The development plans to create a funding mechanism to support a full-time, paid fire department with paramedic ambulance service available to Sutter Creek residents. An annual allocation of approximately one tenth of one percent of assessed property tax BY BURR CONSULTING II-397 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II value for each approved parcel will be established for fire protection; collection will commence after each parcel is occupied. Revenues benefiting the fire department will increase over time until the project is built-out, and the department will have an ongoing source of annual revenue.566 The District had $43,679 in outstanding long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The purpose of this debt was to purchase equipment. The District had a fund balance of $284,670 at the end of FY 06-07, of which $141,591 represented unrestricted, undesignated reserves. That amounted to 64 percent of expenditures. In other words, the District maintained approximately 7.5 months of operating reserves. The District anticipated drawing down these reserves in FY 07-08 by $51,795, according to its proposed budget.567 The District does not have a formal policy on reserves, although it does aim to keep as much as possible for economic downturns and unforeseen emergencies. FIRE AND EMS SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT SCFPD provides fire prevention, fire suppression services, emergency medical response, and rescue services. In addition, the District provides public assistance, building inspections and public education. Rural portions of the SCFPD service area are in the CALFIRE State Response Area. In these overlap areas, CALFIRE provides primary wildland fire response and SCFPD provides primary structure fire response.568 The District reports that call firefighter response time is slowest during normal business hours and early morning. Personnel The District is staffed by 24 call firefighters across three battalions. The average age is 41 years, and the average length of service is over 12 years. Five firefighters (21 percent) are certified by the State at the Firefighter 1 level or higher. Eight firefighters (33 percent) are certified at the EMT-1 level or higher; the other 16 sworn staff are first responders. Non-sworn personnel include a secretary and an administrator. 566 Gold Rush Ranch and Gold Resort, Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort Specific Plan, 2007, p. 81. 567 The District provided a proposed budget, and did not provide an adopted budget for FY 07-08. 568 Pursuant to Health and Safety Code §13811. II-398 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO SUTTER CREEK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The City of Sutter Creek allows two full-time employees to respond to all emergencies during their work hours.569 Call firefighters are recruited by word of mouth. The District reports an average turnover of three call firefighters per year. This represents a 13 percent turnover rate in 2007. The net change of sworn personnel is unknown; the District did not provide information on new hires. Non-sworn staff is limited to a secretary and an administrator. The Chief, battalion chiefs and non-sworn staff receive annual stipends. All sworn personnel receive a ten dollar payment per call. The District reported that training of cadets is challenging due to the limited number of classes available and their cost. Required training time in the District is 110 to 150 hours, as specified by a training officer. Regular training is held on Wednesday nights and more often as needed. In addition, the County offers an initial training through a 67-hour course, which is held annually and is open to all service providers in the County. Regional Collaboration SCFPD collaborates with other fire providers in the County through the Amador Fire Protection Authority. SCFPD provides automatic aid to adjacent areas through an agreement with AFPD. SCFPD is considering consolidation with AFPD.570 SCFPD, the City of Jackson and AFPD have agreed (in automatic aid agreements) to work jointly on developing a regular fire authority in the Jackson, Martell and Sutter Creek areas. The three agencies agreed to meet at least quarterly. Informal regional training events are held with other providers in the County. Dispatch and Communications All 911 calls made from land lines in Amador County are automatically routed to the Amador County Sheriff’s communication center in Jackson, which is the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Cell phone 911 calls are answered by the California Highway Patrol in Stockton, and then are routed to the Sheriff. Fire and EMS calls are routed from the PSAP to CALFIRE’s Camino Interagency Command Center, which in turn dispatches a CALFIRE unit as well as the appropriate local jurisdiction responder. SCFPD is dispatched to all calls within its primary response area. All fire providers in Amador County, including SCFPD, communicate through the same radio systems. Due to shared radio frequencies, SCFPD is able to communicate with other providers. When multiple service providers respond to an incident, the first unit to arrive on scene is responsible for incident command. The first responder notifies other providers whether and when sufficient personnel have arrived on scene. For incidents such as vehicle accidents, law enforcement 569 City of Sutter Creek, Budget, FY 07-08, p. VI-18. 570 Budrick, J, “Fire officials consider unifying,” Amador Ledger-Dispatch, February 1, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-399 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II becomes responsible for incident coordination once it arrives on scene through universal command protocols; prior to law enforcement arriving on scene, the first responding fire provider remains responsible for incident command. LOCATION The District serves its primary response area (approximately 42 square miles) is much larger than its legal bounds (approximately three square miles). The area encompasses the District’s legal bounds and extends three to five miles beyond in all directions to form one contiguous area. The primary response area extends east of Sutter Creek to Carpenter’s Gulch, north to the intersection of New Chicago Road and North Quartz Mountain Road, west to the intersection of Varia Ranch Road and SR 49, and south to the intersection of SR 88 and SR 104. The area includes the area north of the railroad tracks in the unincorporated community of Martell. According to Board of Equalization tax rate area maps, there is small area within the Amador City limits that has no designated fire provider. INFRASTRUCTURE SCFPD operates three fire stations. One station is reported as being in poor condition; the others are in good and excellent condition. The District has plans to replace the station in poor condition with a new station in Sutter Hill (the southern portion of incorporated Sutter Creek), but did not provide the timing, cost or financing source for the new station. A new station will be needed in the Gold Rush Development.571 Accordingly, the development will include a site for a public safety facility that is expected to include a fire station as well as professional office space for SCFPD. Both will be located along Ridge Road at the east end of the project, close to the planned police station. Fire access roads will be constructed on the east and west sides of the development. In addition, although not yet formalized, the Gold Rush Development plans to ensure adequate fire flow.572 The District reports that it needs new fire vehicles but has not purchased these due to financial constraints. No further information was provided regarding infrastructure or infrastructure needs. The District did not describe its source for water reserves or the water carrying capacity of apparatus, but did report that all areas in the District are equipped with fire hydrants. SERVICE ADEQUACY There are two general indicators of service adequacy for municipal fire providers: ISO rating and response times. The Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization, classifies fire service 571 Interview with Jim McCart, Fire Chief, AFPD, January 17, 2008. 572 Gold Rush Ranch and Gold Resort, Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort Specific Plan, 2007. II-400 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO SUTTER CREEK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT in communities from 1 to 10, indicating the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best systems for water distribution, fire department facilities, equipment and personnel and fire alarms and communications receive a rating of 1. SCFPD has an ISO rating of 5, and was last evaluated by ISO in 2000. Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster the required response. The response time guideline established by the California EMS Agency is five minutes in urban areas, 15 minutes in suburban or rural areas, and as quickly as possible in wilderness areas. SCFPD’s bounds are classified as urban in Sutter Creek and rural in Amador City. The District’s 90th percentile response time in 2007 was 9.4 minutes, meeting the rural but not the urban guideline. Similarly, its median response time of 8.7 minutes does not meet the urban guideline. The District reported service challenges include the costs of training classes and dispatch delays associated with the transfer of calls among agencies. The District reports that there is room for improved efficiency in all areas of service. BY BURR CONSULTING II-401 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-24-2: SCFPD Fire Profile Fire Service Service Configuration Service Demand Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 EMS Direct Total Service Calls 628 Ambulance Transport American Legion % EMS 63% Hazardous Materials Calaveras and San Joaquin % Fire 12% Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CHP, Private % Vehicle Accidents 9% Fire Suppression Helicopter CALFIRE % Other 15% Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 75% Fire/EMS Dispatch CALFIRE Calls per 1,000 people 137.4 Service Adequacy Resources ISO Rating 5/9 Fire Stations in District 3 Median Response Time (min) 8.7 Fire Stations Serving District 3 90th Percentile Response Time (min) 9.4 Sq. Miles Served per Station 2 14 Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 3 26 Training Total Full-time Firefighters 0 Required training time is 110 to 150 hours, as specified by a training officer. Total Call Firefighters 24 Regular training is held on Wednesday nights and more often as needed. Total Sworn Staff per Station 4 8 Service Challenges Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 5.3 Costs of training classes are prohibitive. Staffing Base Year 2008 Fire Flow Water Reserves NP Facilities Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus Station 141 350 Hanford Street Excellent Unstaffed 2 Type 1 Engines, Type 2 Engine, Sutter Creek, CA Water Tender (3000 gal) Station 142 18 Main Street Fair Unstaffed Type 3 Engine, Rescue Sutter Creek, CA unit Station 143 10791 Water Street Poor Unstaffed Antique Engine Amador City, CA Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies The District needs a new station and multiple fire engines. There are delays in transferring dispatch calls among agencies with the current system. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers Current Practices: There is a mutual aid agreement The District collaborates with County providers through the Amador Plan and between AFPD, CALFIRE, the City of AFPA. Station 141 is open for community elections and classes. Ione, the City of Jackson, JVFPD, Opportunities: LFPD, and SCFPD. SCFPD has an Opportunities for regional collaboration include consolidation with AFPD or automatic aid agreement with AFPD. countywide consolidation. Notes: (1) CALFIRE has a MOU with Calaveras County and a secondary MOU with San Joaquin County for hazmat services. (2) Primary service area (square miles) per station. (3) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. (4) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. II-402 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO SUTTER CREEK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • The population within the District’s boundary grew 27 percent between 2000 and 2007, much higher than the countywide average. The District’s service area experienced significant growth with the recent development of the Martell retail development. • Service demand is anticipated to continue to increase due to the planned and proposed developments in and around Sutter Creek and the continued commercial development in Martell. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The District’s current facilities have sufficient capacity to serve current demand. The District does not have the capacity to serve future growth with existing fire stations and financial resources. • Given the significant level of growth and increased demand experienced by the District, the District should consider adopting a master plan to plan for needs for future service and a capital improvement plan to identify financing needs and sources for those needs. • SCFPD could improve its Firefighter I certification rate of 21 percent. • The District identified a need for a new station to replace an existing station in poor condition, as well as several new vehicles. However, the District does not have plans to address these needs in the near future due to financing constraints. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The District reports that current financing levels are not adequate to deliver services currently, and would not accommodate projected increases in service demand. SCFPD is considering financing mechanisms to improve fire protection service levels in collaboration with AFPA. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • SCFPD shares its stations with outside organizations for classes and elections. • SCFPD collaborates with other fire providers in the County, providing and receiving automatic and mutual aid and as a member of AFPA. • Consolidation with other fire districts, such as Jackson FD and AFPD, offers opportunities for shared resources as well as pooled finances to hire full-time staff. BY BURR CONSULTING II-403 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Consolidation of SCFPD with Jackson FD and AFPD is a governance option that is under consideration by the affected agencies. II-404 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO TOWNSHIP NUMBER TWO PUBLIC CEMETERY DISTRICT 25. T OW N S H I P N U M B E R T WO P U B L I C C E M E T E RY D I S T R I C T Township Number Two Public Cemetery District (TPCD) operates and maintains two cemeteries. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION TPCD was formed on April 21, 1943, as an independent special district.573 The District was formed to provide cemetery services to residents in the southwest portion of the County. The principal act that governs the district is Public Cemetery District Law.574 The principal act authorizes the district to own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries, provide interment services within its boundaries, and to sell interment accessories and replacement objects (e.g., burial vaults, liners, and flower vases). Although the district may require and regulate monuments or markers, it is precluded from selling them. The principal act requires the District to maintain cemeteries owned by the District.575 The law allows the District to inter non-residents under certain circumstances. Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000.576 BOUNDARY AND SOI The TPCD boundary is located entirely within Amador County. The bounds encompass the area south of Carbondale and west of Pardee Reservoir, including the City of Ione, and the unincorporated communities of Buena Vista and Camanche Village. One parcel along the Amador- Calaveras county line is excluded, this parcel is mostly water.577 The boundary area encompasses 112 square miles. 573 The formation date source is the Board of Equalization’s Tax Area Services unit. 574 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093. 575 California Health and Safety Code §9040. 576 Government Code §56824.10. 577Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of TPCD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. BY BURR CONSULTING II-405 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The District’s SOI was adopted in 1976, but the resolution does not include any description of its boundary. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The County Board of Supervisors appoints a board of trustees with three or five members to govern a cemetery district.578 District boards are to elect a chair and vice-chair,579 and trustees are to serve staggered, four-year terms.580 Accordingly, TPCD is governed by a five-member board of trustees, although the Board does not have an identified vice-chair. For Board members and term expirations, see Table II-25-1. Table II-25-1: TPCD Governing Body Township No. 2 Public Cemetery District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends John Stremfel Chairman 7/01/2010 Raymond Cavagnaro Trustee 5/22/2010 Members Robert Briggs Trustee 8/16/2008 Judy Allen Trustee 5/22/2010 Marilyn Brettner Trustee 8/16/2008 Manner of Selection Volunteer, Board Approval Length of Term Four years Date: Second Tuesday of each month Location: Cemetery office, 500 S. Meetings at 10 a.m. Church St., Ione Agenda Distribution Posted at City Hall Minutes Distribution By request Contact Contact Chairman Mailing Address PO Box 1478, Ione, California 95640 Phone NA Email/Website ipcmanager@goldrush.com The District’s constituent outreach efforts include dissemination of its agenda and, upon request, meeting minutes. The District reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. 578 California Health and Safety Code §9020-9021 579 California Health and Safety Code §9028(b) 580 California Health and Safety Code §9024(a) II-406 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO TOWNSHIP NUMBER TWO PUBLIC CEMETERY DISTRICT MANAGEMENT The cemetery manager is the only cemetery staff. He reports to the Trustees at Board meetings. The cemetery manager is paid an hourly wage and has been with the District for five years. In addition to the manager, the grounds are maintained by probationers to fulfill community service requirements. One to five individuals come to the cemetery two to three times per week to complete service. Their total workload is equivalent to approximately one FTE maintenance worker. In previous years, Mule Creek State Prison workers were hired to maintain the grounds. The manager reported no challenges or difficulties managing the probationers. The District’s primary plan is its catalog, inventorying plots that are occupied, sold or vacant. Many catalog records are missing from 1993 to 2000, and the District does not have the original 1850 catalog for the older parts of the cemetery. In 2001, the District attempted to reconstruct the catalog with records on hand, but surmises that approximately 1,500 to 2,000 plots in the older section of the Ione Public Cemetery and 300 to 400 plots in the Catholic Cemetery are not catalogued. The District was in the process of contacting family members of a previous cemetery manager (who has since passed away) to try to uncover old records, as of the drafting of this report. District financial planning efforts include an annual budget and biannual audited financial statements. The most recent audit was completed in FY 06-07. The District does not prepare a capital improvement plan, but does plan for future improvements informally. The District carries liability insurance in addition to employee and workers compensation insurance policies. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH The District includes the City of Ione, Buena Vista, and Camanche Village. Land use within Ione is mostly low-density residential or vacant. The City also contains limited amounts of commercial and industrial land uses. Areas immediately outside the City are nearly all vacant. Non- vacant land uses include agricultural and some industrial. There are also some scattered suburban residential parcels outside of city limits. Other portions of the District are highly agricultural, with significant amounts of residential and vacant lands towards the south (near Camanche Village and Camanche North Shore). Camanche North Shore includes approximately three parcels of commercial use; Buena Vista contains one. Mining for silica sand, refractory clay, specialized lignites, and other materials is a major industry near Ione and Buena Vista.581 There is some industrial land use outside of Ione consisting of correctional programs. Major employers in the area include Ione Minerals, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Mule Creek State Prison and Preston Youth Correctional Facility. 581 Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Draft TEIR for Flying Cloud Facility, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-407 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The estimated population within District bounds is 9,556, of which approximately 5,666 (59 percent) constitutes civilian, non-institutional population and the remainder prisoners.582 The District’s population density is 51 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. The District reports that development and population growth in the area have not yet affected the District; service demand has been stable in recent years. Residential development plans and proposals in the District center on the City of Ione. Ten developments are proposed or planned in the City of Ione and three are planned or proposed outside its bounds. Altogether these developments, if approved and built-out, would house approximately 7,383 residents – 4,969 inside current city limits, and 3,770 outside. For more information, see the City of Ione profile (Chapter II-2). The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING TPCD reports that current financing is sufficient to deliver services. The District tracks its finances in a single general fund. Total revenue in FY 06-07 was $100,310. Revenue sources are property taxes (78 percent), plot sales and service charges (13 percent), interest (4 percent), and intergovernmental aid from the State (4 percent). The District charges $750 for a single plot, with more affordable plots available in its Memory Garden. It also charges fees for services, such as burying ashes ($225), setting a headstone ($75) and providing extra care on curbed plots ($40 annually). The District’s fee schedule was last updated in 2001. The principal act requires the District to charge non-resident fees that are at least 15 percent higher than fees charged to residents and property owners.583 The District’s fee schedule does not include such fees for non-residents. The District should implement non-resident fees as soon as practical to comply with the law. Total expenditures for the year were $66,590. Costs are primarily composed of employee compensation (48 percent), maintenance services (36 percent), capital investments (7 percent) and utilities (6 percent). The largest expenditure categories for the year were employee salary and maintenance activities. The District carries no long-term debt. 582 The population estimate for the District is the sum of the population in the City of Ione and the estimated population for the Jackson Valley Fire Protection District (JVFPD). The source for the City of Ione population in 2008 is the California Department of Finance, and the remainder was estimated based on the number of parcels with structures in JVFPD and average household size in Amador County. 583 Health and Safety Code §9068. II-408 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO TOWNSHIP NUMBER TWO PUBLIC CEMETERY DISTRICT The District’s policy on reserves is to accumulate reserves for large projects. TPCD had $150,302 in reserves at the close of FY 06-07. That amounted to 225 percent of annual expenditures, or 27 months of working capital. Endowment Care Fund Cemetery districts must establish, operate and maintain an endowment care fund.584 Fund monies are received through sale of cemetery property and land and must be placed in a trust account for future maintenance of the cemetery. The principal must be invested, and only the income from the investment may be used for care, maintenance and embellishment of the cemetery. There are restrictions on how the endowment fund principal may be invested. The District does not have an endowment care fund. Although the current manager has found some receipts for plot sales in the past that include endowment care fees, there is no record from past financial statements of an endowment care fund having been in existence in the past.585 The County Auditor-Controller, who maintains the District’s accounts, confirmed that the District does not maintain such a fund currently. By all appearances, the District intends to correct this by implementing such a fund in the near future. The District was not aware of this legal requirement until January 2008, when interviewed for this report. Its response has been to conduct research and inform its board. In the course of this research, the District has reviewed old receipts and financial statements, and interviewed former board members to determine that there is no record or institutional memory of any former endowment fund. The law does not appear to require the District to charge endowment fees of those who have already purchased plots in the past, although it is within the District’s discretion to do so. The County Auditor-Controller indicated that his office could accommodate the District’s need to track a future endowment fund separately from its operating fund. At a minimum, the District must charge those who purchase plots in the future an endowment care fee of $2.25 per plot square foot.586 This amounts to $90 for a standard plot (40 square feet) or $112.50 for a curbed plot (50 square feet). By comparison, the District presently charges $750 for a single plot. The District may choose to reduce the price of a single plot so that by charging the endowment care fee, it would not have a significant effect on overall plot costs. Alternatively, the District may decide to impose endowment care fees in addition to existing plot charges. If so, the endowment care fee would increase costs to future plot purchasers by about 12 percent. 584 Health and Safety Code §9065. This requirement has been in effect since 1984. 585 The District manager reports that about five percent of plot sales are presently paid with cash, and cash transactions are thoroughly documented. It is unknown what standards were in the past with respect to cash sales. 586 Health and Safety Code §9065. BY BURR CONSULTING II-409 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II In establishing the endowment fee, the District will likely wish to consider policy questions about optimal fee levels. The District last increased its fees in 2001. Due to inflation in District costs, best management practices would involve comparison of charges and amenities with the neighboring private cemetery, and potentially updating the fees on a recurring cycle (e.g., every five years) to help ensure that revenues grow in proportion to expenditures. CEMETERY SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT TPCD owns and maintains the Ione Public Cemetery, and maintains the Sacred Heart Catholic Cemetery by an agreement with the Catholic Church. Under the agreement, TPCD provides maintenance to the Catholic Cemetery, and in exchange keeps all revenue from plot sales. The Catholic Church is in the process of issuing a quitclaim deed to TPCD for the Sacred Heart Catholic Cemetery, as of the drafting of this report. TPCD reports that the quitclaim process is expected to be completed by September 2008, and will contain a provision that if TPCD were to ever be dissolved, ownership of the Sacred Heart Catholic Cemetery would return to the Catholic Church. TPCD provides weed control and other maintenance as necessary within the cemeteries. The District also opens and closes urns. Full-body plots are handled by a gravedigger (not employed by the District). Burials There are a total of approximately 3,250 catalogued plots at the two cemeteries as of the drafting of this report: 2,774 at Ione Public and 476 at Sacred Heart.587 There were 23 burials between the two cemeteries in 2006 and 20 in 2007. The cemetery was established in 1850, and contains graves from that decade. There are likely graves from the 1840s there as well, according to the cemetery manager. The manager indicated that the County’s 1881 history book alludes to burials as early as the 1840s when the first settlers reached the area. Plot Acquisition Plots are available for purchase at either location. There are 120 plots available at Sacred Heart Cemetery and 400 to 500 at Ione Public Cemetery. Plots are five feet wide and ten feet long, inclusive of curbing where required. The District charges $750 for a single plot and $75 for setting a headstone. There is an annual fee of $40 for extra care on curbed plots. 587 In addition, there are plots in the older portions of the cemetery that are not recorded in the catalog. The District reported it is attempting to locate catalog records for these areas. II-410 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO TOWNSHIP NUMBER TWO PUBLIC CEMETERY DISTRICT LOCATION The District’s two cemeteries are located on Church Street, less than a quarter-mile apart. The District primarily serves residents of Jackson and Camanche. To purchase a plot, the District requires that a person must have been born in the County or have lived in the District for ten years. The District reported that it serves various areas, including Jackson, Camanche and Plymouth, although neither Jackson nor Plymouth lies within District bounds. The principal act limits interments at cemetery districts to residents, former residents who purchased plots when they were residents, property taxpayers in District bounds, former property taxpayers who purchased plots, eligible nonresidents, and the family members of any of the above.588 The District did not have a map of its boundary area, so it is likely that the District lacked the information needed to enforce such a provision in prior years. The District should review the definition of eligible residents and nonresidents to ensure that cemetery plot sales are in accordance with State law. INFRASTRUCTURE The LAFCO site visit to the cemeteries indicated that the cemeteries are in fair to good condition. Based on the number of available plots reported by the District and the number of recent burials, there is approximately 25 years of capacity remaining between the Ione Public Cemetery and the Sacred Heart Catholic Cemetery.589 District equipment includes two riding lawnmowers, six push mowers, two weed whackers, and one backpack-style leaf blower. The District reports that it needs a new storage building in the maintenance area. There are currently two units there, but both are in poor condition. The Board has determined this is not necessary at this time. The main road in the District was repaved in the fall of 2007 on the Ione Public Cemetery side; the Sacred Heart side will be repaved in 2008. The District will require a slurry seal on the road in 2008 as well. The District does not presently engage in regional collaboration or share facilities with other agencies, and no such opportunities were identified. This review found that the District would benefit from participation in collaboration and/or networking with other cemetery districts to be aware of best practices, industry standards and current law. 588 Health & Safety Code §9060(b). 589 This estimate is based on the assumption of 450 available plots at Ione Public Cemetery, 120 available plots at Sacred Heart Catholic Cemetery, and the average number of burials in 2006 and 2007, as reported by TPCD. BY BURR CONSULTING II-411 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SERVICE ADEQUACY The District reports it has adequate means to provide services. The District’s cemeteries appeared to be adequately maintained. The District manager presented as knowledgeable and sincerely interested in bettering the cemetery, its records and operations. This review identified at least four areas—endowment care fund, non-resident fees, interment eligibility policies, and record-keeping—in which the District was not in compliance with current law. The District needs to make efforts to inform itself of current law. The District will likely need to retain an attorney to ensure that it establishes the endowment care fund correctly. It would be prudent to consult with an attorney familiar with cemetery districts and related legal requirements to ensure that the District is in compliance with California law. In addition, the District would benefit from joining the Cemetery Districts Association, and networking with cemetery district managers or board members in neighboring counties to further its knowledge of requirements and best practices. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • There has been moderate growth in Ione and unincorporated areas in the District. Significant growth is anticipated as planned and proposed developments in and around Ione are approved and begin construction. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • Cemetery facilities appear to be in fair to good condition. The District reported that it is in need of a new storage building. • The District reported that there are approximately 25 years of capacity left between the two cemetery facilities. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • TPCD reports that current financing is sufficient to deliver services; however, the District does not have a non-resident fee or an endowment fund (to ensure funding for perpetual care of the cemetery), both required by law. The District should implement a non-resident fee and establish an endowment fund as soon as practical to comply with the law. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The District shares facilities in that it operates and maintains the Sacred Heart Catholic Cemetery, which is owned by the Catholic Church. II-412 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO TOWNSHIP NUMBER TWO PUBLIC CEMETERY DISTRICT • No regional collaboration or opportunities for shared facilities were identified. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Accountability to local residents is constrained by missing and incomplete historical records maintained by the District. The cemetery catalog is incomplete, but the District has made an effort to reconstruct the catalog with records on hand. • TPCD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCO requests. • This review identified at least four areas—endowment care fund, non-resident fees, interment eligibility policies, and record-keeping—in which the District was not in compliance with current law. The District needs to make efforts to inform itself of current law, and will likely need to retain an attorney to ensure that it establishes the endowment care fund correctly. • The District would benefit from joining the Cemetery Districts Association, and networking with cemetery district managers or board members in neighboring counties, to further its knowledge of requirements and best practices. • Operational efficiencies have been achieved by using probationers to perform maintenance at the cemetery facilities. • No governmental structure options were identified. BY BURR CONSULTING II-413 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 26. VOL C A N O C O M M U N I T Y S E RV I C E S D I S T R I C T Volcano Community Services District (VCSD) provides retail water delivery, street lighting, public parks and cemetery services. AGENCY OVERVIEW FORMATION Volcano Community Services District (VCSD) was formed on June 17, 1966, as an independent special district.590 VCSD was formed to provide street lighting, recreation, fire protection, and domestic supply of water. In 1994, VCSD fire service was transferred to Amador Fire Protection District. In 1988, the District merged with Volcano Lighting Maintenance District. The principal act that governs the District is the Community Services District Law.591 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not already being performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).592 BOUNDARY AND SOI The VCSD boundary encompasses the community of Volcano, which is located in central Amador County, approximately three miles northeast of the community of Pine Grove. The boundary area extends from Main Street in the west, east along Charleston Grade Road, to the end of Clapboard Road in the north, and south of St. George Street.593 The District has a boundary area of approximately 47 acres. 590 Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 591 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 592 Government Code §61106. 593 Over the years, LAFCO has not maintained boundary maps for cities and special districts. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of VCSD includes those parcels and portions of parcels included in Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) associated with this district and any additional areas not in the TRAs that can be shown through the records to have been legally annexed. Clarification of final boundaries by LAFCO staff is likely to extend beyond the time allowed for completion of the MSR. II-414 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO VOLCANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT There has been one annexation to VCSD since formation. In 1988, LAFCO approved the Clapboard Annexation, which added approximately 16.8 acres to the District.594 VCSD has a large, annexable SOI with a map.595 The SOI extends roughly one mile southeast and northeast of the VCSD boundary, to the west approximately one-third of a mile, and north approximately one-half mile. The District commented that “the 1980 Sphere of Influence is grossly outdated and should be reduced in scope.” After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt the SOI for VCSD. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE VCSD was governed by a three-member governing body, as of March 2008. Board members are to be elected at large. In the event of an uncontested election, or to fill a vacancy, board members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The most recent contested election was held in 2004. Table II-26-1: VCSD Governing Body Volcano Community Services District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Nancy Bailey Chair 1/1/2009 Meg Gottstein Vice Chair 1/1/2011 Members Richard Gorremans Director 1/1/2011 Vacant Director NA Vacant Director NA Manner of Selection Election at large Length of Term Four years Date: 1st Monday, 7 p.m., bimonthly Location: Armory Hall Meeting (Feb, April, June, Aug, Oct, Dec) Agenda Distribution Posted monthly at Armory Hall, Post Office, and outside of the general store. Minutes Distribution Posted monthly along with agenda. Contact Contact General Manager Mailing Address P.O. Box 72, Volcano, CA 95689 Phone NA Email/Website http://www.townofvolcano.com/ The District informs constituents by posting agendas, minutes and notices in public, by direct mailing of letters, and by including special messages on the back of the water bill. The District has a website where certain public documents can be accessed (e.g., the 2006 Water Study). No agendas or minutes were posted online, as of March 2008. 594 LAFCO resolution 88-207. 595 LAFCO archives. BY BURR CONSULTING II-415 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II With regard to customer service, complaints may be submitted to the general manager or a director via mail, phone, fax or email. The District reported that complaints most often relate to billing issues, and that it receives approximately two complaints in an average year. The District reported that it had no Brown Act violations in recent history. The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to portions of LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. MANAGEMENT The principal act requires that districts appoint a general manager to implement board policies.596 Accordingly, the District is managed by a part-time general manager who works approximately 35 hours per month. The general manager handles all daily operations of the District, including billing. The general manager reports directly to the board and gives updates on all financial, billing, and hall rental issues on a monthly basis. The District’s recent efforts to improve operational efficiency include an archiving project to increase access to historical records, the documenting and mapping of procedures and process, increased maintenance and regulatory procedures, and the designing of templates for rates data increases. Future plans involve digitization of District records and more systematic back-up through AWA. The District reports that it does not conduct formal employee evaluations, although it does evaluate the performance of the general manager at monthly meetings. No other performance evaluation practices, such as tracking workload, monitoring productivity, or evaluating operations, were identified as necessary by the District. The District’s planning efforts are minimal. The District does not have a master plan for its water system, and has not prepared a capital improvement plan. The District does prepare an annual list of capital improvement projects, and provided its list for FY 07-08. The District has estimated the costs and improvement needs associated with renovation of Armory Hall. District financial planning efforts include annual preparation of budgets. The District conducts financial audits on an annual basis. The most recent audit was completed in FY 06-07. The auditor did not identify any reportable conditions in FY 06-07. Management practices include risk management. The District’s insurance includes general liability and machinery insurance. 596 Government Codes §61040 and 61050. II-416 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO VOLCANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Existing land uses in the District’s boundary are primarily suburban residential (i.e., 5 acres per unit on average) with commercial properties located in the southwest of the District, along Main Street. Economic activity in the District’s boundary area includes hospitality, retail, publishing, and governmental services. Employers include St. George Hotel, the Volcano General Store, Volcano Press, and the U.S. Postal Service. The District serves 72 water connections, of which 11 supply commercial facilities and four supply residential customers outside District bounds. The estimated population within District bounds is 146, and within the water service area is 160.597 The District’s population density is 1,943 per square mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. The District reported that service demand has been increasing modestly in recent years, with four to five new hookups within the last five years. Future growth is anticipated, subject to a water availability study. Growth is currently limited by a moratorium imposed in 2007 on new water connections pending the water supply assessment. The District has a waiting list of nine property owners for new water connections, of which one is located outside bounds. There are three inactive water connections located outside its bounds, and none within the bounds. There are approximately 14 developable lots within the District. There are no major proposed or planned development projects within the District. The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING VCSD reports that current financing is sufficient to deliver services, but that connection fees would need to be increased if the District plans to serve new connections. VCSD has not updated its connection fees, as additional water connections are pending a water supply study. The District tracks its finances through a single water enterprise fund, although it segregates finances related to Volcano Armory Hall, which is undergoing renovation. Total revenue in FY 06-07 was $91,492. Primary revenue sources are water rates (47 percent), donations, (16 percent), property taxes (15 percent), and grants (11 percent). Total expenditures for the year were $79,294. Costs are primarily composed of operations and maintenance (60 percent), capital depreciation (16 percent), fundraising (17 percent), and administration (10 percent). 597 The population estimate for the District is the product of the number of water connections within the boundary area and the average household size (2.3) in Amador County in 2008, according to the California Department of Finance. BY BURR CONSULTING II-417 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water-related capital investments have been primarily funded by grants from State agencies over the years.598 The District funds its park operations and restrooms from donations, and relies on property taxes to fund its street lighting and trash collection expenses. VCSD is financing renovation of Volcano Armory Hall from part of the County’s share of Proposition 40 per capita grant funds.599 The District had no long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The District does not have an adopted policy on its target level for financial reserves, but reported in January 2008 that it aims to increase its reserves by $7,000. VCSD had unrestricted net assets of $93,929 at the close of FY 06-07. The reserves amounted to 130 percent of annual expenditures, or 16 months of working capital. WATER SERVICES This section describes the nature, extent and location of the water services provided as well as key infrastructure and water sources. The tables provide further information and indicators of the agency’s water service supplies, demand, financing, service adequacy, and facilities. The water chapter in the MSR main document contains analysis and conclusions based on this information. NATURE AND EXTENT VCSD provides groundwater extraction, water treatment, and water distribution services to the community of Volcano. AWA provides routine maintenance and reporting by contract. The District serves residential and commercial users. The District does not produce or use recycled water. LOCATION VCSD provides water services to a portion of its boundary area, and to some properties outside the bounds. VCSD served approximately 64 connections inside its bounds in 2008. There are unserved areas, including nine property owners on a waiting list to be connected. VCSD also serves areas outside its bounds, including four active connections located on Main street north of District bounds. Two of these properties were connected in the 1960s, and two were connected in the late 1990s. There are three inactive connections located outside VCSD bounds. The District’s primary water source and storage tanks are located outside its boundary. 598 Correspondence from Department of Public Health Drinking Water Field Operations Branch to VCSD, December 4, 2000. 599 The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 was passed by California voters in 2002, when they approved Proposition 40. II-418 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO VOLCANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT INFRASTRUCTURE Key infrastructure includes the District’s water supplies, a treatment facility, two wells, storage tanks, and 1.5 miles of distribution lines. The water source is groundwater under the influence of surface water from the Cleveland Tunnel, an inactive mine tunnel, and the back-up water source is groundwater wells with relatively low yields. The Cleveland Tunnel is considered groundwater under the influence of surface water. VCSD claimed rights to divert 57 gpd from the Cleveland Tunnel in 2002. The District believes its rights may be asserted as a pre-1914 appropriative water right. No water rights license or permit was available. The source yield is rated at 70 gpm in the District’s permit, but only 43 gpm by the District’s water supply study.600 The latter study cautions that yield has declined from historical flows, and the District should monitor precipitation and yield monthly to attempt to identify the relationship between the two. The quality of this water source is generally good with few inorganics and no iron or manganese,601 although it does require treatment for bacteria. The tunnel is sealed with a locked door and weather proofing. The point of collection is behind a three-foot concrete dam; from here, it is piped to the treatment plant. Groundwater is a back-up source. The area is extensively drained, with low permeability, and low water holding capacity.602 Two wells were drilled in 1992. The first initially yielded 40-45 gpm, and was adequate to supply the community. Well yield declined over time, and by 1997 was insufficient to supply Volcano water needs. In 1998, the first well was re-drilled, but did not yield enough supply. The wells have a combined yield of 6 gpm presently; by comparison, peak demand has reached 29 gpm. The water quality is good, but requires treatment for iron and manganese. The District has a water treatment plant located 400 feet south of the Cleveland Tunnel.603 The treatment process consists of filtration through two banks of Rosedale cartridge filters.604 The flow is chlorinated and filtered to reduce iron and manganese. The plant’s rated capacity is 53 gpm, although its 2006 supply study describes its capacity as 36 gpm due to operational considerations; the plant’s rated capacity could be increased by 10 gpm for about $30,000.605 600 Shaw, J., Final Water Supply Study—Volcano Water System, November 8, 2006. 601 Interview with VCSD, January 2008. 602 Amador County Environmental Health Department, Domestic Water Supply Permit Report: Volcano Community Services District, November 2002. 603 Correspondence with Doug Ketron, VCSD, April 24, 2008. 604 Correspondence with Doug Ketron, VCSD, April 24, 2008. 605 Shaw, J., Final Water Supply Study—Volcano Water System, November 8, 2006 BY BURR CONSULTING II-419 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II In the event of emergencies, VCSD would rely on stored water initially. The steel water tank and redwood tank have a capacity of 115,000 gallons, which would accommodate peak demand for 3.4 days. The District’s back-up groundwater wells would supply about one-fifth of existing water demand. There are no interties or other back-up supplies for emergencies. The District’s emergency notification plan includes contact flow charts. The District reported that its plan is described by the Fire Safe Council as a model plan. A copy of the plan was not provided to LAFCO. The District plans to ring the town bell and knock on doors in the event of an emergency. The District has not provided copies of disaster response plans to it regulatory agency. The distribution network consists of 1.5 miles of pipeline. There are 12 fire hydrants located throughout the District. II-420 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO VOLCANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Table II-26-2: VCSD Water Profile Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water Volcano CSD Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water Volcano CSD Groundwater Extraction Volcano CSD Water Treatment Volcano CSD Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water The CSD serves water within its boundary area, in addition to 4 connections located outside the boundary and inside the SOI. Wholesale Water Same as retail area Recycled Water NA Boundary Area 47 acres Population (2007) 160 System Overview Average Daily Demand 19,600 gallons Peak Day Demand 41,787 gallons Supply 80 afa Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Treatment plant Treatment 40 gpm Excellent 2004 Storage tank (steel) Storage 65,000 gal. Good 1998 Storage tank (redwood) Storage 70,000 gal. Good 1986 Well 1 Well with pump 4 gpm Good 1992 Well 2 Well with pump 2 gpm Good 1998 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0 .12 Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones None Production Wells 2 Pipe Miles 1.5 Other: storage tanks Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The District is evaluating the safe yield of its water sources in 2008 to determine if there is adequate water supply to serve additional connections. Treatment plant needs will be developed after completion of the VCSD 2008 water supply study. There are several shut-off valves that need to be replaced, and more need to be added to isolate areas in need of repairs. There is potentially a need to upgrade the Rosedale system, although this potential need is under evaluation in 2008. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: VCSD contracts with AWA for maintenance services. Opportunities: None identified. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-421 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 75 68 7 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 Domestic 58 54 4 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 14 14 0 Recycled 0 0 0 Inactive 3 0 3 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total NP NP 23.2 29.0 NP NP NP Residential NP NP 18.0 23.8 NP NP NP Commercial/Industrial NP NP 3.0 3.0 NP NP NP Irrigation/Landscape NP NP 2.3 2.3 NP NP NP Other NP NP 0.0 0.0 NP NP NP Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm Cleveland Tunnel groundwater/surface influence 2 3 7 0 NP Groundwater wells groundwater NP 1 0 NP Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total 48 23 23 23 23 23 23 Imported 0 0 0 0 NP NP NP Groundwater 48 NP NP NP NP NP NP Cleveland Tunnel 0 23 23 23 23 23 23 Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)1 Year 1: 25 Year 2: NP Year 3: NP Significant Droughts 1976, 1977, 1988-94, 2007-8 Storage Practices The District's storage tank capacity would accommodate 2.9 days of existing peak demand. Drought Plan The District has a water rationing plan that restricts consumption to no more than 300 gallons per day at each connection, and limits outdoor watering to occur at even street numbers on some days and odd street numbers on the other days. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering Domestic connections are metered. Conservation Pricing Use charges are incorporated into water rates, with higher charges for those using more than 15,000 gallons per month. Other Practices None identified. Notes: (1) Firm or safe water supply from the aquifer is unknown. continued II-422 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO VOLCANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Water Rates and Financing Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Residential $36.75 base rate, $1.85 per 1,000 gal. (up to $ 51.55 250 gal/day 15,000 gal.), $3.50 per 1,000 gal. (15,000 gal or more) Special Rates None Wholesale Water Rates None Rate-Setting Procedures Policy Description VCSD evaluates costs and increases rates accordingly, as needed. Most Recent Rate Change Nov-07 Frequency of Rate Changes every 3 years Water Development Fees and Requirements Connection Fee Approach New connections pay $5,100. Connections fees will be updated following a participation fee study planned for 2008. The fee must be paid within 2 years of being allocated and prior to Connection Fee Timing installation. Connection Fee Amount3 $5,100 Land Dedication Requirements NA Development Impact Fee NA Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 05-06 Expenditures, FY 05-06 Source Amount % Amount Total $52,056 100% Total $48,042 Rates & charges $36,295 70% Administration $8,459 Property tax $8,791 17% O & M $25,469 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $14,114 Interest $1,505 3% Debt $0 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $0 Other $5,465 0% Capital Investments $0 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, refer to Chapter 3 in the MSR main document. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-423 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators Water Planning Description Planning Horizon Water Master Plan None NA UWMP NA - not required NA Capital Improvement Plan None NA Emergency Response Plan Notification plan NA Water Supply Study Source and WTP capacity and projections include 3 committed connections Service Challenges Inadequate water supply, increasing requirements for water quality testings, high costs associated with monitoring compliance, and aging infrastructure. Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 369 O&M Cost Ratio1 $1,299,439 MGD Delivered/FTE 0.10 Distribution Loss Rate NP Distribution Breaks & Leaks 3 Distribution Break Rate2 50 Response Time Policy ASAP Response Time Actual 24-48 hours Water Pressure 38 psi Total Employees (FTEs) 0.2 Water Operator Certification Water treatment operator Grade 2 or higher, and water distribution operator Grade 1 or higher are required. VCSD's operator exceeds these requirements. VCSD contracts with AWA for certified operators. Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3 # Description Health Violations 1 Exeedance of coliform MCL (1998) Monitoring Violations 2 Monitoring of coliform (2001) and lead and copper (2000) Regulatory Actions 2 2001 compliance order mandated VCSD to complete the permitting process. Boil water order lifted in 2001. DW Compliance Rate4 100% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (3) Violations were not clearly identifiable from records provided by Amador County Department of Environmental Health. (4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2007. II-424 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO VOLCANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ROADWAY SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT Volcano CSD pays the PG&E electric utility bill for street lighting services in the community. PG&E owns and maintains the street lights directly. LOCATION Street lighting services are provided within the VCSD boundary area, and are not provided outside the District’s bounds. INFRASTRUCTURE There are 12 street lights servicing the community; however, these are neither owned nor maintained by the District. SERVICE ADEQUACY The District reported that street lighting services are adequate. PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES NATURE AND EXTENT Volcano CSD provides park and recreation services. It owns and maintains two public parks. District volunteers perform park maintenance in the form of cleaning and mowing. VCSD recreation programs include potlucks, “posadas,” an antique car show, and a crab feed. A rehearsal space is available in Armory Hall. The District is a member of the Amador County Recreation Agency, which provides countywide recreation programming, including “Fit over 50,” and facilitates collaborative planning efforts. LOCATION Park facilities are located within District bounds. Parkland is clustered on the west side of the District, by Main Street. Armory Hall is on Consolation Street. The parks are open to residents and non-residents of the District at no charge. Memorial Park or Armory Hall are available to rent for a flat fee regardless of residence. INFRASTRUCTURE The total park area in Volcano CSD is 9.2 acres. It consists of a neighborhood park and two special use areas. Volcano Memorial Park is the largest park in the District and is in good condition. BY BURR CONSULTING II-425 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II It contains a playground and a picnic area. Soldier Gulch Park is adjacent to Memorial Park and contains a memorial only. Armory Hall is used for various recreational programs and shared with other organization; the hall requires and is undergoing renovation. The Amador County Regional Recreation Plan does not recommend improvements or changes to the parks or the Amphitheatre. ACRA has recently begun renovating Armory Hall in a capital project that costs approximately $349,000.606 An anticipated development of a large park in Pine Grove could serve Volcano’s facility needs as well.607 SERVICE ADEQUACY The District has a ratio of approximately 62 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. This is higher than the current countywide parkland ratio of 7.3 acres per 1,000 residents. The countywide goal for parkland is 13.7 acres per 1,000 residents. The District reported that it is able to maintain its current parks and that there are no new parks or facilities being planned. It shares its facilities with ACRA for the purpose of maximizing recreation opportunities. ACRA also maintains park and hall bathrooms. 606 Amador County Recreation Agency and Carlson Consulting, Scope of Work. Volcano Armory Hall Renovation Project, January 14, 2008. 607 Amador County Recreation Agency, Amador County Regional Recreation Plan, 2006. II-426 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO VOLCANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Table II-26-3: VCSD Park Profile Park and Recreation Service Configuration Service Configuration Park Maintenance Direct Number of Parks Maintained 2 Recreation Direct Number of Recreation Centers 0 Service Adequacy FY 06-07 Park Acres per 1,000 pop1 61.5 Adopted Policy: 7.3 acres per 1,000 population, county wide2 Park Acreage Local Open Space 0.0 Neighborhood Parks 8.7 Undeveloped 0.0 Special Use Areas 0.3 Community Parks 0.0 Landscaped 0.0 Park Name Location Condition Acres Soldiers Gulch Park Rams Horn Grade Road Good 0.3 Volcano Memorial Park Rams Horn Grade Road Good 8.7 Armory Hall Consolation Street Fair NA Service Challenges The District did not identify any service challenges. Facility Needs/Deficiencies Armory Hall requires renovation. Facility Sharing An opportunity for facility sharing would be to allow other organizations to use Armory Hall. Developer Fees and Requirements Development Impact Fee $4,300/dwelling unit fee charged by Amador County. Land Dedication Requirement Five acres per 1,000 residents In-Lieu Fees None Notes: (1) Developed park acreage per 1,000 residents per the Department of Finance January 2008 estimate. (2) Amador County Recreation Agency Master Plan. BY BURR CONSULTING II-427 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II CEMETERY SERVICE NATURE AND EXTENT The District owns the Volcano Cemetery, formerly known as the Volcano Methodist Cemetery. All maintenance of the landscaping is provided by the Volcano Cemetery Association (VCA), which was formed in 1952. Cemetery maintenance has been provided by the VCA since 1980 when the cemetery was deeded to the CSD. Amador County Board of Supervisors gives approximately $1,800 to the VCA annually for maintenance activities, which are provided four times a year through a private contractor.608 The CSD also reimburses the Amador County Agricultural Commission for weed spraying. Mule Creek State Prison crews provide clean-up services. Neither VCSD nor VCA sells plots, receives donations for plots, reserves plots, or performs burials, per the two agencies. The two agencies are unaware of how burials are occurring in the cemetery. There have been approximately two such burials since 1998.609 Burials There are approximately 307 plots occupied, of which 24 burials are listed as unmarked or not found. The oldest known tombstone dates back to 1850. Nineteenth century burials account for 44 percent of marked graves. The most recent recorded burial occurred in 1995. Plot Acquisition Volcano Cemetery Committee reported that there were approximately 100 or fewer plots available for future burials, of which as many as 50 may be already reserved. Plots are not presently available for sale, as the CSD is not presently authorized to operate a cemetery by selling plots. VCSD has an adopted policy statement that residents be prioritized in receiving available plots. LAFCO records indicate that cemetery services were authorized by LAFCO; however, there is some confusion about the exercise of this power. History The cemetery was originally a pioneer cemetery, with the earliest marked grave dated 1850.610 The Volcano Methodist Church was established in 1852. The cemetery property was deeded to the trustees of the Volcano Methodist Church in 1871.611 The church stopped operating in the 1930s; 608 Interview with Nancy Bailey, President, VCSD, March 28, 2008. 609 Ibid. 610 Volcano Community Services District, Volcano Methodist Pioneer Cemetery: Inventory of Burials, 1995/1997. 611 Correspondence from Western Land Title Company to Superior Court Judge Ralph McGee, April 21, 1966. The deed was issued in 1871, but was not recorded until 1981 when the cemetery transferred to the Volcano CSD. II-428 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO VOLCANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT the church was dismantled and salvaged for construction of the Community Church in Pine Grove in the mid-1950s.612 In the interim, the cemetery was operated by community volunteers. Volunteers formed the Volcano Community Association (VCA) in 1952.613 A particularly active volunteer, Charlie Cook, passed away in 1972. The Methodist Church approached the VCA about taking responsibility more formally around this time, but community members were not willing to accept responsibility at that time. The VCA later consulted with a local judge, and asked the Methodist Church to transfer the deed and responsibility.614 The church accepted the VCA offer in 1975, subject to VCA preparing the paperwork.615 Transfer to the VCA was complicated by the fact that the deed to the Methodist Church had never been officially recorded. Volcano CSD offered in 1979 to accept title to the cemetery from the Methodist Church, with the CSD accepting title and operation and maintenance responsibility, and VCA performing fundraising and certain physical labor.616 The cemetery title was officially transferred to the CSD in 1980. No funds were transferred from the Methodist Church for endowment care. Figure II-26-4: VCSD Cemetery Burials by Decade Burials continued to occur at the cemetery after it was transferred to VCSD in 1980 with 50 donations made at the time of burial to VCA 40 for interment and maintenance costs. 30 In 1991, the cemetery manager informed 20 VCSD and VCA that the Board of Supervisors (BOS) had jurisdiction over the cemetery and 10 appointment of its manager.617 The CSD 0 requested that the BOS expand the CSD powers to include cemetery services.618 County Counsel determined the CSD’s powers could not be expanded to include cemetery service at 612 “Cemetery Title Finally Recorded,” Amador Ledger-Dispatch, September 10, 1980, pp. 1 and 6. 613 California Secretary of State, Corporation Number: C0266933, date filed September 25, 1952. 614 Correspondence from Jack Thebaut, Volcano Community Association, to California Nevada Conference, United Methodist Church, January 27, 1975. 615 Correspondence from Harry E. Shaner, California Nevada Conference, United Methodist Church to Jack Thebaut, Volcano Community Association, July 7, 1975. 616 Correspondence from Volcano VSD President Douglas Ketron to Rev. David Thompson, March 13, 1979. 617 Correspondence from Jack M. Thebaut, Volcano Community Association, to VCSD, August 27, 1991. 618 Correspondence from Jack M. Thebaut, Volcano Community Association, to VCA, July 10, 1991. Correspondence from Jack M. Thebaut, Volcano Community Association, to VCSD, August 5, 1991. BY BURR CONSULTING II-429 0581 0781 0981 0191 0391 0591 0791 0991 Decade slairub dekram fo rebmuN AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II that time, because the principal act did not authorize CSDs to operate cemeteries.619 County Counsel notified VCSD that it could not lawfully operate the cemetery and, as a public entity, could not restrict interments on the basis of religious affiliation. Since then, there have been at least four burials at the cemetery.620 VCSD resolved to operate the cemetery “as a public park” and historical site.621 It notified the public that it was closing the cemetery and solicited written statements from the public regarding any existing arrangements for future burials.622 VCSD received correspondence indicating commitments had been previously made to living community members for approximately 40 plots. A survey of the cemetery was conducted around 1995 to determine the remaining capacity. The VCSD board determined that all remaining spaces would be offered first to residents.623 The Amador County Grand Jury evaluated the matter, and found that VCSD could not legally operate the cemetery and that plot sales to the public could not commence until cemetery mapping was complete.624 The Grand Jury recommended that a legal solution be adopted, and that procedures for purchase of available plots be established.625 The VCSD cemetery committee response recommended that VCSD initiate formation of a cemetery district.626 The VCSD board adopted a motion to initiate or ask the BOS to initiate formation of a cemetery district.627 The District’s CPA recommended in 2000 that the District move the issue forward.628 In 2003, VCSD notified the community that cemetery district formation had not occurred due to lack of community interest, and requested that volunteer(s) step forward to form a cemetery district.629 Once again, in 2007, County Counsel recommended that the District obtain legal counsel to guide it through the formation of a cemetery district and appointment of the VCSD Board as its Board of Trustees.630 619 Correspondence from County Counsel John Hahn to VCSD, September 17, 1991. 620 VCSD, Volcano Methodist Pioneer Cemetery: Inventory of Burials, 1995/1997. 621 VCSD Resolution No. 4, May 5, 1992. 622 VCSD notice, March 11, 1993. 623 Correspondence from VCSD Director Sara Gillick to Charles Marotz, December 16, 1995. 624 Cemetery mapping was completed in 1997. 625 Amador County Grand Jury, FY 1996-97 Annual Report, 1997, pp. 48-49. 626 Correspondence from Volcano Methodist Cemetery Committee to Amador County Grand Jury, August 4, 1997. 627 VCSD minutes, August 18, 1997. 628 Correspondence from Daniel Ayala to VCSD Board, November 2, 2000. 629 VCSD, Notice to Community and Interested Parties regarding Status of Volcano Cemetery, 2003. 630 Letter from Evelyn Spirou, Amador Deputy County Counsel, March 21, 2007. II-430 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO VOLCANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Legislation adopted in 2005 expanded CSD powers to include “own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries and provide interment services, in the same manner as a public cemetery district.”631 In order to exercise latent powers, a CSD must apply and receive authorization from LAFCO. It appears that this authorization was granted in January of 2006. It is not clear whether the District is aware of this LAFCO action. LOCATION The Cemetery is located within VCSD bounds, on Emigrant Road. INFRASTRUCTURE VCSD’s key infrastructure consists of one cemetery. The cemetery encompasses 1.88 acres. The cemetery appeared to be in good condition at the time of the LAFCO consultant’s site visit. The District described the cemetery to be in good condition. The CSD identified a need for structural improvements to some sunken graves. SERVICE ADEQUACY Presently, cemetery services are not adequate, as there is no procedure in place for sale of remaining cemetery plots, and the CSD lacks the legal authority to operate the cemetery. A $1,000 endowment care fund is maintained by the Volcano Community Association. A more formalized financing mechanism—an endowment care fund with minimum fees of $100 per plot—is required by law for CSDs and cemetery districts. 631 Government Code §61100(ab). BY BURR CONSULTING II-431 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • Growth has been modest in recent years, with a corresponding increase in service demand for water services. • Future growth is expected to be modest. There are 14 developable lots within District bounds. • Growth is currently constrained by a moratorium on new water connections pending a water availability study. While there are no major planned or proposed developments within or adjacent to the District, there is a waiting list of property owners for new water connections. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The District’s primary water source yield has declined over the years, and groundwater wells in the area have low yields. The District needs to conduct an evaluation of safe yield of its water sources, which it is doing in 2008. • There are potentially water treatment plant needs, including upgrade of the filtration system, to be addressed upon completion of the water supply study. Shut-off valves need to be replaced and added. • The District faces challenges in delivering adequate water services. Past regulatory violations reveal a need to improve service levels. • District water planning efforts are inadequate, and do not meet state standards for technical, managerial and financial ability. The District could make improvements by completing a water capacity evaluation, and by preparing a capital improvement plan or prioritized list of infrastructure needs. • Burials have occurred at the cemetery despite the District’s lack of authorization to provide cemetery services. The District reports that it does not know how burials occur. • The cemetery lacks adequate capacity for burial of existing and future residents. Although approximately 50 plots may be available, the District is not selling plots presently nor is it committing the remaining capacity to existing residents. District policy is to prioritize allocations to residents of remaining plots. II-432 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO VOLCANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • VCSD reports that financing is sufficient to deliver the current service level. The District relies on donations to fund recreation services. • The District’s water rates do not include capital replacement costs, which have been primarily funded by grants from State agencies over the years. Connection fees would need to be updated to serve additional connections in the future. • The District does not sell cemetery plots, and could better provide for future maintenance and inventory plots by establishing fees for plot sales. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • The District contracts with AWA for water maintenance services. • No opportunities for shared water or cemetery facilities were identified. Anticipated development of a large park in Pine Grove could serve the Volcano resident’s facility needs as well. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • A government structure option is annexation of present and potential service areas located outside District bounds. The District serves water outside its bounds to four connections on Main Street, has three inactive connections outside bounds, and one property outside bounds is on a waiting list for District water service. • The District should seek to clarify its authorization to perform cemetery services, and resolve outstanding legal and regulatory issues related to cemetery services. • The District would benefit from joining the Cemetery Districts Association, and networking with cemetery district managers or board members in neighboring counties, to further its knowledge of requirements and best practices. BY BURR CONSULTING II-433 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 27. W I L L OW S P R I N G S WAT E R D I S T R I C T The Willow Springs Water District (WSWD) is an inactive district that has not been dissolved by LAFCO. The District is located generally west of Plymouth, contains 50-60 parcels and is an agricultural area containing grazing lands. The LAFCO archive indicates that the District was denied dissolution by LAFCO in 1978; however, there is no additional information in the LAFCO record regarding the District.632 The District boundary area is 2,861 acres in size, according to the District. There were originally 18 parcels within the District, but these have subsequently been split. The District has maintained a governing body comprised of Elden Waite, Roy Mason, John Applegate, Ron Matlich, and Matt Greilich. The District also continues to file with the State Controller’s Office annually. The District reported $7 in total revenue in FY 05-06 to the State Controller’s Office. Its revenue consisted of interest income. The District does not receive property tax revenues. It had a fund balance of about $4,500 at the time this report was drafted. WATER SERVICES The District previously provided irrigation water to customers, but discontinued the service in the mid-1980s.633 According to the District, it discontinued water services because water no longer flows down the Arroyo Ditch during the summer. Landowners rely on private wells for irrigation purposes. The District reported that water last flowed through Arroyo Ditch in 1999, and that flows were so minimal at that time that the District no longer sold the water. The Arroyo Ditch served as a source of water supply for the City of Plymouth. The 18-mile ditch was originally built in 1851 to convey Cosumnes River water to gold miners and landowners. The ditch was transferred to Amador County in 1962 and quick deeded to Plymouth in the early 1980’s. The ditch is primarily earthen and unlined, with two miles of the ditch lined with concrete. Peak flows in the ditch generally occur during the winter and spring months, while there is generally no water available during the peak demand times in the summer and fall months. Due to difficulties in maintaining the Arroyo Ditch, the City of Plymouth has relied entirely on groundwater since 2001.634 632 LAFCO Resolution 78-107. 633 Interview with Elden Waite, Willow Springs Water District, Board Member, July 9, 2008. 634 DPH, Plymouth Annual Inspection Report, 2005, p. 1. II-434 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO WILLOW SPRINGS WATER DISTRICT The District reports that the lack of maintenance of the ditch by Plymouth has resulted in a lack of flows to the District.635 The District would like to reinitiate irrigation services in the future should a water source become available.636 Based on research through the SWRCB’s Water Rights Information Management System, the District does not appear to hold any water rights. The 2006 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan identified three potential capital projects with potential benefits to Willow Springs; however, none of these projects is likely to be constructed due to costs and subsequent decisions about alternative projects. • Piping Arroyo Ditch would cost approximately $28.7 million; whereas, lining the ditch with gunite would cost approximately $7.2 million.637 Piping the ditch was prioritized below an alternative project—construction of a pipeline to convey treated AWA water to the City— which is planned and expected to cost approximately $7.8 million. As a result, it is unlikely that this project would be pursued. • A “loop” pipeline connecting AWA’s Ione and Tanner treated water systems was suggested to create backup supplies for each service area, and potentially distribute treated water to the Willow Springs area. The IRWMP did not offer a cost estimate or funding source for this potential project.638 Due to a lack of capacity at the Ione water treatment plant, AWA plans to expand the Tanner treatment plant and close the Ione plant. As a result, it is unlikely that this project would be pursued. • The construction of off-stream storage on the Cosumnes River was suggested to enhance water supplies for Plymouth, Willow Springs and the Ione Valley areas, and for flood control purposes. The potential project would involve construction of off-stream storage facilities potentially located at Cape Cod Reservoir, Bakers Ford, Mount Aukum or Pipi Reservoir.639 Although the river typically runs dry from July to November in the River Pines area, storage facilities would allow for use of stored flows during the dry season. The proposed project would require AWA to acquire diversion and storage water rights on the Cosumnes River, and is estimated to cost $30-40 million. As a result, it is unlikely that this project would be pursued. 635 Interview with Elden Waite, Willow Springs Water District, Board Member, July 9, 2008. 636 Ibid. 637 RMC Water and Environment, Mokelumne/Amador/Calaveras Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, Nov. 2006, p. 5-8. 638 Ibid, p. 5-32. 639 Ibid, p. 5-42. BY BURR CONSULTING II-435 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The District lacks the capacity to provide services. The District did not identify any infrastructure or water rights owned by the District. The District formerly diverted water from Arroyo Ditch; however, there are no longer flows through Arroyo Ditch during irrigation season. • The District lacks planned capacity to provide services. There are no planned or funded capital projects that would convey water to the Willow Springs area. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • WSWD is an inactive agency that has not been dissolved by LAFCO. Dissolution of this inactive agency is the logical government structure option. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act provides for streamlined dissolution of agencies for failure to exercise corporate powers. II-436 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 28. C O U N T Y S E RV I C E A R E A S There are a total of eight County Service Areas (CSAs) in Amador County, four of which are inactive. The principal act that governs CSAs is County Service Area law.640 The principal act authorizes county service areas to provide a wide variety of municipal services, including street maintenance, fire protection, extended police protection, water and sewer services.641 A CSA may only provide those services authorized in its formation resolution unless the Board of Supervisors adopts a resolution authorizing additional services. If LAFCO approved formation of a CSA with a condition requiring LAFCO approval for new services, the Board of Supervisors must first get LAFCO approval before authorizing additional services.642 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.643 LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE All CSAs are dependent special districts of the County, governed by the County Board of Supervisors. Board members are elected by supervisorial district and serve staggered four-year terms. Current board members are Richard Escamilla, Richard Forster, Theodore F. Novelli, Louis Boitano, and Brian Oneto. Board meetings are held weekly at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesdays. Board meeting agendas are posted at the Amador County Administration Center and on the County’s website. Board meeting minutes are available at the Amador County Administration Center and on the county’s website. The County makes available its budget, general plan, and other documents on its website. Online CSA information includes financial information contained in the County budget. The most recent BOS elections occurred in 2004, 2006 and 2008. Of the three seats placed in 2004, one was contested.644 Both of the two seats filled in 2006 were contested,645 and two of the three seats filled in 2008 were contested. 640 California Government Code §25210.1-25211.3. 641 California Government Code §25210.4 and 25210.4a. 642 California Government Code §25210.31. 643 Government Code §56824.10. 644 Amador County, 2004 General Elections Results. 645 Amador County, 2006 General Elections Results. BY BURR CONSULTING II-437 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II CSA 1 CSA 1 previously provided fire, water and wastewater services, until these services were transferred to other agencies. The CSA currently acts as a financing mechanism for fire services provided by AFPD. FORMATION CSA 1 was formed on June 14, 1966 as a dependent special district of the County.646 It was formed to provide extended police protection, structural fire protection, water distribution services, and sewer, and garbage services. 647 The District provided water and sewer services in the past, prior to transfer to the Amador Water Agency in 2003, as well as fire protection services prior to transfer of the service to the Amador Fire Protection District (AFPD) in 1994. Since the transfer of fire services to AFPD, the property tax allocated to the CSA has been conveyed to AFPD to augment financing for fire services. BOUNDARY AND SOI The formation documentation does not include a map or description of the CSA’s boundaries; however, according to Board of Equalization tax rate area maps, the CSA is located in central Amador County along SR 88 and encompasses approximately 572 acres in the communities of Silver Lake Pines, Tiger Creek Estates and Sierra Highlands. The boundaries extend from Tiger Creek Road in the south to Madrone Place and Columbia Drive in the north, and from SR 88 in the west to approximately Carolyn Court in the east. Annexations to the CSA since formation include the 218-acre Silver Lake Pines annexation in 1970648 and the 5-acre Balestreri and Schwart annexation in 1988.649 In 1994, LAFCO approved the transfer of fire protection services to the Amador Fire Protection District.650 Finally, in 2003, AWA acquired control of the CSA’s water and wastewater services through a Board of Supervisors agreement to transfer assets to AWA.651 LAFCO has no records of approving the consolidation of the CSA with AWA. 646 Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 647 Board of Supervisors, Resolution No. 1202. 648 LAFCO, Resolution No. 70-26. 649 LAFCO, Resolution No. 88-212. 650 LAFCO, Resolution No. 94-245. 651 Board of Supervisors, Resolution No. 03-493. II-438 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS In 2001, AWA began providing operations, maintenance, administration and accounting and billing for the CSA’s water and wastewater systems.652 AWA formed Water Improvement District 5 and Wastewater Improvement District 10 in compliance with Proposition 218 requirements to collect water and wastewater rates from the former CSA area,653 and, in 2003, the County transferred ownership of all water and wastewater related assets to AWA for operation and maintenance including all property, equipment and specified account balances. Assets included in the transfer were the water distribution system connected to the AWA CAWP system, serving the subdivisions of Silver Lake Pines, Tiger Creek Estates, and Sierra Highlands, as well as the community leachfield system in the Tiger Creek estates subdivision. Excluded in the transfer of assets was property in the Silver Lake Pines Subdivision designated for a Sheriff’s Office substation. The CSA has not provided any municipal services since this transfer of assets, according to County financial records. For more information on water and wastewater services in this area, refer to Chapter 8 on AWA services. A coterminous SOI was adopted for the CSA in 1977, according to LAFCO minutes. There are no records of any further LAFCO actions regarding the agency’s sphere. MANAGEMENT CSA 1 is staffed and managed by the Auditor-Controller’s Office. The administrative staff handles the accounting process for the CSA, including the disbursement of property taxes to AFPD. The CSA does not require planning documents as it only functions as a financing mechanism for fire services. The County annually adopts a budget and prepares audited financial statements; however CSA 1 is not identified separately like other active CSAs. The CSA’s financial information is tracked separately in the County’s accounting system. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Land use within the CSA is designated primarily as suburban residential (i.e., 1 acres per unit on average) with limited commercial and public service uses along SR 88. Demand for the CSA’s service as a financing mechanism for fire services is not impacted by development and growth. There have been no major developments within the CSA’s boundaries in recent years; although individuals have been steadily building permanent residences in the area since 2000. There are currently no planned or proposed developments within the CSA’s boundaries. 652 AWA, Asset Transfer Agreement, September 17, 2003, p. 1. 653 AWA, Staff Report – County Service Area Asset Transfer Agreement, September 25, 2003, p. 2. BY BURR CONSULTING II-439 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate CSA, including CSA 1. According to the State Controller’s Office, the County is still allocating property tax on parcels within the District to the CSA. In FY 05-06, the County allocated a total of $15,794.654 However, the County does not report CSA 1 revenues or fund balance separately in its FY 06-07 budget or audited financial statement for FY 05-06. According to the County auditor-controller, the only revenue source of the CSA is property taxes, which are transferred entirely to AFPD. The CSA has no long-term debt and does not anticipate any capital expenditures in the near future. The CSA does not maintain a fund balance or reserves. CSA 1 engages in joint financing arrangements related to staffing and shares facilities for administrative purposes. No other facility sharing opportunities were identified. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS (CSA 1) GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • Residential growth has been limited to individual residential building activities in recent years. Any future development is not projected to impact the demand for CSA 1 services. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The CSA services are adequate as a financing mechanism for fire services. • As the CSA does not own or operate any infrastructure, no needs or deficiencies were identified. 654 State Controller’s Office, Special District Annual Report FY 04-05, 2005, p. 997. II-440 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The County reported that the portion of property taxes allocated to AFPD through the CSA is minimal and not a significant source of funding for the AFPD. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • CSA 1 engages in joint financing arrangements related to staffing and facility sharing for administrative purposes. • No facility sharing opportunities were identified. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • The County demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information related to CSA 1 in response to LAFCO requests. • A possible government structure option includes the transfer of the CSAs property tax allocation to AFPD and dissolution of the CSA. CSA 2 CSA 2 previously provided water services to Unit 1 of the Mace Meadows subdivision. The CSA has been inactive since 2003. FORMATION CSA 2 was formed on December 6, 1966 as a dependent special district of the County.655 It was formed to provide water distribution services. 656 The District provided water distribution services in the past, prior to transfer to the Amador Water Agency in 2003. Since then, the CSA has been inactive. BOUNDARY AND SOI The formation documentation does not include a map of the CSA’s boundaries but does include a description of the boundaries. According to Board of Equalization tax rate area maps, the CSA is 655 Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 656 Board of Supervisors, Resolution No. 1311. BY BURR CONSULTING II-441 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II located in central Amador County along SR 88 and encompasses approximately 69 acres in the Mace Meadows subdivision. The boundaries extend from SR 88 in the south to North Mace Drive in the North and from SR 88 in the east to the end of South Mace Drive in the west. According to LAFCO and Board of Equalization records, the CSA has had a single change of boundaries since formation. The Mace Annexation in 1989 is of an unknown size.657 In 2003, AWA acquired control of the CSA’s water services through a Board of Supervisors agreement to transfer assets to AWA.658 LAFCO has no records of approving the consolidation of the CSA with AWA. An SOI was adopted for the CSA in 1977; however, there is no clear map or description of the SOI. Based on the lack of clarity in the LAFCO record for CSA 2, the Executive Officer surmises that the SOI cannot be ascertained. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the District. MUNICIPAL SERVICES In 2001, AWA began providing operations, maintenance, administration and accounting and billing for the CSA’s water system.659 AWA formed Water Improvement District 6 in compliance with Proposition 218 requirements to collect water rates from the former CSA area,660 and the County transferred ownership of all water related assets to AWA for operation and maintenance including all property, equipment and specified account balances. The CSA has not provided any municipal services since this transfer of assets, according to County financial records. For more information on water services in this area, refer to Chapter 8 on AWA services. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS (CSA 2) • CSA 2 is an inactive agency that has not provided services since October 2003. Dissolution of this inactive agency is the logical government structure option. 657 LAFCO, Resolution No. 89-214. 658 Board of Supervisors, Resolution No. 03-493. 659 AWA, Asset Transfer Agreement, September 17, 2003, p. 1. 660 AWA, Staff Report – County Service Area Asset Transfer Agreement, September 25, 2003, p. 2. II-442 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS CSA 3 CSA 3 provides a financing mechanism to repay bonded indebtedness for a water engineering study in the community of Lake Camanche. In the past, the CSA also provided water and wastewater services, until these services were transferred to AWA in 2003. FORMATION CSA 3 was formed on March 31, 1970 as a dependent special district of the County.661 The services to be provided by the CSA were not determined in the formation resolution. In 2001, AWA began providing operations, maintenance, administration and accounting and billing for the CSA’s water and wastewater systems.662 AWA formed Water Improvement District 7 and Wastewater Improvement District 11 in compliance with Proposition 218 requirements to collect water and wastewater rates from the former CSA area,663 and the County transferred ownership of all water and wastewater related assets to AWA for operation and maintenance including all property, equipment and specified account balances. According to the transfer of assets agreement, the County retained responsibility to collect assessments due from owners of parcels in CSA 3 encumbered by the Bonds and use the funds to pay for the debt service on the bonded indebtedness.664 The CSA has not provided any water or wastewater services since this transfer of assets, but has continued to levy assessments to pay for the water study related debt. For more information on water and wastewater services in this area, refer to Chapter 8 on AWA services. BOUNDARY AND SOI The formation documentation does not include a map of the CSA’s boundaries but does include a description of the boundaries. According to Board of Equalization tax rate area maps, the CSA is located in southwest Amador County and includes the entire Camanche Village subdivision. The CSAs boundaries generally extend from Curan Road in the east to Goose Creek Road in the west, and from Village Drive south to the northern tip of Lake Camanche. Since formation, there have been two annexations to the District’s boundaries. The Lake Camanche Village Parcel “A” annexation was approved by LAFCO in 1970 and included 683 acres. In 1995, the Crandall-Foyil annexation was completed, which included 3.76 acres. An annexation of the Gold Country Mobilehome Park was proposed in 1992, but records show that the annexation was not completed. 661 Board of Supervisors, Resolution No. 1932. 662 AWA, Asset Transfer Agreement, September 17, 2003, p. 1. 663 AWA, Staff Report – County Service Area Asset Transfer Agreement, September 25, 2003, p. 2. 664 AWA, Asset Transfer Agreement, 2003, p. 9. BY BURR CONSULTING II-443 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II An SOI for the CSA was adopted in 1978 by LAFCO. According to LAFCO minutes, the SOI includes Units 1, 2, 3A and 4 of the Camanche Village subdivision and the Sinclair Ranch. There is no map of the SOI in the LAFCO records and no records of subsequent changes to the SOI. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the CSA. MANAGEMENT CSA 3 is staffed and managed by the Auditor-Controller’s Office. The administrative staff handles the accounting process for the CSA, including the disbursement of assessments for debt repayment. The CSA does not require planning documents as it only functions as a financing mechanism for bonded indebtedness. Financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget, which includes information on CSAs. The County annually prepares audited financial statements; however, CSA 3 is not addressed individually in the statement. CSA financial information is tracked separately in the County’s accounting system. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH Land use within the CSA is designated entirely as residential as part of a special planning area. The subdivision was originally constructed at the time the CSA was formed in the 1970s. As the area is completely residential, there are no major businesses with the District’s bounds. Demand for the CSA’s service as a financing mechanism for previously issued debt is not impacted by development and growth. Growth within the District’s boundaries has been limited in recent years. There are currently no planned or proposed developments within the CSA’s boundaries. The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate CSA, including CSA 3. The CSA received $99,121 in FY 06-07, which consisted primarily (80 percent) of assessment revenue and 20 percent interest income. The CSA levies an assessment of $87 per year per parcel. The assessment does not adjust for inflation. In the same FY, expenditures totaled $77,893. The CSA paid $45,600 towards a bond payment and $32,292 in interest on the bond. The CSA had $559,300 in long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The debt consisted entirely of a bond that was issued in the mid 1990s to finance a water study in the area. The bond was II-444 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS originally issued for $971,000. The County anticipates that the bond will be repaid by the end of FY 15-16. The CSA has no planned capital expenditures for FY 07-08. By way of financial reserves, the CSA had an unreserved fund balance of $1,130 at the end of FY 06-07, which constituted one percent of annual expenditures. There is no adopted policy on financial reserves for the CSA. CSA 3 engages in joint financing arrangements related to staffing and shares facilities for administrative purposes. No other facility sharing opportunities were identified. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS (CSA 3) GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • Residential growth in within CSA 3 has been limited in recent years. Any future development is not projected to impact the demand for CSA 3 services. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The CSA services are adequate as it continues to make regular bond payments and anticipates completion of the payments in 2016. • As the CSA does not own or operate any infrastructure, no needs or deficiencies were identified. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • The CSA reported that current assessments are sufficient to complete bond repayment on the anticipated timeline. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • CSA 3 engages in joint financing arrangements related to staffing and facility sharing for administrative purposes. • No facility sharing opportunities were identified. BY BURR CONSULTING II-445 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • The County demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information related to CSA 3 in response to LAFCO requests. • No government structure options were identified. CSA 4 CSA 4, also called Martell CSA, previously provided drainage services and wastewater collection services in the community of Martell. The County reported that it has not provided drainage maintenance to the community since at least 2003. In 2003, the wastewater services were transferred to AWA. The District is currently inactive. FORMATION LAFCO minutes from November 20, 1975 indicate approval of the formation of CSA 4 (also called the Martell CSA); however, the formation resolution in the LAFCO file is not signed.665 On May 13, 1976 the Board of Supervisors approved the formation of CSA 4, for the purpose of “the collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal of sewage water, and extended county services.”666 In 2001, AWA began providing operations, maintenance, administration and accounting and billing for the CSA’s wastewater system.667 AWA formed Wastewater Improvement District 12 in compliance with Proposition 218 requirements to collect wastewater rates from the former CSA area,668 and the County transferred ownership of all wastewater related assets to AWA for operation and maintenance including all property, equipment and specified account balances. The transfer agreement does not identify the drainage infrastructure in the community for transfer to AWA; however, the infrastructure is also not excluded for transfer.669 The CSA has not provided any municipal services since this transfer of assets, according to County financial records. For more information on water services in this area, refer to Chapter 8 on AWA services. 665 LAFCO Resolution 85-188 from the CSA 4 file has no signature, description of the area or attached map. 666 Board of Supervisors Resolution 4067. 667 AWA, Asset Transfer Agreement, September 17, 2003, p. 1. 668 AWA, Staff Report – County Service Area Asset Transfer Agreement, September 25, 2003, p. 2. 669 AWA, Asset Transfer Agreement, 2003, p. 5. II-446 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS BOUNDARY AND SOI Research conducted by the Executive Officer has not uncovered a discernable boundary or SOI in the LAFCO record for CSA 4 or Martell CSA. The Board of Equalization has no records of the formation of CSA 4 or subsequent boundary changes to the CSA. The unofficial boundary of the CSA includes the unincorporated Martell area. Since formation, there have been four annexations to the CSA, according to LAFCO records. In 1991, the Georgia Pacific annexation included approximately 70 acres and the K-Mart annexation included 10.3 acres. In 1998, the First Baptist Church of Jackson annexation and the Sierra Pacific/Quad Properties annexations were of unknown sizes. There are no records that the Sierra Pacific annexation was finalized with a certificate of completion. LAFCO records indicate that an SOI for the CSA was adopted in 1985. Based on the lack of clarity in the LAFCO record for CSA 4, the Executive Officer surmises that the SOI cannot be ascertained. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will update and adopt an SOI for the CSA. MANAGEMENT CSA 4 is staffed and managed by the County Public Works Department. There is one CSA Coordinator who also serves as the Public Works Director. CSA administrative staff consists of less than one full-time equivalent position. The administrative staff handles the accounting process for all CSA’s managed by the Public Works Department, with the CSA Coordinator managing all other aspects of CSA maintenance. The County has in the past hired contractors to perform major drainage maintenance work through a competitive bidding process. County staff inspects the work performed by the contractor prior to making payment to the contractor for services. The CSA does not have a master plan specific to CSA drainage maintenance services. Financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget, which includes information on CSAs. The County annually prepares audited financial statements with an individual enterprise fund for CSA 4. CSA financial information is tracked separately in the County’s accounting system. The CSA does not prepare a capital improvement plan. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH The CSA customer base includes property owners within the unincorporated community of Martell. The area is primarily commercial. As the exact boundaries of the District are unknown, and the District does not levy special benefit assessment by which population can be estimated, the population of the District’s bounds is unknown. It is assumed that the population density is low compared to other areas in the County, as land use is entirely commercial, as reported by the County.670 670 Communication with Larry Peterson, Director of Public Works, Amador County, March 21, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-447 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Commercial growth within the service area has been significant in recent years beginning with the construction of the Martell shopping center; however, the County has not noticed a subsequent increase in service demand in recent years, as it has not provided services since at least 2003. The County reported that the future demand for drainage services in the area is unknown; however, given the proposed commercial development in the area, it is likely that demand for adequate drainage will increase. The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate CSA, including CSA 4. The CSA received $1,480 in FY 06-07, all in the form of interest income. The CSA did not receive assessments or property taxes in FY 06-07. The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The CSA is not authorized to issue bonded debt. The CSA has no planned capital expenditures for FY 07-08. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the drainage service profile below. The CSA finances capital improvements through the reserve fund. By way of financial reserves, the CSA had unrestricted net assets of $39,810 at the end of FY 06- 07. There were no expenses for the CSA during that FY. There is no adopted policy on financial reserves for the CSA. CSA 4 engages in joint financing arrangements related to staffing, and shares facilities for drainage maintenance services and administrative purposes. No other facility sharing opportunities were identified. DRAINAGE SERVICE Nature and Extent CSA 4 provided maintenance of road drainage facilities, but has not provided drainage services since at least 2003. Location CSA services are provided within the unincorporated community of Martell, and not outside of these boundaries. The County refers to this area as the Rock Creek drainage area. II-448 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS Infrastructure Infrastructure located within the CSA includes gutters, an inlet screen, a pipe and an outlet screen structure. The County reported that there are drainage related infrastructure needs in the area, but did not specify the deficiencies or needs. The County anticipates that these needs will be addressed by the developers.671 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS (CSA 4) GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • Commercial growth within the CSA has been significant in recent years. • Service demand will likely increase in future years due to the various planned and proposed developments located within unincorporated portions of the County. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • Specific infrastructure needs and deficiencies were not identified by the County; however, it anticipates that current and future drainage needs in the area will be addressed by developers. • Drainage services have not been provided since 2003. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • While the CSA currently possesses a fund balance, it does not have a revenue source to provide continued regular drainage maintenance services. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • CSA 4 engages in joint financing arrangements related to staffing, and facility sharing for drainage maintenance services and administrative purposes, as it is managed by the Public Works Department. • No facility sharing opportunities were identified. 671 Communication with Larry Peterson, Director of Public Works, Amador County, March 21, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-449 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • The County demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information related to CSA 4 in response to LAFCO requests. • Operational efficiencies are achieved by having Public Works manage the CSA because the CSA Coordinator is also the Public Works Director. • CSA 4 is an inactive agency that has not provided services since 2003. Dissolution of this inactive agency is a government structure option, after the account balance has been depleted. CSA 5 CSA 5 provides street maintenance on public roads that are accepted into the County’s maintained system through a benefit area called a zone of benefit. FORMATION CSA 5 was formed on September 16, 1991 as a dependent special district of the County.672 It was formed “for the purpose of collecting annual assessments from ‘zones of benefit’ established voluntarily on request of a majority of landowners in a given affected area” for road improvement and maintenance purposes, “where the road has either been built to county standards and offered to the county to maintain, or there is a need to assess landowners in a specified area wishing to maintain a private road.”673 The CSA has only provided service to publicly maintained roads, as of March 2008. BOUNDARY AND SOI The boundary of CSA 5 encompasses the unincorporated areas of Amador County. According to the formation resolution, the interior boundary of the CSA automatically adjusts for any annexations or detachments from the cities of Amador City, Ione, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek. Maintenance within the CSA occurs in 13 zones of benefit located throughout the County. The zones of benefit consist of various subdivision areas, including the developments of Alpine Drive, Fairway Pines, Gretchen Lane, Jackson Pines, Petersen Ranch, Pine Groves Bluffs, Ponderosa 672 Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 673 Board of Supervisors Resolution 91-343. II-450 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS Ridge, Sherry Junction (unit 6), Silverpoint, Wildwood, an unnamed subdivision, and the Martell and Sierra West Business Parks. The boundary area of the CSA zones of benefit is 866 acres. Based on research performed by the Executive Officer, the SOI for CSA 5 cannot be ascertained from the LAFCO records. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will adopt a SOI for the CSA. MANAGEMENT The CSA is staffed and managed by the County Public Works Department. There is one CSA Coordinator who also serves as the Public Works Director. CSA administrative staff consists of less than one full-time equivalent position. The administrative staff handles the accounting process for all CSA’s managed by the Public Works Department, with the CSA Coordinator managing all other aspects of CSA maintenance. The Public Works Department encourages residents of each zone of benefit to organize a committee or advisory panel to keep the County informed of road maintenance needs and issues. When property owners within a zone of benefit request services or capital projects, County staff reviews the requests for necessity and the availability of funds to finance the requests. Staff recommends which projects should be undertaken. The County hires contractors to perform major road maintenance work through a competitive bidding process. County staff inspects the work performed by the contractor prior to making payment to the contractor for services. Minor repairs are performed directly by Public Works. The CSA does not have a master plan specific to CSA street maintenance services. The County has adopted a General Plan that includes a Circulation Element; however, it does not specifically address CSA services. Financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget, which includes information on CSA 5. The County annually prepares audited financial statements; however, CSA-specific information is not identifiable in these statements. CSA 5 financial information is tracked separately in the County’s accounting system. The CSA does not prepare a capital improvement plan; however, the road committee (i.e., Public Works Committee) assists the Public Works Department as needed in programming long-term maintenance and surfacing needs. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH The CSA customer base includes property owners and residents within the various zones of benefit of the CSA. A total of 238 property owners pay assessments to the CSA. Land use within the zones of benefit is primarily residential, although there are commercial areas within zones of benefit, including the Sierra West Business Park and Martell Business Park. BY BURR CONSULTING II-451 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The estimated population of the zones of benefit within the CSA is 542.674 The population density is 401 per sq mile, compared to the countywide density of 64. Service demand has increased moderately in recent years. Service requests will likely grow in future years as various new developments are completed in the unincorporated portions of the County and as the roads wear out over time. There are 23 planned and proposed residential developments in unincorporated Amador County, consisting of approximately 2,250 dwelling units, as of the drafting of this report. The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate CSA, including CSA 5. Zones of benefit are accounted for separately within the CSA 5 fund. The CSA received $43,534 in FY 06-07. Assessments are the primary revenue stream, constituting 82 percent of revenues. The CSA also receives interest income. The CSA does not receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax bill. Public Works did not report the amount of the assessment paid by each zone of benefit, but did report that the assessments contain an escalator tied to the consumer price index. The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The CSA is not authorized to issue bonded debt. The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided. The CSA finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance. By way of financial reserves, the CSA had an unreserved fund balance of $21,659 at the end of FY 06-07. This amounted to 434 percent of the CSA’s annual expenses. The CSA maintained approximately 52 months of working capital. The CSA had a total fund balance of $251,053 at the end of FY 06-07, with all reserved funds for street maintenance and repair activities. There is no adopted policy on CSA financial reserves. CSAs managed by the Public Works Department engage in joint financing arrangements with the County related to staffing, and share facilities with the County for street maintenance services and administrative purposes. No other facility sharing opportunities were identified. 674 Population estimate calculated with the number of properties served and the average household size in unincorporated Amador County (Department of Finance, 2008). II-452 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS STREET SERVICE Nature and Extent CSA 5 provides maintenance to streets and related drainage infrastructure on public roads accepted into the County’s maintained system through a benefit area called a zone of benefit. New roads not meeting County design standards are not eligible to join the CSA. There were 13 zones of benefit within the CSA as of the drafting of this report. CSA 5 also provides street sweeping as a service to the Martell and Sierra West Business Parks. Location CSA services are provided within the zones of benefit of the CSA, and not outside of these boundaries. The zones of benefit are located throughout the unincorporated portions of the County. Infrastructure There are approximately eight miles of roads within the CSA zones of benefit that are maintained through the CSA. All of the roads within CSA zone of benefit areas consist of paved asphalt. The average age of these roads is unknown, but was estimated to be approximately 50 years.675 Roadway drainage infrastructure includes storm drains, road culverts, gutters and ditches. Services completed within the CSA zones of benefit in FY 06-07 included crack and topcoat sealing, line striping, and other routine maintenance. Public Works did not identify any infrastructure needs for roadways maintained by CSA 5. STREET LIGHTING SERVICE Nature and Extent The CSA provides street lighting services to the zones of benefit by reimbursing PG&E (the direct service provider) for the cost of electricity, and billing the cost against the zone of benefit where the streetlight is located. Location CSA services are provided within the zones of benefit of the CSA, and not outside of these boundaries. The zones of benefit are located throughout the unincorporated portions of the County. 675 Correspondence from Amador County Public Works Director, Larry Peterson, August 11, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-453 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Infrastructure There are 30 streetlights located within the zones of benefit of the CSA. The CSA does not own the streetlights; they are installed by the developer of a subdivision and given to PG&E. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS (CSA 5) GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • Growth within the CSA has been moderate, consistent with population growth in the unincorporated portions of Amador County. • Service demand will likely increase in future years due to the various planned and proposed developments located within unincorporated portions of the County. Service demand will increase over time as the roads wear out. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • Present and planned capacity of public facilities is sufficient, and service provision within CSA 5 zones of benefit is adequate. • Public Works did not identify any infrastructure needs for roadways maintained by the CSA. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • Public Works indicated that current financing is adequate to deliver services, and assessments paid to the CSA increase with inflation. Current financing levels have allowed the CSA to provide regular maintenance to roadways in all zones of benefit. • The CSA has sufficient financial reserves to perform major maintenance activities as needed. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • CSA 5 engages in joint financing arrangements related to staffing, and facility sharing for street maintenance services and administrative purposes, as it is managed by the Public Works Department. • No facility sharing opportunities were identified. II-454 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Accountability for community services needs is achieved by allowing property owners within a zone of benefit to directly request services or capital projects and to participate in advisory committees for each zone of benefit. • Operational efficiencies are achieved by having Public Works manage the CSA because the CSA Coordinator is also the Public Works Director. • No governmental structure options were identified. CSA 6 CSA 6 provides funding for the monitoring of septic systems by the Department of Environmental Health (DEH). FORMATION CSA 6 was formed on March 29, 1991 as a dependent special district of the County.676 It was formed for the purpose of collecting sewerage system monitoring fees for annual inspections by DEH.677 BOUNDARY AND SOI The boundary of CSA 6 is the unincorporated areas of Amador County. Records from the formation of the CSA do not indicate whether the boundaries automatically change with annexations or detachments to the cities of Amador City, Ione, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek. The boundary area of the CSA is 582 square miles.678 Based on research performed by the Executive Officer, the SOI for CSA 6 cannot be ascertained from the LAFCO records. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will adopt a SOI for the CSA. 676 Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 677 LAFCO Resolution 90-224. 678 Land area of unincorporated Amador County from the 2000 Census. BY BURR CONSULTING II-455 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II MANAGEMENT The CSA is staffed and managed by DEH. Assessments paid to the CSA are collected and distributed to DEH by the Auditor-Controller. There is one DEH technician that performs annual testing of each septic system within the CSA. In the event that additional testing is warranted, the Registered Environmental Health Specialist (REHS) responsible for the area provides follow up testing. The CSA does not have a master plan specific to CSA services; however, the CSA test technician enforces the Amador County code related to septic systems. Financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget, which includes information on CSAs. The County annually prepares audited financial statements; however, CSA-specific information is not identifiable in these statements. CSA financial information is tracked separately in the County’s accounting system. The CSA does not prepare a capital improvement plan as it is a financing mechanism for sewerage monitoring of privately owned septic systems. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH The CSA customer base includes 367 property owners with septic systems that pay assessments to the CSA. The estimated population of the households paying assessments to the CSA is 836.679 The land use of the properties being assessed is primarily residential. The CSA forecasts long-term service needs by analyzing general building trends and locations of greatest development pressure. Service demand has remained the same in recent years, although DEH reports that service demand will likely increase in future years due to additional regulations regarding on-site sewage treatment systems.680 The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING Financing levels for the CSA were reported as being inadequate prior to the assessment increase in 2006. An evaluation of the adequacy of the funding since the assessment increase has not been completed as of the drafting of this report. The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate CSA, including CSA 6. 679 Population estimate calculated with the number of properties served and the average household size in unincorporated Amador County (Department of Finance, 2008). 680 Regulations adopted pursuant to AB 885 were not yet finalized as of the drafting of this report. II-456 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS The CSA received $32,888 in FY 06-07. Assessments are the primary revenue stream, constituting 99 percent of revenues. The CSA also receives interest income. The CSA does not receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected from property owners via the property tax bill. The assessment was $100 until the end of 2006, when the assessment was increased to $211 annually. The assessment is not adjusted for inflation. Property owners are assessed for five years, and removed from the assessment rolls if the system has tested clean throughout the five-year span. The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The CSA is not authorized to issue bonded debt. By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $1,388 at the end of FY 06-07. This amounted to four percent of the CSA’s annual expenses. The CSA maintained less than one month of working capital. There is no adopted policy on CSA financial reserves. CSA 6 engages in joint financing arrangements with the County related to staffing, and shares facilities in the County administration center for sewerage system monitoring services and administrative purposes with DEH. No other facility sharing opportunities were identified. SEWER SERVICE Nature and Extent The CSA monitors 367 privately owned on-site sewage systems. Systems subject to monitoring by the CSA include those that are designed with advanced treatment and relaxation of soil and groundwater separation standards, and systems that do not discharge to the ground. Property owners enter into an agreement for the CSA to monitor the system for a minimum of five years. If the system tests clean throughout the five-year span the property is removed from the assessment rolls and testing for that system is discontinued. If the CSA monitoring program identifies a problem, the property owner is notified and is required to take corrective action. If the system is in a state of failure, the REHS will perform soil tests to identify a possible relocation site of a new system. Inspection reports are saved in the assessor’s parcel file for each system and are available for public review upon request. Location CSA services are provided within the CSA, and not outside of its boundary. The boundary of the CSA is the unincorporated areas of Amador County. Infrastructure The CSA is a financing mechanism for the annual monitoring of privately owned septic systems by the Department of Environmental Health. The CSA does not own or maintain any infrastructure. There are no infrastructure improvements needed. BY BURR CONSULTING II-457 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS (CSA 6) GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • Growth within the CSA has been moderate, consistent with population growth in the unincorporated portions of Amador County. • Service demand will likely increase in future years due to additional regulations regarding on- site sewage treatment systems and growth in the number of systems. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The CSA does not own or maintain any infrastructure; hence, present and planned capacity of public facilities is adequate and there are no infrastructure deficiencies. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • Current financing levels may be adequate as are result of the 2006 assessment increase; however, the assessment amount does not increase with inflation. • Revenues will increase as additional systems are added which require monitoring. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • Amador County DEH manages the CSA and performs testing on the septic systems that are subject to monitoring. • Staffing, administration and facilities are shared with Amador County. • No additional opportunities for shared facilities were identified. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • Accountability for community service needs is achieved by allowing the public access to inspection records located in the assessor’s parcel file for each property inspected. • Operational efficiencies are achieved by having DEH manage the CSA and ensure reliability of tests. II-458 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS CSA 7 CSA 7 has been inactive since formation and does not provide any services. FORMATION CSA 7 was formed on October 9, 1991 as a dependent special district of the County.681 It was formed “for the purpose of collecting annual parcel fees to fund solid waste disposal facilities in Amador County.”682 After the parcel fees had been assessed and collected, the Board of Supervisors rescinded the fee and returned the funds to taxpayers.683 The CSA has been inactive since formation. BOUNDARY AND SOI The boundary of the CSA is countywide, including the cities of Amador City, Ione, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek. The boundary area of the CSA is 593 square miles.684 Based on research performed by the Executive Officer, the SOI for CSA 7 cannot be ascertained from the LAFCO records. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will adopt a SOI for the CSA, if needed. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS (CSA 7) • CSA 7 has been inactive since formation. Dissolution of this inactive agency is the logical government structure option. CSA 8 CSA 8 does not provide any services as of the drafting date of this report. It was formed to provide services in the Carbondale Industrial Park. 681 Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 682 LAFCO resolution 91-226. 683 Interview with Larry Peterson, Public Works Director, Amador County, March 18, 2008. 684 Land area of Amador County (incorporated and unincorporated) from the 2000 Census. BY BURR CONSULTING II-459 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II FORMATION CSA 8 was formed on December 18, 1996 as a dependent special district of the County.685 It was formed by LAFCO “to provide any or all of the services allowed by CSA law that the Board of Supervisors declares to be necessary.”686 The Board of Supervisors authorized the CSA “to perform the services and to be used for the purpose of charging for any necessary services allowed in the CSA statute, and for collecting annual assessments from ‘zones of benefit’ established by the Board of Supervisors” in the Carbondale Industrial Park.687 No specific services were established at CSA formation by either LAFCO or the Board of Supervisors. BOUNDARY AND SOI The boundary of CSA 8 is the 234-acre Carbondale Industrial Park area, located at the intersection of Carbondale Road and Michigan Bar Road, northwest of the City of Ione. Based on research performed by the Executive Officer, the LAFCO record suggests a coterminous SOI for CSA 8, but it is not clear if one was ever adopted by the Commission. After adoption of this MSR, LAFCO will adopt an SOI for the CSA. MANAGEMENT CSA 8 is managed by the County General Services Administration. The CSA Coordinator is also the property manager of the Carbondale Industrial Park. No water or sewer services are being provided by CSA 8 to the Carbondale Industrial Park, as of FY 06-07. Road services provided to the area in FY 06-07 were performed by County Public Works and reimbursed with CSA funds; however, later it was discovered that the road construction was part of a Public Works training exercise and incorrectly billed to the CSA. The CSA does not have a master plan specific to CSA services. Financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget, which includes information on CSAs. The County annually prepares audited financial statements; however, CSA-specific information is not identifiable in these statements. CSA financial information is tracked separately in the County’s accounting system. The CSA does not prepare a capital improvement plan. 685 Formation date is from Board of Equalization records. 686 LAFCO resolution 95-249. 687 Board of Supervisors resolution 96-455. II-460 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH The CSA customer base includes two commercial businesses—U S. Tile and 1st Propane—that lease a site at the industrial park. Both businesses are located within zones of benefit of the CSA. There is no residential population located within the CSA. Service demand has remained the same in the last five years, as no additional businesses have moved into the park area. Service requests will likely stay the same in future years as no new commercial activities are planned or expected to locate at the Carbondale Industrial Park by 2010. The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. FINANCING The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for water, sewer and roads service by CSA 8. The CSA received $7,676 in FY 06-07, in the form of lease revenue from 1st Propane.688 As the CSA does not receive assessments, lease revenue is the primary revenue stream, constituting 84 percent of revenues in FY 06-07. The CSA also receives interest income, constituting 16 percent of revenues in FY 06-07. The CSA does not receive revenue from the lease agreement with U.S. Tile.689 The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The CSA is not authorized to issue bonded debt. The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital improvement plan. No infrastructure needs for the CSA area were identified. The CSA finances capital improvements with lease revenue, interest income and the available fund balance. By way of financial reserves, the CSA had an unreserved fund balance of $2,906 at the end of FY 06-07. This amounted to 55 percent of the CSA’s annual expenses. The CSA maintained approximately 7 months of working capital. There is no adopted policy on CSA financial reserves. CSA 8 engages in joint financing arrangements related to staffing, and shares office facilities for street maintenance services and administrative purposes with the County. The CSA’s service area is geographically remote from other service providers. No other facility sharing opportunities were identified. 688 The County’s lease agreement with 1st Propane required $636.54 per month rent in 2006-7. 689 According to the lease agreement with the CSA, U.S. Tile does not pay rent in exchange for providing permitting and maintenance of the well site at the industrial park. BY BURR CONSULTING II-461 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II WATER SERVICE Nature and Extent The CSA is not currently providing water services to the Carbondale Industrial Park area. The County’s lease agreement with U.S. Tile allows the company access to well water at the industrial park for fire safety and tile production needs, with U.S. Tile assuming responsibility for permitting and maintenance of the well. According to the lease, the County has no obligation repair or maintain the well. U.S. Tile plans to install a transmission line to increase tile production. Any improvements to the well are property of U.S. Tile until the lease is terminated. The lease expires in 2041. Location CSA services are to be provided within the Carbondale Industrial Park, and not outside of these boundaries, although the CSA is not providing any services as of the drafting of this report. Infrastructure The County owns a single well which is leased to U.S. Tile. The Lease agreement requires that U.S. Tile perform any necessary maintenance and improvements to keep the well in a “good state of repair.” STREET SERVICE Nature and Extent There is one gravel road located within the CSA that leads to the well site. The road and associated culvert pipes were constructed by Public Works as a training exercise, and are not maintained by the CSA. The CSA 8 Coordinator reports that U.S. Tile is responsible for maintenance of the road that leads to the well site, in addition to maintenance of the well itself. In the event that additional businesses locate to the industrial park, CSA 8 would take over road maintenance; however, as of the drafting of this report, maintenance of the single gravel road is the responsibility of U.S. Tile. Location CSA services are to be provided within the Carbondale Industrial Park, and not outside of these boundaries, although the CSA is not providing any services as of the drafting of this report. Infrastructure There is an approximately 0.5-mile gravel road within the CSA, although it is not presently maintained by the CSA. The road is privately maintained by U.S. Tile for access to the well site at the industrial park. The roadway consists of dirt with a mixture of recycled asphalt material. Drainage infrastructure associated with the roadway consists of culvert pipes. There were no infrastructure needs within the CSA identified by the CSA Coordinator. II-462 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO COUNTY SERVICE AREAS SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS (CSA 8) GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS • There has been no growth within the CSA in the last five years as no additional businesses have moved into the park area. There is no residential population within the CSA. • No growth is anticipated within the CSA as no new commercial activities are currently planned to locate at the Carbondale Industrial Park. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES • The CSA is not currently providing services to the Carbondale Industrial Park area. • Due to the limited commercial activity at the industrial park, present and planned capacity of facilities is deemed to be adequate. • No infrastructure needs or deficiencies were identified by the CSA Coordinator. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES • As the CSA is not presently providing services, the financial ability of the CSA to provide service is not an issue under present conditions. In the future, if additional businesses locate to the industrial park and the CSA is called upon to provide services, appropriate financial vehicles will be needed to fund the desired services. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES • Facilities are shared through management of the CSA by the County GSA. • No additional opportunities for shared facilities were identified. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES • As the CSA is not currently providing services, accountability is limited. • Operational efficiencies are achieved by having the property manager of the industrial park serve as CSA Coordinator. • No government structure options for CSA 8 were identified. BY BURR CONSULTING II-463 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 29. O T H E R S E RV I C E P ROV I D E R S There are municipal service providers in Amador County that are not under Amador LAFCO’s jurisdiction. Such agencies play significant roles in service delivery and potentially affect the SOI and government structure options for local agencies that are subject to LAFCO regulation. AMADOR COUNTY RECREATION AGENCY Amador County Recreation Agency (ACRA) operates recreation services countywide. AGENCY OVERVIEW ACRA is a Joint Powers Authority that was formed in 2003. Its members are the County of Amador, the cities of Amador City, Ione, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek, Amador County Unified School District, Volcano CSD, and County Service Area No. 3.690 ACRA is empowered to plan, finance, acquire, construct, manage, and operate recreation programs and facilities in Amador County. The Agency has a Governing Board of 11 directors, as shown in Table II-31-1. ACRA is managed by an executive director who oversees a maintenance supervisor and five other staff members. The executive director reports to the governing board monthly. Planning efforts include a recreation master plan, which was prepared in 2006. ACRA is funded by member contributions of $5.00 per person from each of member entity. Contributions increased from $3.50 in FY 07-08. Total revenues in FY 06-07 were $350,275. ACRA’s total expenditures of $278,974 were primarily composed of employee compensation (43 percent) and professional services (27 percent). ACRA had $7,331 in undesignated reserves at the end of FY 06-07, making up three percent of annual expenditures. In other words, ACRA had less than one month of operating reserves. 690 ACRA, JPA Amending Agreement, September 28, 2004. II-464 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Table II-31-1: ACRA Governing Body Amador County Recreation Agency Governing Body Name Agency Position Debbie Dunn Volcano CSD Chair Lee Ard City of Ione Vice Chair Paul Karnaze ACUSD Clerk Tracey Towner-Yep ACRA Director Bill Hepworth City of Sutter Creek Director Members Richard Forster County Director Richard Escamilla County Director Tom Sheppard CSA #3 Director Rosalie Pryor Escamilla City of Jackson Director Richard Lynch Amador City Director Pat Fordyce City of Plymouth Director Manner of Selection Members are appointed by the representing agencies. Length of Term At the pleasure of the appointing body. Date: second Location: Board of Supervisors Chambers, Meeting Wednesdays, 2 p.m. 810 Court Street, Jackson. Agenda Distribution Posted at all City Halls and the County. Minutes Distribution At meetings. Contact Contact Executive Director Mailing Address 10877 Conductor Blvd., Suite 100, Sutter Creek, CA 95685. Phone (209) 223-6349 Email/Website ttowneryep@co.amador.ca.us; http://www.co.amador.ca.us/depts/acra/ MUNICIPAL SERVICES ACRA provides direct recreational programs to all county residents, such as after school programs, cooking classes, craft classes, and various sports clubs. It provides park maintenance services directly to its own parks and by contract to County-owned parks. ACRA also leases River Pines Park from River Pines CSD and provides maintenance services there as well.691 Recreation services are provided at several different parks within the County and the fairgrounds during the summer and the school year. ACRA-maintained parks are located in Sutter Creek, Pioneer, Fiddletown, and River Pines. Both residents and non-residents may use the parks and facilities. ACRA also provides a service of posting flyers on bulletin boards throughout the County. ACRA serves its own two parks, two County-owned parks, and one public utility district park. It currently provides natural trails, picnic areas, restrooms, and two little league fields. It also uses school facilities to deliver services—basketball courts, classrooms, kitchens, and fields. 691 Lease Agreement Regarding River Pines Park between Amador County, ACRA and River Pines Public Utilities District, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-465 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The Agency reported that it is currently planning for two new parks, one of 17 acres in Pine Grove and the other one of tentative 50 acres between Sutter Creek and Amador City. Planned improvements countywide include a complete renovation and upgrade of River Pines Park, an upgrade of the Vet’s Hall and new restrooms at Pioneer Park. ACRA also plans for new infrastructure at Pine Grove Town Hall, Armory Hall in Volcano CSD, and Plymouth.692 ACRA, its member agencies and other providers maintain 7.3 park acres per 1,000 residents countywide. ACRA’s adopted policy is to increase the park ratio in the County to 13.7 acres.693 The current park maintenance costs are $150,000 per year for Pioneer, Fiddletown and Lions Park. Approximately $100,000 of this amount represents in kind contributions from the local community. Molly Joyce Park is a recent acquisition and River Pines Park is a recent lease. According to the Agency, this amount should raise to meet the State standard of $10,000 per acre. Considering recent and planned acquisitions, costs should increase to the amount of about $500,000 per year. 692 ACRA, Memo to Amador County Board of Supervisors, Prop 40 Project Recommendations, April 17, 2007. 693 ACRA, Regional Recreation Master Plan, 2006. II-466 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Table II-29-2: ACRA Park Profile Park and Recreation Service Configuration Service Configuration Park Maintenance Direct Number of Parks Maintained 5 Recreation Direct Number of Recreation Centers NA Service Adequacy FY 06-07 Park Acres per 1,000 pop1 7.2 Maintenance Cost/Acre FY 06-072 $1,656 Adopted Policy: 13.7 acres per 1,000 population, countywide Park Acreage Day Use Park 6.2 Neighborhood Parks 2 Undeveloped 1.6 Special Use Areas 0.0 Community Parks 98 Landscaped 0.0 Park Name Location Condition Acres Lions Park Volcano Rd, Sutter Creek Good 6.2 Fiddletown Park Ostrom Rd, Fiddletown Good 2.0 Pioneer Park Buckhorn Ridge Rd, Pioneer Good 22.0 Mollie Joyce Park East Hwy 88, Pioneer Fair 76.0 River Pines Park River Pines Community Fair 1.6 Service Challenges The Agency reported that funding is the number one constraint for providing park services to the service area. Facility Needs/Deficiencies There are two new parks being planned. Facility Sharing The Agency uses school facilities to deliver services. It also shares its own facilities when other agencies ask. Developer Fees and Requirements Development Impact Fees $8,760 per dwelling unit in Jackson and Sutter Creek; $4,300 in the County, Plymouth and Amador City; $3,284 in Ione. Land Dedication Requirement Five acres per 1,000 residents. In-Lieu Fees Fees are based upon the fair market value of land needed to meet the same ratio of persons to acreage of parkland. Additional Fees $150 to purchase maps from the County. Notes: (1) All provider's park acreage within Amador County per 1,000 residents according to the Department of Finance (January 2008). (2) Maintenance costs exclude Mollie Joyce and River Pines Parks. BY BURR CONSULTING II-467 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II AMADOR FIRE PROTECTION AUTHORITY Amador Fire Protection Agency (AFPA) is a regional Joint Powers Authority consisting of seven of the eight local fire service providers in Amador County: Amador Fire Protection District, Sutter Creek Fire Protection District, Jackson Valley Fire Protection District, Lockwood Fire Protection District, and the Cities of Ione, Jackson and Plymouth.694 Only the Kirkwood Meadows PUD is excluded. AGENCY OVERVIEW In 2003, seven cities and fire districts in Amador County joined together to form AFPA for the purpose of planning enhanced fire protection in the County on a regional and consolidated basis. The JPA’s powers are exercised through a Board of Directors composed of seven elected officials, one appointed from the governing board of each the seven member agencies, as shown in Table II- 29-1. The Board’s chair, vice-chair, and secretary are elected by the Directors annually. Table II-29-1: AFPA Governing Body Amador Fire Protection Authority Governing Body Name Agency Position Louis D. Boitano AFPD Chairman John Asmus LFPD Vice Chairman Lee Ard Ione City Council Director Members Connie Gonsalves Jackson City Council Director Ron Watson SCFPD Director Jake Herfel JVFPD Director Greg Baldwin Plymouth City Council Director Manner of Selection By member agencies. Length of Term N/A Meetings Date: Monthly Location: County Administration Center Agenda Distribution Online and posted Minutes Distribution By request Contact Contact Chairman Mailing Address 810 Court Street, Jackson, CA Phone (209) 223-6470 Email/Website http://www.co.amador.ca.us/depts/afpa The Board appoints executive officer (EO) to function as the chief executive and administrative officer of AFPA. The Executive officer develops budgets for the Board’s approval, makes policy recommendations, and oversees the operation of the Authority. An Authority Counsel is elected annually by the Board as well. In addition, the Board may appoint a member to serve as treasurer 694 Pursuant to Title I, Division 7, Chapter 5 of California State Code (from Section 6500 et seq.) II-468 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS and auditor, or these roles may be ceded to the Amador County Treasurer and Amador County Auditor. An Advisory Team assists the Board and EO in the Authority’s budgeting and programs. Advisory Team members include the County Administrative Officer, the city managers of the three member municipalities, fire chiefs of all members, and a CALFIRE representative. Board meetings are held at least one time per month, although the agreement allows for alterations to be made to this schedule if necessary. MUNICIPAL SERVICES Nature and Extent AFPA is a JPA that works to improve the existing volunteer-based fire services through Amador County. The County population is growing and call volume is increasing significantly (up 30% over last 5 years).695 AFPA seeks to ensure the current system develops to meet these needs. The agreement forming the Authority defines its roles in two phases. The first phase details planning of operational and funding strategies for meet the following goals: • Enhance daytime fire protection coverage in the covered area; • Consolidate the existing network of members to achieve greater efficiency and consistency; • Design and implement consolidated department operational strategies which provide services by paid Authority employees during daylight hours; • Pursue funding opportunities; • Provide uniformity, consistency and greater member participation and recognition in service provision; and • Develop consistent response plans to achieve greater cost efficiency. The second phase of the Authority’s scope will detail the operational steps from phase one’s planning outcomes. Members will set forth these operations in an amended agreement. The Authority’s Guiding Principles include affirming the Amador County Fire Services Task Force Report’s continued relevance to fire protection planning in the County, designing flexible fire protection improvements that may vary by region, and to promote longevity and stability. 695 AFPA, Presentation on Fire Services, EMS, and Revenue Options. URL accessed on 2/1/08, http://www.co.amador.ca.us/depts/afpa/documents/AFPA_sales_tax-fire_v5.pdf. BY BURR CONSULTING II-469 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Additionally, the AFPA intends to encourage local advancement to paid staff positions while maintaining and strengthening the local volunteer system and keeping consolidation a future option. AFPA is to serve as the recommending agency for any future revenue growth allocated to fire, through Prop 172 fund reallocation or through an AFPII-supported sales tax increase to support fire protection.696 The AFPA Board has approved a motion to seek a ½-cent sales tax increase on the November 2008 ballot. The plan for allocation of these funds must be submitted to the County’s election officials by June 28; as of the drafting of this report there are many conflicting plans being considered.697 Location AFPA’s authority extends of member agencies’ bounds, covering nearly all of Amador County. Only KMPUD’s bounds are excluded. Infrastructure The Authority does not own any infrastructure. AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION AUTHORITY The Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA) is a joint powers agency (JPA) providing wastewater conveyance and disposal services to its member agencies: the City of Sutter Creek, the City of Amador, and Amador County. AGENCY OVERVIEW Formation ARSA was formed in 1978 by the City of Jackson, City of Sutter Creek, the City of Amador and Amador County.698 At formation, the service area included the three cities and the unincorporated Martell community. The City of Jackson pumped its wastewater to the regional outfall in Sutter Creek until 1982 when it withdrew from ARSA after making extensive improvements to its WWTP 696 AFPA Website, Guiding Principles, URL accessed 2/18/08, http://www.co.amador.ca.us/depts/afpa. 697 Budrick, J, “County fire association still ironing out the kinks of funding plan,” Amador Ledger-Dispatch, March 3, 2008. 698 ARSA, A Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of Amador, the city of Amador City, the City of Jackson, and the City of Sutter Creek for the Purpose of Creating an Agency for Implementing a Regional Wastewater Disposal Plan, September 18, 1978. II-470 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS from which it began discharging directly into Jackson Creek, no longer needing the ARSA facilities.699 Local Accountability and Governance The governing body is composed of five directors: one appointed by Amador City Council, two by the Sutter Creek City council and two by the Amador County BOS. The governing body meets at least once yearly with meetings held under Ralph M. Brown Act requirements. The Amador County Treasurer Tax-Collector is treasurer and depository. ARSA is set to exist until a majority of its governing body members vote to terminate it.700 At formation, the 1978 JPA agreement expressed the member agencies’ attempt to form a special district encompassing the same area served by ARSA and to transfer ARSA to that district. The 1982 agreement reiterated the intent to form a special district and transfer ARSA to such a district. No such district has been formed to date. In its original 1978 agreement, the members expressed the intent to add to ARSA communities that may be served in the future, including Volcano, Pine Grove and Pioneer, and agreed that the County would pay for any increased cost of expanding pipeline capacity to serve such communities.701 Changes to boundaries of member agencies require approval of the ARSA governing body. The governing body may not withhold approval of boundary changes unless the boundary change would reduce ARSA’s ability to dispose wastewater originating in each member’s service area. ARSA demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaire, interview and document requests. Management ARSA is managed and staffed by the City of Sutter Creek. It was originally staffed by Amador County, but was subsequently transferred from the County to the City of Sutter Creek. Management practices include annual budgets. The District budgeted funds to conduct an audit in FY 07-08, although the audit results were not available at the time this report was prepared. ARSA participated in the 2005 Amador County Regional Wastewater Management Plan. The 2007 Sutter Creek Wastewater Master Plan contains an assessment of the ARSA pipeline, regionalization, and storage and disposal alternatives.702 699 ARSA, Agreement Amending a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of Amador, the City of Amador City, the City of Jackson, and the City of Sutter Creek for the Purpose of Creating an Agency for Implementing a Regional Wastewater Disposal Plan, November 15, 1982. 700 By the 1982 agreement, ARSA cannot be terminated prior to November 15, 2012 unless transferred to a special district serving the same area. 701 ARSA, A Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of Amador, the City of Amador City, the City of Jackson, and the City of Sutter Creek for the Purpose of Creating an Agency for Implementing a Regional Wastewater Disposal Plan, September 18, 1978, p. 9. 702 HDR Engineering, Sutter Creek Wastewater Master Plan: Report to the City of Sutter Creek, August 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-471 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II ARSA practices risk management, and purchases insurance. Financing ARSA reported that it has the financial ability to provide services. ARSA expenses are paid by member agencies in quarterly payments allocated based on the share of wastewater disposed through the outfall. The allocation may be adjusted by the governing body to reflect any costly differences in the pollutant load in member agencies’ wastewater. In FY 06-07, total ARSA expenses were $1.1 million, of which $0.3 million was funded by service charges $0.4 million by capital charges and $0.4 million was funded by reserves. ARSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. ARSA had a fund balance of $1.1 million at the end of FY 06-07. These reserves constituted 103 percent of annual expenditures. WASTEWATER SERVICES Nature and Extent ARSA’s powers are to design, construct and operate a regional outfall, and to finance, acquire, construct, manage, operate and maintain the outfall and other wastewater collection, treatment and transportation facilities. ARSA leases use of a series of pipelines and reservoirs, including Henderson Reservoir, Preston Forebay and Preston Reservoir, and Sutter Creek water rights from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). ARSA water rights on Sutter Creek are 737 af, and can be diverted into the ARSA pipeline if downstream needs for recycled water exceed supply.703 ARSA does not owe a payment under the lease agreement, although that agreement is subject to expiration with five-year notice by either party. Prior to and just following Henderson Reservoir, effluent is diverted to irrigate the Bowers and Hoskins Ranch properties, respectively. ARSA also distributed recycled water to 22 stock water troughs along the pipeline. Prior to entering Henderson Reservoir, a portion of the secondary effluent is diverted to provide irrigation water to the Bowers Ranch property which is applied to flood irrigate pasture grass that is consumed by cattle. A portion of the effluent is also reclaimed after it flows out from Henderson Reservoir by the Hoskins Ranch’s spray irrigation operation used 703 HDR Engineering, Sutter Creek Wastewater Master Plan: Report to the City of Sutter Creek, Aug. 2007. The Preston Youth Correctional Facility has rights to 3,995 afa from Sutter Creek under license 5533, of which 465 af may be stored at Henderson Reservoir and 268 af may be stored at Preston Reservoir. II-472 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS to grow pasture grass.704 The Mule Creek State Prison WWTP may discharge up to 350 af annually (equivalent to 0.63 mgd between April and September) to Preston Reservoir. ARSA effluent flows to City of Ione wastewater treatment facilities under a contractual agreement which requires at least five years notice to terminate.705 Monthly discharges from Preston Reservoir to the Ione system are limited to 10 af (equivalent to 0.21 mgd) between October and May, and to 95 af per month (equivalent to 1.02 mgd) between April and September. ARSA had historically discharged to the Preston Youth Correctional Facility. When the Preston farmlands disposal area was sold to the developer of the Castle Oaks subdivision and golf course, the City of Ione and the developer agreed in 1990 to mitigate the impacts on ARSA by accommodating its flows. Under the agreement, ARSA committed to continue to provide effluent to Preston. However, in 2002 Preston’s permit for tertiary treatment and disposal was rescinded due to regulatory non-compliance.706 ARSA now discharges to Ione. Location The ARSA outfall is located at the Sutter Creek WWTP. Secondary treated wastewater effluent originating in Martell, Amador City and Sutter Creek is disposed through the outfall to the City of Ione for tertiary treatment and disposal. A portion of the effluent is used by ranchers along the pipeline for irrigation. In the 1978 JPA agreement, the members agreed that the Jackson WWTP service area had 0.65 mgd capacity. Amador County contracted for Jackson to treat wastewater originating in the Martell County Service Area (CSA). Jackson withdrew from ARSA in 1982, but the Martell CSA continues to participate. AWA operates the Martell CSA. Although AWA favors a regional wastewater treatment facility located in Martell, its interim policy direction is to contract with Sutter Creek for treatment capacity at least through 2012.707 AWA seeks to promote recycled water to enhance local water supplies; there are potential recycled water customers in Ione Valley and Jackson Valley. Infrastructure The outfall is composed of nine miles of pipeline segments and a series of three reservoirs used for effluent storage. The reservoirs are Henderson Reservoir (unincorporated), Preston Forebay Reservoir and Preston Reservoir (at Preston Youth Correctional Facility in the City of Ione). 704 Amador County, Infrastructure, Public Facilities, And Services General Plan Update Working Paper, March 2007. 705 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, City of Ione and ARSA, Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System, Sept. 18, 2007. 706 Central Valley RWQCB, Cease and Desist Order No. R5-2002-0013, 2002. Preston regulatory non-compliance included failure to meet tertiary treatment standards, failure to meet requirements for a dual-plumbed water system, discharging outside the designated area, and lack of signage alerting the public. 707 AWA, Board of Directors Regular Meeting Minutes, January 25, 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING II-473 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Henderson Reservoir was built in 1888, and raised 12 feet in 1929; the State Division of Safety of Dams asked ARSA to re-evaluate seismic safety of the dam and add a buttress for structural stability. The Preston Forebay dam was built in 1923, and leaks when operated with less than 12-feet freeboard; the dam needs to be reevaluated and reinforced with a buttress to restore its function to its design capacity. The Preston Reservoir capacity is 235 af. CDCR has agreed to conduct a preliminary feasibility study of raising Preston Reservoir by 16 inches to increase its capacity.708 ARSA needs to reinforce the dams at Henderson and Preston Forebay Reservoirs. The regional outfall is nine miles in length; estimated capacity is 2.0 mgd between the WWTP and the Sutter Creek diversion structure, and 3.9 mgd downstream of the diversion structure.709 The 4.3-mile segment between the WWTP and Henderson Reservoir was constructed of iron pipe in 1979, and is in fair condition; CCTV evaluation is needed to determine its remaining life.710 The 3.7- mile segment between Henderson Reservoir and Preston Forebay was constructed of concrete in the late 1920s, is in unknown condition, and needs inspection and most likely repairs. Similarly, the 1-mile segment between Preston Forebay and Preston Reservoir was constructed of steel piping, is in unknown condition, and needs inspection and most likely repairs. Between April and September, Preston Reservoir also accepts flows from the Mule Creek Prison WWTP, which in turn treats flows from the prison, the Preston facility and the CALFIRE Academy. From Preston Reservoir, ARSA effluent flows to City of Ione wastewater treatment facilities. During the dry season (April to November), flows are directed to the tertiary Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Plant (COWRP) and are ultimately discharged to land for irrigation of the Castle Oaks Golf Course. During the wet season, flows are stored at Henderson and Preston Reservoirs, and excess flows are directed to the Ione secondary WWTP (crossing Sutter Creek) and discharged to nearby ponds. The City of Ione is required to accept up to 650 af (0.6 mgd) in ARSA flows during a wet year. The City of Ione is required to accept up to 650 af (0.6 mgd) in ARSA flows during a wet year. ARSA has agreed by 2011 to eliminate flows to Ione’s secondary wastewater ponds; in other words, ARSA must store flows or divert them elsewhere between October and March. Once Ione and CDCR resolve how to provide adequate reclaimed water to Castle Oaks Golf Course and Preston Youth Correction Facility, either Ione or CDCR may compel ARSA to stop discharging to the portion of the system below Preston Forebay with five years notice. ARSA holds rights to dispose 1,300 af (the equivalent of 1.16 mgd on a year-round basis) on the former Noble Ranch where the Gold Rush golf resort is planned. Portions of the project have been constructed, such as a conduit under SR 49, and the remainder is scheduled to be completed before 2011 when ARSA may no longer dispose to Ione during wet season. 708 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, City of Ione and ARSA, Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System, September 18, 2007, p. 5. 709 HDR Engineering, Sutter Creek Wastewater Master Plan: Report to the City of Sutter Creek, August 2007, p. 6-1. 710 HDR Engineering, Sutter Creek Master Plan Technical Memorandum: Summary of ARSA Pipeline Condition Assessment, Oct. 17, 2007. II-474 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS AMADOR COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC) is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Amador County. ACTC was formed in 1972, the year that the regional transportation planning process was initiated by State law. AGENCY OVERVIEW ACTC plans, prioritizes and funds road maintenance and construction projects in Amador County. The Commission’s region is countywide, and includes approximately 470 miles of County and city roads. Each year, the Commission creates an annual overall work program (OWP), a scope of work and budget for transportation planning activities and funding sources to be accomplished in the coming fiscal year. An OWP is a statement of proposed work and estimated costs that tie specific available transportation planning funding sources to specific transportation planning activities. 711 Regional transportation plans (RTP) are adopted every five years; ACTC last updated its RTP in 2004. The RTP has a long-term horizon (through 2025) and identifies existing and future transportation needs in the County. ACTC determines the priorities for RTP projects in conjunction with cities and the County. The RTP does not specifically link funding with projects; this is accomplished through the annual OWPs. 712 ACTC members include three commissioners appointed by the Amador County BOS, three commissioners appointed by the City Selection Committee (from city councils in the County), and one ex-officio member appointed by the Caltrans District 10 Director. Individual members and meeting information are shown in Table II-29-2. As an RTPA, ACTC receives state and federal transportation planning funds to accomplish regional transportation planning through the activities detailed in its OWPs.713 The formula-based State allocation to ACTC for FY 08-09 will be approximately $216,000.714 711 Caltrans, 2007 Regional Planning Handbook, A Guide to Administering Overall Work Programs, Regional Transportation Plans and their Funding Sources, 2007, p.4. 712 Ibid. 713 Caltrans, 2007 Regional Planning Handbook, A Guide to Administering Overall Work Programs, Regional Transportation Plans and their Funding Sources, 2007. 714 Ibid. BY BURR CONSULTING II-475 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Table II-29-2: Amador County Transportation Commission Amador County Transportation Commission Governing Body Name Agency Position Louis Boitano County BOS Chairman Al Nunes Jackson City Council Vice Chairman Richard Forster County BOS Member Jerry Sherman Ione City Council Member Members Greg Baldwin Plymouth City Council Member Dave Richards Citizen Member Ken Baxter Caltrans District 10 Ex-Officio Member Theodore Novelli County BOS Alternate Brent Parsons Sutter Creek City Council Alternate Jim Ulm Ione City Council Alternate Manner of Selection By member agencies. Length of Term N/A Date: Third Wednesdays Location: Amador County Administrator Center Meetings at 6:00 PM Agenda Distribution Online and posted Minutes Distribution By request and online Contact Contact Chairman Mailing Address 11400 American Legion Drive, Jackson, CA 95642 Phone 209.267.2282 Email/Website http://www.actc-amador.org AMERICAN LEGION POST 108 AMBULANCE SERVICE AGENCY OVERVIEW ALA was formed by the members of American Legion Post 108 in 1929. The ambulance service was operated by volunteer members of Post until approximately 1970, when full-time personnel were hired. ALA has provided advanced life support services since 1983. The service is overseen and regulated by the Mountain Valley Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMSA), which coordinates and regulates local emergency services in Amador, Calaveras, Alpine, Mariposa, and Stanislaus Counties. ALA began serving Calaveras County in July 2005, more than doubling the size of its operations to 1,371 square miles. It employs over 80 Paramedics, EMT-I's and registered nurses. NATURE AND EXTENT ALA provides basic and advanced life support services, as was as emergency medical transport. II-476 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS LOCATION American Legion Ambulance Service (ALA) provides ambulance service to Amador and Calaveras Counties. SERVICE ADEQUACY Amador County is divided into 18 regions, which are classified as wilderness, rural, suburban or urban. The more populated an area, the faster the response time standard established by Mountain Valley EMSA. COUNTY OF AMADOR Amador County provides municipal services to unincorporated areas as well as countywide services. Municipal services include law enforcement, road maintenance, wastewater, drainage, and cemetery to unincorporated areas of Amador County. Park and recreation services are provided by ACRA, a joint powers authority between the County of Amador, the cities of Amador City, Ione, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek, Amador County Unified School District, Volcano CSD, and County Service Area 3. Other municipal services not covered by the MSR include planning, building and code enforcement, library, and airport services. Countywide services such as welfare, health, coroner, district attorney, and elections are also outside the scope of this study. AGENCY OVERVIEW Amador County was formed on June 14, 1854. The County was originally part of Calaveras County from statehood in 1850 until 1854 when citizens north of the Mokelumne River became dissatisfied and petitioned the legislature to form a separate independent county. Amador later acquired land north of Dry Creek from El Dorado County and relinquished its easterly Sierra territory when Alpine County was formed in 1863.715 Local Accountability and Governance Amador County is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors (BOS). The Supervisors are elected by five supervisorial districts to staggered, four-year terms. The most recent supervisor elections occurred in 2004, 2006 and 2008. Of the three seats placed in 2004, one was contested.716 715 Amador County, About Amador County, URL accessed 5/29/08, http://www.co.amador.ca.us/about_amador.htm 716 Amador County, 2004 General Elections Results, November 2, 2004. BY BURR CONSULTING II-477 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Both of the two seats placed in 2006 were contested.717 Two of the three seats placed in 2008 were contested. Board meetings are held weekly at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesdays in the board chambers at the County Administration Center. The County apprises residents of meetings and events through legal notices in the newspaper, the local television and radio stations, bulletin board posting at the County Administrative Center, and the County’s website, which includes an interactive calendar with links to agendas and minutes. The County makes available its budget, audited financial statements, general plans, and other documents on its website. The County reported that it has had no Brown Act violations in recent history. See Table II-29-3 for information on individual supervisors, term expiration dates and BOS contact information. Table II-29-3: Amador County Governing Body Amador County Board of Supervisors Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Richard Escamilla District 1 Supervisor Jan-09 Richard Forster District 2 Supervisor, Jan-09 Vice-Chair Members Theodore Novelli District 3 Supervisor Jan-11 Louis Boitano District 4 Supervisor, Jan-09 Chair Brian Oneto District 5 Supervisor Jan-11 Manner of Selection Elections by supervisorial district Length of Term Four years Meetings Date: Tuesdays Location: Board Chambers Agenda Distribution Online, Posted Minutes Distribution Online Contact Contact Supervisor by District Mailing Address 810 Court St, Jackson, CA 95642 Phone (209) 223-6470 Email/Website http://www.co.amador.ca.us/depts/bos/ The County demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaire, interview and document requests. 717 Amador County, 2006 General Elections Results, November 29, 2006. II-478 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Management The County government is staffed by 515 employees and organized into 43 departments, including the Sheriff’s Office, Health and Human Resources Agency, General Services Administration, the Planning Department, Public Works Agency, and the Treasurer-Tax Collector, among others.718 The daily operations of the County are managed by the County Administrative Officer (CAO). The CAO is responsible for the County budget, oversight of departments and programs, and general support to the BOS. The CAO evaluates administrative procedures of the County and makes recommendations to improve operations. The director of human resources, the IT director and the clerk of the board report to the CAO. The CAO also currently serves as interim Land Use Agency Director. The County implemented personnel-related management practices between 2005 and 2007, including 1) conducting a countywide classification and compensation survey, 2) providing professional development opportunities for staff, 3) recognizing employee achievements with awards, 4) coordinating succession planning activities, 5) establishing ways for the Board of Supervisors and managers to communicate attitudes and policies more effectively to each other and to County staff, and 6) creating a human resources department.719 To guide its efforts, the County has adopted several planning documents, including a general plan, a mission statement, a vision statement, a strategic administrative priorities document (including the County’s strategic planning process, 2005), a multi-hazard mitigation plan (2006), and an airport master plan (2005). The County’s General Plan identifies goals for services, planning and policies. The last full update to the plan occurred in 1967. A recreation element was added to the plan in 1969. The plan’s various elements have been amended or revised independently over the years: the land use element in 1973, the safety element in 1974, the housing element in 2005, and the circulation element in 2006. The County is in the process of updating the General Plan; the newly drafted elements are to include land use, safety, noise, circulation and mobility, open space, housing, and conservation. The horizon of the plan will be through 2030.720 County financial planning documents include an annual adopted budget, annual financial audits and a capital improvement plan. The most recent completed audit is for FY 06-07. The County prepares a capital improvement plan outlining needs and anticipated expenditures; however, it was not provided for purposes of this study. 718 Amador County, Department Listing. URL accessed 3/11/08, http://www.co.amador.ca.us/dept_main.cfm 719 Amador County, 2005-2007 Strategic Administrative Priorities, Spring 2005. 720 Amador County General Plan Advisory Committee, Goals and Policies Workbook, URL accessed 3/11/08, http://www.co.amador.ca.us/depts/planning/documents/GPAC_Goals_Policies.pdf BY BURR CONSULTING II-479 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The County’s risk management practices include the provision of employee group insurance, worker’s compensation insurance, vehicle insurance and liability insurance.721 Service Demand and Growth Table II-29-4: Unincorporated Land Uses Amador County covers 594 square miles. Approximately % of 12.3 square miles are within incorporated cities; the remainder is Land Use Unincorporated unincorporated territory.722 Residential 12.4% Commercial 0.6% Land Use and Economy Industrial 0.2% Agriculture 29.7% Existing land use in unincorporated Amador County Timber Preserve 7.5% consists primarily of forest land, agriculture, and rural Vacant 47.9% residences. There are also some industrial and mineral resource Misc. 1.0% extraction uses. The County’s unincorporated communities Unclassified 1.0% have a mixture of land uses, including agricultural, commercial Total 100.0% and residential uses. The portion of unincorporated land in Source: Amador County General Plan each use is shown in Table II-29-4. A large portion of the Update, Land Use Working Paper, 2008. unincorporated land is vacant, with minimal or no improvements on the property, or it is not inhabited. The Eldorado National forest occupies approximately 79,695 acres in Amador County, or ten percent of the overall size of the forest.723 Residential land use in unincorporated territory is concentrated in several communities, including Buckhorn, Camanche, Drytown, Fiddletown, Kirkwood, Pine Grove, Pioneer, Red Corral, River Pines, and Volcano. Residential uses are also concentrated along Ridge Road between Martell and Pine Grove, and the Amador Pines area above Buckhorn. Commercial land use in unincorporated areas tends to coexist with residential concentrations. The Buckhorn and Martell communities have the largest portions of commercial land, followed by Pine Grove, Pioneer, and Red Corral. There are some additional commercial land uses around Bear River Reservoir and Silver Lake in the eastern portion of the County. Industrial uses are located primarily in Martell (e.g., the Martell and Sierra West Business Parks). There are also some industrial parcels in the Carbondale Industrial Park west of Ione. Agriculture is scattered throughout the County, but is concentrated west of SR-49 and the Shenandoah Valley, while Timber Preserve Zones are concentrated east of Buckhorn.724 Williamson 721 Amador County, Budget FY 07-08, 2007. 722 U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census, 2000. 723 Eldorado National Forest, 2008. 724 Amador County, General Plan Update: Land Use Working Paper, January 2008, p. LU-1. II-480 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Act lands make up approximately 84 percent of the agricultural acreage in the County.725 Major crops are wine grapes, walnuts, hay, and pasture. Industries particularly attracted to the County include mining, state and local government, and retail trade. Significant employers within unincorporated Amador County include the Jackson Rancheria Hotel and Casino, Sierra Pine (lumber manufacturing), Volcano Communications Group (utilities), and East Bay Municipal Utility District. There are also many inns, restaurants and wineries in the area. Approximately 25 percent of employment in the County is dependent upon tourism.726 Although agriculture (particularly wineries) has increased employment in recent years, overall farmland in the County declined by three percent from 1984 to 2004.727 Demand for services has generally increased in the unincorporated portions of the County as a result of population and commercial growth. Commercial growth has been concentrated in the Martell area. In addition, parcels throughout the foothills have been split for higher density residential development. Further growth is anticipated as development proposals are approved and begin construction. Approved and proposed developments are discussed in detail in the Development section. Population Figure II-29-5: Amador County Population, 2000-08 The County had a population of 40,000 37,943, of which 22,065 or 58 percent resided in the unincorporated areas, 30,000 as of January 1, 2008.728 The population density in the unincorporated territory is 38 per 20,000 square mile. By comparison, the overall countywide density is 64. 10,000 The countywide population increased by 2,953 residents or eight 0 percent from 2000 to 2008, as shown 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 in Figure II-29-5. During the same time period, the unincorporated population grew by eight percent as well. The annual population growth rate peaked in 2001 at 2.0 percent, and has declined since then, particularly in 2007 and 2008. 725 California Department of Conservation, Land Conservation Act Status Report, 2006, p. 24. 726 Amador County, General Plan Update: Local Economy Background Working Paper, May 2007, p. LE-35. 727 Amador County, General Plan Update: Agriculture Background Working Paper, December 2006, p. AG-7. 728 Data from the California Department of Finance, January 1, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-481 noitalupoP Countywide Unincorporated AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The County issued residential building permits for 1,621 units between 2000 and 2007. A majority of the permits were issued between 2002 and 2005. By 2007, the number of permits issued fell to its lowest in the last seven years with only 96 permits. The value of new commercial construction in unincorporated areas lags behind the residential permit trend slightly. From 2000- 04, the value of new commercial construction averaged $4.6 million. The value of construction then peaked in 2005 at $27 million, then declining to $17 million in 2006 and $12.1 million in 2007. The County’s General Plan does not offer a projection of build-out population in the unincorporated areas. Development There were 24 planned and proposed developments in unincorporated Amador County at the time this report was drafted.729 Of the 24 projects, 22 were residential developments with plans calling for a total of 2,137 dwelling units at build-out. Of the subdivisions, 14 had received County approval and eight were in the application process. Non-residential developments approved by the County include the Sierra West Business Park (Phases I and II) and the Martell Business Park. Table II-29-6 shows planned and proposed developments in unincorporated areas outside the existing SOIs of the five cities. See Table II-30-1 for all planned and proposed developments in Amador County by area. Developments with approved proposals would house approximately 1,060 residents at build-out; the developments with tentative proposals would house approximately 3,800 residents more.730 A potential development project not listed in Table II-29-6 is the Rancho Arroyo Seco. Located to the north, west and south of the City of Ione, the Rancho Arroyo Seco property consists of 16,100 acres of land (15,860 acres in unincorporated territory outside of the City of Ione SOI). The development is still in the early planning phase, and the number of acres to be developed and the number of dwelling units had not been proposed by the developer as of the drafting of this report. In the Buckhorn area, three proposals have been approved for a total of 168 units across 261 acres (Fairway Pines PD, Silver Pointe and The Pines at Mace Meadows). Two additional proposals in Buckhorn are pending; the Fairway Vista II development and the Sixteenth Fairway development together propose 74 units across 36 acres. 729 Amador County, Planning Department. URL accessed 5/30/08, http://www.co.amador.ca.us/depts/planning/index.cfm?id=8 730 Population estimates are calculated by multiplying the total number of residential units by the average household size in Amador County (2.28) according to the Department of Finance, 2008. II-482 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Table II-29-6: Planned and Proposed Developments Non- General Residential Development Developer Location Acres Units Acres1 Within Unincorporated Amador County and Outside Cities' Spheres of Influence NP NP Amador City 21.0 18 0 Aparicio Subdivision Hertzig & Aparicio Sutter Creek 31.0 5 0 Black Oak Ridge Toma Family Partnership Pine Grove 40.0 7 0 Fairway Pines PD Fairway/Glenmoor Partners Buckhorn 23.9 109 NP Fairway Vista II (formerly Fairway Vista II, LLC Buckhorn 30.6 69 0 Cambra Pines) Golden Vale Subdivision Geneva Real Estate Martell 383.0 607 NP Martell Business Park Sierra Pacific Industries Martell 374.0 56 374 Mokelumne Bluffs Sutter Creek Villages, Inc. Pine Grove 137.9 98 0 Palisades Unit 5 Kirkwood Mountain Resort, LLC Kirkwood NP 15 0 Palisades Unit 6 Kirkwood Mountain Resort, LLC Kirkwood 8.1 21 0 Petersen Ranch (Revised) Frederick Petersen Pine Grove 141.2 58 0 Pine Acres North Thomas Martin & Associates Pine Grove 44.2 106 0 Quail Ridge Martin Eng Pioneer 82.0 81 0 Red Tail Ridge Paul & Jordon Bramell Pioneer 31.0 5 0 Revised Pine Grove Bluffs Del Rapini Pine Grove 32.0 28 0 Sentinels West The Sentinels West at Kirkwood, Kirkwood 1.9 18 0 Sherrill Subdivision Gary & Judy Sherrill Sutter Creek 97.0 4 0 Sierra West Business Park Sierra West Business Park, LLC Martell 70.0 26 70 Silver Pointe Richard Reynolds Buckhorn 233.0 46 0 The Pines at Mace Ciro & Kimberly Toma Buckhorn 4.1 13 0 The Sixteenth Fairway Edward Rockower Buckhorn 5.9 5 0 Thunder Mountain Lodge TML Development Kirkwood 2.2 67 0 Timber Creek Village Unit Kirkwood Mountain Resort, LLC Kirkwood 153.0 7 0 Wicklow Subdivision Lemke Construction, Inc. Martell 201.0 750 29.5 Note: (1) Non-residential acres exclude parks and open space. In the Kirkwood area, one approved proposal included seven lots for sale covering 153 acres. Four of these lots have been purchased and are being subdivided. The four approved proposals detail plans for 121 total units: 67 condominiums, 18 town homes and 36 single-family homes. In the Martell area, there are two tentative proposals for large-scale residential developments. The Wicklow Development would include 750 units on 201 acres. The Golden Vale Development would entail 607 units on 383 acres, although some of these units may be commercial as Golden Vale is a mixed use development. In addition, there are two approved proposals for commercial developments in the Martell area. Sierra West Business Park (Phases I and II) and the Martell Business Park propose to cover 444 acres with 82 lots. In the Pioneer area there are two approved development proposals that will yield 86 units on 113 acres at build-out. In Pine Grove, two approved proposals for residential developments, Pine Groves Bluff and Petersen Ranch, include 86 single-family units on 173 acres. Two tentative proposals, Mokelumne Bluffs and Pine Acres North, detail an additional 204 units on 182 acres. BY BURR CONSULTING II-483 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II There are two approved subdivisions located in unincorporated Amador County in the vicinity of incorporated areas. In the Sutter Creek area, beyond the SOI for the City, the Sherrill and Aparicio subdivisions have both been approved by the County. These proposals involve low- density residential use, with five units on 31 acres for the Aparicio subdivision and four units on 97 acres for the Sherrill Subdivision. Additionally, there is a potential 18-unit subdivision located on 21 acres north of the SOI for Amador City, but the project has not been submitted to the County as of the drafting of this report. Growth Strategies The preliminary guiding goals for land use and development in Amador County include maintaining and enhancing distinct communities, the retention of important farmlands, developing a business-friendly environment, improving the job-housing ratio, protecting resources important to tourism, and maintaining the rural lifestyle valued by County residents.731 The Amador Economic Development Corporation’s Strategic Plan for FY 06-07 identifies several goals with associated strategies to retain and expand business activities in the County. The plan encourages workforce development for residents, suggesting linkages with job training agencies and the establishment of a community college in the area. It also advocates recruiting industries to diversify the local economy, potentially by creating campus-style business parks suitable for high- tech industry. Other strategies include minimizing deterrents to business location within the County, encouraging local government’s long-range economic planning, promoting the County at trade shows, and assisting entrepreneurs with business financing. Residential growth is generally limited to areas with slopes under 25 percent and west of the Range 13 East line, a vertical boundary located approximately 2.5 miles east of Buckhorn.732 The County is in the process of updating its general plan, which will identify growth strategies through 2030. The County reported that it anticipates completing the update by the end of 2009. Its General Plan Advisory Committee is considering three alternative growth strategy plans which will guide the drafting of the general plan. In addition, a fourth alternative is under development. FINANCING The County finances its general government, law enforcement, animal control, and parks and recreation services primarily with property taxes and secondarily with sales taxes and vehicle license fees. Proposition 172 is a significant funding source for public safety expenses. Development of water rights is funded by interest on revenues from sale of water rights many years ago. Landfill closure was funded by service charges and general fund transfers in FY 06-07. Capital investments have recently been funded with bonded debt, grants, and development impact fees. 731 Amador County, Preliminary General Plan Goals and Policies, August 2007. 732 Amador County, Land Use General Plan Update Working Paper, January 2008, p. LU-7. II-484 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS The Board of Supervisors annually adopts Budget Instructions which provide assessment of the current financing requirements and adequacy of funding levels. The County did not provide an assessment as to whether the current financing level is adequate to deliver services. The County tracks its financial activities separately through various funds. The general fund is the County’s main operating fund. Other major governmental funds include the road fund, funds for social services grants, and a fund for county capital improvements. The County tracks its landfill and airport activities through separate enterprise funds. The County’s total revenues were $62 million in FY 06-07, of which $36 million were general fund revenues. The County’s general fund revenue sources include property taxes (40 percent), vehicle license fees (10 percent), Proposition 172 funds for public safety (6 percent), other aid from the State (19 percent), sales tax (6 percent), and service charges (6 percent). 733 Sales tax revenues per capita in unincorporated areas are somewhat lower than in the cities. Taxable sales per resident were $11,563 in 2006 in the unincorporated areas.734 By comparison, the countywide average was $12,698, and the statewide average was $15,344. The County has experienced a significant increase in sales tax revenue in recent years in the unincorporated areas as a result of the Martell commercial development. In 2006, taxable sales transactions increased by 16 percent in unincorporated Amador County. County expenditures were $64 million in FY 06-07, of which $32 million represent general fund expenditures. Approximately 12 percent of annual expenditures are attributable to law enforcement in unincorporated areas, and 20 percent to countywide public safety (e.g., district attorney, coroner, etc.). Road maintenance services comprised 11 percent of costs. General government costs comprised 16 percent of total expenditures. Expenditures for countywide functions include public assistance (12 percent), health care (12 percent), education (2 percent), and landfill (2 percent). The County had $9.4 million in long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The debt consisted primarily of $9 million in bonded debt issued in 2005 for the construction of the County Administration Building. The County plans to complete payments on the certificates by 2026. There was $0.4 million in outstanding notes payable for firefighting equipment and trucks, purchase of land in Pine Grove and airport related services. The County does not have a formal policy on maintaining financial reserves. The County had $10 million in undesignated general fund reserves at the close of FY 06-07. This represented 31 percent of general fund expenditures in FY 06-07. In other words, the County maintained four months of working reserves. The water development sinking fund had a balance of $5.4 million at the close of FY 06-07. 733 Proposition 172, enacted in 1993, provides the revenue of a half-cent sales tax to counties and cities for public safety purposes, including police, fire, district attorneys, corrections and lifeguards. Proposition 172 also requires cities and counties to continue providing public safety funding at or above the amount provided in FY 92-93. 734 This indicator is calculated as the ratio of taxable sales at all outlets in 2006 to the average annual household population in the unincorporated areas in 2006 (i.e., the average of the January 2006 and January 2007 household population estimates from DOF). BY BURR CONSULTING II-485 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The County engages in joint financing arrangements related to pensions, insurance and investments. The County provides retirement-related benefits to its employees through the California Public Employees Retirement System, a multiple-employer defined benefit plan for public employees. The County is a member of the California State Association of Counties Excess Insurance Authority, a risk-sharing pool for excess workers’ compensation, liability, property, and medical malpractice insurance coverage. In addition, the County participates in the Amador County Recreation Authority, which is a joint powers authority formed in 2003 between the County, the cities of Amador City, Ione, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek, Amador County Unified School District, Volcano CSD, and CSA 3.735 ACRA is empowered to plan, finance, acquire, construct, manage, and operate recreation programs and facilities in Amador County. ACRA is funded by member contributions of $5.00 per resident within the member entities’ boundaries. WASTEWATER Nature and Extent The County owns and inspects a community leach field system in the community of Fiddletown. The County formerly operated a wastewater system in River Pines; however, responsibility for that wastewater system transferred from the County to River Pines PUD in June 2008. The County is in the process of transferring ownership of the Fiddletown system to Fiddletown Community Services District (FCSD) for operation and maintenance. The community of Fiddletown relies on individual septic systems for wastewater disposal. Select parcels along Dry Creek and parcels too small for a contained onsite septic system drain through a collection system into a community leach field. The County owns and inspects the community leach field system located within FCSD’s boundaries, although FCSD currently collects all wastewater rates related to the system. The leach field system includes wastewater collection and disposal services. The County reported that it has not been able to access the system, due to locks, for regular inspections since 2006, and that regular maintenance has not been performed since the inception of the system. The community leachfield was originally constructed with the intention that it be operated by FCSD, according to the County. RCSD has collected the revenues related to the system since its construction, and the County reported that FCSD has sufficient revenue to fund the necessary maintenance. 736 The District indicated that is amenable to taking over the system after the County has made any needed improvements.737 FCSD received LAFCO approval in 2006 to provide wastewater services.738 735 ACRA, JPA Amending Agreement, September 28, 2004. 736 Interview with Mike Israel, Director, Environmental Health Department, May 14, 2008. 737 Interview with Jane O’Riordan, Fiddletown CSD, January 29, 2008. 738 LAFCO Resolution 06-03. II-486 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Location The County constructed and owns a wastewater system in the Fiddletown community. Infrastructure Key wastewater service infrastructure owned by the County in Fiddletown includes the community leachfield and 1.5 miles of collection pipelines in Fiddletown. The collection and disposal system was installed in 1999 by Amador County. The system was designed for a maximum of 78 parcels.739 Effluent is collected in individual onsite septic tanks where a majority of the treatment occurs, then is collected into a shallow pressure dosed drain field for percolation into the soil. The system has not been inspected by the County since 2006, as the County has not been able to gain access to the locked area. The County reported that the system was generally in fair condition as of the 2006 inspection, due to deferred maintenance on the system. Deferred maintenance needs at that time included: • Replacement of the missing downslope monitoring well, • Monitoring of the groundwater to verify no adverse impacts, • Repair or replacement of three flow monitoring devices, • Placement of posts to facilitate locating inspection pipes, • Repair of a broken valve box at Quartz Mountain Road North and Fiddletown Roads, • Removal of berry growth and fallen trees, and • Re-priming of all dosing siphons in use. No improvements have been made to rectify these needs.740 The collection system is composed of 1.5 miles of PVC piping. The County did not report any needs or deficiencies regarding the collection system. There is a monitoring well network to ensure protection of nearby surface and subsurface waters; although, neither the County nor the District have been monitoring the wells. 739 Amador County, Fiddletown Sewer System Description, 1996, p. 3. 740 Interview with Mike Israel, Director, Amador County Department of Environmental Health, May 14, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-487 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II LAW ENFORCEMENT Nature and Extent The Amador County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) provides patrol, investigation, and dispatch services.741 Specialized units within ACSO include a dive team, a search and rescue team, SWAT, a marijuana suppression unit, a marine enforcement unit, community policing, and off-highway vehicle enforcement. Although California Highway Patrol holds primary responsibility for traffic enforcement and accident investigation in unincorporated territories with a focus on state highways, ACSO provides traffic enforcement services as well. ACSO provides contract patrol and dispatch services to Amador City and the City of Plymouth. The cities share one ACSO officer for forty-hours per week. The Sheriff also provides contractual services to East Bay Municipal Service District (EBMUD) and all County waterways (via the California Department of Boating and Waterways). Land owned by EBMUD (by Lake Camanche and Pardee Reservoir) is patrolled during one to two shifts per day. Amador County provides assistance to El Dorado County in portions of El Dorado County that are inaccessible to El Dorado County safety providers during winter months. ACSO also provides services to USFS lands within Amador County through a limited MOU, as the local USFS stations lack an independent patrol. Bomb squad and hazmat services are provided by Calaveras and San Joaquin Counties through an MOU. Calaveras County has provided these services for many years, but recently a more complex agreement was formed with San Joaquin County. ACSO responds for initial scene control and containment for these events within Amador County. ACSO employs 47 sworn officers and nine non-sworn personnel dedicated to law enforcement services. In addition, there are 13 staff in dispatch, 10 staff working as court bailiffs, and 34 officers and staff to operate the jail.742 ACSO reports that call volume has not increased due to recent developments, but such an increase is expected in coming years. Specifically, the new business parks in Martell are expected to have notable impacts on call volume; they had not been open long enough for a change to be identified as of the drafting of this report. The Department reports that it does not have the capacity to serve planned development in the County; the office and jail are both functioning at maximum capacity with current demand. In addition, the County reports that clerical, evidence processing and management areas are understaffed to accommodate increases in services.743 741 Services outside of the scope of this report include security to the superior courts, coroner services, emergency planning, and long- term detention. To facilitate these services, ASCO operates the county jail, the Amador County Office of Emergency Services (OES), and the dispatch and communications Center. 742 County of Amador, Budget FY 07-08, p. 8. 743 Correspondence with Captain Glen Humphries, Amador County Sheriff’s Office, March 26, 2008. II-488 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Patrol Eight overlapping beats are regularly patrolled within the County. Beat assignments are dependent upon the number of patrol officers on a particular shift. If a smaller beat’s officer goes off duty, that area is then covered in a larger, overlapping beat. Beats 10, 20 and 30 divide the County into thirds, while Beats 60 and 70 divide the County in half. Beat 80 is the eastern portion of the County area. Beat 90 is a canine officer who has patrol responsibility for the entire county, overlapping other beats. Ione, Jackson and Sutter Creek beats are patrolled only when the Sheriff provides backup to their respective law enforcement providers. Together Amador City and Plymouth comprise one beat. Dispatch ACSO is the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for all of Amador County, and also provides dispatch services for all police departments and ambulance services. Emergency Medical Dispatchers (EMDs) answer all 911 calls. For calls necessitating a police response, ACSO provides dispatch services for the three local police agencies in the County as well as its own officers. For callers with medical emergencies, the EMDs provide pre-arrival medical assistance while American Legion Ambulance is en-route. Fire-related calls are routed to CALFIRE’s Communication Center. The communications center is staffed 20 hours per day by a minimum of two staff members and the remaining four hours by one staff member. Office of Emergency Services The Office of Emergency Services (OES) develops and maintains the ACSO’s capability to prepare for, mitigate, respond to, and recover from emergencies and disasters. In this capacity, OES develops and maintains the County’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan in collaboration with the five Amador County cities, AWA and JVID. OES also assists localities applying for pre-disaster hazard mitigation grants; the County has received over $1.3 million in disaster-related grants to date. Other services in OES include managing MOUs with Calaveras and San Joaquin Counties for hazardous materials response and, in case of an event, coordinating disaster and public assistance with the State and FEMA. ACSO reports that Amador County does not have the ability to organize interoperable communications with agencies outside of the County. Should the need arise, ACSO would rely on the State Office of Emergency Services to supply this capacity through equipment or agency assistance. Demand Serious crime rates (excluding larcenies under $400) in the Sheriff’s service area (unincorporated territory plus Amador City and Plymouth) ranged between 15 and 20 crimes per 1,000 residents in most years since 1998. Rates are shown in Figure II-29-7. Rates peaked at 18 crimes per 1,000 residents in 2001. Violent crimes peaked in 2000, with 7 violent crimes per 1,000 residents. BY BURR CONSULTING II-489 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Figure II-29-7: Amador County Sheriff’s Service Area Crime Rates, 1996-2006 Comparatively, statewide crime 20 rates were significantly higher than in the ACSO service area. There were 15 28 crimes on average per 1,000 residents in 2006 and only 15 crimes 10 per 1,000 in the same year in the Sheriff’s service area. While there has 5 been a general decline in the crime rates statewide, there has been a 0 minimal decline in crime in the unincorporated areas. 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Location The Sheriff’s Office serves all of unincorporated Amador County. In addition, ACSO serves the Cities of Amador and Plymouth by contract, as well as land owned by EBMUD (by Lake Camanche and Pardee Reservoir) and waterways in the County. Also within the County, ACSO serves USFS lands under a limited MOU. Outside of the County, ACSO serves the area of El Dorado County bounded by SR 88, east from Dew Drop to the Amador-Alpine county line. This area has limited access from El Dorado County and is inaccessible during the winter months except from Amador or Alpine Counties. Infrastructure Key law enforcement infrastructure operated and maintained by ACSO includes the main station in Jackson, a communications center (inside the main station), a vacant substation in Pioneer, and the jail. All of the facilities were identified as being in need of repair or replacement. The main station is outdated and overcrowded; there is insufficient office space, locker room space, and parking, as reported by the County. The County is currently adding new lockers to the men’s locker room, but all lockers have been downsized to accommodate the increase in the number of lockers. There is no space for additions or expansions. Within the main office, the County’s communications center is also overcrowded. It was designed for three consoles with no room for expansion. All three consoles are used during busy periods; any increased demand may necessitate an additional console. There were no plans to expand the main office or communications center as of the drafting of this report. The ASCO’s substation is in poor condition and has been closed due to mold and safety hazards. The County jail is overcrowded and reportedly exceeds State-approved capacity limits on a daily basis. The County performed a needs assessment study for a new jail and selected a site on Conductor Boulevard in Martell. This new facility would replace the current jail. It would house 167 beds, an increase of 91 beds from the existing facility. There was no timeline or financing mechanism in place as of the drafting of this report. Consultants projected total costs of $30.3 II-490 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO stnediseR 000,1 rep semirC Violent Property OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS million (2008 dollars). State funding is expected to cover 75 percent of construction costs, but the County is required to contribute 25 percent in matching funds.744 The County did not report any equipment needs or deficiencies. Service Adequacy The effectiveness of a law enforcement agency can be gauged by many factors, including crime clearance rates (the portion of crimes that are solved),745 response times and staffing ratios. Figure II-29-8: Law Enforcement Crime Clearance Rates, 2000-06 Average ACSO’s crime clearance rates are 100% comparable to other providers in the County. ACSO’s average violent 75% crime clearance rate from 2000-06 for violent crime was 42 percent. For 50% 2006 alone, the rate was 56 percent. Other law enforcement providers in 25% the county have violent crime clearance rates ranging from 49 to 57 0% percent. ACSO’s average property ACSO Ione Jackson Sutter Creek crime clearance rates from 2000-06 was 16 percent. Other providers’ Violent Crime Property Crime average rates ranged from 16 to 21 percent. Figure II-29-9: Law Enforcement Providers Average Response Times, 2007 The Sheriff’s office average response time for all calls in 2007 was Sutter Creek 19 minutes. For priority one calls, the response time averaged nine minutes. Jackson These response times are longer than Ione the Ione, Jackson and Sutter Creek Police Departments, which averaged ACSO between nine and 11 minutes for all calls and between four and six minutes 0 5 10 15 20 for priority one calls. This is likely Response Time (minutes) explained by the larger service area of the ACSO relative to the limited Priority 1 Calls All Calls 744 Marks, J., “Support for reentry facility may help county get new jail,” Amador Ledger-Dispatch, August 31, 2007. 745 Cleared crimes refer to offenses for which at least one person was arrested, charged with the offense, and turned over to the appropriate court for prosecution. A crime is also considered cleared by exceptional means if the offender dies, the victim refuses to cooperate or extradition is denied. BY BURR CONSULTING II-491 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II service areas of the cities’ providers. The number of sworn officers per capita is also a service level indicator. The average California city has 1.5 paid sworn officers per 1,000 residents.746 ACSO has two paid sworn officers per 1,000 residents. Other providers in the County have from 1.4 to 3.2 sworn staff per 1,000 residents. Table II-29-10: Amador County Sheriff’s Office Service Profile Police Service Service Configuration Service Demand Patrol Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 Dispatch Direct Total Service Calls 7,665 Search and Rescue Direct 911 Calls NP Crime Lab Department of Justice Non-Emergency Calls NP SWAT Direct Calls per 1,000 people 328.7 Temporary Holding Direct Arrests 2006 733 Bomb Squad Calaveras County Violent Crime Rate per 1,000 2.7 Canine Services Direct Property Crime Rate per 1,000 13.5 Service Adequacy Resources Average Response Time 19.00 Total Staff 56 Avg. Priority One Response Time 9.00 Total Sworn Staff 47 Response Time Base Year 2007 Sworn Staff per 1,000 2.0 Clearance Rate of Violent Crimes1 42% Staffing Base Year 2008 Clearance Rate of Property Crimes 16% Marked Police Vehicles 25 Service Challenges USFS lands are difficult to patrol in winter months due to inclement weather conditions. Facilities Station Location Condition Built Main Station 700 Court Street, Jackson, CA 95642 Fair 1984 Substation Buckhorn Ridge Road, Pioneer, CA Poor (closed) 1984 County Jail 700 Court Street, Jackson, CA 95642 Fair 1984 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies The County needs a new jail and new or expanded station(s). Current Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration All law enforcement agencies in Amador County may request outside agency assists. Opportunities for Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration No opportunities were identified. Note: (1) Clearance rates are aggregated for the period between 2000 and 2006. 746 Authors’ calculations based on FY 03-04 police staffing levels reported by cities to the State Controller’s Office and population estimates from the California Department of Finance. II-492 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS ROADWAY SERVICES Nature and Extent The County directly provides minor street maintenance services. Major roadway reconstruction projects and street light maintenance are performed by contract with private providers. Signalized intersections within the unincorporated area are limited to state routes. Caltrans bills the County for electricity for these signals. The County is beginning limited street sweeping services this year. Retail sales and business park areas will be swept three or four times annually. Residential areas will not be swept. Location Roadway services are provided within the unincorporated areas of the County on roads accepted into the County-maintained road system. County staff notes that some small roadway segments currently maintained by the County may be appropriate for maintenance by cities. The County does not provide any street services outside its bounds or for privately maintained roads. Infrastructure The County’s key road infrastructure includes 411.6 centerline miles of roads. Nearly 225 miles (55 percent) are rural local roads; an additional 184 miles (45 percent) are rural collectors (minor and major). The remainder consists of rural arterials, urban collectors and urban locals. Circulation within the County is also provided by 127.4 miles of state highways, including SRs 16, 26, 49, 88, 104, and 124. There are no signalized intersections maintained by the County in the unincorporated areas. There are 57 streetlights, which are owned and maintained by PG&E. New streetlights are the responsibility of developers; the lights are then ceded to PG&E. The County is billed for electricity, which is funded through property assessments for new areas through CSA 5. County roadways are in need of significant improvements. Based on a lack of adequate funding, the RTP reports that the average pavement condition rating (APCR) for 68 percent of County roads could drop below 30 out of 100 by 2025.747 The estimated cost of upgrading County roadways to meet the target APCR of 75 is over $50 million.748 Including curve corrections, bridge improvements, and other projects, the County’s list of 135 improvements in 2004 added up to approximately $100 million in repairs.749 747 A PCR of 75 or more is considered to be very good condition, PCR of 60-74 is good condition, PCR of 45-59 is fair condition, and PCR below 45 is poor condition. 748 Amador County, General Plan Update: Circulation Background Working Paper, August 2007, p. CIRC-56. 749 Amador County, Regional Transportation Plan Update, 2004, p. III-7. BY BURR CONSULTING II-493 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding priorities include three projects defined in an MOU with Calaveras and Alpine Local Transportation Commissions, including projects on SR 4, SR 49 and SR 88. The three counties have pooled their STIP funding for these projects. Once these three projects are completed, Amador’s STIP funding priorities are SR 88 improvements in Pine Grove and Jackson, and the Ione Interim West Bypass.750 Service Adequacy The County policy is to maintain LOS “C” or better on state highways and local roads in undeveloped areas, and to maintain LOS “D” or better on state highways in developed areas. Local roadway segments within unincorporated Amador County that currently operate at an average of LOS “D” or worse include three portions of Ridge Road: west of Old Ridge Road (LOS “D”), east of Old Ridge Road (LOS “E”), and west of New York Ranch Road (LOS “D”). These three segments are all classified as major collectors. Six State highway segments within unincorporated Amador County currently operate at LOS D or worse. Five of the six are along SR 88, including three at LOS “E”. The sixth highway segment is along SR 16. 751 The County reports that a pavement condition update was performed in FY 06-07, yielding a pavement condition score of 40 out of 100. The County also indicated that it updated the pavement management system database in FY 07-08, which was three years out of date. 752 The County reports that it plans to update the pavement condition score again within the next five years. 750 Amador County, General Plan Update: Circulation Background Working Paper, August 2007, p. CIRC-23. 751 Amador County, General Plan Update: Circulation Background Working Paper, August 2007, p. CIRC-23. 752 Amador County, Budget FY 07-08, p. 136. II-494 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Table II-29-11: Amador County Roadway Services Street Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Street Maintenance Direct & Contract Signal Maintenance Caltrans System Overview Total Maintained Miles 412 Urban Maintained Miles 2.4 Rural Maintained Miles 409 Signalized Intersections 0 Service Demand Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel, 20061 212,340 DVMT per Street Mile, 20062 516 Street Sweeping Frequency Retail and business park areas swept twice per month (beginning in 2008). Street Service Adequacy and Operations Service Adequacy Miles Rehabilitated FY 06-07 31.6 Maintenance Cost per Street Mile3 $3,222 Pavement Condition Pavement Management System Yes PMS last updated 2005 Miles Needing Rehabilitation 375 Pavement Condition Index, 2007 40 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies County roadways are in need of significant improvements. Including curve corrections, bridge improvements, and other projects, the County’s list of 135 improvements in 2004 added up to approximately $100 million in repairs. Level of Service (LOS) Current: One road segment maintained by the County is at LOS "E" and two segments are at LOS "D." Policy: LOS "C" in undeveloped areas; LOS "D" in developed areas Build-Out: Some road segments will decline to LOS "E" and "F." Service Challenges Funding is the primary service challenge. Road maintenance crews are understaffed. Facility Sharing Current Practices: No facility-sharing practices were reported. Opportunities: No facility-sharing opportunities were identified. Notes: (1) Daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) in 2006, according to the California Department of Transportation. (2) 2006 DVMT divided by total mileage of County-maintained public road system in 2006. (3) City road maintenance expenditures in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-495 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Street Light Service Profile Service Configuration Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights 57 Maintained by Contract All Maintained by City None Development Fees and Requirements Traffic Impact Fees Traffic mitigation fees are based on the average daily trips (ADT) by development type. For residential units, the fee is $300 per ADT (10), for a total impact fee of $3,000. Street Service Financing General Financing Approach Street services are financed primarily by gas tax revenues and other receipts from the State. Streets and Roads Financial Information, FY 05-061 Revenues Expenditures Total $4,005,217 Total6 $3,447,737 Gas Tax $1,372,729 Maintenance $2,119,441 VLF In-Lieu2 $0 Street $846,305 Traffic Congestion Relief $391,148 Lights & Signals $200,539 Other State Revenues $729,002 Other $1,072,597 Federal Revenues $455,197 Capital $459,401 Local Revenues3 $0 New Construction7 $58,735 County Revenues $1,057,141 Reconstruction $189,861 Interest $32,423 Signals & Lights $0 Bond proceeds $0 Other $210,805 General Fund $812,000 Undistributed Costs8 $819,952 Assessments4 $0 Plant & Equipment $74,128 Other5 $212,718 Other Public Agencies $0 Note: (1) Financial information as reported in the Annual Street Report to the State Controller. (2) Includes motor vehicle license fees used for street purposes and/or being accounted for in a street-purpose fund. (3) Includes other funds distributed by the local agencies other than the County and the cities. (4) Includes benefit assessments (also called special assessments) collected to finance street improvements and street lighting under the Landscape and Lighting Assessment Act of 1972, the Improvement Act of 1913 and the Street Lighting Act of 1931. (5) Includes traffic safety funds, development impact fees, redevelopment agency funds, and miscellaneous local sources. Excludes payments from other governmental agencies for contract services. (6) Total before adjustments for reporting changes since prior years. (7) Includes new construction and betterment of streets, bridges, lighting facilities, and storm drains, as well as right-of-way acquisitions. (8) Engineering costs that are not allocated to other expenditure categories or projects because the work is not specific or such allocation is impractical. Administration cost is an equitable pro rata share of expenditures for the supervision and management of street-purpose DRAINAGE SERVICES There are two large rivers in Amador County: the Cosumnes River borders the County to the north, and the Mokelumne River borders the County to the south. Both are tributaries to the San Joaquin River, which they meet to the west of Amador County. Smaller flows in the County include Dry Creek, Sutter Creek and Jackson Creek. Portions of the County are within a 100-year flood plain; these are concentrated in the lower elevations of the foothills in the west. The majority of the 100-year flood plain and possible flood events are located near or adjacent to incorporated areas. Low-lying areas in Jackson, Ione and II-496 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Sutter Creek are particularly susceptible.753 In unincorporated areas, there are 674 improved parcels in the 100-year floodplain. Only 4 percent of owners of these parcels maintain flood insurance.754 Amador County has a history of storm and flood-related emergencies. This is due to high annual rainfall, many watercourses and development adjacent to flood-prone areas.755 Topography also contributes to flood risk. Based on historical flooding events, the portion of the County in the Dry Creek watershed is more likely to experience flooding than areas of the County in the Mokelumne and Cosumnes watersheds.756 There were 14 state disaster declarations due to severe winter storms, heavy rains and flooding from 1950 to 2004. Eight of the 14 events also qualified as federal disaster declarations. In addition, the Governor declared a fifteenth state of emergency for Amador County and others in the San Joaquin and Central Valleys due to severe winter storms and floods in January 2006. Nature and Extent Amador County provides flood control and storm water drainage through its Public Works Agency by maintaining roadside ditches and road cross-culverts.757 Rural areas in the County do not have stormwater drainage systems that serve an entire community because the level of runoff does not necessitate such a system. Larger development projects such as ski resorts and those that generate substantial amounts of stormwater runoff generally construct privately maintained site-specific stormwater systems that discharge into onsite detention basins.758 Location The County provides routine drainage ditch maintenance and cleaning to unincorporated areas. Infrastructure The County’s drainage system consists of open roadside ditches along most roadways. There is approximately 0.5 miles of piped storm drain in the Martell Business Park development. More recently developed commercial areas have gutters, with drainage flowing to privately-maintained 753 Amador County, General Plan Update: Public Health and Safety Background Working Paper, January 2007, p. PHS-11. 754 Amador County, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting #10, February 22, 2007 http://www.co.amador.ca.us/depts/planning/documents/OES_10_pwr_pnt.pdf 755 Amador County, Amador County Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2006. 756 Ibid. 757 RMC Waster and Environment, Mokelumne, Amador, and Calaveras Interagency Regional Water Management Plan, 2006. 758 Amador County, Infrastructure, Public Facilities, and Services General Plan Update Working Paper, March 2007, p. IPS-36. BY BURR CONSULTING II-497 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II detention ponds before overflowing into existing drainage ditches. There are approximately 25 such inlets. Inlets are not inspected on a regular basis. The County reports extensive maintenance needs, including hundreds of miles of open ditches and hundreds of culverts and easements in need of cleaning. Such maintenance has been given a low priority compared to more pressing pavement restoration needs in previous years. Need for improvements and extensions of existing storm water drainage facilities are determined on a case-by-case basis when new development is proposed. The Amador County Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies several flood-related projects needed in the County; however all drainage related recommendations were within incorporated areas. No significant drainage improvement needs were identified in the plan for the unincorporated area, with the exception of improvements to Jackson Valley Irrigation District’s dam, which is the responsibility of the District. CEMETERY SERVICE Nature and Extent The County owns and maintains three cemeteries: Drytown Public Cemetery, Fiddletown Community Cemetery and Pine Grove Historic Cemetery. General Services is responsible for maintaining all County property including cemeteries. In addition, volunteers and community workers maintain the cemeteries. The County provides weed abatement services. The County reported that it does not contract with other providers for cemetery services. The County Board of Supervisors appoints a seven-member volunteer cemetery board to establish restoration and preservation policies. This board meets quarterly to update policies and goals. The County provides the cemetery board with an annual budget of about $1,200. The board also has a trust fund that can be used for any cemetery in the County. Figure II-29-12: Amador County Burials by Decade Drytown Public Cemetery had 155 20 300 occupied burial sites in 2004.759 The earliest marked grave is dated 1850. 15 There has been only one burial since 200 2000. The County reports that fifty 10 percent of plots are occupied. 100 5 Pine Grove Cemetery has 1,006 occupied burial sites. The earliest 0 0 marked grave is dated 1860. There were about 15 burials at the cemetery annually between 2000 and 2004. The County 759 California Tombstone Transcription Project, URL accessed on 3/20/08, http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ca/amador/cemeteries/drytown.txt II-498 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO slairuB yretemeC nwotyrD 0581 0781 0981 0191 0391 0591 0791 0991 Pine Grove Cemetery Burials Drytown Pine Grove OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS reports that this cemetery is at capacity and inactive. Fiddletown Cemetery has approximately 499 occupied plots. Of these, 437 have been photographed, but statistics are not yet available from the California Tombstone Transcription Project.760 The County reported that no burials took place at the cemetery in 2006 or 2007. Plot Acquisition The County reports that plots are available at both Drytown Cemetery and Fiddletown Cemetery, although the number of available plots was not provided. Fees at Drytown Cemetery are $500 for a single plot, $1,000 for a double plot, and $250 for cremation. Plots may only be purchased by Drytown residents or immediate family.761 Fees at Fiddletown Cemetery are $275 for a single plot and $500 for a double plot. Plots may only be purchased by Fiddletown residents and immediate family. Location All three cemeteries are located within unincorporated areas of Amador County. Drytown Cemetery is located northwest of Drytown and is completely surrounded by private land. Pine Grove Cemetery is located south of Pine Grove, near Irish Town Road. Fiddletown Cemetery is on American Flat Road in Fiddletown. Infrastructure Drytown Cemetery is in good condition. Because it is surrounded by private property, it can only be visited by arrangement with the General Services Administration. Infrastructure needs include tombstone restoration. A new fence was built at the cemetery in May 2008. Pine Grove Cemetery covers approximately three acres and is in good condition. It is in need of minimal tombstone restoration. Fiddletown Cemetery is in fair condition. It requires more thorough tombstone restoration. Neither of these sites have restrictions on visitor access. The County reported no plans for expansion of cemetery services, and no adjacent land available on which to expand at the three existing County cemeteries. However, the General Plan Advisory Committee has established a goal that land is to be made available for future cemetery use. The County does not practice facility sharing related to cemetery services and did not identify any future collaborative opportunities. 760 These figures are unofficial as the California Tombstone Transcription Project is not affiliated with Amador Count. 761 Board of Supervisors Resolution 05-304, adopting fee schedule at Drytown Cemetery. BY BURR CONSULTING II-499 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Service Adequacy The County reported that Drytown Cemetery and Fiddletown Cemetery have sufficient capacity to serve their communities given recent demand. Current funding levels allow for occasional maintenance that has retained two of the three cemeteries in good condition. Fiddletown Cemetery would benefit from additional resources allocated towards improvements on tombstone restoration. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION AGENCY OVERVIEW The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) provides fire prevention, suppression, and fire related law enforcement for timberlands, wildlands and urban forests. CALFIRE also responds to other types of emergencies, including structure fires, vehicle accidents, medical aids, swift water rescues, search and rescues, hazardous material spills, train wrecks, and natural disasters. Other services outside of the scope of the MSR project are provided by CALFIRE, such as the Resource Management Program, which promotes the protection of California’s natural resources through enforcement of timber harvesting regulations, forest conservation education programs, and pest management. CALFIRE has over 21 units in two regions to serve the State. The Amador-El Dorado Unit (AEU) serves Amador, El Dorado, and Alpine counties as well as portions of Sacramento and San Joaquin counties.762 MUNICIPAL SERVICES Nature and Extent The primary responsibility of CALFIRE is to suppress wildfires within the state responsibility area (SRA). CALFIRE also responds to all incidents which require a fire response in Amador County through a countywide mutual aid agreement. CALFIRE has contracted with AFPD to staff State engines year-round.763 CALFIRE responds to all service calls in the County, in addition to a response by the fire agency with jurisdiction for the area where the incident occurs. The CALFIRE contract cost was $611,622 in FY 06-07. In FY 07-08, CALFIRE’s Amador Plan staffing cost is $467,246 and for dispatch services is $172,900 for a total of $640,146. The CALFIRE contract is currently funded from the County’s general fund and Indian Gaming Special Distribution Funds (SDP). The State reimbursed local providers who respond to wildland fires, such as the recent fires in northern California. 762 CALFIRE. Amador-El Dorado Fire Plan, 2005. 763 CALFIRE and AFPD Contract, FY 05-06. II-500 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS During declared fire season (mid-May to mid-November) all six CALFIRE engines are staffed with three FTEs. In addition to CALFIRE staff, Dew Drop Station is staffed with five US Forest Service personnel for an additional engine during fire season. At the end of the declared fire season, per the Amador Plan, three engines are staffed with two FTEs each. CALFIRE personnel serving Amador County are fully trained paid employees. In addition to fighting fires, CALFIRE provides fire prevention and fire education, including interaction with individual citizens, public forums, publications and project work. CALFIRE responders are also trained to the EMT level for emergency medical response. CALFIRE also has an intensive training program and the statewide CALFIRE training academy is located in Ione. Dispatch and Communications CALFIRE provides fire dispatch services for El Dorado, Amador, Sacramento and Alpine Counties, as well as Eldorado National Forest and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. These services are housed at the Camino Interagency Command Center (CICC) in cooperation with the US Forest Service. Emergency calls which require a fire response are routed to the Amador County Sheriff’s dispatch center and are transferred to CICC. Cell phone calls are first answered by the California Highway Patrol in Stockton, and then are routed to the Sheriff’s dispatch center. The CICC strives to provide economies of scale for the area with regard to cooperative fire, aviation management, emergency medical response, law enforcement, and rescue service through collaboration. All fire agencies in Amador County, including CALFIRE, communicate through the same radio systems. Due to shared radio frequencies, CALFIRE is able to communicate with other providers. When multiple service providers respond to an incident, the first unit to arrive is responsible for incident command. For incidents such as vehicle accidents, law enforcement becomes responsible for incident coordination once it arrives on scene through universal command protocols; prior to law enforcement arriving on scene, the first arriving fire provider remains responsible for incident command. Location The SRA extends countywide, surrounding local responsibility areas (i.e., cities) and a limited amount of federal responsibility area. The SRA covers 75 percent of Amador County (283,778 acres), plus an additional 10,767 acres (three percent of the County) of SRA directly protected by the USFS.764 The SRA in Amador County is slowly declining as wildland areas are annexed by the cities.765 Through the Amador Plan, CALFIRE provides response to all calls within the County, including those within local responsibility areas. 764 Amador Fire Safety Council, Amador County Fire Hazard Reduction Plan, 2004 765 Interview with Mike Kirkley and Lee Winton, January 16, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-501 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Resources CALFIRE serves Amador County from four fire stations. Three of the stations are open year- round. Station 80 (Mt. Zion) is open only during fire season.766 There is also a look-out at Mt. Zion. Station 10, Dew Drop Station, is operated cooperatively with the U.S. Forest Service and is located near the Eldorado National Forest boundary. CALFIRE also has substantial resources throughout the State, including aviation resources for wildland fire suppression.767 The Department has an ongoing capital replacement program, and the next project scheduled for Amador County is to replace Station 60, currently reported as being in fair condition. This replacement is scheduled for 2010. Other stations are in good or excellent condition, and the Department reports no other infrastructure needs. Staffing levels at the four stations vary throughout the year, with an annual average of 12 sworn staff on duty at any given time. In addition, there are two non-sworn communications positions supported by Amador County. As a state agency, CALFIRE does not have an ISO rating, but the agency’s services should have a positive impact on local providers’ ratings in the County. 766 CALFIRE. Amador-El Dorado Fire Plan, 2005. 767 Amador Fire Safety Council, Amador County Fire Hazard Reduction Plan, 2004 II-502 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Table II-29-13: CALFIRE Fire Profile Fire Service Service Configuration Service Demand Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 EMS Direct Total Service Calls 5 ,592 Ambulance Transport American Legion % EMS 67% Hazardous Materials Calaveras and San Joaquin Counties 1 % Fire 11% Air Rescue & Ambulance HelicopterCHP, Private % Vehicle Accidents NA Fire Suppression Helicopter Direct % Other 22% Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 89% Fire/EMS Dispatch Direct Calls per 1,000 people 145.5 Service Adequacy Resources ISO Rating NA 2 Fire Stations in District 4 Median Response Time (min) NP Fire Stations Serving District 4 90th Percentile Response Time (min) NP Sq. Miles per Station 148.2 Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 3 38 Training Total Full-time Firefighters 36 All firefighters must complete training through the CAL FIRE fire Total Call Firefighters 0 academy. Requirements depend on level of certification. Total Sworn Staff per Station 4 9 Service Challenges Sworn Staff per 1,000 0.9 No challenges were identified. Staffing Base Year 2008 Fire Flow Water Reserves NA Facilities Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus Station 10 29300 Dew Drop Excellent 2 to 3 One engine Bypass Pioneer, CA Station 30 15035 Shenandoah Rd Good 2 to 3 One engine River Pines, CA Station 60 11660 Highway 49 Fair 2 (year-round) Two engines, one dozer Sutter Creek, CA 6 (fire season only) Station 80 19597 Highway 88 Good 6 (fire season only) Two engines Pine Grove, CA Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies No infrastructure needs were reported. Station 60 is due to be replaced in 2010. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers Current Practices: There is a mutual aid agreement The CALFIRE dispatch center used for a multi-county area, and Dew Drop between AFPD, CALFIRE, the City of Station is shared with USFS. Ione, the City of Jackson, JVFPD, Opportunities: LFPD, and SCFPD. No additional opportunities for sharing or collaboration were identified. Notes: (1) CALFIRE has a MOU with Calaveras County and a secondary MOU with San Joaquin County for Hazmat services. (2) ISO ratings are not assigned to state agencies. (3) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. (4) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. BY BURR CONSULTING II-503 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AGENCY OVERVIEW California Highway Patrol (CHP) provides traffic control, investigation, and law enforcement related to vehicles on state highways, freeways and unincorporated roads. The CHP has primary jurisdiction on roads used for hazardous material transport. NATURE & EXTENT Amador County is one of 16 areas served by the CHP Valley Division. This Division maintains several specialized units, including two helicopters and two fixed-wing aircraft assigned to traffic regulation, a unit enforcing commercial vehicle regulations, a unit assigned to vehicle theft reduction and recovery operations, as well as the Specially Marked Patrol Vehicle team working on traffic problem areas and issues. There is also a traffic complaint hotline program. Dispatch All 911 calls made from land lines in Amador County are automatically routed to the Amador County Sheriff’s communications center (the Public Safety Answering Point). Once the County Sheriff dispatcher determines a call requires CHP response on a highway or unincorporated road, it relays the call to the CHP dispatch office, which directly dispatches officers. Calls from cellular phones are initially routed to the CHP and CHP personnel are dispatched if needed or the call is relayed to the Sheriff. Demand Figure II-29-14: CHP Property Crimes, 1996-06 The number of property crimes (excluding larcenies under $400) for the 75 CHP in Amador County increased by 96 percent from 1996 to 2006; there were 45 such property crimes in 2006. 50 The number peaked at 80 in 2004. 25 0 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 II-504 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO dettimmoC semirC ytreporP OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Figure II-29-15: CHP Arrests, 1996-06 By comparison, arrests in the same area have shown no 300 relationship with the incidence of crimes. The number of arrests was generally stable through 2003, and 200 then increased in each year since, as shown in Figure II-29-15. The 100 highest number of arrests occurred in 2006, with a low number of 0 crimes committed per Figure II-29- 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 14. The CHP did not provide information on the number or type of service calls received. Complaints Complaints against a CHP officer can be registered with the Office of Internal Affairs via the online form or mail. Once a complaint is received, the officer’s Commander oversees the investigation. After the investigation has been completed to the Commander’s satisfaction, the report undergoes review by the Commander’s superiors. Once the report is approved, the citizen receives a written response indicating the outcome of the complaint. LOCATION The Amador CHP Area Office provides services throughout the County on state highways, freeways and unincorporated roads. INFRASTRUCTURE CHP officers patrol Amador County from the area office in the City of Jackson. Four patrol cars are used to patrol the County during each shift. Division-wide, CHP employees 785 uniformed officers and 250 non-uniformed personnel. CHP did not provide information on the type and condition of patrol cars and other equipment. BY BURR CONSULTING II-505 stserrA Felonies Misdemeanors AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II JACKSON RANCHERIA Jackson Rancheria provides wastewater, law enforcement and fire protection services. AGENCY OVERVIEW The Jackson Rancheria Band of Miwuk Indians established a formal government in 1979 under the auspices of Margaret Dalton, who still serves as chairperson today. In order to become self- sufficient, the Tribe opened a bingo hall which grew into the Jackson Rancheria Hotel and Casino in Amador County. The hotel now employs more than 2,000 people, making it the largest employer in the County. The casino and hotel have afforded the Tribe has a medical and dental clinic, a recreation center, water and sewage treatment plants, an auto mechanic shop, and a general store. More homes and a new access road are currently under construction.768 MUNICIPAL SERVICES The Jackson Rancheria Fire Department is the County’s first and only non-state paid fire agency. The Department was created in response to the growth on the tribal lands. Trainees were recruited from existing Casino staff and graduated from training in October 2007. The Department responds to service calls on tribal lands between SR 88 and Ridge Road. The station is staffed by 13 firefighters and two lieutenants. There is a mutual aid agreement between Jackson Rancheria Fire Department and CALFIRE for fire service provision, but issues regarding sovereignty have yet to be resolved (i.e., crossing onto and off of land to assist).769 The Tribe also has a police department staffed with post-certified federal officers. The Department works closely with the Amador County Sheriff’s Office and is funded solely by the Tribe.770 The Tribe is currently constructing a Public Safety Building, which will house the Tribal Police Department, a new Tribal Fire Department, and a network operations center. Construction is scheduled to be complete in 2008.771 768 Jackson Rancheria Hotel & Casino. URL accessed 2/11/08, http://www.jacksoncasino.com/tribal/community.aspx. 769 Interview with M. Kirkley and L. Winton, CALFIRE, January 16, 2008. 770 May, J. “Jackson Rancheria mining for gold, casino-style.” Indian Country Today, July 26, 2000. 771 Jackson Rancheria Hotel & Casino. URL accessed 2/11/08, http://www.jacksoncasino.com/tribal/index.aspx. II-506 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Regarding wastewater services, the Rancheria has a 240,000 GPM wastewater reclamation plant, with 500,000 gallon reclaimed storage tanks and a 350,000 gallons emergency storage tank. Reclaimed water is disposed of on leach fields and spray fields. Other infrastructure includes three miles of reclaimed water lines and fire hydrants, and a fire booster pump station with a hydro- pneumatic tank.772 MULE CREEK STATE PRISON In addition to its primary law enforcement role, Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, wastewater collection, and wastewater treatment and disposal services. Advanced life support and medical transport services are provided by American Legion. AWA supplies treated water to the prison. AGENCY OVERVIEW MCSP opened on June 10, 1987 and covers 866 acres. The State-owned facility is located in Ione, near the Preston Youth Authority. Custody levels range from minimum security (Level I) to the highest level of security (Level IV). There are three semi-autonomous facilities to maximize control of inmate movement. A five-acre minimum security facility is located outside of the double- perimeter fences that surround the main facility. The prison provides rehabilitation services and health care to inmates. Rehabilitation at the prison is performed through educational services, including academic and vocational education, religious programs, and prison industries. MCSP industries include coffee roasting, laundry, meat cutting, and digital mapping. Minimum security inmates also serve as community work crews in the County. In addition, several self-help groups are provided to inmates. MCSP was built to house approximately 1,700 inmates but houses many more–3,656 as of January 2008.773 The prisoner population peaked in the mid-2000s at approximately 3,900, and has declined slightly since then. To accommodate the surging prison population, prison gymnasiums were converted into housing areas with three-tier beds. The Grand Jury found this practice to be dangerous both to the inmates and to staff.774 Prison staff number approximately 1,124.775 772 EcoSystems Design and Development, Inc., Projects webpage. URL accessed 4/6/08, http://ecosystemsdesign.com/projects.htm 773 MCSP response to LAFCO request for information, January 28, 2008. 774 Amador County Grand Jury, Amador County Grand Jury Report, FY 06-07, p. 16. 775 California Department of Corrections, FY 05-06 estimate of staff. BY BURR CONSULTING II-507 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II MUNICIPAL SERVICES Wastewater services MCSP provides wastewater services for the prison as well as the Preston Youth Correctional Facility and CALFIRE Academy. Sewage from each facility is collected by its own collection system and conveyed to the prison’s WWTP. Infrastructure The WWTP is located on prison property. The permitted capacity is 0.74 mgd (ADWF) and a peak wet weather flow of 2.2 mgd. By comparison, the prison reported its flow was 0.848 mgd in 2007. Of this amount, the Preston Youth Correctional Facility contributes approximately 0.16-0.20 mgd with peak flows of 1.0 mgd or more during wet weather.776 The CALFIRE Academy contributes approximately 0.01-0.02 mgd during the summer months when training classes are in session. The WWTP consists of an oxidation ditch, two clarifiers, hypo-chlorination facilities, a belt filter press for dewatering sludge, a 4,000-gallon hypo-chlorination storage tank, and a 525-af storage reservoir.777 Effluent is disposed via spray irrigation on 296 acres of irrigated pasture land, by evaporation or percolation from the effluent storage reservoir, and a portion is conveyed to ARSA. By contract, MCSP may convey up to 350 af of treated effluent to ARSA at Preston Reservoir. MCSP conveys these flows to Preston Reservoir. From there, it flows to the City of Ione’s tertiary Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Plant (COWRP) and are ultimately discharged to land for irrigation of the Castle Oaks Golf Course. ARSA had discharged to the Preston Youth Correctional Facility for tertiary treatment and disposal until 2002 when Preston’s permit was rescinded due to regulatory non-compliance.778 CDCR has agreed to conduct a preliminary feasibility study of raising Preston Reservoir by 16 inches to increase its capacity.779 ARSA effluent flows to City of Ione wastewater treatment facilities under a contractual agreement which requires at least five years notice to terminate.780 Monthly discharges from Preston Reservoir to the Ione system are limited to 10 af (equivalent to 0.21 mgd) between October and March, and to 95 af per month (equivalent to 1.02 mgd) between April and September. 776 Interview with MCSP Correctional Plant Manager, Ray Eisert, January 28, 2008. 777 ECO:LOGIC Engineering, Amador County Regional Wastewater Management Plan, October 2005, p. 4-23. 778 Central Valley RWQCB, Cease and Desist Order No. R5-2002-0013, 2002. Preston regulatory non-compliance included failure to meet tertiary treatment standards, failure to meet requirements for a dual-plumbed water system, discharging outside the designated area, and lack of signage alerting the public. 779 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, City of Ione and ARSA, Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System, September 18, 2007, p. 5. 780 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, City of Ione and ARSA, Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System, Sept. 18, 2007. II-508 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS The MCSP wastewater collection system is composed of approximately seven miles of sewer pipe and two lift stations. The collection system was built in 1987, and was described as in good condition. However, the MCSP WWTP handles flows originating at Preston, where an aged collection system generates heavy peak flows. MCSP completed a long-term plan for wastewater facilities to accommodate future flows in its service area in 2008 by improving its storage and disposal facilities. RWQCB plans to update its waste discharge requirements to include the planned upgrades by the end of 2008. MCSP has requested approximately $10 million in capital improvement funding through AB 900. MCSP is funded for FY 08-09 to complete working drawings and construction documents by January 2009, and construction is scheduled to be completed October 2010.781 The City of Ione, ARSA and MCSP have identified potential facility sharing opportunities for tertiary treatment and disposal; such opportunities and formation of a related JPA were being discussed at the time this report was prepared and no definitive plans had yet been identified. MCSP, the City of Ione and ARSA have agreed to attempt to form a JPA to develop a wastewater master plan for the Ione Valley. Their intent is to develop a permanent source of recycled water, improve treatment and disposal capacity at MCSP and Ione facilities. Service Adequacy The regulatory agency, Central Valley RWQCB, took 10 enforcement actions against MCSP WWTP between 2000 and 2007. Regulatory concerns in recent years included inadequate capacity to handle wastewater flows, failure to comply with effluent limitations, wastewater spills, understaffed operations, and alleged negative impacts on groundwater used by adjacent properties, according to RWQCB staff reports and orders. Prior to instituting recent reductions in water usage in 2007, prison employees had reported that actual daily volume had been as high as 0.81 mgd in excess of the permitted capacity.782 In 2006, MCSP notified RWQCB that effluent was being discharged in violation of the permit due to hydraulic overload associated with prison overcrowding. The COWRP operator had reported to RWQCB that he had toured the MCSP WWTP and found it was severely overloaded, that wastewater was not being adequately treated, and that solids were bypassing the treatment system and being discharged to land.783 RWQCB inspectors found that treatment systems were bypassed, and discharges to a tributary to Mule Creek associated with over-irrigation of sprayfields and tailwater runoff. According to RWQCB, MCSP staff disclosed that the WWTP was poorly designed, that equipment and sprayfields were undersized, that the WWTP could not handle increased flows from the growing prisoner population, and that solids were being discharged continually due to hydraulic overload. 781 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Executive Officers Report, March 14, 2008. 782 Central Valley RWQCB, Staff Report: Consideration of Cease and Desist Order for Mule Creek State Prison Wastewater Treatment Plant, December 2006. 783 Central Valley RWQCB, Staff Report: Consideration of Cease and Desist Order for Mule Creek State Prison Wastewater Treatment Plant, December 2006. BY BURR CONSULTING II-509 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The regulatory authority required MCSP to reduce its flows 15 percent by April 2007 and by another 10 percent by January 2008, to develop a flow reduction evaluation, a long-term wastewater facilities upgrade plan, a spill contingency plan, a sprayfield study, and a staffing analysis, among other requirements.784 As a result of additional sewer spills, RWQCB imposed an administrative civil liability several months later. The prison met deadlines in these orders through the end of 2007 by taking action to reduce flows by closing its dry cleaning operation, installing devices limiting the number of toilet flushes, and imposing limits on inmate showers; however, it was not able to meet the flow reduction target set for January 2008. However, the prison has reduced its flows to be within its capacity. The prison doubled its wastewater operation staffing (now there are four full- time employees) in 2007, and reported that it now manages its wastewater operations more effectively and that sewage spills have been dramatically reduced. Persons living along Mule Creek complained of black water in Mule Creek in 2006. Some homeowners’ wells contained high levels of nitrates, possibly caused by inadequately treated wastewater from the prison. Amador County’s Environmental Health Department tested water in wells near the prison in 2006, and found that nitrate levels in local wells exceeded the maximum contaminant level permissible for drinking water (69 mg/l versus the permissible 45 mg/l), and reported that MCSP’s sprayfield operations may have significantly contributed to this contamination.785 One well tested reported trace amounts of a chemical associated with dry cleaning solvent. This was speculated to have come from a dry cleaning plant on prison grounds. In 2007, the RWQCB required MCSP to install 10 groundwater monitoring wells at various locations on prison grounds. Test results have shown that nitrate and other contaminant levels on prison grounds are lower than those found in area water wells. However, MCSP is now mitigating these potential prison impacts by financing delivery of clean water to affected property owners. MCSP subsequently closed its dry cleaning operation and made improvements to its sprayfields. Sprayfield improvements include capping off sprinkler heads, installing water cannons to increase evaporation and reduce discharge to the fields, cutting berms around field edges, tree trimming and brush clearing, hourly inspections, and repiping of an area where there had been frequent spills.786 Mutual Support MCSP provides mutual support to Preston Youth Correctional Facility, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, ARSA, and the City of Ione. In 2005, the City of Ione’s WWTP had a storage pond fail due to inclement weather conditions. MCSP was called upon to provide staff/inmate assistance, pumps, and various equipment to assist in containment operations. In 1997, heavy rains were flooding various areas of Amador County, MCSP provided inmates and sand bags to assist in keeping flood waters from housing developments. Preparations were made to create emergency shelters for the public due to possible evacuations in the Ione Valley. 784 Central Valley RWQCB, Cease and Desist Order No. R5-2006-0130, 2006. 785 Amador County Grand Jury Report, FY 06-07, p. 42. 786 Interview with MCSP Correctional Plant Manager, Ray Eisert, January 28, 2008. II-510 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS In 2008, assistance was provided to Preston Youth Correctional Facility to investigate possible cross-connection issues with their wastewater system. Due to the age of the facility the stormwater systems are connected to the sanitary sewage systems allowing excessive flows to MCSP during rainy weather. Video camera equipment was provided and is available to allow in-pipe inspections of the sanitary sewer lines for any cross-connection points. Table II-29-16: MCSP Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection Mule Creek State Prison Wastewater Treatment Mule Creek State Prison (secondary); City of Ione (tertiary) Wastewater Disposal Mule Creek State Prison (secondary); City of Ione (tertiary) Recycled Water Mule Creek State Prison Service Area Collection: Mule Creek State Prison Treatment: Mule Creek State Prison, Preston Youth Correctional Facility, CALFIRE Academy Recycled Water None Sewer Connection Regulatory/Policies All discharges at the facility are connected to the prison sewer system. Onsite Septic Systems in Service Area None Projected Demand (in millions of gallons per day) 2005 2015 2025 Build-Out Avg. flow 0.73 NP NP NP Avg. dry weather flow NP NP NP Peak wet weather flow NP NP NP Note: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. continued BY BURR CONSULTING II-511 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Secondary treatment is provided at MCSP plant. During dry season, a portion of the effluent receives tertiary treatment by the City of Ione. Disposal method: Secondary-treated effluent is discharged to land at the prison site for irrigation, disposed by evaporation and percolation at the prison site, and during irrigation season conveyed via ARSA to the City of Ione for tertiary treatment and disposal to irrigate the Castle Oaks Golf Course. Facility Name Capacity Condition Year Built MCSP WWTP 0.74 mgd Fair to Poor 1987 Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) Average Dry Peak Wet MCSP WWTP 0.73 NP Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Existing storage and disposal capacity is insufficient to handle peak flows, and may be insufficient to accommodate future flows depending on whether the prison population increases or decreases. MSCP has agreed with ARSA that the prison will upgrade to tertiary treatment facilities to minimize impacts of its wastewater operations on local groundwater quality. Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 7 Sewage Lift Stations 2 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The sewer collection system was built in 1987, was described by MCSP as in good condition with no serious inflow and infiltration issues. Infiltration and Inflow MCSP reported no serious I/I problems. Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing Regional Collaboration MCSP provides treatment services to Preston and the CALFIRE Academy, and shares CCTV equipment with Preston. MCSP shares use of Preston Reservoir with ARSA. The City of Ione provides wastewater treatment and disposal services to MCSP and ARSA. Facility Sharing Opportunities The City, MCSP and ARSA are considering a new JPA for wastewater planning in the Ione Valley. The intent is to develop a permanent source of recycled water, improve treatment and disposal capacity at MCSP and Ione facilities. continued II-512 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Regulatory Compliance Record, 2000-7 Formal Enforcement Actions 2 Informal Enforcement Actions 8 Enforcement Action Type Date Description of Violations Administrative Civil Liability 8/21/2007 Permit conditions (8) Cease and Desist Order 12/8/2006 Permit conditions (17), late reports (5) Notice of Violation 10/23/2006 Permit conditions (9) Notice of Violation 9/5/2006 Permit conditions (8), late reports (5) Notice of Violation 12/3/2002 Sanitary sewer overflow (Dec. 2, 2002) Notice of Violation 6/17/2002 Permit condition Staff Enforcement Letter 1/17/2002 Effluent conditions Notice of Violation 10/22/2001 Sanitary sewer overflow (Oct. 18, 2001) Notice of Violation 11/15/2000 Permit condition Notice of Violation 10/17/2000 Permit condition Service Adequacy Indicators Sewer Overflows 20071 3 Sewer Overflows 20062 6 Treatment Effectiveness Rate3 96% Sewer Overflow Rate4 43 Total Employees (FTEs) FY 07-08 4 Response Time Policy5 NP Employees Certified? NP Response Time Actual NP Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices MCSP closed down its drycleaning operation due to concerns over impacts on groundwater. Collection System Inspection Practices MCSP conducts visual and CCTV inspections of the collection systems under a preventive maintenance program mandated by CDCR. Service Challenges MCSP staffing levels fluctuate based on changes in the prison population or State fiscal circumstances. Notes: (1) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2007 as reported by the agency. (2) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2006 as reported by the agency. (3) Total number of non-compliance days in 2007 per 365 days. (4) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. (5) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage. BY BURR CONSULTING II-513 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II Fire Services Mule Creek State Prison Fire Department provides fire suppression and emergency medical response services. The station is staffed by six full-time personnel: one fire chief, four fire captains, and a hazardous materials specialist. In addition, 32 inmate firefighters assist staff during four shifts. Inmate firefighters must be classified as the lowest security level and may have no prior weapons charges, history of violence or any grand theft or arson charges. They typically have shorter sentences at the prison. Inmates receive certified training for firefighters; each one spends 25 to 30 hours per week in training. They are paid $48 per month. Inmates do not go to wildland incidents outside the County. All service calls on the grounds are dispatched through the prison’s emergency phone system. There are also automatic alarms. The prison provides automatic aid services to Preston Youth Correctional Facility, to AFPD, and to the City of Ione. The agreement with Preston regards only fire suppression services, the AFPD agreement covers response for fires, traffic accidents and hazmat incidents within a six-mile radius, and the Ione agreement covers all non-medical calls. The Prison has offered some certified training courses to outside participants and would like to continue partnering with other area providers by hosting further training events. A total of 310 calls for service were received in 2007. The majority of calls (35 percent) were for medical response. Twenty percent of calls were for fire suppression. Of all calls, 51 percent were mutual aid assistance to other agencies. Response time to Ione is approximately 5-7 minutes and to the surrounding rural areas is 7-10 minutes. Response time to the City of Jackson averages 15 minutes. The Department reports that mutual aid to MCSP from other providers is uncommon. Location The prison fire station is located just outside the secure part of prison grounds. The primary area of responsibility for the Mule Creek FD is prison property, but the Department also responds to mutual aid calls in the vicinity as needed. Most mutual aid calls are to the City of Ione and surrounding areas. Infrastructure The Department has one fire station and several vehicles, including two engines and one squad. No infrastructure needs were reported by the prison. II-514 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Table II-29-17: MCSP Fire Profile Fire Service Service Configuration Service Demand Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2007 EMS Direct Total Service Calls 310 Ambulance Transport American Legion % EMS 35% Hazardous Materials Calaveras and San Joaquin Counties1 % Fire 20% Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CHP, Private % Vehicle Accidents 16% Fire Suppression Helicopter CALFIRE % Other 29% Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 51% Fire/EMS Dispatch CALFIRE Calls per 1,000 people NA Service Adequacy Resources ISO Rating NA Fire Stations 1 Median Response Time (min) NA Fire Stations Serving Agency 1 90th Percentile Response Time (min) NA Sq. Miles Served per Station 2 NA Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 3 NA Training Total Full-time Firefighters 6 Captains train for approximately 120 hours annually. Classes are taken Total Call Firefighters 32 through the State Fire Marshall, college courses, and in-house instruction. Total Sworn Staff per Station 38 Service Challenges Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 NA No challenges were reported. Staffing Base Year 2008 Fire Flow Water Reserves NA Facilities Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus MCSP 4001 Highway 104 Fair 1 captain and 8 inmate- Two Type 1 Engines, Type 3 Ione, CA firefighters Wildland Engine, Squad, Hazmat Decon Truck, chief vehicle Fire Service Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies No needs were reported. Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers Current Practices: MCSPFD has mutual aid agreements The Department is part of the Amador Plan. with all providers in the County. Opportunities: No opportunities were identified. Notes: (1) CALFIRE has a MOU with Calaveras County and a secondary MOU with San Joaquin County for hazmat services. (2) Primary service area (square miles) per station. (3) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. BY BURR CONSULTING II-515 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II PRESTON YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Preston Youth Correctional Facility (PYCF) houses, treats and provides training to male juvenile offenders committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA) from juvenile and adult courts within the State. Fire protection services are provided by Mule Creek State Prison under an automatic aid agreement. AGENCY OVERVIEW PYCF opened in 1894. The facility is located in Ione and covers 264 acres. The facility provides wards a high level of academic training as well as aggressive medical and psychiatric care. The goal of the facility and CYA overall is for youths to reenter society with better skills to cope with their environments. PYCF serves as a reception center for youths entering CYA programs from throughout Northern California. Youths who fit criteria for a “camp” setting are sent to the Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp located in the County. Wards at Preston live in a mixture of open dormitories and individual rooms. A high school on site offers a range of instruction including special education, basic skills, high school coursework, GED preparation, and vocational education. Community college work is available through correspondence courses. The facility also offers many treatment programs, including counseling and behavior treatment. The population of PYCF is approximately 340 wards of a capacity of 1,200.787 MUNICIPAL SERVICES Water Water is provided by AWA. Preston purchases both raw and treated water from AWA. The facility has water rights in Sutter Creek (approximately 700 af); the rights are leased to ARSA. Wastewater Collection and Conveyance The collection system consists of a manual bar screen, a holding tank, two submersible pumps, and audio and visual alarm and an overflow tank. Once an alarm sounds, the facility has approximately four hours to fix the problem before the overflow tank is full.788 787 Amador County Grand Jury Report, FY 06-07, p. 19. 788 Interview with Randy Kayl, Preston Youth Correctional Facility, April 29, 2008. II-516 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS No I/I study has been done at the facility. In FY 07-08 the facility plans to evaluate all main collection lines with a camera borrowed from MCSP. Preston’s flow is approximately 160,000 to 200,000 gallons per month. The Facility’s collection system has significant I/I problems according to staff at MCSP, however; flows double in rainy months. Preston’s collection system is 100 years old. It does not have manholes.789 Fire PYCF receives fire services from both Ione FD and Mule Creek State Prison’s Fire Department; both providers respond to calls. Ione’s fire chief annually inspects grounds and infrastructure. The facility updated its hydrants per his recommendation recently. U.S. FOREST SERVICE The USFS provides law enforcement, emergency medical response, fire prevention, fire suppression and fire education services to national forest land within Amador County. Law enforcement patrol services are provided by Amador County Sheriff’s Office. AGENCY OVERVIEW The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages public lands in national forests and grasslands across the Country. It was established in 1905 as an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USFS’ mission is “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”790 Eldorado National Forest (ENF) is located in the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, including portions of Alpine, Amador, El Dorado, and Placer counties. The forest is bordered on the north by the Tahoe National Forest, on the east by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, on the southeast by the Humboldt-Toiyabe, and to the south by the Stanislaus National Forest. ENF is divided into ranger districts for the provision of care by USFS personnel. Amador County is within the Amador Ranger District. ENF has over 70 day use and overnight developed recreation facilities. There are hundreds of lakes and several reservoirs in the forest for recreational use. Silver Lake, a reservoir, is located within Amador County and is stocked with a variety of fish depending on the time of year. The Amador Range District also oversees seven campgrounds, an information center, two vista points, trailheads and four picnic areas. 789 Interview with Acting Warden M. Martel and Public Information Officer C. Weathersbee, Mule Creek State Prison, January 28, 2008. 790 Eldorado National Forest, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-517 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II The forest is open year-round and has winter activities as well as summer. Several trails are open for snow shoeing, snowmobiling and cross-country skiing. Two resorts operate within ENF for down-hill skiing. MUNICIPAL SERVICES Nature and Extent The Amador Ranger District provides law enforcement, emergency medical response, fire prevention, fire suppression and fire education services. Educating citizens about wildland fires includes interaction with individual citizens, public forums, public events, schools, publications, and grants. 791 In addition to public safety services, the District provides street maintenance, maintenance to bridges/culverts, public open spaces, public recreation programs, and land use planning. Services to campgrounds include wholesale water supply, soil conservation, refuse collection and recycling. ACSO provides law enforcement patrol services to USFS lands within Amador County through a limited MOU, as USFS lacks sufficient resources to provide 24-hour independent patrol.792 USFS staffs one law enforcement officer on a year round basis in the Amador portions of the national forests. Five USFS personnel serve the Amador Ranger District. Location The Amador Ranger District of the USFS is limited to national forest lands in the County. Approximately 79,695 acres (ten percent) of ENF’s overall 786,994 acres are located in Amador County.793 Put into context of the County’s size, the USFS has land management responsibility for 21 percent of the land in Amador County. 794 Federal responsibility area in the County is concentrated at the eastern portion of Amador and also along the central Amador-Calaveras County line. Small areas of federal responsibility are strewn throughout the County. Infrastructure The Amador Ranger Station is located in Pioneer on SR 88 at 26820 Silver Drive. 791 Amador Fire Safety Council, “Amador County Fire Hazard Reduction Plan,” 2004 792 Communication with Captain Glenn Humphries, Amador County Sheriff’s Office, March 26, 2008. 793 Eldorado National Forest, 2008. 794 Amador Fire Safety Council, “Amador County Fire Hazard Reduction Plan”, 2004 II-518 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS Dew Drop Fire Station, also in Pioneer, is open year-round and has one fire engine. It is operated cooperatively with CALFIRE. The station is operated year-round with one CALFIRE engine and augmented during declared fire season with one USFS engine. Regional Collaboration USFS maintains an annual operating plan (AOP) with AFPD for cooperative fire protection services. The closest force available to an event responds, although the more appropriate provider may take over upon arrival (i.e., USFS for wildland fires, AFPD for structure fires). The AOP establishes hourly rates for personnel and apparatus. The Amador Ranger District sometimes participates as a minor partner in regional planning efforts in Amador County as requested by local agencies.795 795 Communication with Roger Ross, Resource Officer, USFS Amador District, February 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING II-519 AMADOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW, VOLUME II 30. D E V E L O P M E N T Table II-30-1: Proposed and Planned Developments Countywide Non- General Residential Development Developer Location Acres Units Acres1 City of Ione Broussard Parcel Map Broussard In Bounds NP 2 0 Castle Oaks JTS In Bounds NP 475 10 Castle Ridge Doug Knutsen/KORAF Corp. In Bounds 8.6 65 0 Howard NP In Bounds NP 550 0 Ione 20/Gold Ridge Galleli & Son In Bounds 20.0 49 10 Q-Ranch NP In SOI 400.0 822 0 Ringer Ranch (Part of Rancho Amador Ranch Associates In Bounds 134.0 523 0 Arroyo Seco) St. Andrews Place NP In Bounds NP 25 0 Washington Place NP In Bounds NP 6 0 Waterman Parcel (Part of Amador Ranch Associates In Bounds 85.0 NP NP Rancho Arroyo Seco) Wildflower Ryland Homes In Bounds NP 277 0 Yaegar NP In SOI NP 674 0 City of Jackson Jackson Gate Cameron Stewart In Bounds 6.5 26 0 Jackson Hills Golf Course and New Faze Development Partial Bounds 516.0 540 0 Residential Community Saint Patrick's Green Diocese of Sacramento In Bounds 58.0 185 2.0 Stonecreek D&L Development In Bounds 5.0 8 0 The Home Depot Store The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. In Bounds 59.0 0 59.0 City of Plymouth Arroyo Woods Jim Buell Outside SOI 101.0 127 0 Cottage Knoll Stephanie McNair Partial SOI 82.4 304 0 Oak Glen Marlon Ginney In Bounds 12.3 47 0 Shenandoah Ridge Bob Reeder Partial Bounds 148.3 136 0 Shenandoah Springs Stephanie McNair In Bounds 23.8 64 0 Zinfandel Bob Reeder Partial SOI 364.7 350 0 City of Sutter Creek Bryson Drive Cottages Sidle Construction/Web Partners In Bounds 1.6 12 0 Crestview Aleytha Collins In Bounds 19.7 48 0 Fitzgerald Estates Pat Fitzgerald In Bounds 23.7 22 0 Gold Rush Ranch Gold Rush Ranch, LLC Bounds/SOI 945.0 1,334 NP Golden Hills Stan Gamble/Trafalger In Bounds 53.8 79 0 Powder House Stan Gamble/Trafalger In Bounds 34.7 107 0 continued II-520 PREPARED FOR AMADOR LAFCO DEVELOPMENT Non- General Residential Development Developer Location Acres Units Acres1 Within Unincorporated Amador County and Outside Cities' Spheres of Influence NP NP Amador City 21.0 18 0 Aparicio Subdivision Hertzig & Aparicio Sutter Creek 31.0 5 0 Black Oak Ridge Toma Family Partnership Pine Grove 40.0 7 0 Fairway Pines PD Fairway/Glenmoor Partners Buckhorn 23.9 109 NP Fairway Vista II (formerly Fairway Vista II, LLC Buckhorn 30.6 69 0 Cambra Pines) Golden Vale Subdivision Geneva Real Estate Martell 383.0 607 NP Martell Business Park Sierra Pacific Industries Martell 374.0 56 374.0 Mokelumne Bluffs Sutter Creek Villages, Inc. Pine Grove 137.9 98 0 Palisades Unit 5 Kirkwood Mountain Resort, LLC Kirkwood NP 15 0 Palisades Unit 6 Kirkwood Mountain Resort, LLC Kirkwood 8.1 21 0 Petersen Ranch (Revised) Frederick Petersen Pine Grove 141.2 58 0 Pine Acres North Thomas Martin & Associates Pine Grove 44.2 106 0 Quail Ridge Martin Eng Pioneer 82.0 81 0 Red Tail Ridge Paul & Jordon Bramell Pioneer 31.0 5 0 Revised Pine Grove Bluffs Del Rapini Pine Grove 32.0 28 0 Sentinels West The Sentinels West at Kirkwood, Kirkwood 1.9 18 0 Sherrill Subdivision Gary & Judy Sherrill Sutter Creek 97.0 4 0 Sierra West Business Park Sierra West Business Park, LLC Martell 70.0 26 70.0 Silver Pointe Richard Reynolds Buckhorn 233.0 46 0 The Pines at Mace Meadows Ciro & Kimberly Toma Buckhorn 4.1 13 0 The Sixteenth Fairway Edward Rockower Buckhorn 5.9 5 0 Thunder Mountain Lodge TML Development Kirkwood 2.2 67 0 (Revised) Timber Creek Village Unit 1 Kirkwood Mountain Resort, LLC Kirkwood 153.0 7 0 Wicklow Subdivision Lemke Construction, Inc. Martell 201.0 750 29.5 Note: (1) Non-residential acres exclude parks and open space. BY BURR CONSULTING II-521