City of Williams MSR

COLUSA LAFCO CITY OF WILLIAMS MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Adopted August 1, 2013 LAFCo Resolution 2013-0005 COLUSA LAFCO CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Adopted Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Colusa LAFCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Municipal Services Review Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.4 Municipal Services Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.5 Sphere Of Influence Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 SETTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1 City of Williams Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2 Williams Population Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3 Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4 Groundwater Basin Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4.1 Hydrogeologic Information Water-Bearing Formations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4.2 Subareas of the Colusa Subbasin near Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4.3 Groundwater Level Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.4.4 Groundwater Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.4.5 Groundwater Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.4.6 Groundwater Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.5 Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.6 Wastewater Treatment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.7 Fire Protection Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.7.1 Mutual Aid Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.7.2 Fire and EMS Dispatch Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.7.3 Fire and EMS Response Time Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.7.4 Fire Protection Staffing Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.7.5 Fire Protection Water Supply Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.8 Law Enforcement Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.8.1 Law Enforcement Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.8.2 Law Enforcement Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.8.3 Crime Clearance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.9 Drainage Regulations Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3 CITY OF WILLIAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.1 City Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.1.1. City Council Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.1.2 City Council Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.1.3 City Council Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.2 City Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2.1. Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2.2 Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2.3 Building and Grounds Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2.4 City Clerk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.5 Finance Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2.6 Fire Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.2.7 Parks and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.2.8 Planning Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.2.9 Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.2.10 Public Works Department General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.2.11 Public Works Department Water Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.2.12 Public Works Department Wastewater Collection and Treatment . . . 41 1 COLUSA LAFCO CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Adopted Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 3.2.13 Public Works Department Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3.2.14 Traffic Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.2.15 Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.2.16 Public Works Department Storm Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.3 City of Williams Independent Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.3.1 Audit Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.3.2 Net Asset Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.3.3 Budgetary Highlights in Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.3.4 Capital Asset and Debt Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.3.5 Net Assets shown by Account Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.3.6 Program Revenue and Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 3.3.7 Cash and Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 3.3.8 Defined Benefit Pension Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 3.3.9 Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 3.4 City of Williams Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 3.5 City of Williams Capital Improvement Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4 COMPARISON OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICE RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 4.1 Water Service Cost Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 4.2 Water Service Pricing Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.3 Sewer Service Cost Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5 CITY OF WILLIAMS MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Williams Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.1.1 Williams Area Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.1.2 MSR Determinations on Growth and Population Projections for the Williams Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 5.2 MSR Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) 69 5.2.1 Determination of Williams Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5.2.2 MSR Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities near City of Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5.3 Capacity and Infrastructure for City of Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5.3.1 City of Williams Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5.3.2 MSR Determinations on Infrastructure for the City of Williams . . . . . 70 5.4 Financial Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5.4.1 Financial Considerations for City of Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5.4.2 MSR Determinations on Financing for the City of Williams . . . . . . . 71 5.5 Opportunities for Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5.5.1 City of Williams Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5.5.2 MSR Determinations on Shared Facilities for City of Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5.6 Government Structure and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 5.6.1 City of Williams Government Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 5.6.2 MSR Determinations on Local Accountability and Governance for the City of Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 2 COLUSA LAFCO CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Adopted Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 APPENDIX A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 1 Municipal Financial Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 1.1 California Local Government Finance Background . . . . . . . 73 A. Proposition 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 B. AB 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 C. Proposition 98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 D. Proposition 172 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 E. Proposition 218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 F. Proposition 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 G. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 H. Development Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 1.2 Financing Opportunities that Require Voter Approval . . . . . . 75 1.3 Financing Opportunities that Do Not Require Voter Approval 75 2 Public Management Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3 Public Participation in Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 APPENDIX B SOIL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 106—Willows silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 110—Hustabel sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 112—Westfan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 127—Mallard clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 APPENDIX C ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 APPENDIX D WATER CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 APPENDIX E ANNEXATION HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 MAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 MAP 1 HISTORY OF ANNEXATIONS TO CITY OF WILLIAMS . . . . . . . . . 101 MAP 2 MAP SHOWING PROPOSED SOI BOUNDARIES FROM CITY AND COUNTY GENERAL PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 MAP 3 MAP SHOWING LAFCO RECOMMENDED SOI FOR CITY OF WILLIAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 MAP 4 MAP SHOWING SOIL TYPES WITHIN PROPSED SOI FOR CITY OF WILLIAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 3 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) History This report is prepared pursuant to legislation enacted in 2000 that requires LAFCO to conduct a comprehensive review of municipal service delivery and update the spheres of influence (SOIs) of all agencies under LAFCO’s jurisdiction. This chapter provides an overview of LAFCO’s history, powers and responsibilities. It discusses the origins and legal requirements for preparation of the municipal services review (MSR). Finally, the chapter reviews the process for MSR review, MSR approval and SOI updates. After World War II, California experienced dramatic growth in population and economic development. With this boom came a demand for housing, jobs and public services. To accommodate this demand, many new local government agencies were formed, often with little forethought as to the ultimate governance structures in a given region, and existing agencies often competed for expansion areas. The lack of coordination and adequate planning led to a multitude of overlapping, inefficient jurisdictional and service boundaries, and the premature conversion of California’s agricultural and open-space lands. Recognizing this problem, in 1959, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr. appointed the Commission on Metropolitan Area Problems. The Commission's charge was to study and make recommendations on the "misuse of land resources" and the growing complexity of local governmental jurisdictions. The Commission's recommendations on local governmental reorganization were introduced in the Legislature in 1963; resulting in the creation of a Local Agency Formation Commission, or "LAFCO," operating in every county. LAFCO was formed as a countywide agency to discourage urban sprawl and to encourage the orderly formation and development of local government agencies. LAFCO is responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries; including annexations and detachments of territory, incorporations of cities, formations of special districts, and consolidations, mergers and dissolutions of districts, as well as reviewing ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure. The Commission's efforts are focused on ensuring that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected. To better inform itself and the community as it seeks to exercise its charge and to comply with the State Law; LAFCO conducts service reviews to evaluate the provision of municipal services within the County. LAFCO regulates, through approval, denial, conditions and modification, boundary changes proposed by public agencies or individuals. It also regulates the extension of public services by cities and special districts outside their boundaries. LAFCO is empowered to initiate updates to the SOIs and proposals involving the dissolution or consolidation of special districts, mergers, establishment of subsidiary districts, and any reorganization including such actions. Otherwise, LAFCO actions must originate as petitions or resolutions from affected voters, landowners, cities or special districts. 1 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 1.2 Colusa LAFCO Colusa LAFCO consists of five regular members as follows: • two members from the Colusa County Board of Supervisors • two city council members • one public member who is appointed by the other members of the Commission There is an alternate in each category. All Commissioners are appointed to four-year terms. The Colusa LAFCO Commissioners and Alternates are as follows: Commissioners: Angela Fulcher, City Member Vacant, City Member, Vice Chair Denise Carter, County Member, Chair Gary Evans, County Member Brandon Ash, Public Member Alternates: Tom Indrieri, County Member Alternate Mary Winters, Public Member Alternate Tom Reiche, City Member Alternate The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires LAFCO review and update SOIs no less than every five years and to review municipal services before updating SOIs. Colusa LAFCO policies state that “Colusa LAFCO must review and update each agency’s Sphere of Influence at least once every five years, as necessary”. The requirement for service reviews arises from the identified need for a more coordinated and efficient public service structure to support California’s anticipated growth. The service review provides LAFCO with a tool to study existing and future public accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring that critical services are provided efficiently. 1.3 Municipal Services Review Requirements Effective January 1, 2008, Government Code §56430 requires LAFCO to conduct a review of municipal services provided in the county by region, sub-region or other designated geographic area, as appropriate, for the service or services to be reviewed, and prepare a written statement of determination with respect to each of the following six topics: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area 2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUC) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services 2 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 5. Status of, and opportunities for shared facilities 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies 1.4 Municipal Services Review Process For local agencies, the MSR process involves the following steps: • Outreach: LAFCO outreach and explanation of the project • Data Discovery: provide documents and respond to LAFCO questions • Map Review: review and comment on LAFCO draft map of the agency’s boundary and sphere of influence • Profile Review: internal review and comment on LAFCO draft profile of the agency • Public Review Draft MSR: review and comment on LAFCO draft MSR • LAFCO Hearing: attend and provide public comments on MSR MSRs are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to §15262 (feasibility or planning studies) or §15306 (information collection) of the CEQA Guidelines. LAFCO’s actions to adopt MSR determinations are not considered “projects” subject to CEQA. The MSR process does not require LAFCO to initiate changes of organization based on service review findings, only that LAFCO identify potential government structure options. However, LAFCO, other local agencies, and the public may subsequently use the determinations to analyze prospective changes of organization or reorganization or to establish or amend SOIs. Within its legal authorization, LAFCO may act with respect to a recommended change of organization or reorganization on its own initiative (e.g., certain types of consolidations), or in response to a proposal (i.e., initiated by resolution or petition by landowners or registered voters). Once LAFCO has adopted the MSR determinations, it must update the SOI for each jurisdiction. The LAFCO Commission determines and adopts the spheres of influence for each agency. A CEQA determination is made by LAFCO on a case-by-case basis for each sphere of influence action and each change of organization, once the proposed project characteristics are sufficiently identified to assess environmental impacts. 1.5 Sphere Of Influence Updates The Commission is charged with developing and updating the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for each city and special district within the county.1 An SOI is a LAFCO-approved plan that designates an agency’s probable future boundary and service area. Spheres are planning tools used to provide guidance for 1 The initial statutory mandate, in 1971, imposed no deadline for completing sphere designations. When most LAFCOs failed to act, 1984 legislation required all LAFCOs to establish spheres of influence by 1985. 3 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 individual boundary change proposals and are intended to encourage efficient provision of organized community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. Territory cannot be annexed by LAFCO to a city or district unless it is within that agency's sphere. The purposes of the SOI include the following: • to ensure the efficient provision of services • to discourage urban sprawl and premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands • to prevent overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services LAFCO cannot regulate land use, dictate internal operations or administration of any local agency, or set rates. LAFCO is empowered to enact policies that indirectly affect land use decisions. On a regional level, LAFCO promotes logical and orderly development of communities as it considers and decides individual proposals. LAFCO has a role in reconciling differences between agency plans so that the most efficient urban service arrangements are created for the benefit of current and future area residents and property owners. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Act requires to develop and determine the SOI of each local governmental agency within the county and to review and update the SOI every five years. LAFCOs are empowered to adopt, update and amend the SOI. They may do so with or without an application and any interested person may submit an application proposing an SOI amendment. While SOIs are required to be updated every five years, as necessary, this does not necessarily define the planning horizon of the SOI. The term or horizon of the SOI is determined by each LAFCO. In the case of Colusa LAFCO, the Commission’s policies state that an agency’s near term SOI shall generally include land that is anticipated to be annexed within the next five years, while the agency’s long-term SOI shall include land that is within the probable growth boundary of an agency and therefore anticipated to be annexed in the next 20 years. LAFCO may recommend government reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the SOIs as the basis for those recommendations. In determining the SOI, LAFCO is required to complete an MSR and adopt the nine determinations previously discussed. In addition, in adopting or amending an SOI, LAFCO must make the following determinations: • Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands • Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area • Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public service that the agency provides or is authorized to provide • Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the 4 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Commission determines these are relevant to the agency The CKH Act stipulates several procedural requirements in updating SOIs. It requires that special districts file written statements on the class of services provided and that LAFCO clearly establish the location, nature and extent of services provided by special districts. Additional information on local government issues may be found in Appendix A at the end of this report. By statute, LAFCO must notify affected agencies 21 days before holding the public hearing to consider the SOI and may not update the SOI until after that hearing. The LAFCO Executive Officer must issue a report including recommendations on the SOI amendments and updates under consideration at least five days before the public hearing 5 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 2 SETTING 2.1 City of Williams Background The City of Williams website describes the City as follows: Williams is a community of approximately 5,300 people located at the crossroads of Interstate 5 and State Route 20, 60 miles north of Sacramento and mid-way between the Sierras and the Pacific Coast. Located in the heart of the Sacramento Valley, Williams is an agriculturally oriented community. Rice, tomatoes, vine and seed crops, walnuts, almonds, hay, grain, and cattle are raised in the area surrounding the city. The average rain fall is 16 inches annually. Temperatures are moderate, although on rare occasions the winter temperature may dip below freezing and in the summer the temperature may reach 110 degrees. Williams was founded in 1874 and was first known as Central. In 1876 it was later renamed Williams to honor William Williams, who gave much of the land for the townsite. It was made a General Law City on May 20, 1920. The City of Williams is the gateway to the Northern California hunting and fishing mecca. Also, pheasant and dove hunting is available. The nearby foothill regions provide deer, elk and wild boar hunters a challenge. The Sacramento River, 10 miles east, provides Salmon, Striper, Steelhead and Sturgeon fishing. Catfish abound in area canals and there is Trout fishing within easy driving distance. Numerous hunting clubs and game preserves are located in the near-by vicinity.2 As noted above, Williams is in a rich agricultural area. The soil types in and near Williams are described in Appendix B at the end of this report. 2.2 Williams Population Data Following is a brief overview of Williams’ population and housing data:3 Williams Population in 2010: 5,123. Population change since 2000: +39.6% Males: 2,668 (52.1%) Females: 2,455 (47.9%) City of Williams Median resident age: 28.3 years California median age: 45.6 years The fact that the City of Williams has more men than women goes together with the relatively young age of the Williams population. 2 City of Williams, http://www.cityofwilliams.org/community/about-williams.htm, September 25, 2012. 3 http://www.city-data.com/city/Williams-California.html, September 25, 2012. 6 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Williams’ estimated median house or condo value in 2009: $232,268 (It was $96,100 in 2000.) Williams: $232,268 California: $384,200 City of Williams Mean Housing Prices in 2009 Type of Housing Price of Housing All housing units $318,966 Detached houses $327,293 Townhouses or other attached units $272,342 In 3-to-4-unit structures $396,952 In 5-or-more-unit structures $262,065 Mobile homes $219,210 Occupied boats, RVs, vans, etc. $38,539 Median gross rent in 2009: $795. The price of housing units has declined since 2009 due to the Great Recession. 2.3 Schools The enrollment of the Williams Unified School District Schools is as follows:4 Williams Elementary School Grades K-3 457 Students Williams Upper Elementary School Grades 4-6 257 Students Williams Junior High School Grades 7-8 185 Students Williams High School Grades 9-12 352 Students Alternative High School Grades 9-12 21 Students Independent Study All Grades 4 Students County Opportunity School Grades 7-9 4 Students Total 928 Students Woodland Community College (part of the Yuba Community College District) provides extensive services to residents of Colusa County at the Colusa Outreach Facility, 99 Ella Street, Williams, CA 95987, Phone: 530-668-2500.5 2.4 Groundwater Basin Background Williams is part of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, Colusa Subbasin described as follows:6 • Groundwater Basin Number: 5-021.52 • County: Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Yolo • Surface Area: 918,380 acres (1,434 square miles) 4 Williams Unified School District, Phone 530-473-2550, November 19, 2012. 5 http://wcc.yccd.edu/about/colusa.aspx, November 18, 2012. 6 California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Hydrologic Region Sacramento River, Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, Last update 1/20/06. 7 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 The portion of the Sacramento Valley that comprises the Colusa Subbasin is bounded on the east by the Sacramento River, on the west by the Coast Range and foothills, on the south by Cache Creek, and on the north by Stony Creek. Annual precipitation ranges from 17- to 27-inches with higher precipitation occurring to the west. 2.4.1 Hydrogeologic Information Water-Bearing Formations The Colusa Subbasin aquifer system is composed of continental deposits of late Tertiary to Quaternary age. Quaternary deposits include Holocene stream channel and basin deposits and Pleistocene Modesto and Riverbank formations. The Tertiary deposits consist of the Pliocene Tehama Formation and the Tuscan Formation. These deposits are described as follows: Holocene Stream Channel Deposits: These deposits consist of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay derived from the erosion, reworking, and deposition of adjacent Tehama Formation and Quaternary stream terrace deposits. The thickness varies from 1- to 80-feet. These deposits represent the upper part of the unconfined zone of the aquifer and are moderately-to-highly permeable; however, the thickness and areal extent of the deposits limit the water-bearing capability. Holocene Basin Deposits: These deposits are the result of sediment-laden floodwaters that rose above natural levees of streams and rivers and spread across low-lying areas. They consist primarily of silts and clays and may be locally interbedded with stream channel deposits along the Sacramento River. Thickness of the unit ranges up to 150 feet. These deposits have low permeability and generally yield low quantities of water to wells. The quality of groundwater produced from basin deposits is often poor. Pleistocene Modesto and Riverbank Formations: Terrace deposits include the Modesto Formation (deposited between 14,000 and 42,000 years ago) and the Riverbank Formation (deposited between 130,000 and 450,000 years ago). The Modesto deposits consist of moderately to highly permeable gravels, sands, and silts. Thickness of the formation ranges from less than 10 feet to nearly 200 feet across the valley floor. The Riverbank deposits are the older terrace deposits that occur at a higher topographic level and consist of poorly to highly pervious pebble and small cobble gravels interlensed with reddish clay, sand, and silt. Thickness of the formation ranges from less than 1 foot to over 200 feet depending on location. The formation yields moderate quantities of water to domestic and shallow irrigation wells and also provides water to deeper irrigation wells that have multiple zones of perforation. Generally, the thickness of the formation limits the water-bearing capabilities. Pliocene Tehama Formation: The Tehama Formation is the predominant water- bearing unit within the Colusa Subbasin and reaches a thickness of 2,000 feet. The formation occurs at depths ranging from a few feet to several hundred feet from the surface. The formation consists of moderately compacted silt, clay, and fine silty sand enclosing lenses of sand and gravel; silt and gravel; and cemented conglomerate. Occasional deep sands and thin gravels constitute a poorly to moderately productive, deep, water-bearing zone. 8 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Pliocene Tuscan Formation: The Tuscan Formation occurs in the northern portion of the subbasin at an approximate depth of 400 feet from the surface and may extend to the west to the Greenwood Anticline east of Interstate Highway 5. The formation is composed of a series of volcanic mudflows, tuff breccia, tuffaceous sandstone, and volcanic ash layers. The formation is described as four separate but lithologically similar units, A through D (with Unit A being the oldest), which in some areas are separated by layers of thin tuff or ash units. Units A, B, and C are found within the subbasin. Unit A is the oldest waterbearing unit of the formation and is characterized by the presence of metamorphic clasts within interbedded lahars, volcanic conglomerate, volcanic sandstone, and siltstone. Unit B is composed of a fairly equal distribution of lahars, tuffaceous sandstone, and conglomerate. Unit C consists of massive mudflow or lahar deposits with some interbedded volcanic conglomerate and sandstone. In the subsurface, these low permeability lahars form thick, confining layers for groundwater contained in the more permeable sediments of Unit B. 2.4.2 Subareas of the Colusa Subbasin near Williams Subareas of the Colusa Subbasin near Williams include the following two areas: Willows-to-Williams Plain Basin deposits overlie much of the flat alluvial plains in the area between Willows and Williams. Permeabilities of the near surface soils are extremely low. Riverbank deposits are observed along the western subbasin boundary north of Maxwell. The interstream areas of the westside creeks contain little gravel and are underlain by a poorly pervious, occasionally alkaline, claypan soil. The Tehama Formation contains little gravel and is not an important water-bearing material in this region. Arbuckle and Dunnigan Plains Quaternary surface deposits of alluvium, Modesto and Riverbank formations, and basin deposits in the Arbuckle and Dunnigan plains occur east of Hungry Hollow and Dunnigan hills from Williams to Cache Creek. Basin deposits overlie older alluvial deposits. The region north of Arbuckle is alluviated to depths of 20- to 60-feet with moderately to highly permeable sands and gravels from Sand and Cortina creeks. This zone extends east of Highway 99W and, in the College City area, appears to be Sacramento River channel deposits. The area between Salt and Petroleum creeks is composed of poorly to moderately permeable gravels, clayey sands, and silts. Petroleum and Little Buckeye creeks have deposited a thin, moderately to highly permeable sandy gravel and sandy silts over older stream and terrace alluvium. The area in the vicinity of Zamora is underlain by a homogeneous section of gravels, sands, and interbedded clays to minimum depths of 450 feet. Water producing members range from 25- to 35- percent of total material penetrated. Well production is high within gravel channels. A poorly to highly productive water-bearing zone consisting of older alluvial deposits and Tehama deposits on the western and southwestern edges of the Arbuckle Plain ranges in depth from 100- to 300-feet. The zone thickens easterly to depths of 400- to 450-feet. Tehama deposits coarsen in this area and are an important water-bearing unit. The upper 800- to 900-feet contains 10- to 13-% fine pebble gravel with a well-sorted, fine to medium sand matrix. This portion of the Tehama Formation is highly pervious, 9 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 loose, and well bedded. The gravel beds range from 5- to 20-feet in thickness and are well confined within a silt and clayey silt section. 2.4.3 Groundwater Level Trends Review of hydrographs for long-term comparison of spring-spring groundwater levels indicates a slight decline in groundwater levels associated with the 1976-77 and 1987-94 droughts, followed by recovery to pre-drought conditions of the early 1970’s and 1980’s. Some wells increased in levels beyond the pre-drought conditions of the 1970’s during the wet season of the early 1980’s. Generally, groundwater level data show an average seasonal fluctuation of approximate 5-feet for normal and dry years. Overall there does not appear to be any increasing or decreasing trends in groundwater levels. 2.4.4 Groundwater Storage The storage capacity of the subbasin was estimated based on estimates of specific yield for the Sacramento Valley as developed by DWR. Estimates of specific yield, determined on a regional basis, were used to obtain a weighted specific yield conforming to the subbasin boundary. The estimated specific yield for the subbasin is 7.1 percent. The estimated storage capacity to a depth of 200 feet is approximately 13,025,887 acre- feet. 2.4.5 Groundwater Budget Estimates of groundwater extraction for the Colusa Subbasin are based on surveys conducted by the California Department of Water Resources during 1993, 1994, and 1999. Surveys included landuse and sources of water. Estimates of groundwater extraction for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and environmental wetland uses are 310,000, 14,000 and 22,000 acre-feet respectively. Deep percolation from applied water is estimated to be 64,000 acre-feet. 2.4.6 Groundwater Quality Characterization Calcium-magnesium bicarbonate and magnesium/calcium bicarbonate are the predominant groundwater types in the subbasin. Calcium bicarbonate waters occur locally from Orland to Artois and near Stony Creek. Mixed character waters for different regions of the subbasin occur as follows: sodium bicarbonate waters from Williams-Colusa south to Grimes; magnesium-sodium bicarbonate or sodium-magnesium bicarbonate waters near Williams-Arbuckle area and locally near Zamora; and magnesium bicarbonate waters locally near Dunnigan. Total dissolved solids (TDS) values range from 120- to 1,220-mg/L, averaging 391 mg/L. Impairments High EC, TDS, adjusted sodium absorption ratio (ASAR), nitrate, and manganese impairments occur near Colusa. High TDS and boron occur near Knights Landing. High nitrates occur in Arbuckle, Knights Landing, and Willows. Localized areas have high manganese, fluoride, magnesium, sodium, iron, ASAR, chloride, TDS, ammonia, and phosphorus. 10 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Water Quality in Public Supply Wells Constituent Group1 Number of Number of wells with a wells sampled2 concentration above an MCL3 Inorganics – Primary 103 0 Radiological 57 0 Nitrates 109 2 Pesticides 64 0 VOCs and SVOCs 58 0 Inorganics – Secondary 103 18 1 A description of each member in the constituent groups and a generalized discussion of the relevance of these groups are included in California’s Groundwater– Bulletin 118 by DWR (2003). 2 Represents distinct number of wells sampled as required under DHS Title 22 program from 1994 through 2000. 3 Each well reported with a concentration above an MCL was confirmed with a second detection above an MCL. This information is intended as an indicator of the types of activities that cause contamination in a given basin. It represents the water quality at the sample location. It does not indicate the water quality delivered to the consumer. More detailed drinking water quality information can be obtained from the local water purveyor and its annual Consumer Confidence Report. Well Characteristics Well yields (gal/min) Municipal/Irrigation Range 25 – 5,600 Average: 1,967 (109 Well Completion Reports) Total depths (feet) Domestic Range: 11 to 870 Average: 155 (2,599 Well Completion Reports) Municipal/Irrigation Range 20 to 1340 Average: 368 (1,515 Well Completion Reports) 2.5 Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution Overview In Williams, the critical season for water supply occurs in the late summer because demand is higher at this time and supply is lower until the winter rainy season starts again. County Building Codes requires that water wells be constructed with a continuous seal from ground level down 50 feet. The purpose of the seal is to assure that surface water cannot flow into the well casing and contaminate deeper aquifers that are penetrated by the well. Small community water treatment has posed an enormous problem for the drinking water regulatory community, drinking water professionals, and the people living in these communities. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and subsequent regulations require that all water in the distribution system and at every tap connected to the distribution system comply. Water treatment usually consists of filtration and disinfection. 11 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Water treatment standards essentially mandate central treatment for drinking water prior to entering the distribution system. No water that exceeds a primary standard may be used for drinking water. Primary Standards have been developed to protect human health and are rigorously enforced by the Department of Health Services. For very small communities, this may be a cost that poses an undue burden. Often it could be a cost that has negative public health implications. For a very low-income family, the money spent on water treatment may not be available for other essentials. Rather than spend that money, a community may apply for a variance or exemption. Exemptions and variances from the State requirements are intended to be temporary solutions to regulatory compliance. They may, however, extend indefinitely leaving a community with no water that meets the regulation. Secondary Standards are intended to protect the taste, odor or appearance of drinking water. California Code requires that, if a community water system experiences an exceedance of certain secondary standard, quarterly sampling must be initiated. Compliance is then determined based upon the average of four consecutive quarterly samples. Non-compliant water must then be treated to meet the secondary standards. Water distribution systems carry water for both domestic use and for fire protection. The distribution system should be sized to perform both functions simultaneously, delivering sufficient water volume and pressure. Pipes should be made of durable and corrosion- resistant materials, and alignments located in areas that are easy to access for repairs and maintenance. Fire hydrants should be placed a maximum of 600 feet apart along the water mains and a maximum of 500 feet from the end of water lines. Some water loss in the distribution system can be expected. Water loss is the difference between the volume of water pumped from the water supply well and the volume of water sold to users. A loss of water from 10% to 20% is considered acceptable by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2.6 Wastewater Treatment Overview Wastewater is the water that drains from sinks, showers, washers, and toilets. Wastewater also includes water used for some outdoor purposes, such as draining chlorinated pool water, commercial car washes and industrial processes. Underground sanitary sewer pipelines carry sewage to a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), where it is treated, sanitized and discharged. The Wastewater Treatment Plant in the City of Williams uses a tertiary treatment to treat sewage.7 Wastewater Treatment demand management strategies include the following: • Sewer infiltration and inflow (I&I) control • Industrial pretreatment and recycling • Water conservation 7 City of Williams, Chuck Bergson, E-Mail: cbergson@cityofwilliams.org, May 28, 2013. 12 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Service providers can reduce infiltration and inflow with capital improvements, such as pipeline rehabilitation, manhole cover replacement, and root eradication. They can also address sources on private property, such as broken service lines, uncapped cleanouts and exterior drains, through public education, incentives, and regulatory strategies. Communities use various techniques to prohibit discharge of unwanted pollutants or to reduce the quantity and strength of wastewater discharged to sewers. These techniques include the following: • Permit limitations on the strength and contaminant levels of industrial and commercial wastewater • Increased rates or surcharges on high-strength wastes • Incentives or requirements for water recycling and reuse within the industrial or commercial operation Water conservation measures are effective for reducing average wastewater flows, but have less impact on peak flows, which are usually strongly influenced by infiltration and inflow contributions. Water conservation has little or no impact on organic loading to the treatment plant. 2.7 Fire Protection Issues The following is a general discussion of five fire protection issues including Mutual Aid, Dispatch, Response Time, Staffing and Water Supply: 2.7.1 Mutual Aid Issues Most of the fire protection and EMS providers primarily serve their own jurisdictions. Given the critical need for rapid response, however, there are extensive mutual aid efforts that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Mutual aid refers to reciprocal service provided under a mutual aid agreement, a pre-arranged plan and contract between agencies for reciprocal assistance upon request by the first-response agency. In addition, the jurisdictions rely on automatic aid primarily for coverage of areas with street access limitations and freeways. Automatic aid refers to reciprocal service provided under an automatic aid agreement, a prearranged plan or contract between agencies for an automatic response for service with no need for a request to be made. 2.7.2 Fire and EMS Dispatch Issues Dispatch for fire and medical calls is increasingly becoming regionalized and specialized. This increased regionalization and specialization is motivated by the following factors: 1) Constituents increasingly expect emergency medical dispatching (EMD), which involves over-the-phone medical procedure instructions to the 911 caller and requires specialized staff. 2) Paramedics increasingly rely on EMD, which also involves preparing the paramedic en-route for the type of medical emergency and procedures. 3) Dispatch technology and protocols have become increasingly complex. 13 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 4) Modern technology has enabled better measurement and regulatory oversight of fire department (FD) response times, and increased pressure for FDs to meet response time guidelines. 5) FDs need standard communication protocols due to their reliance on mutual aid. 6) Dispatching of calls from cell phones is particularly inefficient due to multiple transfers, length of time the caller spends on hold and lack of location information. Response times are further delayed when callers that are unfamiliar with the area are unable to describe rural locations to the dispatch personnel. 7) All new cell phones are now equipped with GPS; however, it will take a few years for all old phones to be replaced by phones with GPS capability and/or construction of specialized cell phone towers. 8) NFPA recommends a 60-second standard for dispatch time, the time between the placement of the 911 call and the notification of the emergency responders. The Center for Public Safety Excellence recommends a 50-second benchmark for dispatch time. 9) There are clear economies of scale in providing modern fire and medical dispatch services. 2.7.3 Fire and EMS Response Time Issues Response times reflect the time elapsed between the dispatch of personnel and the arrival of the first responder on the scene. For fire and paramedic service, there are service standards relating to response times, dispatch times, staffing, and water flow. Particularly in cases involving patients who have stopped breathing or are suffering from heart attacks, the chances of survival improve when the patient receives medical care quickly. Similarly, a quick fire suppression response can potentially prevent a structure fire from reaching the “flashover” point at which very rapid fire spreading occurs—generally in less than 10 minutes.8 The guideline established by the National Fire Protection Association9 (NFPA) for fire response times is six minutes at least 90 percent of the time, with response time measured from the 911-call time to the arrival time of the first-responder at the scene.10 The fire response time guideline established by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International) is 5 minutes 50 seconds at least 90 percent of the time.11 8 NFPA Standard 1710, 2004. 9 The National Fire Protection Association is a non-profit association of fire chiefs, firefighters, manufacturers and consultants. 10 Guideline for a full structure fire is response within ten minutes by a 12-15 person response team at least 90 percent of the time. 11 Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000. 14 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 2.7.4 Fire Protection Staffing Issues For structure fires, NFPA recommends that the response team include 14 personnel—a commander, five water supply line operators, a two-person search and rescue team, a two-person ventilation team, a two-person initial rapid intervention crew, and two support people. The NFPA guidelines require fire departments to establish overall staffing levels to meet response time standards, and to consider the hazard to human life, firefighter safety, potential property loss, and the firefighting approach. NFPA recommends that each engine, ladder or truck company be staffed by four on- duty firefighters, and that at least four firefighters (two in and two out), each with protective clothing and respiratory protection, be on scene to initiate fire-fighting inside a structure. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard requires that when two firefighters enter a structure fire, two will remain on the outside to assist in rescue activities.12 For emergency medical response with advanced life support needs, NFPA recommends the response team include two paramedics and two basic-level emergency medical technicians. 2.7.5 Fire Protection Water Supply Issues For structure fires, NFPA recommends the availability of an uninterrupted water supply for 30 minutes with enough pressure to apply at least 400 gallons of water per minute. 2.8 Law Enforcement Overview The law enforcement overview will examine services, standards and crime clearance rates. 2.8.1 Law Enforcement Services Although patrol is the most visible Police Department service, law enforcement agencies may provide a host of other public safety services including the following ten services: • Dispatch service • Crime lab service • Bomb squad service • SWAT • Canine patrol assistance • Search and rescue teams • Temporary and long-term holding • Training services • Animal shelter services • Unique patrol services 12 United States, 29 CFR 1910.134. 15 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 These service areas will be described below. Patrol services can be provided by officers traveling by vehicle, bicycle, horse, boat, and helicopter or on foot. Dispatch services include receiving 911 calls and notifying response units through emergency communication systems. Police dispatchers typically answer 911 calls related to both police and fire emergencies. For fire and medical emergencies, some police dispatchers may directly perform the dispatching while others may route calls to a dispatch center specialized in handling fire and medical emergencies. Crime laboratories provide analysis of latent fingerprints, questioned documents, firearms, controlled substances, toxicology, trace evidence, and DNA, and may provide crime scene evidence-gathering services. While some crime laboratories provide all of these services, other laboratories may provide only limited, frequently-used services such as latent fingerprints analysis and photographic work. Bomb squad services typically are provided by explosives experts, bomb-sniffing dogs and their handlers. Experts are needed to identify and defuse explosives with the assistance of dogs trained to detect and locate different types of explosives. Special weapons and tactics (SWAT) services are special response teams that handle complex, high-risk crimes and confrontations. SWAT teams provide not only traditional counter-sniper services, but also respond to hostage taking, barricaded suspects, and terrorist acts. SWAT teams may also serve high-risk warrants and protect dignitaries. SWAT team members are typically trained in special weapons as well as verbal tactics. Trained hostage negotiators are frequently an integral component of SWAT teams. Canine (K-9) units may be specially oriented toward drug detection, bomb detection, finding missing persons, or protecting police officers. Search and rescue services involve finding people who may be missing, lost, buried by debris, or trapped in dangerous situations on trails or cliffs. Search and rescue teams are typically coordinated by law enforcement agencies in collaboration with fire departments. Temporary holding services involve pre-arraignment incarceration of arrestees, and typically involve jailing for less than 72 hours. Long-term holding services involve incarceration of arraigned suspects. Most law enforcement agencies have some type of temporary holding facilities, but few have long-term facilities. Animal control services are often provided by law enforcement agencies and may involve capturing, sheltering and disposing of unclaimed animals. 16 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 2.8.2 Law Enforcement Standards The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) is a national organization that functions as an independent accrediting authority. Law enforcement agencies may voluntarily choose to apply for CALEA accreditation. CALEA offers an accreditation program as well as a law enforcement recognition program in which the agency is required to meet a more modest list of standards. CALEA law enforcement accreditation does not require the law enforcement agency to meet specific benchmarks in terms of response time, staffing levels or crime clearance rates. CALEA accreditation requires the police service provider to pass inspection and to meet dozens of requirements such as annual documented performance evaluation of each employee, investigation of all complaints against the agency and its employees, and annual review of allocation and distribution of personnel. The California Peace Officers Association (CPOA) has developed sample law enforcement agency policies on use of force, use of safety belts, review of complaints about personnel, fitness for duty evaluations, and law enforcement values. For example, the sample policy on conducting reviews states, “it should be standard practice for all law enforcement agencies to conduct comprehensive and thorough investigations into any allegation of misconduct or substandard service, whether such allegations are from citizen complaints or internally generated.” Hence, policies relating to ethics and evaluation standards are readily available to law enforcement agencies. The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) has developed standards for the testing and selection of police officer applicants as well as the training of police officers, dispatchers and detectives. 2.8.3 Crime Clearance Rates The effectiveness of a law enforcement agency can be gauged by many factors, including crime clearance rates or the proportion of crimes that are solved. There are no standards or guidelines on the proportion of crimes that should be cleared. 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. 2.9 Drainage Regulations Background Water pollution degrades surface waters, making them unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for all point-source pollution discharges of waste into California’s surface waters to prevent pollution and loss or impairment of beneficial uses 17 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 of waters, to prevent damage to or loss of aquatic species and habitat, and to prevent human health problems and water-borne diseases. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain a permit if their discharges go directly to surface waters. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal sewer system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit. The NPDES permit program is mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act and administered by the State of California. Storm water discharges are runoff from land and impervious areas such as paved streets, parking lots and building rooftops during rainfall and snow melt-off. These discharges often contain pollutants in quantities that could adversely affect water quality. Discharges of pollutants to storm water conveyance systems are significant sources of pollution to surface waters. Federal Law designates these discharges as point-source discharges subject to an NPDES permit. There are two types of storm water permits as follows: Individual storm water permit and General storm water permit. An individual permit is an NPDES permit specifically tailored to a single facility. A general permit is an NPDES permit that covers several facilities that have the same type of discharge. Drainage in the City of Williams is affected by the surrounding agricultural land uses. However, the exact impacts of agriculture on the City’s drainage are not known at this time.13 13 City of Williams, Chuck Bergson, E-Mail: cbergson@cityofwilliams.org, May 28, 2013. 18 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 3 CITY OF WILLIAMS 3.1 City Council 3.1.1. City Council Meetings City Council meetings are held on the third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 810 E Street.14 Other special study sessions or meetings are scheduled as needed. The Public is always invited and is encouraged to attend. Members of the public can call (530) 473-2955 for more information on City Council meetings. 3.1.2 City Council Members The members of the City of Williams City Council and the contact information are as follows: Councilmember John J. Troughton, Jr. Term Expires November 2016 P.O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 Voice: (530) 473-2955 Fax: (530) 473-2445 Email: svannucci@cityofwilliams.org Councilmember Kent Bowes Term Expires November 2016 P. O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 Voice: (530) 473-2955 Fax: (530) 473-2445 Councilmember Patricia Ash Term Expires November 2014 P. O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 Voice: (530) 473-2955 Fax: (530) 473-2445 Email: wccash@cityofwilliams.org Councilmember Angela Plachek-Fulcher Term Expires November 2014 P.O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 Voice: (530) 473-2955 Fax: (530) 473-2445 Email: wccfulcher@cityofwilliams.org Councilmember Alfred Sellers Jr. Term Expires November 2014 P.O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 Voice: (530) 473-2955 Fax: (530) 473-2445 Email: wccsellersjr@cityofwilliams.org 14 City of Williams, Chuck Bergson, E-Mail: cbergson@cityofwilliams.org, May 28, 2013. 19 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 3.1.3 City Council Budget The City Council Budget is shown on the following page. 20 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS *** CITY COUNCIL *** BUDGET 501 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2009 2010 201116 201217 201318 201419 Budget15 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Total Salaries $18,148 $18,148 $18,148 $23,669 $23,669 $23,669 Advertising 500 500 500 500 500 500 Insur./Bonds 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Legal Notices 500 500 500 500 500 500 Publication 500 500 500 500 500 500 Memberships 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Office Supplies 750 750 750 750 750 750 Contract Serv. 220,000 220,000 171,000 156,000 156,000 156,000 Postage 500 500 500 500 500 500 Prof. Service 20,000 20,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Special Expen. 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Conferences 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Econ. Devel* 65,000 65,000 0 Special Event 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Abatement ** 50,000 50,000 0 Subtotal $402,750 $402,750 $223,750 $208,750 $208,750 $208,750 TOTAL $420,898 $420,898 $241,898 $232,419 $232,419 $232,419 *$65,000 for Economic Development is designated in Fund Balance Reserve. ** $50,000 of Abatement Fund is designated in Fund Balance Reserve. The Council budget has been reduced since 2008-2009 but can probably not be substantially reduced further. The Council has included $6,000 for “Special Expenses” each year; however, it would be better if it could be stated clearly what this money is for. Conferences may seem like an unnecessary expense to the average person but they can be valuable to the City in many ways. Attendance at conferences can help to educate the Council members. Often they may learn of changes that need to be made that will save the City money. 3.2 City Departments 3.2.1. Administration Administration helps facilitate the development and implementation of City organizational and community goals, policies, and objectives.20 The City facilities consist of City Hall, Sacramento Valley Museum building and associated facilities including the Old Gym and Venice Park facilities, the new Police Station, Corporation Yard and the Waste Water Treatment Plant. 21 15 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 16 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 17 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 18 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 19 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 20 City of Williams, http://www.cityofwilliams.org/city-administrator/index.htm, September 25, 2012. 21 City of Williams, Chuck Bergson, E-Mail: cbergson@cityofwilliams.org, May 28, 2013. 21 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Contact information for the City Administrator is as follows: City of Williams, City Administrator Charles Bergson P.O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 (530) 473-2955 voice (530) 473-2445 fax cbergson@cityofwilliams.org The Budget for the City Administration Department is shown below: CITY OF WILLIAMS ***ADMINISTRATION *** BUDGET 503 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2009 2010 2011 201224 201325 201426 Budget22 Budget Budget23 Budget Budget Budget Total Personnel $122,085 $122,085 $54,957 $37,711 $39,597 $40,785 Telecommunication 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Insurance/Bonds 175 175 7,953 5,320 5,320 5,320 Office Supplies 500 500 500 500 500 500 Postage/Freight 200 200 200 200 200 200 Prof. Services 10,000 Conferences 500 500 500 500 500 500 Phone/radios 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 Subtotal $15,675 $5,675 $13,453 $10,820 $10,820 $10,820 TOTAL $137,760 $127,760 $68,410 $48,531 $50,417 $51,605 An effective City Administrator is essential for every city. As with any administrative function, the personnel cost is the major expense and pay in the City of Williams is not competitive with other cities. The City of Williams is fortunate to have a City Administrator that is familiar with the City’s infrastructure and what is needed to maintain all systems in working order. 3.2.2 Building The primary mission of the Building Department is to provide quality service to the community that is knowledgeable, efficient, comprehensive and helpful to the public. The intention is to safeguard life, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the construction, quality of materials, use of all buildings and structures within the City of Williams. The Department is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the uniform codes and related Federal, State, and City adopted laws and ordinances.27 22 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 23 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 24 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 25 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 26 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 27 City of Williams, http://www.cityofwilliams.org/building/index.htm, September 25, 2012. 22 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Contact information for the City of Williams Building Department is shown below: City of Williams, Building Department P.O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 (530) 473-2955 voice (530) 473-2445 fax building@cityofwilliams.org The Building Department works closely with the Planning Department. The budget for the City of Williams Building Department is shown below: CITY OF WILLIAMS **BUILDING DEPARTMENT** BUDGET 508 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 200928 2010 201129 201230 201331 201432 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Total Personnel $74,221 $79,758 $84,633 $90,150 $92,855 $95,641 General Expenses Telecommunication 500 500 500 500 500 500 Liability Ins. 6,779 6,140 6,140 6,140 Legal Notices 100 100 100 100 100 100 Memberships 150 150 500 500 500 500 Office Expense 300 300 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Contract Services 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Postage/Freight 100 100 100 100 100 100 Conferences 700 700 1,500 1,000 1,000 1,000 Phones/Radios 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Subtotal 2,850 3,850 11,579 11,840 11,840 11,840 Repair/Vehicles 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Equipment $3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 TOTAL $78,071 $84,608 $101,112 $105,990 $108,695 $111,481 The Building Department does take in some fees to offset expenses. The main expense is for personnel. 3.2.3 Building and Grounds Department The Building and Grounds Department performs the following functions: • Maintains all City buildings and facilities (including parks) • Provides custodial service to all City owned buildings. • Maintains and repairs the City's building maintenance for electrical systems in City buildings. The budget for the Building and Grounds Department is shown below: 28 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 29 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 30 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 31 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 32 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 23 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS * BUILDING AND GROUNDS DEPARTMENT * BUDGET 512 Expenses 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- BUILDING AND 200933 2010 201134 201235 201336 201437 GROUNDS Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Total Personnel $99,616 $103,637 $62,796 * * * Insurance/ Bonds $4,463 6,200 6,200 6,200 Memberships $600 $600 600 600 600 600 Office Expense 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Contract. Serv. 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Prof. Services 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Safety Equipment 500 500 500 500 500 500 Small Tools 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Staff Develop. 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Conferences 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Phone/Radios 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Utilities 35,000 35,000 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 Supplies 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Uniforms 250 250 250 250 250 250 Rental 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Repair Vehicles 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Repair Equipment 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Repair Structural 75,000 75,000 56,792 46,792 46,792 46,972 Machine/Equip 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Improvements Subtotal $215,349 $215,349 $219,105 210,842 210,842 210,842 TOTAL $314,965 $318,987 $281,901 $210,842 $210,842 $210,842 * Personnel cost is shown as offset and the cost is not included in the total budget. The Buildings and Grounds budget is a necessary governmental expense. Well- maintained public buildings and grounds can add to the ambiance of a City and attract tourists and new businesses. 3.2.4 City Clerk The City Clerk is an office required by the State Law and the expenses shown are not unreasonable. The primary program expenditure explanations as shown in the budget are duplication and distribution of required City Council Agendas and associated staff reports; publication of required public notices and hearings; and continued education and training. 33 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 34 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 35 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 36 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 37 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 24 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Contact information for the City Clerk is shown below: City of Williams Deputy City Clerk Susan L. Vannucci P.O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 Voice: (530) 473-2955 Fax: (530) 473-2445 Email: svannucci@cityofwilliams.org The Budget for the City Clerk is shown below: CITY OF WILLIAMS *** CITY CLERK *** BUDGET 502 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2009 2010 2011 201240 201341 201442 Budget38 Budget Budget39 Budget Budget Budget Personnel $11,865 $11,865 $48,974 $66,447 $68,440 $70,493 Telecommunication $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Insurance/ Bonds 200 200 4,790 3,040 3,040 3,040 Legal Notices 500 500 500 500 500 500 Publication Costs 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Memberships 500 500 500 500 500 500 Office Expense 500 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Contract.Services 500 500 500 500 500 500 Postage/Freight 100 100 100 100 100 100 Conferences 1,500 1,500 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Phones/Radios 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Subtotal $13,300 $13,300 $20,890 $19,140 $19,140 $19,140 TOTAL $25,165 $25,165 $69,864 $85,587 $87,580 $89,633 As is typical with most governmental expenses, the primary cost is personnel. The City Clerk may be the first or only contact many people have with the City of Williams so a competent person in this position is important to the City. 3.2.5 Finance Department43 The City's Finance Department maintains the accounting records for the City. This Department provides support services to all city departments and maintains financial records and preparation of reports in compliance with the Internal Revenue Service, Franchise Tax Board, State Board of Equalization, and other governmental agencies. The Basic Financial Statement details the City’s financial activity and position, which is audited by an independent firm of Certified Public Accountants. The report is the culmination of the City’s fiscal year financial activity; this report is also available at the City Clerk’s Office and the Finance Department at City Hall. 38 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 39 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 40 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 41 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 42 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 43 City of Williams, http://www.cityofwilliams.org/finance/index.htm, September 25, 2012. 25 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Additionally, the Department is instrumental in the compilation of the City of Williams Budget. The Budget establishes management's fiscal plan for the City and is the control tool employed and referenced throughout the period by City staff. The services, programs, revenues and expenses contained in the Budget reflect the methods and use of resources through which staff intends to accomplish the goals, objectives set by the City Council. The Finance Department is responsible for the following six functions as described below: 1. Auditing The purpose of Auditing is to identify business in Williams that have not obtained the required license or reported TOT taxes and verify businesses have accurately reported gross receipts and/or lodging occupancies when paying fees and taxes. Business’ selected for audit will be required to provided financial statements, tax returns, lease agreements, or other information provided to the federal, state, any person, corporation, company, or other group or organization which relate to the calculations, collection or remittance of business information relating to gross receipts and lodging occupancy. All fore mentioned records shall be subject to auditing by the City Finance Officer. Based on the information provided, the City will verify both business license and TOT taxes paid and due the City. If required to substantiate discrepancies in reported figures the City will retain copies of any audited records. The Finance Department will bill businesses for unpaid business license and TOT taxes, penalties, and interest as provided for in Williams Municipal Code. 2. Investment Management Investment Management means that the city's investment portfolio is managed in accordance with adopted policies and plans, including preparing cash flow projections, coordinating broker/dealer services, identifying appropriate investment vehicles and timeframes, and allocating interest earnings among funds in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 3. Disbursements The Disbursement section processes the City's vender applications, accounts payable and maintains vendor files and issues checks to vendors; files annual reports required by regulatory agencies; reviews internal controls and ensures department adherence to established payable procedures. 4. Revenues The Revenue section processes and verifies accuracy of information pertaining to the organization-wide accounts receivable system, including utility billing, transient occupancy tax, and business licenses; reviews internal controls and ensures department adherence to established revenue procedures. 5. Payroll The Payroll section processes the city's employee payroll; files monthly and annual reports with taxing authorities and regulatory agencies; coordinates employee benefit coverage and reports; processes payments for insurance benefits and withheld taxes; and provides payroll statistics to various departments and agencies. 26 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 6. Risk Management The Risk Management section seeks to establish and maintain internal fiscal and policy controls to avert risk to the organization and employees, including ensuring city assets are protected from loss, theft, and misuse and protecting employees from mistreatment. This includes the desire to reduce city losses from liability claims, lawsuits, and property damage. Risk management seeks to foster a safe and ergonomically sound workplace environment to minimize injuries to employees resulting in lowering workers' compensation costs. Contact information for the Finance Department is shown below: Finance Department, P.O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 Voice: (530) 473-5380 Fax: (530) 473-2189 Email: finance@cityofwilliams.org Email: payables@cityofwilliams.org Email: billing@cityofwilliams.org The Finance Department also functions as the Human Resources Department and is responsible for the City's recruitment and selection process, labor relations, affirmative action, health plan administration, maintenance of employee records, risk management efforts, and employee training and development. The Human Resources Department manages the following three functions: 1. Risk Management for Employees The Risk Management for Employees section within the HR department is responsible for creating a safe work environment for employees and a safe City for its citizens by administering safety training and OSHA mandated programs, assuring safe and healthy work environments, administering liability insurance programs, and responding to citizen and employee safety concerns. 2. Recruitment The HR staff works closely with departments to assess departmental staffing needs and coordinates the applications, testing and selection process to recruit the most qualified candidate. Recruitment also serves as a liaison between candidates and departments. 3. Benefits The Benefits section staff acts as a resource for a wide variety of services including traditional health and welfare benefits, deferred compensation and COBRA administration. The Benefits section also oversees leaves of absences including FMLA and military leave, health enrollment and changes, and process all payroll transactions including, W-4 form changes and promotions. Contact information for the Human Resources Department is as follows: City of Williams, P.O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 (530) 473-2955 Recruitment (530) 473-2982 Risk Management (530) 473-2445 Fax The budget for the Finance Department is shown below: 27 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS * FINANCE DEPARTMENT * BUDGET 504 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 200944 2010 201145 201246 201347 201448 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Total $149,790 $84,001 $60,604 57,177 60,036 61,837 Personnel Telecommunication 3,600 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 Insurance/Bond 126,000 128,300 9,864 4,560 4,560 4,560 Legal Notices 250 250 250 250 250 Property Ins. 5,956 6,135 6,319 6,319 Memberships 300 550 300 300 300 300 Office Expense 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Contract 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,210 7,426 7,426 Services Postage/Freight 950 950 950 950 950 950 Professional 6,000 6,000 28,500 31,000 33,500 34,500 Staff Devel. 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Conferences 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Phones/Radios 1,200 1,200 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Interest 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Recruit Costs 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Rep.Main.Equip 500 500 500 500 500 500 Subtotal $166,300 $168,800 $79,620 $77,205 $801,05 $81,105 TOTAL $316,090 $252,801 $140,224 $134,382 $140,141 $142,942 As with most of the governmental functions within the City, the main expense in the Finance Department is personnel. The City is fortunate to have capable personnel in all departments. The Human Resources work helps to keep a stable and productive workforce. The finances of the City as a whole are shown later in this report as a discussion of the report from the independent auditor. 3.2.6 Fire Department The City of Williams cooperates with the Williams Rural Fire Protection District to provide joint fire protection services through the Williams Fire Protection Authority. It is the mission of the Williams Fire Protection Authority to serve and protect the citizens of the City of Williams and the Williams Fire Protection District from all disasters, natural or man-made. To respond to all calls at all hours of the day and night with the highest professional level of service. 44 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 45 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 46 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 47 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 48 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 28 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Contact information for the Williams Fire Protection Authority is shown below: Williams Fire Protection Authority, P.O. Box 755, Williams CA 95987 Williams Fire Protection Authority, 810 E street, Williams CA 95987 (530) 473-2269 voice The General Plan describes the Williams Fire Protection Authority as follows: 49 The authority is managed by a full-time Fire Chief and a five person board, which includes two City Council members, two rural fire district board members, and one volunteer firefighter. The staffing includes four full-time firefighters, a two-third time administrative assistant, and 41 volunteer firefighters. The full-time firefighters work two days on and six days off, with one firefighter at the main station for each 24-hour period. All full-time staff and volunteers are trained as Firefighter I and First Responder (basic life support), which includes wild land, structural, confined space (12 rescue technicians), extraction, and basic hazardous materials fire training. There is no hazardous materials team within Colusa County, which draws on the master mutual aid system for any hazardous materials incidents. The authority operates from a single fire station located at 810 E Street, with plans for a future substation on the east side of I-5. In the most recent complete year (2009), the response to calls totaled 621 incidents. These incidents were distributed to include 56 percent for medical calls, 26.6 percent fire calls, and 17.4 percent for other purposes. Of the 621 calls there were 4,991 total responses, meaning that an average of eight firefighters responded to each call. The calls are reasonably distributed across each month, with a low of 36 calls in February and a high of 70 calls in October. As to the hours devoted to different tasks, there were a total of 4,253 response hours, which included 59 percent of firefighter’s time devoted to medical calls, followed by 40.5 percent for fires and 9.5 percent for other purposes. In addition, there were 3,715 hours committed to training, which averages approximately 82.5 hours per full-time and volunteer firefighter. The City’s water system currently has three production wells (numbers 8, 9 and 10) that can produce 2,750 gallons a minute. The City also maintains two emergency standby wells (numbers 3 and 6) that can produce an additional 1,100 gallons a minute for fire standby. The Williams Fire Protection Authority has an ISO rating of 4 in the City of Williams and 6 out to a distance of 5 miles from the fire station in Williams and a 10 beyond 5 miles from the fire station in Williams.50 There are 225 fire hydrants within the City of Williams with an average fire flow of 680 gpm.51 49 City of Williams 2010 General Plan, May 2012, Pages 2.32 and 2.33. 50 Colusa LAFCO, HEARING DRAFT COLUSA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS SPHERES OF INFLUENCE DECEMBER 8, 2011. 51 City of Williams, Greg Endeman, gendeman@cityofwilliams.org, December 3, 2012. 29 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 The JPA has implemented a plan is to have ten vehicles as follows: Williams Fire Protection Authority Equipment Year Manufacture Type Capacity 2011 Ferrara Heavy Rescue ( Delivery November 2011) 2007 Ferrara 77 foot Ladder Truck 2000 GPM 2007 Chevrolet Suburban Command Vehicle 2006 Ferrara Type 2 Engine 750 GPM 2006 Burtons Water Tender 3000 Gallon 500 GPM 2005 Ferrara Type 3 Engine 250 GPM 2005 Ferrara Type 1 Engine 1250 GPM 2001 Ford F150 Command Vehicle 1997 3-D Type 1 Engine 1250 GPM 1976 Vanpelt Water Tender 1800 Gallons 150 GPM (Out Of Service) The City contributes the following funds to the Williams Fire Protection Authority: City of Williams Fire Services Budget 506 2009-2010 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- Budget 201152 201253 201354 201455 Budget Budget Budget Budget Services/Supplies Contractual Services $155,000 $34,880 24,333 28,998 29,578 Transfer to Local 12,520 135,667 129,437 134,000 Sales Tax Est. TOT 57,612 58,752 58,752 60,317 62,156 Apportionment General Fund $212,612 $218,752 218,752 218,752 225,704 Contribution Other Contributions Proposition 172 7,050 7,000 7,000 7,000 Water for Fire District 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 Sewer for Fire 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 District Other funds $27,050 27,000 27,000 27,000 contribution Total contribution $212,612 $245,802 245,752 245,752 252,704 to WFPA It is important for the City to provide fire protection services for the residents. The City has been proactive to work with the Williams Rural Fire Protection District and form the Williams Fire Protection Authority. The joint effort works well for both the City and rural residents and is a benefit to the community. 52 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 53 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 54 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 55 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 30 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 3.2.7 Parks and Recreation The Parks and Recreation Department oversees a system of parks, a municipal pool, and the Sacramento Valley Museum. City facilities accommodate a wide range of activities, including softball, soccer, volleyball, basketball, and tennis.56 Contact information for the Parks and Recreation Department is as follows: City of Williams, Parks & Recreation Division, Tim Miller P.O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 (530) 473-2955 voice (530) 473-3955 fax tmiller@cityofwilliams.org Park and recreation facilities in the City of Williams are as follows: Redinger Park (2.2 acres) 9th Street/G Street Playground, soccer field, picnic tables and benches, and restrooms.57 Venice Park (3.26 acres) Venice Boulevard between E Street and Westgate Drive Playground area, baseball field, horse shoe pits, picnic tables, lighted tennis courts, large open play area, and restrooms. Valley Vista Park (11 acres) Husted Road Six full-size basketball courts, walking/jogging trail, and nature pond area. Park "B" (7.72 acres) White Oak Drive Downtown Park (0.13 acres) 7th and and E Streets Park benches. Municipal Pool Located at the western end of D Street Amenities include a 105-foot long pool, diving board, slide, and restrooms. Williams Gymnasium 1491 E Street 3 Acre site Museum E Street / Venice Boulevard Offers regional exhibits and features items from the 19th and 20th centuries. North View Park (2.3 acres) Located at the northern end of Virginia Way Playgrounds, basketball court, soccer field, volleyball court, picnic tables and benches, barbeques, gazebo, dog run, and restrooms. Valley Ranch Playground (2 acres) White Oaks Drive / Sierra Oaks Drive Soccer fields, basketball courts, playground equipment, and restrooms. The Parks and Recreations budgets are shown below: 56 City of Williams 2010 General Plan, May 2012, Page 2.20. 57 City of Williams 2010 General Plan, May 2012, Pages 2.20, 2.21. 31 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS * PARKS DEPARTMENT * BUDGET 509 Expenses- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- PARKS 2009 2010 201159 201260 201361 201462 Budget58 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Personnel $105,989 $109,608 $87,229 $72,988 $75,908 $78,185 Ins./Bonds 6,187 8,510 8,510 8,510 Memberships 250 250 250 250 250 250 Contract Serv. 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Postage/Freight 500 500 500 500 500 500 Prof. Services 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Safety Equip. 500 500 500 500 500 500 Small Tools 500 500 500 500 500 500 Staff Devel. 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Conferences 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Phone/Radios 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Utilities 800 800 800 800 800 800 Supplies 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Uniforms 250 250 250 250 250 250 Rental Expense 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Repair/Maint. 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Vehicles Repair/Mainten 7,500 7,500 7,500 5,700 7,500 7,500 ance Equipment Machine/Equip 10,000 10,000 10,000 Improvements Capital/Equip. 10,000 10,000 10,000 Subtotal $67,800 $67,800 $73,987 $76,310 $76,310 $76,310 TOTAL PARKS $173,789 $177,408 $161,216 $149,298 $152,218 $154,495 Parks and recreation services can enhance property values within a city and also serve as crime prevention programs. 58 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 59 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 60 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 61 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 62 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 32 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 The City of Williams Recreation Department budget is shown below: CITY OF WILLIAMS * Recreation DEPARTMENT * BUDGET 510 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2009 2010 2011 201265 201366 201467 Budget63 Budget Budget64 Budget Budget Budget Expenses-Recreation Advertising/Promotional 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Publication Costs 50 50 50 50 50 50 Office Supplies 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Postage/Freight 500 500 500 500 500 500 Prof./Special Service 750 750 750 750 750 750 Small Tools 100 100 100 100 100 100 Special Depart. Exp. 250 250 250 250 250 250 Special Event Expense 500 500 500 500 500 500 Supplies 3,857 3,857 3,857 3,857 3,857 3,857 Uniform Purchases 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 TOTAL-Recreation $10,007 $10,007 $10,007 $10,007 $10,007 $10,007 The recreation budget is small because it only covers the recreation programs, not the facilities or personnel. CITY OF WILLIAMS * SWIMMING POOL DEPARTMENT * BUDGET 514 2008-2009 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- Budget68 2010 2011 201270 201371 201472 Budget Budget69 Budget Budget Budget Total Personnel $26,501 $26,501 $26,500 26,500 26,500 27,295 Advertising 500 500 500 500 500 500 Fees to County 500 500 500 500 500 500 Office Expense 150 150 150 150 150 150 Staff Development 750 750 750 750 750 750 Phone/Radios 650 650 650 650 650 650 Utilities 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 Chemicals/Testing 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15000 Supplies 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Uniform Purchases 950 950 950 950 950 950 Repair/ Equipment 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Subtotal $29,000 $29,000 $29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 TOTAL Expenses $55,501 $55,501 $55,500 55,500 55,500 56,295 63 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 64 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 65 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 66 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 67 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 68 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 69City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 70 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 71 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 72 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 33 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 The City of Williams has been fortunate to maintain the swimming pool as a recreational facility for the community. The swimming pool is a great complement to the rest of the recreation program. 3.2.8 Planning Department The Planning Department is responsible for overseeing and guiding development activities in the City of Williams. Major activities include administration of planning regulations, assistance to the public, processing City permit applications, conducting environmental review under CEQA and providing staff assistance to the Planning Commission and City Council on development related permits. The Planning Department strives to create a distinctive and livable community through quality design, good use of site development and building standards, and use of land and services. In doing so, the Department tries to provide everyone with professional and courteous service in a fair and timely manner. Contact information for the Planning Department is as follows: City of Williams Planning & Zoning Department, P.O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 (530) 473-5389 voice (530) 473-2445 fax E-Mail: planner@cityofwilliams.org The budget for the planning Department is shown below: CITY OF WILLIAMS * PLANNING DEPARTMENT * BUDGET 507 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 200973 2010 2011 201275 201376 201477 Budget Budget Budget74 Budget Budget Budget Personnel $60,727 $83,874 $58,849 65,666 68,949 71,017 Fees Colusa County $200 $200 400 400 400 400 Liability Ins./Bonds 4,753 3,040 3,040 3,040 Legal Notices 200 200 500 500 500 500 Publication Costs 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Memberships/Dues 200 200 200 200 200 200 Office Supplies 400 400 600 600 600 600 Contract Services* 300,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Postage/Freight 300 300 500 500 500 500 Conferences 500 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Phones/Radios 500 500 500 500 500 500 Subtotal $303,300 $3,300 $24,453 22,740 22,740 22,740 Equipment 3,000 500 500 500 Total Expenses $364,027 $87,174 $86,802 $91,906 $95,089 $97,257 *Contract Services were high when the City contracted with a consulting firm to prepare the General Plan. The Planning Department works closely with the Building Department. 73 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 74 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 75 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 76 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 77 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 34 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 3.2.9 Police Department Contact information for the City of Williams Police Department is as follows: City of Williams Police Department 700 North Street, Williams, CA 95987 (530) 473-2661 voice (530) 473-3488 fax E-Mail: info@williamspd.net The General Plan describes the Police Department as follows: 78 Police protection services within the City of Williams are handled by the City’s Police Department. The department is managed by the Police Chief, plus two sergeants and one detective. There are 10 sworn officers within the department and three non-sworn authorized positions. The non-sworn positions include a police services manager and two police services technicians; one for records and the other for code enforcement. All peace officers have an Advanced Certificate (minimum 40 hours of officer training) issued by the California Commission on Police Officer Standards & Training (POST). This certificate recognizes the officer’s achievement in education, training, and experience. The service area of the Department is the City limits, which is approximately 4.2 square miles. Outside of the City limits is patrolled by the Colusa County Sheriff’s Department. The California High Patrol is responsible for highway patrol along I-5. The City has an unwritten mutual aid agreement with Colusa County for patrol and response. The Police Headquarters is located at 700 North Street. This 5,400 square foot facility was constructed in 2008 with general fund dollars. It was designed to allow expansion as the City grows in the future. The building includes five offices, conference room, records storage, an interview room and audiovisual observation room, squad room, locker room, and an equipment armory. There are no holding cells onsite as all offenders are transported to the Colusa County Jail. The Colusa County Sherriff’s Department handles the City’s dispatch services. The Department is active in teaching Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E) and Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T) to the students of the Williams Unified School District. They also sponsor a bicycle rodeo for second and third graders, participate in health fairs, and conduct K-9 demonstrations. D.A.R.E. is a police officer-led series of classroom lessons that teaches children from kindergarten through 12th grade how to resist peer pressure and live productive drug and violence-free lives. 78 City of Williams 2010 General Plan, May 2012, Pages 2.33 and 2.34. 35 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 The G.R.E.A.T. Program is a school based, law enforcement officer instructed classroom curriculum. With prevention as its primary objective, the program is intended as an immunization again delinquency, youth violence, and gang membership. The City of Williams Police Department budget is shown below. CITY OF WILLIAMS ***POLICE DEPARTMENT *** BUDGET 505 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 200979 2010 201180 201281 201382 201483 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Personnel $1,069,418 1,052,081 1,120,252 1,170,282 1,298,472 1,340,427 Booking 3,500 3,500 0 105 105 105 Fees Communication 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Dispatch 77,000 77,000 77,000 77,000 77,000 77,000 Fees Insur./Bond 125 125 3,109 44,150 44,150 44,150 Legal Not. 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Publication 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Membership 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Office Exp. 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Contract 28,000 26,000 26,000 26,500 27,295 27,295 Serv. Postage 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Prof. Serv. 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Staff Devel. 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Conference 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Phone 20,000 20,000 20,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Spec. Exp. 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Supplies 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Evidence 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Proc. Uniform 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 K-9 Unit 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Subtotal $170,625 $168,625 $168,109 $204,755 $205,550 205,550 Rep. 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 Vehicles Repair 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Equip. Safety 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Equip. Total $1,279,543 $1,260,206 $1,327,861 $1,414,537 $1,543,522 $1,585,477 79 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June 11, 2008. 80 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012 81 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 82 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 83 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 36 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Police protection is an expensive but vital service for the City of Williams. The City is providing protection for travelers from I-5 as well as the residents. The 2012-13 and 2013-14 Budget states the following: While most departmental expenditures in the general fund remained relatively flat, the largest increase was in the Police Department whose FY2013 budget increased by $129,000, or 9.1% from the prior fiscal year. Most of this increase was attributed to the expiration of a police grant that had to be assumed starting in FY 2013. In FY 2013, it is important to note that an additional police officer is being budgeted but it is being offset by the three year School Resource Officer grant. Grant funding for this position will be fully utilized in FY2015. After which, funding for this position will have to be absorbed by the General Fund or other alternative sources. 84 The POST program ensures the Police Department's compliance with Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) mandates and guidelines. The objective is to accomplish the following: Achieve a 100% compliance rate of all POST mandated training.85 The City of Williams POST Budget is shown below: CITY OF WILLIAMS ***POST *** BUDGET 210 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 200986 2010 201187 201288 201389 201490 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget K-9 Program Staff Develop. Travel /Meeting $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 TOTAL $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 The primary program expenditure for the POST budget is the amounts expended to cover tuition and per diem expenses incurred for POST training courses. These amounts are reimbursed by POST monthly. The total amount expended and received varies depending on the specific courses attended.91 The Anti-Drug Abuse (ADA) Enforcement Program is also part of the Police Department.These funds are for the Anti-Drug Abuse (ADA) Enforcement Team Recovery Act program provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) of 2009. The focus of the ADA Enforcement Team Recovery Act Program is to ensure the multidisciplinary participation of one full-time Williams Police Officer in the Colusa County Drug Task Force for the duration of this grant. Program expenditures are limited to law enforcement staffing, and funding cannot supplant 84 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012, Page 1. 85 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012 86 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 87 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012 88 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 89 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 90 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 91 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012 37 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 existing funding for law enforcement provided by City. The budget for this program is shown below: CITY OF WILLIAMS * ANTI-DRUG ENFORCEMENT TEAM RECOVERY ACT PROGRAM* Police Department Grants Fund 240 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012-201394 2013-201495 2009 2010 2011 201293 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget92 Budget Salaries/ $70,968 $74,403 79,530 83,507 Benefits Total $70,968 $74,403 $79,530 $83,507 3.2.10 Public Works Department General The Public Works Department includes the water service, sewer service, street maintenance, storm drains sections which will be examined separately. The Contact information for the Public Works Department is as follows: City of Williams Public Works Department P.O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 (530) 473-2519 voice (530) 473-3498 fax E-Mail: pwd1@cityofwilliams.org CITY OF WILLIAMS ***PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT *** BUDGET 513 2011-201296 2012-201397 2013-201498 Budget Budget Budget Personnel 30,877 32,112 33,075 Insurance/Surety Bonds 6,170 6,170 6,170 Memberships 250 250 250 Office Supplies/Expense 2,000 2,000 2,000 Contractual Services 2,000 2,000 2,000 Postage/Freight 200 200 200 Professional/Spec.Services 6,762 6,762 6,762 Small Tools 1,000 1,000 1,000 Staff Development 3,000 3,000 3,000 Phones/Radios 6,500 6,500 6,500 Utilities 2,000 2,000 2,000 Supplies 2,000 2,000 2,000 Rental Expense 500 500 500 Subtotal 32,382 32,382 32,382 Repair Vehicle 8,500 8,500 8,500 Repair Equip 10,000 10,000 10,000 Safety Equipment 250 250 250 Subtotal 18,750 18,750 18,750 Equip. Purchase 12,000 12,000 12,000 TOTAL $94,009 $95,244 $96,207 92 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012 93 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 94 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 95 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 96 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 97 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 98 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 38 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Additional personnel costs are shown in the separate budgets shown below. 3.2.11 Public Works Department Water Service The General Plan describes the City of Williams Water Service as follows: 99 The City provides potable water to residences and business. The limits of service are mostly the same as the wastewater service, providing service to the developed portions of the City limits. The system includes a 100,000 gallon elevated water storage tank, together with three active and two standby groundwater wells. The three active wells include numbers 8, 9 and 10, which collectively pump approximately 2,800 gallons per minute (GPM). The two standby wells have a total pump capacity of 820 GPM, although they each have poor water quality and are not now permitted by the State Board of Public Health. The wells draw ground water from depths ranging from 120 feet to as deep as 500 feet. The source of groundwater is recharge from rain and runoff from the hills to the west. Each well pumps directly to the distribution system, which largely includes eight inch water lines. In 1995, a majority of the older four and six inch lines in the original town area were replaced, leaving a few remaining transite and cast iron four and six inch pipes. There are no plans at this time for replacement of these lines. The average annual water flow is about 400,000 gallons per day, which increases substantially to 1.2 to 1.5 million gallons on a peak day. The month of July is usually the peak month with around 36.5 million gallons pumped. The water system generally runs at 90 percent capacity. The existing elevated water storage tank has an ultrasonic level controller, which monitors the water level and controls the well pumps. As the community develops, an additional ground storage tank and booster pumps will be necessary, preferably measuring up to a 1 million gallon tank. The State Department of Public Health routinely inspects the water system. The City of Williams is in the process of preparing a Water Master Plan with HydroScience Engineers, Inc. The Draft has been prepared and notes that Well 3 (a standby well) will be plugged due to poor water quality. The City has historically abandoned wells with poor water quality rather than providing additional treatment.100 The City has one 100,000-gallon elevated storage tank located near Well 8. The tank was constructed in 1927, but was recently resurfaced. The 22-foot diameter elevated tank supplies 39-49 psi into the distribution system. The tank has an operating depth of 7.5 feet, which is an active operating storage volume of approximately 21,300 gallons.101 99 City of Williams 2010 General Plan, May 2012, Pages 2.25 and 2.26. 100 City of Williams, Draft Water Master Plan, September 26, 2012, Page 4 of 14. 101 City of Williams, Draft Water Master Plan, September 26, 2012, Page 6 of 14. 39 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 There are approximately 127,000 linear feet (LF) of distribution piping, ranging from 1- to 16-inches in diameter. Sixty-five percent of the piping is 8-inches in diameter, and less than one percent is smaller than 6-inches in diameter. The distribution system is located entirely within one pressure zone, which is geographically bisected by 1-5. There are two crossings of I-5 connecting the east and west portions of the distribution system: a 12 – inch diameter “southern” crossing and an 8-inch diameter “northern” crossing 102 The City of Williams Annual Water Quality Report is shown in Appendix C at the end of this report and is also available on the City’s website. The Report notes that the City has over twenty miles of water pipelines and in 2010 pumped a total of 256,546,000 gallons.103 The City of Williams water service rates are shown below. The City operates the water service as an enterprise fund or a business-type activity so the water rates are expected to pay for the entire cost of the water system. WATER RATES CITY OF WILLIAMS (Effective December 1 of Each Year) Fixed Rate Portion of Schedule This is the base rate that includes up to 5 hundred cubic feet of water per month. Previous Current Scheduled Increases Passed 2/20/2013 Year Rate Rates Customer Class Category 12/1/2011 12/1/2012 12/1/2013 12/1/2014 12/1/2015 5/8" - 3/4" Meter 201 $ 15.72 $ 16.67 $ 17.84 $ 19.09 $ 20.43 1" Meter 203 $ 25.91 $ 27.47 $ 29.40 $ 31.46 $ 33.67 1.5" Meter 205 $ 51.17 $ 54.24 $ 58.04 $ 62.11 $ 66.46 2" Meter 206 $ 81.59 $ 86.49 $ 92.55 $ 99.03 $ 105.96 3" Meter 207 $ 178.04 $ 188.72 $ 201.94 $ 216.08 $ 231.21 4" Meter 208 $ 304.76 $ 323.05 $ 345.67 $ 369.87 $ 395.77 Variable Consumption Rate Portion of Schedule This is the monthly expense calculated on every hundred cubic feet of water in excess of the 5 hundred cubic feet of water included with the base rates. Previous Current Scheduled Increases Passed 2/20/2013 Year Rate Rates Customer Class Category 12/1/2011 12/1/2012 12/1/2013 12/1/2014 12/1/2015 5/8" - 3/4" Meter 201 $ 1.37 $ 1.46 $ 1.57 $ 1.68 $ 1.80 1" Meter 203 $ 1.37 $ 1.46 $ 1.57 $ 1.68 $ 1.80 1.5" Meter 205 $ 1.37 $ 1.46 $ 1.57 $ 1.68 $ 1.80 2" Meter 206 $ 1.37 $ 1.46 $ 1.57 $ 1.68 $ 1.80 3" Meter 207 $ 1.37 $ 1.46 $ 1.57 $ 1.68 $ 1.80 4" Meter 208 $ 1.37 $ 1.46 $ 1.57 $ 1.68 $ 1.80 102 City of Williams, Draft Water Master Plan, September 26, 2012, Pages 6 and 7 of 14. 103 City of Williams Water Department, 2010 Annual Water Quality Report, PO Box 310, Williams, CA 95987, Phone: 530- 473-2519. 40 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 The Budget for the City of Williams Water Service is shown below: CITY OF WILLIAMS *** WATER SERVICE ENTERPRISE FUND*** BUDGET 270 (Public Works 601, Administration 500 and Fire District 506) 2008- 2009-2010 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2009104 Budget 2011105 2012106 2013107 2014108 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Personnel $253,883 $253,483 $395,485 292,790 304,502 313,637 Bad Debt Exp. 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,040 Telecommunication 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,650 Fees to State 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,240 Fee Colusa Co. 500 500 500 500 500 510 Insur./ Bonds 500 27,708 32,400 16,400 16,400 Property Insur. 1033 500 500 510 Litigat. Expen. 500 500 500 500 500 510 Memberships 500 500 500 500 500 510 Office Expense 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,040 Contract Serv. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,020 Postage/Freight 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,550 Prof/Spec.Serv. 30,000 30,000 30,000 10,000 10,000 10,200 Small Tools 1500 1,500 1,545 1,591 1,623 Staff Devel. 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,090 3,183 3,247 Conferences 500 500 500 515 530 541 Phones/Radios 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,575 2,652 2,705 Utilities 70,000 70,000 82,500 70,000 72,100 73,542 Chemicals/Test 18,000 18,000 28,725 29,587 30,474 31,083 Supplies 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,120 Uniforms 300 300 300 300 300 306 Rental Expen. 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,530 Fire Dist. Fee 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,140 Interest Expen. 29,861 29,861 29,861 29,861 29,861 30,458 Recruiting 1,000 1,000 1,000 1000 1,000 1020 Principal Payment 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,200 COP-BNY Principal Payment 5,335 5,335 5,335 5,335 5,335 5,442 01-023580-1 CAPMARK Principal Payment 2,534 2,534 2,534 2,533 2,534 2,585 01-023580-2 CAPMARK Repair/ Vehic. 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,100 Repair/ Equip. 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,670 Repair/ Struct. 130,000 130,000 23,983 24,000 24,000 24,480 Safety Equip. 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,530 Subtotal $355,530 $355,530 $308,479 Anticipated 100,000 100,000 80,000 Financing Total Water $609,413 $609,013 $703,964 $674,031 $672,962 $667,139 The City of Williams action to increase the water rates is good because it allows the City to keep the amount of money needed to maintain the water service in the budget. Water rate comparisons with other jurisdictions are shown in the following chapter of this 104 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 105 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 106 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 107 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 108 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 41 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 report. The City of Williams should emphasize water conservation. Water conservation measures are shown in Appendix D at the end of this report. 3.2.12 Public Works Department Wastewater Collection and Treatment The City of Williams Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is owned by the City of Williams as part of a municipal wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that provides sewerage service to residential and commercial users within the City of Williams, in Colusa County. The wastewater Collection System includes O.6 miles of force mains, 4 lift stations,109 23 miles of gravity sewers, and 15 miles of laterals. The City normally inspects 2 miles of sewer line per year. The City cleans 3.6 miles of sewer line per year.110 There are 1360 connections and the basic cost is $61.89.111 Wastewater from the City of Williams collection system flows into the WWTP and receives tertiary level treatment before it’s discharged to Salt Creek. The WWTP is designed to pump, screen, and equalize a peak flow rate of 4.5 MGD. The plant’s rated treatment capacity is based on an average day max month flow rate of 1.08 million gallons per day (MGD) and a peak flow rate of 2.32 MGD.112 The wastewater treatment plant parts and process are described by Stantec Consulting Services as follows: 113 Wastewater Treatment Plant Influent Pump Station The influent pump station receives raw sewage flow from the City of Williams collection system. The pumps lift the wastewater to the headworks primary influent screening channel. Wastewater Treatment Plant Headworks Flow from the influent pump station force main is metered and sampled prior to passing through the headworks primary channel and a mechanically-cleaned basket screen. Screenings are washed and compacted, and then discharged into a trash dumpster. A secondary bypass channel contains a manual bar-screen, for use during maintenance of the mechanical screen. After screening, flow in excess of the rated treatment capacity is automatically sent over a weir gate to the equalization basin. All remaining screened raw sewage is directed by gravity to a selector structure at the aeration basin. Wastewater Treatment Plant Flow Equalization A flow equalization basin is used to store screened wastewater ahead of the secondary treatment process to allow flow diversion above a high flow setpoint. The basin is filled when required to trim peak flow conditions. By equalizing the flow in excess of the peak flow setpoint, the secondary, 109 City of Williams, Greg Endeman, gendeman@cityofwilliams.org, October 2, 2012. 110 California Integrated Water Quality System Questionnaire, City of Williams, September 4, 2012. 111 City of Williams, Greg Endeman, gendeman@cityofwilliams.org, October 1, 2012. 112 City of Williams WWTP O&M Manual, Stantec Consulting Services, March 2012, Page 1. 113 City of Williams WWTP O&M Manual, Stantec Consulting Services, March 2012, Pages 2-5. 42 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 tertiary and disinfection processes can be kept stable with little fluctuation. Wastewater Treatment Plant Aeration Basin The aeration basin selector structure receives screened and equalized raw sewage and utilizes submerged mixers to reduce sludge bulking. Mixed liquor leaves the selector structure and enters the aeration basin by overflowing a weir. The aeration basin contains a floating air diffusion system spaced across its water surface. The system is designed to maintain desired dissolved oxygen levels and keep the mixed liquor suspended to promote the biological treatment. Air to the system is delivered by mechanical blowers and speed- controlled, via the SCADA system, based on the dissolved oxygen concentration in the basin. Flow leaves the aeration basin and is piped to the secondary clarifier. Wastewater Treatment Plant Secondary Clarifier The secondary clarifier processes mixed liquor from the aeration basin. The clarifier settles microorganisms, or sludge, from the mixed liquor to the bottom of the tank while clarified effluent, or supernatant, overflows the weirs and is piped to the filter feed pump station wetwell. The settled sludge at the bottom of the clarifier is piped to the RAS pump station wetwell. Any scum collected at the surface of the clarifier is routed back to the headworks or the belt filter press by the scum pump station. Wastewater Treatment Plant Filter Feed Pump Station The filter feed pump station pumps supernatant effluent from the secondary clarifier to the rapid mix and flocculation basins. The flow rate is metered and the turbidity is measured from this force main. Wastewater Treatment Plant RAS and WAS Pump Stations Most of the settled sludge collected in the secondary clarifier is returned to the headworks discharge channel as return activated sludge (RAS) by the RAS pumps, and mixed with incoming screened raw sewage. Waste activated sludge (WAS) is removed from the process and diverted to the belt filter press by the WAS pump station. Wastewater Treatment Plant Scum Pump Station The scum pump station typically pumps any scum collected in the secondary clarifier to the belt filter press. During maintenance of the solids handling facilities, scum can be returned to the headworks by adjusting associated isolation valves. Overflow is directed to the plant drain pump station. Wastewater Treatment Plant Drain Pump Station 43 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 The plant drain pump station collects overflow and drain flows from various plant processes and pumps these flows back to the headworks for further treatment. Wastewater Treatment Plant Coagulation and Flocculation The filter feed pump station feeds supernatant effluent, from the secondary clarifier to the rapid mix basin (at the filter structure) where a polymer coagulant can be added. Flow passes through the rapid mix basin into either the flocculation bypass channel or the baffled flocculation basins prior to filtration. Polymer flocculants can also be added in the flocculation basins. Wastewater Treatment Plant Tertiary Filtration Flow from the flocculation basins enter a filter influent channel, which is also used as the flocculation bypass channel, where it flows into two parallel filter trains. The cloth media disks in each tertiary filter system use a backwash system that removes any accumulated solids. The solids and backwash water are pumped back to the headworks in the same piping manifold as the plant drain pump station discharge pipe. Filtered water flows to the UV disinfection system. Wastewater Treatment Plant Chemical Feed System and Storage A 550 gallon tank stores the polymer that is pumped to the rapid mix or flocculation basins by a chemical metering pump when required to aid the filtration system. Chemical addition is necessary when turbidity at the output of the filter rises to a preset point. When this occurs, polymer is added and the rapid mixers are started. A second 1,000 gallon tank stores sodium hypochlorite (SHC) to feed a chemical metering pump. SHC is used to control bulking in the clarifier, biological growth in the sample feed lines, and to treat the plant water distribution system, as needed. Wastewater Treatment Plant UV Disinfection and Effluent Diversion Filtered effluent flows from the tertiary filters into the UV disinfection system. The UV system is controlled by an upstream flow meter and a transmittance sensor. Flow passes through two UV channels each containing four (4) UV banks where the wastewater is disinfected. Flow exits the UV system and typically passes through a re-aeration basin before being discharged into Salt Creek. Wastewater Treatment Plant Re-aeration A re-aeration basin receives treated effluent from the UV system and is designed to condition final effluent to meet dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations required by the NPDES permit. Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Handling WAS, scum and other solids removed from the treatment process are pumped to the solids building and dewatered by a 1.5 meter belt filter 44 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 press. Liquid separated by the press flows to the plant drainage system, while the solids may be either transported off site in portable bins or air dried on-site for later off-site disposal. Wastewater Treatment Plant Water System The plant water pump station pumps disinfected water through a hydropneumatic tank that feeds a utility water system used for maintenance wash down, as well as for other various utility purposes. The water can be chlorinated to reduce the biological growth in the distribution system. Wastewater Treatment Plant Potable Water System The potable water pump station pumps water into a bladder tank, from an onsite 1050-gallon storage tank, to meet various drinking and eyewash water demands. Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring and Sampling Stations Monitoring of the influent raw sewage and final effluent for permit compliance and process control is accomplished using automatic refrigerated composite samplers, one located just upstream of the headworks and the other downstream of UV system before re-aeration. Other sampling includes pH, DO, transmittance, and turbidity. Wastewater Treatment Plant Electrical Supply and Distribution Emergency power is supplied by a 730 KW standby diesel generator with automatic switching equipment upon interruption of the utility electrical supply. The generator is designed to provide power to critical processes during a power failure. During normal operation, electrical power is supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) through a 1200 Amp breaker. Wastewater Treatment Plant Instrumentation and SCADA Miscellaneous flow rate, depth, pH, DO and other process sensors are connected to a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system (SCADA) for use in monitoring and control of plant processes. This system is controlled and monitored via a computer terminal in the Administration building, and view node in the MCC (motor control center), to provide real-time status as well as the ability to change how wastewater is routed or regulated at key points in the treatment process. The sewer service rates for the City of Williams are shown below. Although the sewer service rates may seem high they are necessary to pay for the cost of the wastewater treatment required by the State. The wastewater collection and treatment service is funded totally by the fees because this considered a business-type activity rather than a government service. 45 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS SEWER SERVICE RATES Residential 2007- 2008- 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2008 2009 301- $36.39 $35.82 $42.98 $51.58 $61.89 $74.27 Residential 305- $36.39 $44.77 $53.73 $64.47 $77.37 $92.94 Residential OS 302- $104.56 $29.95 $35.94 $43.13 $51.76 $62.11 Apts/Duplexes “per acct”* $5.74 $6.89 $8.27 $9.93 $11.91 *Apartment & Duplex accounts would pay the flat rate per unit plus this smaller Flat rate per account Nonresidential 2007- 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2008 312-Mobile $104.56 $115.28 $138.34 $166.00 $199.20 $239.04 Home Parks 311- $104.56 $189.47 $227.37 $272.84 $327.41 $497.17 Commercial 314- $156.84 $239.76 $287.71 $345.25 $414.30 $497.17 Commercial 1.5X 313- $209.12 $453.72 $544.46 $653.35 $784.02 $940.83 Commercial 2.0X 316-Migrant $209.12 $2,962.66 $3,555.19 $4,266.23 $5,119.48 $6143.37 Housing Sewer Volume Rates Residential 2007- 2008- 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2008 2009 301- $1.02 $1.08 $1.29 $1.55 $1.86 $2.23 Residential 305- $1.02 $1.35 $1.62 $1.94 $2.33 $2.79 Residential OS 302- $0.96 $1.08 $1.29 $1.55 $1.86 $2.23 Apts/Duplexes Non-Residential 312-Mobile $0.96 $1.08 $1.29 $1.55 $1.86 $2.23 Home Parks 311- $0.96 $0.97 $1.17 $1.40 $1.68 $2.01 Commercial 314- 1.44 1.20 $1.44 $1.73 $2.08 $2.49 Commercial 1.5X 313- $1.92 $1.38 $1.65 $1.98 $2.38 $2.85 Commercial 2.0X 316-Migrant $1.92 $1.08 $1.29 $1.55 $1.86 $2.23 Housing The City of Williams budget for wastewater treatment is shown below: 46 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS *** SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND*** BUDGET 270 (Public Works 602, Administration 500) 2008- 2009-2010 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2009114 Budget 2011115 2012116 2013117 2014118 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Personnel $136,913 $136,701 $251,643 578,641 601,787 619,841 Bad Debt Exp. 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,550 Ccommunication 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,100 Fees to State 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,650 Fee Colusa Co. 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,040 Ins./ Bonds 15,819 10,060 21,860 21,860 Memberships 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,080 Office Exp. 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,550 Contract Serv. 240,000 240,000 240,000 100,000 100,000 102,000 Postage/ 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,550 Prof. Serv. 37,641 37,641 37,641 37,641 37,641 38,394 Small Tools 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,020 Staff Devel. 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,060 Conferences 750 750 750 750 750 765 Phones 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,570 Utilities 60,000 60,000 77,000 77000 77,000 78,540 Chem/Test 110,000 110,000 117,000 117000 117,000 119,340 Supplies 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,630 Uniform 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,785 Rental Exp. 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,550 Engineering 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,550 Finance Serv. 10,672 10,672 10,672 10,672 10,672 10,885 Financing 1,701 1,701 1,735 Admin. Principal 363,958 363,985 Payment WWTP-SRF Recruiting 500 500 500 500 500 500 Repair/Maint. Repair/Vehic. 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,080 Repair/ Equip. 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,080 Repair/ Struct. 13,470 13,470 13,470 13,470 13,470 13,739 Safety Equip. 500 500 500 500 500 510 Subtotal $529,966 $529,966 $569,803 $424,044 $799,809 $808,088 Total $666,879 $666,686 $821,446 $1,002,685 $1,401,596 $1,427,929 The Sewer budget includes appropriations for hiring two employees needed for the newly constructed Waste Water Treatment Plant.119 114 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 115 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 116 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 117 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 118 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 119 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012, Page 3. 47 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 The City of Williams did what was needed to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant. Without wastewater treatment the industries and businesses in Williams could not function and the homes would be devalued. 3.2.13 Public Works Department Streets The following are the main streets within the City of Williams: 120 Interstate 5 (I-5) is a four-lane freeway that extends throughout California from Mexico to the Oregon border, providing regional access to the City of Williams from Redding, Sacramento, and the San Francisco Bay Area. The facility has an ADT of approximately 60,000 vehicles. Within the City’s sphere of influence, I-5 has interchanges at Husted Road, E Street and SR 20. State Route 20 (SR 20) is a state highway facility that traverses in the east-west direction through central and northern California connecting Interstate Highway 5 with Interstate Highway 80. Regionally, SR 20 serves as an inter-regional auto and truck travel route that connects the Central Valley with the Cities of Williams, Marysville and Grass Valley, and Nevada City. Within the City’s sphere of influence, SR 20 is predominantly a two-lane arterial. E Street (SR Business 20) is a two-lane roadway that extends east and west from I-5, connecting with SR 20 and Old Highway 99 to the west and Husted Rd. to the east. The posted speed limit on E Street varies from 25 mph to 35 mph. E Street forms all way stop controlled intersections with 7th Street and 5th Street. The facility has half street improvements as it crosses I-5, without any bicycle lanes. Husted Road is a two-lane roadway that runs north/south and connects I- 5, Old Highway 99, E Street, and SR 20. The facility does not have designated bike-lanes and sidewalks. Old Highway 99 West is a two-lane north south Arterial that traverses parallel to I-5, and connects to it via the Husted Road interchange ramps. Old Highway 99 West traverses through a mixed use commercial and residential areas. This roadway is designated as 7th Street between B Street and Theatre Road. 9th Street is a two lane north-south collector which provides connectivity between central Williams and areas south of the City. The roadway is designated as Zumwalt Road south of Theater Road. 9th Street is stop controlled at the intersection with E Street. 12th Street is a two lane north-south residential collector that begins in the south as a cul-de-sac, and then extends north to E Street. The roadway is designated as Engram Road, south of Hankins Road. 120 City of Williams 2010 General Plan, May 2012, Pages 2.26 and 2.27. 48 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Freshwater Road is a two-lane collector facility that traverses in the east- west direction along the northern City Limits of Williams. Freshwater Road is stop controlled at the intersection with SR 20. Davis Road is a two lane north-south collector that extends from E Street to the north and extends south of Hankins Road changing the orientation to east/west direction before terminating on Zumwalt Road. This roadway serves as a primary access for the residences along the street. Hankins Road is a two lane east-west collector extends from Zumwalt Road to the east and changes its orientation to north-south beyond the City limit line. Crawford Road is a two lane east-west street and is split into two segments by I-5. This street extends up The Level of Service for all City roadways is LOS A. The City completed a Pavement Management Study in 2012 and found that overall the arterial streets are rated in “poor” condition and the collector streets are barely qualified to be rated as “good”. The Study also noted that nearly half of the City’s pavements are in the “poor” or “very poor” category. 121 The budget for the street service is shown on the following page. The Budget Discussion in the Budget for Fiscal Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 makes the following comments about the Streets Budget: The only fund that contains a negative balance is the Streets Fund. However, this is a capital fund and given that this negative balance has accrued over a period of years, it can be viewed as a “transitory” negative balance. This balance will dissipate over the next few years as street capital funds are allotted to the City from other agencies such as the County Transportation Commission, the State or Federal Highway Authority. The Streets Fund is the only fund with a deficit reserve projected at $180,000 at the end of FY2012. This deficit is expected to be paid down over the next few years. This fund is essentially a capital improvement fund and the funds that are placed in this account are received for payment of long term capital investments in City infrastructure. The City is allowed to spend future years’ allocations of Local Transportation Funding (LTF) and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP). In order to maximize the effectiveness of the limited funding available, a larger project will be done in one year and subsequently reimbursed with future years’ allocations. 122 121 City of Williams, Chuck Bergson, E-Mail: cbergson@cityofwilliams.org, May 28, 2013. 122 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012, Pages 2-3. 49 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS *** STREETS***Fund 290, Public Works 601 STREETS 2008- 2009- 2009- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2009123 2010 2010124 2012125 2013126 2014127 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Personnel Exp. $78,887 $77,609 $107,448 $114,741 $119,330 $122,910 LTF Projects $147,000 $147,000 $147,000 Telecommunications 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Insurance/ 8,859 8,859 6,080 Bonds Office Expense 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Contract 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Services Postage/Freight 250 250 250 250 250 250 Prof. Services 70,000 70,000 20,000 20,000 5,000 5,000 Small Tools 250 250 250 250 250 250 Staff Devel. 500 500 500 500 500 500 Conferences 500 500 500 500 500 500 Phones/Radios 250 250 250 250 250 250 Utilities 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 32,000 33,600 Supplies 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Uniforms 450 450 450 450 450 450 Rental Expense 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Striping 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Repair/Maint. Repair/ Vehicles 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 500 500 Repair/ Equip 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 500 500 Repair/ Struct. 470,000 170,000 5,000 5,000 Safety Equip. 250 250 250 250 250 250 Subtotal $733,457 $442,390 $222,309 $72,530 $59,950 $61,550 TOTAL $812,344 $519,918 $329,757 $187,271 $179,280 $184,460 Streets are like other public services because the public uses them without paying directly at the time of use. This means it is difficult for the public to understand the full cost of well-maintained streets. The well-maintained streets in Williams do contribute to the local economy because the travelers from I-5 would not want to stop in Williams if there were only dirt roads or streets full of dangerous pot-holes. 3.2.14 Traffic Safety Street Light Repair, Traffic Signal and Sign Safety includes maintenance of traffic markings (crosswalks, traffic lines, etc.) and signing (stop signs, no parking signs, etc) and all electronic traffic signal devices (radar signs, traffic signals, lighting, etc.). This fund shall be used exclusively for official traffic control devices, the maintenance thereof, 123 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 124 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 125 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 126 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 127 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 50 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 equipment and supplies for traffic law enforcement and traffic accident prevention. These funds may also be used for the maintenance, improvement, or construction of public streets, bridges, and culverts within the City. The objectives are to develop and maintain a citywide traffic plan, in coordination with the community and other City Departments, to reduce fatal and injury collisions.128 The budget for City of Williams Traffic Safety is shown below: CITY OF WILLIAMS *** TRAFFIC SAFETY*** BUDGET 350 TRAFFIC SAFETY 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2009129 2010 2011130 2012131 2013132 2014133 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Expenses-Traffic Safety Traffic Safety $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 Total Expense $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 Traffic Safety is a small budget within the overall City Budget but it is good to show it separately to increase public awareness of this valuable service. 3.2.15 Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District Right-of-Way and Landscape Maintenance for Local Assessment Districts includes the following: • removal of graffiti from public properties • maintenance of trees and lawns including inspections, trimming, removal and new planting • maintenance and repairs of concrete surfaces, street lighting, sidewalks, curbs and gutters • all street lighting Lighting Assessment District budget is shown below: 128 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 129 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 130 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 131 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 132 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 133 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 51 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS * LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT * LLAD FUND 280 LLAD Revenues 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2009134 2010 2011135 2012136 2013137 2014138 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET Budget Budget Budget Personnel Administration $3,898 $4,387 $4,509 $4,644 Public Works $27,335 $27,804 $39,182 $46,665 $48,065 $49,507 Worker’s comp. 273 Subtotal $27,335 $27,804 $45,811 $51,043 $52,574 $54,151 General Expen. Liability Ins./ Bonds $889 $3,385 $3,860 $3,860 $3,860 Legal Notices $500 500 500 500 500 500 Other Contr. Serv. 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 3,198 3,198 Prof./Spec. Serv. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Utilities 23,000 16,000 14,000 14,000 Supplies 4,000 4,000 4,000 3,500 5,500 5,500 Uniform Purchases 120 120 120 120 120 120 Repairs/ Maint. Repair/ Equipment 500 500 500 500 500 500 Repair/ Structural 10,764 10,809 9,004 9,948 9,302 9,302 Subtotal $19,884 $19,818 $43,509 $37,428 $37,980 $37,980 Total LLAD $47,219 $47,622 $89,320 $88,471 $90,554 $92,131 The Landscaping and Lighting District can only spend the amount of money brought in by the assessment. According to the 2012-13 and 2013-14 Budget The Landscape and Lighting Assessment District is projected to remain structurally balanced. However, revenue projections factor in continued annual cost of living adjustment (cola) increases which must be approved in an annual engineers report. Should an annual cola not be approved, the Lighting and Landscape District will need to be subsidized by the general fund or the level of service provided to the District will need to be reduced. 139 3.2.16 Public Works Department Storm Drains The City of Williams General Plan 2010 describes the City’s storm drains as follows: 140 The storm drainage infrastructure in the City is limited to overland sheet flow from southwest to northeast, roadside ditches, valley gutters, siphons, and surface drainage in the streets. There is very little 134 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 135 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 136 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 137 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 138 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 139 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012, Page 3. 140 City of Williams 2010 General Plan, May 2012, Pages 2.22 and 2.23. 52 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 underground storm drains for collecting and disposing storm water runoff. The only neighborhoods that are served by underground storm sewers are the most recent, including the development to the west and north of the school property (generally including Virginia Street, Nicolaus Drive, Brenda Way, Andrew Drive, and Celle Way), as well as the Valley West Neighborhood. There is also a storm sewer line extending southward to Morning Star Tomatoes. Other existing drainage infrastructure includes two detention basins, as described below and several existing drainage outfalls. 1. The Eastside Project Detention Basin is located within the Valley Ranch Neighborhood. It is a good example of a joint use project as it serves as a neighborhood park and walking trail for nearby residents. 2. The Nicolaus Estates Detention Basin is located on the west side of Virginia Street south of Nicolaus Street. This facility is dry- bottom and is fenced and gated. In November 2007, a Storm Drainage Master Plan was completed for the City. The master plan outlined recommended storm drainage facilities that will serve new development areas that are or are likely to be included in the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The purpose of this document is to address storm drainage facilities and necessary upgrades to accommodate storm runoff generated under fully developed (build-out) conditions. The assumptions of future land use that served as the basis of the master plan were provided by City staff. The master plan is intended as a guideline document to identify storm drainage facilities needed to serve future development and reduce flooding in existing developed areas. The 2007 Storm Drain Master Plan recommended the following five improvements to the storm drain system: 141 1) Detention basins (28 recommended) to store runoff in a manner that reduces peak flows that would otherwise exceed the capacity in downstream drainage channels. These detention basins must be accounted for in the future character and pattern of development. 2) Underground storm drain pipelines to serve new development areas. This recommendation should be considered in the context of the development character. For instance, rural and clustered suburban developments may be designed to have sufficient open space to accommodate their drainage without underground infrastructure. 141 City of Williams 2010 General Plan, May 2012, Page 2.23. 53 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 3) Open channels, which are proposed to be concrete-lined to convey storm runoff to or between detention basins. Depending on the character and scale of development it may be prudent to evaluate an alternative of dechannelization. Effectively, the same or more volume may be conveyed with broader channels. Given the open space ratios in the rural and clustered suburban districts this may be accomplished. These would serve as an amenity to the adjacent development rather than an unsightly utility structure. 4) Pump stations to assist in draining the detention basins where gravity flow is not possible due to the topography. 5) Use of existing outfalls with controlled outlets and discharge rates recognizing the limited capacity of downstream outfalls. In 2008, the City adopted an amendment to add a storm drainage fee for all new Development. This fee goes to a separate fund, to be used “solely for the construction or reimbursement for funds of local drainage within the local drainage area”. The Storm Drainage Master Plan includes an implementation strategy where new development will include installation of the drainage elements that are shown on the Plan. Those developments that do not encompass drainage features shown on the Plan may include 142 temporary onsite detention basins if feasible. In addition to the need for storm drains, part of the City is subject to flooding as is noted 143 in the General Plan as follows: The northern portion of the community is subject to flooding from Salt Creek. Flowing from west to east, Salt Creek is the most significant drainage feature in the study area. During storms and high water events the culverts beneath the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and north of SR 20 exceed capacity causing water to flow southward along the west side of the railroad tracks and inundating the area north of E Street. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reflect the areas of flooding to encompass the areas west of Brenda Way (north of E Street) and west of Davis Road (south of E Street), along the northern edge of North Street to Seventh Street where it follows the railroad as far south as I Street. On the east side of I-5 it follows the northern boundary of the East Side Main Drain of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) east to Husted Road and north toward SR 20. According to the Housing Element, the City plans to “apply for CDBG Funds to address infrastructure improvements for areas of the City constantly plagued by flooding.”144 142 City of Williams 2010 General Plan, May 2012, Page 5.3. 143 City of Williams 2010 General Plan, May 2012, Page 2.23. 144 City of Williams Housing Element 2010-2015, Page 21. 54 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 The budget for storm drain maintenance is shown below: CITY OF WILLIAMS *** STORM DRAINS*** BUDGET 515 STORM DRAINS BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2011- 2012- 2013- Expenses 2008- 2009- 2010- 2012147 2013148 2014149 2009145 2010 2011146 Budget Budget Budget Personnel $75,624 $49,759 $49,217 $28,380 $29,515 $30,400 Telecommunications $1,500 Fees Colusa County 500 $500 $500 500 500 500 Insurance/ Bonds 3,535 4,650 4650 4650 Legal Notices 500 500 500 500 500 500 Property Insurance 976 Memberships 250 Office Expense 2,000 Postage/Freight 1,000 Small Tools 750 Staff Development 1,500 Conferences 500 Phones/Radios 750 Utilities 500 500 500 500 500 500 Chemicals/Testing 2,000 Supplies 3,500 Uniform Purchases 500 Rental Expense 5,500 Strm Drain Recover 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Repair/ Vehicles 5,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Repair/ Equipment 2,000 500 500 500 500 500 Repair/ Structural 12,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Safety Equipment 500 Subtotal $40,750 $5,000 $29,511 $29,650 $29,650 $29,650 Total STORM DRAINS $116,374 $54,759 $78,728 $58,030 $59,165 $60,050 The Storm Drain section of the Public Works Department appears to be operating with a reduced personnel budget for a more efficient operation. The location and climate of Williams means that storm drains are always going to be needed. However, the Planning and Building departments should work to develop requirements that will reduce the amount of runoff. Things like pervious surfaces for driveways and parking lots, landscaping features and grading requirements can be required and installed with new construction to reduce the amount of run-off before it enters the storm drain system. 145 City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. 146 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 147 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 148 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 149 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 55 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 3.3 City of Williams Independent Audit 3.3.1 Audit Overview The Financial Highlights for the City of Williams as reported in the Audit for the year ended June 30, 2011 are as follows:150 The assets of the City exceeded liabilities by $17,926,230 (net assets). Of this amount, $3,316,594 (unrestricted net assets) may be used to meet the City’s ongoing obligations to its citizens, businesses, and creditors, $60,206 is restricted in a trust for water debt obligation, $2,017,689 is in the Community Development Block Grant Fund, and $1,450,030 is in the Development Fund (restricted net assets), and $11,081,711 is invested in capital assets, net of related debt. The City’s total net assets decreased by $361,422 during the fiscal year over the previous year. The General Fund unrestricted fund balance is $1,191,339, none of which is assigned for economic uncertainties or capital projects. 3.3.2 Net Asset Information According to the Audit, “The difference between assets and liabilities is one way to measure the City’s financial health.” The City’s net assets increased from $17,205,310 in 2010 to $17,953,978 in 2011 as is shown in the following table:151 CITY OF WILLIAMS NET ASSETS JUNE 30, 2011152 2010-2011 2009-2010 Current and other assets 7,783,138 9,872,388 Capital assets, net 28,379,126 15,987,748 Total assets $36,159,264 $25,860,136 Current and other liabilities 1,884,007 1,516,151 Long-term liabilities 16,349,027 7,138,675 Total liabilities $18,233,034 $8,654,826 NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 11,071,711 8,933,772 Restricted 3,527,925 3,790,360 Unrestricted 3,316,594 4,481,178 TOTAL NET ASSETS $17,926,230 $17,205,310 150 City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255-0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page 4. 151 City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255-0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page6. 152 City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255-0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page6. 56 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Unrestricted net assets are the portion of net assets that can be used to finance day-to- day operations. These funds are not assigned for any specific purchase and are governed by the City’s Ordinance, Investment Policy, legal requirements and City Restrictions established by the City Council. The following table shows the changes in net assets in various categories.153 CITY OF WILLIAMS CHANGES IN NET ASSETS JUNE 30, 2011154 2010-2011 2009-2010 Program revenues 2,387,555 2,183,426 Charges for services Operating grants General revenues Taxes 2,778,560 2,636,573 Subventions and grants 390,809 120,910 Other revenues 816,303 423,892 Transfer-internal activity 241,492 (12,979) Total Revenues 6,614,719 5,351,822 Operating Expenses 7,006,141 5,045,941 Change in net assets (391,422) 305,881 Net assets-July 1 17,205,310 16,899,429 Prior period adjustment 1,112,342 Net assets June 30 $17,926,230 $17,205,310 As shown above, the total net assets for the City of Williams have increased from 2009- 2010 to the audit year 2010-2011. 3.3.3 Budgetary Highlights in Audit The Audit compares actual revenue and expenses with 2010-2011 budgeted revenues and expenses and shows a variance of $29,343 as is shown below: 155 City of Williams Actual Expenses Compared with Budget June 30, 2011 2010-2011 2011-2012 Variance/ Budget Actual Final Budget Operating revenues 3,061,980 2,966,772 (95,208) Operating expenditures 3,172,999 2,893,563 279,436 Excess of revenue over (under) expenditures (111,019) 73,209 184,228 Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfer (18,964) (18,964) Capital Outlays (135,921) (135,921) Subtotal (154,885) (154,885) Net change in fund balance (111,019) (81,676) 29,343 153 City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255-0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page6. 154 City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255-0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page6. 155 City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255-0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page7. 57 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Even though the revenue was decreased from 2010-11 to 2011-12 the expenses were also decreased. 3.3.4 Capital Asset and Debt Administration The Audit shows that the City of Williams increased the net capital assets to $28,376,126 by June 30, 2011. According to the Audit, “The City has been successful in applying for and receiving grant funds. The City will continue to research and apply for grant opportunities to fund future water and sewer system improvements.” Capital Assets are shown below: City of Williams Capital Assets at Year-end June 30, 2011156 Balance Additions Balance 6/30/2010 6/30/2011 Capital Assets not depreciated Land 3,375,900 3,375,900 Capital Assets depreciated Buildings and improvements 24,547,291 569,163 25,116,454 Water System 3,103,476 115,810 3,219,286 Sewer System 7,311,389 12,658,702 19,970,091 Machinery & Equipment 539,851 24,902 564,753 Total Capital assets depreciated 35,502,007 13,368,577 48,870,584 Less accumulated depreciation (22,890,159) (980,199) (23,870,358) Net capital assets depreciated 12,611,848 12,388,378 25,000,226 Net Capital Assets $15,987,748 $12,388,378 $28,376,126 The City increased the capital assets as of June 30, 2011 primarily due to the extensive improvements to the wastewater treatment system. 3.3.5 Net Assets shown by Account Type The net assets shown above are shown below according to governmental activities and business-type activities. The business-type activities are the water and sewer systems. It is especially important that the business-type activities balance revenue from fees and expenses. 156 City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255-0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page7. 58 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 City of Williams Net Assets by Account type June 30, 2011157 Governmental Business-type Total Activities Activities (sewer/water) Assets Cash and cash equivalents 339,334 1,910,609 2,249,943 Receivables Accounts 709,249 1,089,991 1,799,240 Loans 1,719,330 1,719,330 Prepaid expenses 143,000 5,000 148,000 Restricted cash 1,806,419 60,206 1,866,625 Capital assets 29,057,107 23,189,377 52,246,484 Accumulated depreciation (21,077,986) (27,92,372) (23,870,358) Total Assets 12,696,453 23,462,811 36,159,264 Liabilities Accounts payable 302,181 1,022,331 1324,512 Long-term debt Due within one year 559,495 559,495 Due after one year 72,251 16,276,776 16,349,027 Total Liabilities 374,432 17,858,602 18,233,034 Net Assets Invested in capital assets 7,520,977 3,560,734 11,081,711 Restricted 3,467,719 60,206 3,527,925 Unrestricted 1,333,325 1,983,269 3,316,594 Total net assets 12,322,021 5,604,209 17,926,230 Total liabilities and net assets $12,696,453 $23,462,811 $36,159,264 The main liabilities are from the upgrade for the wastewater treatment plant. 3.3.6 Program Revenue and Expenses The table below shows Program Revenues and Expenses for the year ending June 30, 2011. This table shows that the government activities are funded by taxes and the water and sewer services are funded by fees. However, the water fees are slightly less than the expenses. This may indicate a need to increase the water fees. The government activities all cost more than the revenue generated. This is to be expected and is similar to other cities. It may be a concern that the net assets for the government activities were slightly less at the end of the year than at the beginning. The revenue from property taxes ($903,880) is less than the revenue from sales taxes ($943,508). This is something that most residents probably do not realize but it has been the fiscal reality for many cities in California since the passage of Proposition 13. 157 City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255-0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page 9. 59 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 City of Williams Revenue and Expenses June 30, 2011158 PROGRAM NET (EXPENSES) REVENUE REVENUES Functions/ Expenses Fees, Govern- Business – Total Programs Fines and mental type Charges Activities Activities for Service Governmental Activities General government 2,193,963 122,782 (2,071,181) (2,071,181) Public Safety 1,445,119 64,358 (1,380,761) (1,380,761) Streets 340605 59,313 (281,292) (281,292) Landscape/Lighting 59,147 (59,147) (59,147) Parks/recreation/museum 415,287 31,700 (383,587) (383,587) Storm Drains 65,695 38,743 (26,952) (26,952) Community Development 210,713 10,510 (200,203) (200,203) Public Utilities 155,086 233 (154,853) (154,853) Subtotal 4,885,615 327,639 (4,557,976) (4,557,976) Business-type Activities Water 806,716 659,187 (147,529) (147,529) Sewer 1,313,810 1,400,729 86,919 86,919 Subtotal 2,120,526 2,059,916 (60,610) (60,610) Total 7,006,141 2,387,555 (4,557,976) (60,610) (4,618,586) Government General Revenues Taxes Property 903,880 903,880 Sales 943,508 943,508 Occupancy 290,744 290,744 Franchise 171,838 171,838 Other 468,590 468,590 Subventions and grants 390,809 390,809 Investment earnings 5,327 3,715 9,042 Intergovernmental 256,432 256,432 Miscellaneous 550,829 550,829 Transfers-internal activity 241,492 241,492 Total general revenues and transfers 4,223,449 3,715 4,227,164 Change in net assets (3,345,270 (56,895) (391,422) Prior period adjustment 1,112,342 1,112,342 Net assets beginning of year 12,656,548 458762 17,205,310 Net assets end of year 12,322,021 5,604,209 17,926,230 158 City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255-0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page 10. 60 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 3.3.7 Cash and Investments According to the Audit cash and investments consisted of the following on June 30, 2011: City of Williams Cash and Investments June 30, 2011159 Checking-general account 1,849,165 Local Agency Investment Fund 2,205,972 Cash on hand 1,225 Cash and Cash equivalents 4,056,362 Cash-compensating account 60,206 Total Cash $4,116,568 Per Statement of Net Assets Cash and cash equivalents 2,449,943 Restricted cash 1,866,625 Total Cash $4,116,568 The type of investments allowed for local governments are limited. That is why the City has a large amount invested with the Local Agency Investment Fund which is operated by the State of California. The City also has a trust account held by Bank of New York Western Trust Company established as a lease payment for certificates of participation for the water fund. The balance is restricted by the terms of the loan agreement. Interest income is allocated based on the aggregate cash balance in each fund receiving interest. 3.3.8 Defined Benefit Pension Plan The City of Williams contributes to the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), an agent multiple-employer public employee defined benefit pension plan. PERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. PERS acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities with the State of California. Benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by State statute and city ordinance. Copies of PERS’ annual financial report and ten-year trend information may be obtained from their executive office: 400 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. The City of Williams cost for PERS in 2012-2011 was $246,432.160 3.3.9 Risk Management The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; error and omissions, and natural disasters. The City manages risk by participating in the public entity risk pools described below and by retaining certain risks. 159 City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255-0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page 22. 160 City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255-0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page 26. 61 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Small Cities Organized Risk Effort (SCORE) covers general liability up to $500,000 per occurrence and employer practices liability claims are covered through the Employment Risk Management Authority (ERMA) up to $1,000,000. The City has no deductible for general liability but is charged back through a retrospective adjustment up to $25,000 per occurrence. The City has a deductible or uninsured liability of up to $50,000 per claim for employer practices liability. One the City deductible is met, SCORE becomes responsible for payments of all claims up to the limit. The California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority (CJPRMA) provides coverage above SCORE to $40,000,000 per occurrence with a sub-limit of $6,000,000 for employment practices liability. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, the City incurred cost of $241,493 for coverage premiums including general liability, employment practices and administration of the risk pools.161 Although the City of Williams was part of SCORE for the year ended June 30, 2011; the City has changed to the Golden State Risk Management Authority (GSRMA) for 2012-13 and estimates a savings of $70,000.162 3.4 City of Williams Revenues The City of Williams will maintain revenue to fund the various departments and projects because the voters approved the extension of a half-cent sales tax just for Williams in November 2012. This represents a vote of confidence in the City and the City government. This is also a good way to get some tax revenue from the many visitors to the city from I-5. 3.5 City of Williams Capital Improvement Plan The City of Williams is in the process of preparing a Capital Improvement Program. The Draft Capital Improvement Program states the following:163 The purpose of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is to provide the City Council and the public with a comprehensive document which lists capital improvements to the city infrastructure such as buildings, parks, roads and bridges and water, sewer and storm drainage systems. Capital Improvements are major projects undertaken by the City that are generally not recurring. The CIP is a strategic planning tool, which focuses on City-owned infrastructure under the control of the City Council. The CIP summarizes the City’s overall capital projects and associated funding for the 5-year period from July 2013 through June 2018. The CIP is not a budget document but rather a planning tool to help with the allocation of limited resources to assist in directing/meeting the City’s needs in the budget process. 161 City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255-0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page 27. 162 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012, Page 2. 163 City of Williams, Draft 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) FY 12/13 to FY 16/17. 62 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 The list of projects is generated from infrastructure Master Plans and staff recommendations. The following criteria are used in developing and determining recommended priorities for CIP projects: 1. Public Safety 2. Regulatory Compliance 3. Deferred Maintenance 4. Costs The City of Williams has not yet developed a specific list of projects and costs for the Capital Improvement Program but the following are some of the projects under consideration:164 Transportation Transportation projects represent approximately 10% of the total project cost. These projects included reconstruction of A Street and safety Improvements along E Street. They include such improvements as installing AC pavement, installing curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches, handicap ramps and installing all required striping and signage. The transportation projects were identified through the Public Works Department and the public and are needed to improve public safety and to help convey the storm water along curbs and gutters to fix some of the city’s road flooding issues. Buildings Building project represent approximately 32% of the total program costs. City building projects are developed through the budget process, department requests and safety inspections. Projects are impacted by local, State and Federal requirements (including the Americans with Disabilities Act). Projects include rehabilitation of the Veterans Building to provide a Community Center for the City of Williams, City Hall rehabilitation, rehabilitating the City Museum (especially the staircase) and annexing a building to provide offices for City Hall employees at the corner of 6th and G Streets. The building upgrades will require new restrooms, interior rehabilitation, exterior rehabilitation and landscaping. The new building acquired by the City will require site plans and construction management. Parks Park project represent approximately 8% of the total program costs. Several parks are in need of rehabilitation and updating. The City would like to focus on Valley Ranch, Redinger and Venice Parks. The various improvements include a refurbished softball field, refurbished tennis courts and lighting, security lighting, horseshoe pits, walking path, ADA picnic tables and garbage cans. 164 City of Williams, Draft 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) FY 12/13 to FY 16/17. 63 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Utilities Utilities represent approximately 44% of the total program costs. The capital plans for water, electricity and sewer systems reflect system improvements and planning for future demands. Sewer lines on A Street are substandard or reversed sloped and do not drain as efficiently as they should. It is proposed these lines and manholes are replaced as required. Several well project include the following: increasing the water capacity by adding an additional well, fitting existing well sites with a manganese and iron filtration system to ensure that the public has a clean source of drinking water and recoating the water tower including placing a City of Williams logo on the water tower. The City will pursue installing a solar energy plant to offset electric costs. These projects help to meet Federal and State standards and to increase capacity. Maintenance Maintenance represents approximately 6% of the total program costs. Maintenance projects include developing and maintaining a bidders list, contractor’s list or vender’s catalog file for public works projects. This list would be used to complete projects under the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act. These contractors will be used to maintain the roadways whose cost and scope are beyond the capacity of the City forces. The City will also repair the IT infrastructure for the City of Williams. 64 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 4 COMPARISON OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICE RATES 4.1 Water Service Cost Comparison The following table is included to compare the cost of water rates from different districts. However, it is difficult to compare one district with another because the base rates include different amounts of water. Where the base amount of water is low, the average bill will almost always be higher than the base fee shown. COMPARISON OF DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE RATES District/County Number of Monthly Water Rate Connections (Base Rate) Arbuckle PUD/Colusa 792 (mostly unmetered)165 $15.00166 Artois CSD/Glenn 59 metered167 $39.00 (16,000 gallons) California Pines CSD/Modoc 131 metered (April 30 to $32.25.169 October 31) 168 Clear Creek CSD/Lassen 156 unmetered170 $27.00171 CSA 1 Century Ranch/Colusa 112 metered $39.22 (8,000 gallons)172 CSA 2 Stonyford/Colusa 91 metered $45.58 (10,000 gallons)173 Elk Creek CSD/Glenn 90 metered174 $44.00 (14,961 gallons) Maxwell PUD/Colusa 400 (meters, not read) $32.00 (unlimited)175 Lassen Co. Waterworks 1, 172 metered176 35.00 (40,000 gallons)177 Bieber/Lassen Little Valley CSD/Lassen 50 unmetered $23.00178 Westwood CSD/Lassen 765 metered $35.78 (30,000 gallons)179 City of Colusa/Colusa 2088 metered $21.76 (300 cubic feet*)180 City of Susanville/Lassen 4200 metered $23.65 (300 cubic feet*)181 City of Williams/Colusa 1360182 $16.67 (500 cubic feet)183 *(100 cubic feet of water = 748 gallons) 165 Arbuckle PUD, Small Water System 2011 Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for year Ending December 31, 2011. 166 Arbuckle PUD, Water Rates as of January 1, 2009. 167 Artois Community Services District, Jack Cavier, Jr., President, March 1, 2012. 168 California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 12, 2009. 169 California Pines CSD Service Rates Effective June 2006. 170 Clear Creek CSD, Pat Mudrich, Manager, August 22, 2012 171 Clear Creek CSD, Lassen LAFCO Questionnaire June 6, 2012. 172 Colusa County Ordinance No. 673, An Ordinance of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors Increasing water service Fees; authorizing administrative Fees; providing for the Collection of Delinquent Charges; and Directing That No New Water Hook-ups Be Permitted for County Service Area Number 1-Century Ranch, March 16, 2004., 173 Colusa County Ordinance No 674, An Ordinance of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors Increasing Water Service Fees; Authorizing Administrative Fees; Providing for the Collection of Delinquent charges; and Directing That No New Water Hook-ups be permitted for County Service Area Number 2-Stonyford, March 16, 2004. 174 Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, September 28, 2011 175 Maxwell PUD, Diana Mason, Phone 438-2505, August 8, 2012. 176 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Stephen Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294-5524, March 1, 2011. 177 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-2, An Ordinance amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for Water Service by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. 178 Little Valley CSD, Director Devora Kelley, March 19, 2012. 179 Westwood Community Services District, Resolution 2011-01, A resolution of the Westwood Community Services District Increasing Water Rates, June 6, 2011. 180 City of Colusa, Water Department, Phone 458-4740 Ex100, August 7, 2012. 181 City of Susanville, 530-252-5111, August 3, 2012. 182 City of Williams, Greg Endeman, Phone 530-723-2689, December 3, 2012 183 City of Williams, Greg Endeman, gendeman@cityofwilliams.org, February 2013. 65 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Areas that are served by the California Water Service (a public utility) usually have higher fees than those areas served by a government facility. For example, in the Willows area California Water Service charges $47.50 for the smallest meter size and 800 cubic feet of water.184 4.2 Water Service Pricing Strategy Prop 218 prohibits any formal subsidies that depart from cost-of-service principles. In other words, one customer class cannot pay more than its fair share of revenue requirements for the purpose of providing a subsidy to other customers. Informally, there are ways to design rate structures that benefit low income groups. For example, senior and low income customers tend to have smaller homes and yards that consume less water than higher income customers. Therefore, seniors and low income groups will benefit from: 1) Water rates that have lower fixed monthly charges 2) Water rates that include a lower minimum water consumption amount in the fixed charges 3) Water rates that have lower consumption rates for customers using less than the average amount of water185 To encourage water conservation it makes sense to charge for the number of gallons (or cubic feet) used in addition to the base rate because then the water bill always reflects consumption. There are water meters available that can be read electronically so the cost of a meter-reader can be eliminated. 4.3 Sewer Service Cost Comparison The following table shows sewer service rates in various places in northern California. It is difficult to compare the rates because some jurisdictions have had to install expensive upgrades to their wastewater treatment plants to meet the requirements of the State Water Quality Control Board. This is the case for the City of Williams. There are not as many comparisons as there are for water rates because not as many jurisdictions have wastewater treatment plants. 184 California Water Service Company, 1720 North First Street, San Jose, California, 95112, Phone: 408-367-8200, Schedule No. WL-1-R Willows Tariff Area, Effective 5/3/12. 185 Average or slightly less than average water consumption is a good gage for setting lower tier water rates for this purpose, since most low income customers use less than average amount of water. Seniors in particular tend to have smaller household sizes that would benefit from this approach. 66 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 COMPARISON OF DOMESTIC SEWER SERVICE RATES District/County Number of Monthly Sewer Service Rate Connections (Base Rate-Single Family Residential) Arbuckle PUD/Colusa 820 $15.00186 Lassen Co. Waterworks 172187 $25.00188 District 1(Bieber)/Lassen Maxwell PUD/Colusa 400 $48.00 plus $358.62/year189 Westwood CSD 781 $34.22190 City of Colusa/Colusa 2082 $65.77191 City of Willows/Glenn 2255 $40.19192 Susanville Sanitary 3747 $15.15193 District/Lassen City of Williams/Colusa 1360 $74.27194 186 Arbuckle PUD, PO Box 207, Arbuckle, CA 95912, Phone: (530) 476-2054, Fax: 530-476-2761, E-Mail: apud@frontiernet.net 187 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Stephen Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294-5524, March 1, 2011. 188 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-1, An Ordinance Amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for sewer services by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. 189 Maxwell PUD, Maxwell, CA, Diana Mason, Phone: 438-2505, August 7, 2012. 190 Westwood CSD, Susan Coffi, E-Mail: office@westwoodcsd.org, September 6, 2012. 191 City of Colusa, Water Department, Phone 458-4740 Ex100, September 12, 2012. 192 City of Willows, Skyler Lipski, Public Works Director, Phone: 530-934-7041, September 5, 2012. 193 Susanville Sanitary District, PO Box 162, Susanville, Ca 96130, Phone: 530-257-5685, Fax: 530-251-5328, September 11, 2012. 194 City of Williams, Greg Endeman, gendeman@cityofwilliams.org, October 1, 2012. 67 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 5 CITY OF WILLIAMS MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Colusa LAFCO is responsible for determining if an agency is reasonably capable of providing needed resources and basic infrastructure to serve areas within its boundaries and, later, within the Sphere of Influence. LAFCO will do the following: 1. Evaluate the present and long-term infrastructure demands and resources available to the City. 2. Analyze whether resources and services are, or will be, available at needed levels. 3. Determine whether orderly maintenance and expansion of such resources and services are planned to occur in line with increasing demands. The Final Municipal Service Review Guidelines prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research recommend issues relevant to the jurisdiction be addressed through written determinations called for in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. Determinations are provided for each of the six factors, based on the information provided in this Municipal Service Review. 5.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Williams Area Purpose: To evaluate service needs based on existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. 5.1.1 Williams Area Population Projections The history of past annexations to the City of Williams is shown in Appendix E at the end of this report. The Williams General Plan shows that Williams is becoming a population center within Colusa County as is shown in the following table: 195 Historic Growth for Williams and Colusa County Year Williams Colusa County Williams’ % of Population Population County Population 1970 1,571 12,430 12.64% 1980 1,658 12,791 12.96% 1990 2,297 16,275 14.11% 2000 3,670 18,804 19.52% 2009 5,287 21,997 24.04% 195 City of Williams 2010 General Plan, May 2012, Page 2.5. 68 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 The Williams General Plan states the following regarding the projected population for the 196 City of Williams in 2030: The methods of projection place Williams’ 2030 population in a range between 7,664 and 12,048 persons. Given the state of the economy and the well documented slowing of development activity, a mid-point estimate of 9,822 persons is considered reasonable as a basis of this General Plan. The year 2030 projected population of 9,822 for the City of Williams would be in increase of 4,535 residents or approximately 227 additional residents per year (if all years were equal). The average household size of owner occupied units was 3.62197 in 2010. If all new households were this size, the City would require an additional 86 new dwelling units per year. This seems like a fairly large number. Between 2000 and 2009 the City only increased by an average of 162 residents per year. The City of Williams population shown in the General Plan decreased to 5123 in 2010 according to the US Census Bureau. The estimate for 2011 was 5152 (an increase of 29 people).198 The 2010 Census reports that the vacancy rate for Williams was 2.1%.199 This is a fairly low vacancy rate so if the City grows at all new housing construction will be needed. The City of Williams Housing Element shows a total of 295.75 acres of vacant land which could accommodate 1,494 dwelling units.200 Even at the high rate of 86 units per year this would be a 17 year supply of vacant land within the City limits. 5.1.2 MSR Determinations on Growth and Population Projections for the Williams Area 1-1) The City of Williams General Plan predicts that the population of Williams will be 9,822 in 2030. 1-2) The City of Williams needs to continue economic development to balance job and population growth. 1-3) The City should establish requirements for future annexations and developments so that developers will pay their fair share of infrastructure development and maintenance costs 196 City of Williams 2010 General Plan, May 2012, Page 2.5. 197 http://www.zip-codes.com/city/ca-williams-2010-census.asp, September 25, 2012 198 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0685586.html, November 7, 2012 199 US Census Bureau, http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/10_5YR/DP04/1600000US0685586, November 9, 2012. 200 City of Williams Housing Element 2010-2015, Pages 64-65. 69 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 5.2 MSR Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) Purpose: To comply with the State Law to examine any unincorporated areas which could be provided with better services by annexing to an adjacent city. 5.2.1 Determination of Williams Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status In addition to a consideration of population growth, the State Law requires LAFCO to consider whether or not an area is a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC). A DUC is an area where the Median Household Income is less than 80% of the State of California Median Household Income of $60,833.201 Disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) are defined as “a territory that constitutes all or a portion of a ‘disadvantaged community’ including 12 or more registered voters or some other standard as determined by the commission.” In California Government Code Section 65302.30 (a) “Community” means an inhabited area within a city or county that is comprised of no less than 10 dwellings adjacent or in close proximity to one another. The City of Williams Median Household Income for 2010 was $43,185 which is less $48,666 (80% of the State Median Household Income). Therefore, the City of Williams is a Disadvantaged Community but it is an incorporated city. 5.2.2 MSR Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities near City of Williams 2-1) There are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities near the City of Williams which could be annexed to the City to receive better services. 2-2) Since the City of Williams has a relatively low Medium Household Income, the City should work to keep fees low. 5.3 Capacity and Infrastructure for City of Williams Purpose: To evaluate the infrastructure needs and deficiencies in terms of supply, capacity, condition of facilities and service quality. 5.3.1 City of Williams Infrastructure The City of Williams Infrastructure is described above in this report. 201 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0685586.html, November 7, 2012 70 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 5.3.2 MSR Determinations on Infrastructure for the City of Williams 3-1) City of Williams wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure has been recently upgraded and is adequate to meet future needs. 3-2) City of Williams water service infrastructure is adequate to meet the needs of the residents for water and for fire protection. 3-3) It would benefit both the water service and the wastewater treatment service for the City to emphasize water conservation with information in the bills and on the City’s website. 3-4) City of Williams has adequate parks and supports a community swimming pool and a museum as well. 3-5) City of Williams office buildings are adequate. 3-6) City of Williams participates in the Williams Fire Protection Authority to maintain adequate firefighting equipment. 3-7) City of Williams has the potential for drainage issues to cause problems but is working to resolve these problems. The City streets are mostly in poor 202 condition. 3-8) The City of Williams should work to minimize run-off through building and landscaping regulations as well as to manage run-off. 3-9) City of Williams has adequate streets, roads and traffic control facilities. 5.4 Financial Ability Purpose: To evaluate factors that affect the financing of needed improvements and to identify practices or opportunities that may help eliminate unnecessary costs without decreasing service levels. 5.4.1 Financial Considerations for City of Williams The City of Williams financial information is described above in this report. 202 City of Williams, Chuck Bergson, E-Mail: cbergson@cityofwilliams.org, May 28, 2013. 71 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 5.4.2 MSR Determinations on Financing for the City of Williams 4-1) The City of Williams should include more financial information on the City’s Website including the Budget and the Independent Audit. 4-2) The City of Williams has a two-year budget process which is recommended. 4-3) The City of Williams may need to increase water service fees to make sure that the water service is totally funded by the fees. 4-4) The City of Williams sewer service fees are high for the area but are necessary to pay the cost of the wastewater treatment plant required by the State of California. 4-5) The City of Williams has an annual independent audit prepared in a timely manner. 5.5 Opportunities for Shared Facilities Purpose: To evaluate the opportunities for a jurisdiction to share facilities and resources to develop more efficient service delivery systems. 5.5.1 City of Williams Facilities The City of Williams facilities are described above in this report. 5.5.2 MSR Determinations on Shared Facilities for City of Williams 5-1) The City of Williams shares fire protection facilities through the Williams Fire Protection Authority. 5-2) The City of Williams Police Department cooperates with the California Highway Patrol and the Colusa County Sheriff’s Department. 5-3) It is not possible to physically integrate the sewer and water systems with other such systems due to the distance between communities; however, the City might be able to help smaller districts with sewer and water system operation. Arbuckle PUD and Maxwell PUD operate sewer and water system which require qualified operators. 72 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 5.6 Government Structure and Accountability Purpose: To consider the advantages and disadvantages of various government structures that could provide public services, to evaluate the management capabilities of the organization and to evaluate the accessibility and levels of public participation associated with the agency’s decision-making and management processes. 5.6.1 City of Williams Government Structure The City of Williams government is described above in this report. 5.6.2 MSR Determinations on Local Accountability and Governance for the City of Williams 6-1) The City of Williams maintains a website to assist residents in learning about the City and City government. 6-2) The City of Williams complies with the Brown Act. 6-3) The City adopts budgets and rate changes at hearings where the public is notified and invited. Information is placed in the local newspaper, when required. 73 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 APPENDIX A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES 1 MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS Municipal service providers are constrained in their capacity to finance services by the inability to increase property taxes, requirements for voter approval for new or increased taxes, and requirements of voter approval for parcel taxes and assessments used to finance services. Municipalities must obtain majority voter approval to increase or impose new general taxes and two-thirds voter approval for special taxes. Limitations on property tax rates and increases in taxable property values are financing constraints. Property tax revenues are subject to a formulaic allocation and are vulnerable to State budget needs. Agencies formed since the adoption of Proposition 13 in 1978 often lack adequate financing. 1.1 California Local Government Finance Background The financial ability of the cities and special districts to provide services is affected by financial constraints. City service providers rely on a variety of revenue sources to fund city operating costs as follows: • Property Taxes • Benefit Assessments • Special Taxes • Proposition 172 Funds • Other contributions from city or district general funds. As a funding source, property taxes are constrained by statewide initiatives that have been passed by voters over the years and special legislation. Seven of these measures are explained below: A. Proposition 13 Proposition 13 (which California voters approved in 1978) has the following three impacts: • Limits the ad valorem property tax rate • Limits growth of the assessed value of property • Requires voter approval of certain local taxes. Generally, this measure fixes the ad valorem tax at one percent of value; except for taxes to repay certain voter approved bonded indebtedness. In response to the adoption of Proposition 13, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 8 (AB 8) in 1979 to establish property tax allocation formulas. B. AB 8 Generally, AB 8 allocates property tax revenue to the local agencies within each tax rate area based on the proportion each agency received during the three fiscal years preceding adoption of Proposition 13. This allocation formula benefits local agencies, which had relatively high tax rates at the time Proposition 13 was enacted. C. Proposition 98 Proposition 98, which California voters approved in 1988, requires the State to maintain a minimum level of school funding. In 1992 and 1993, the Legislature began shifting billions of local property taxes to schools in response to State budget deficits. Local property taxes were diverted from local governments into the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and transferred to school districts and community college districts to reduce the amount paid by the State general fund. 74 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Local agencies throughout the State lost significant property tax revenue due to this shift. Proposition 172 was enacted to help offset property tax revenue losses of cities and counties that were shifted to the ERAF for schools in 1992. D. Proposition 172 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. E. Proposition 218 Proposition 218, which California voters approved in 1996, requires voter- or property owner- approval of increased local taxes, assessments, and property-related fees. A two-thirds affirmative vote is required to impose a Special Tax, for example, a tax for a specific purpose such as a fire district special tax. However, majority voter approval is required for imposing or increasing general taxes such as business license or utility taxes, which can be used for any governmental purpose. These requirements do not apply to user fees, development impact fees and Mello-Roos districts. F. Proposition 26 Proposition 26 approved by California voters on November 2, 2010, requires that certain state fees be approved by two-thirds vote of Legislature and certain local fees be approved by two- thirds of voters. This proposition increases the legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for certain tax measures, including those that do not result in a net increase in revenue. Prior to its passage, these tax measures were subject to majority vote. However, majority voter approval is required for imposing or increasing general taxes such as business license or utility taxes, which can be used for any governmental purpose. These requirements do not apply to user fees, development impact fees and Mello-Roos districts. G. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows any county, city, special district, school district or joint powers authority to establish a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (a “CFD”) which allows for financing of public improvements and services. The services and improvements that Mello-Roos CFDs can finance include streets, sewer systems and other basic infrastructure, police protection, fire protection, ambulance services, schools, parks, libraries, museums and other cultural facilities. By law, the CFD is also entitled to recover expenses needed to form the CFD and administer the annual special taxes and bonded debt. A CFD is created by a sponsoring local government agency. The proposed district will include all properties that will benefit from the improvements to be constructed or the services to be provided. A CFD cannot be formed without a two-thirds majority vote of residents living within the proposed boundaries. Or, if there are fewer than 12 residents, the vote is instead conducted of current landowners. In many cases, that may be a single owner or developer. Once approved, a Special Tax Lien is placed against each property in the CFD. Property owners then pay a Special Tax each year. If the project cost is high, municipal bonds will be sold by the CFD to provide the large amount of money initially needed to build the improvements or fund the services. The Special Tax cannot be directly based on the value of the property. Special Taxes instead are based on mathematical formulas that take into account property characteristics such as use of the property, square footage of the structure and lot size. The formula is defined at the time of formation, and will include a maximum special tax amount and a percentage maximum annual increase. 75 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 If bonds were issued by the CFD, special taxes will be charged annually until the bonds are paid off in full. Often, after bonds are paid off, a CFD will continue to charge a reduced fee to maintain the improvements. H. Development Impact Fees A county, cities, special districts, school districts, and private utilities may impose development impact fees on new construction for purposes of defraying the cost of putting in place public infrastructure and services to support new development. To impose development impact fees, a jurisdiction must justify the fees as an offset to the impact of future development on facilities. This usually requires a special financial study. The fees must be committed within five years to the projects for which they were collected, and the district, city or county must keep separate funds for each development impact fee. 1.2 Financing Opportunities that Require Voter Approval Financing opportunities that require voter approval include the following five taxes: • Special taxes such as parcel taxes • Increases in general taxes such as utility taxes • Sales and use taxes • Business license taxes • Transient occupancy taxes Communities may elect to form business improvement districts to finance supplemental services, or Mello-Roos districts to finance development-related infrastructure extension. Agencies may finance facilities with voter-approved (general obligation) bonded indebtedness. 1.3 Financing Opportunities that Do Not Require Voter Approval Financing opportunities that do not require voter approval include imposition of or increases in fees to more fully recover the costs of providing services, including user fees and Development Impact Fees to recover the actual cost of services provided and infrastructure. Development Impact Fees and user fees must be based on reasonable costs, and may be imposed and increased without voter approval. Development Impact Fees may not be used to subsidize operating costs. Agencies may also finance many types of facility improvements through bond instruments that do not require voter approval. Water rates and rate structures are not subject to regulation by other agencies. Utility providers may increase rates annually, and often do so. Generally, there is no voter approval requirement for rate increases, although notification of utility users is required. Water providers must maintain an enterprise fund for the respective utility separate from other funds, and may not use revenues to finance unrelated governmental activities. 2 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT STANDARDS While public sector management standards do vary depending on the size and scope of an organization, there are minimum standards. Well-managed organizations do the following eight activities: • Evaluate employees annually. • Prepare a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year. • Conduct periodic financial audits to safeguard the public trust. • Maintain current financial records. • Periodically evaluate rates and fees. • Plan and budget for capital replacement needs. • Conduct advance planning for future growth. • Make best efforts to meet regulatory requirements. 76 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Most of the professionally managed and staffed agencies implement many of these best management practices. LAFCO encourages all local agencies to conduct timely financial record- keeping for each city function and make financial information available to the public. 3 Public Participation in Government The Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) is intended to insure that public boards shall take their actions openly and that deliberations shall be conducted openly. The Brown Act establishes requirements for the following: • Open meetings • Agendas that describe the business to be conducted at the meeting • Notice for meetings • Meaningful opportunity for the public to comment Few exceptions for meeting in closed sessions and reports of items discussed in closed sessions. According to California Government Section 54959 Each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 54960 states the following: (a) The district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations of this chapter by members of the legislative body of a local agency or to determine the applicability of this chapter to actions or threatened future action of the legislative body,... 77 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 APPENDIX B SOIL INFORMATION 106—Willows silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting General location: On the western margins of the Colusa Basin near Williams and Maxwell Map unit geomorphic setting: Basin floor Elevation: 35 to 110 feet (12 to 35 meters) Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches (355 to 405 millimeters) Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F. (16 to 17 degrees C.) Frost-free period: 225 to 250 days Willows silty clay—90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Major Component Description Willows silty clay Component geomorphic setting: Basin floor Parent material: Alluvium Typical vegetation: Irrigated cropland Component Properties and Qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Runoff: Low Surface features: None noted. Percent area covered by surface coarse fragments: None noted. Depth to restrictive feature: None noted Slowest permeability class: Very slow Salinity: Saline within 40 inches Sodicity: Sodic within 40 inches Available water capacity: About 8.9 inches (High) Component Hydrologic Properties Present flooding: Rare Present ponding: None Current water table: Present Natural drainage class: Poorly drained Altered hydrology: Flood control structures on the Sacramento River have changed flooding frequency and duration and lowered water tables. Rice drainage ditches have lowered water tables. Accumulation of salts at the surface have been removed through reclamation or ponding for rice production. These soils formed under conditions of saturation and frequent flooding. Interpretive Groups: Land capability irrigated: 3w-2 Land capability nonirrigated: 4w-2 78 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 110—Hustabel sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting General location: Along streams near Williams Map unit geomorphic setting: Alluvial fan Elevation: 95 to 150 feet (29 to 46 meters) Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches (355 to 405 millimeters) Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F. (16 to 17 degrees C.) Frost-free period: 225 to 250 days Hustabel sandy loam—80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Major Component Description Hustabel sandy loam Component geomorphic setting: Alluvial fan Parent material: Alluvium Typical vegetation: Irrigated cropland Component Properties and Qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Runoff: Negligible Surface features: None noted. Percent area covered by surface coarse fragments: None noted. Depth to restrictive feature: None noted Slowest permeability class: Moderately slow Salinity: Not saline Sodicity: Not sodic Available water capacity: About 8.3 inches (High) Component Hydrologic Properties Present flooding: Rare Present ponding: None Current water table: Present Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained Interpretive Groups Land capability irrigated: 1 Land capability nonirrigated: 4s 79 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 112—Westfan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting General location: Near Williams and Arbuckle Map unit geomorphic setting: Alluvial fan Elevation: 65 to 150 feet (20 to 46 meters) Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches (355 to 405 millimeters) Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F. (16 to 17 degrees C.) Frost-free period: 225 to 250 days Westfan loam—80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Major Component Description Westfan loam Component geomorphic setting: Alluvial fan Parent material: Alluvium Typical vegetation: Irrigated cropland Component Properties and Qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Runoff: Very low Surface features: None noted. Percent area covered by surface coarse fragments: None noted. Depth to restrictive feature: None noted Slowest permeability class: Moderately slow Salinity: Not saline Sodicity: Sodic within 40 inches Available water capacity: About 8.8 inches (High) Component Hydrologic Properties Present flooding: Rare Present ponding: None Current water table: None noted. Natural drainage class: Well drained Interpretive Groups Land capability irrigated: 1 Land capability nonirrigated: 4s 80 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 127—Mallard clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting General location: Near the towns of Arbuckle and Williams Map unit geomorphic setting: Alluvial fan Elevation: 45 to 140 feet (15 to 43 meters) Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches (355 to 405 millimeters) Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F. (16 to 17 degrees C.) Frost-free period: 225 to 250 days Mallard clay loam—85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Major Component Description Mallard clay loam Component geomorphic setting: Lower alluvial fan Parent material: Alluvium Typical vegetation: Irrigated cropland Component Properties and Qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Runoff: Very low Surface features: None noted. Percent area covered by surface coarse fragments: None noted. Depth to restrictive feature: None noted Slowest permeability class: Slow Salinity: Not saline Sodicity: Not sodic Available water capacity: About 10.4 inches (Very high) Component Hydrologic Properties Present flooding: Rare Present ponding: None Current water table: Present Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Altered hydrology: Water tables have been lowered by rice drainage ditches. Interpretive Groups Land capability irrigated: 2w-3 Land capability nonirrigated: 4w-3 81 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 APPENDIX C ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORT 82 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 83 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 84 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 85 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 APPENDIX D WATER CONSERVATION 1. Top 10 Water Conservation Tips203 1. Reduce irrigation by one day a week. 2. Find and repair leaks now. 3. Inspect and tune-up your sprinkler system monthly. 4. Water between midnight and 6:00 a.m. to reduce water loss from evaporation and wind. 5. Use a broom, not a hose, to clean your driveway, deck or patio. 6. Use a bucket and a hose with an automatic shut-off nozzle when you wash the car, or take your car to a carwash that recycles. 7. Cover pools and hot-tubs to reduce evaporation. 8. Use front-loading washing machines. 9. Run the dishwasher and clothes washer with full loads only. 10. Prevent and report water waste. Indoor Tips • Purchase a front-load washing machine that uses 40% less water. Check with your local water provider for rebates. • Don’t let water run while shaving, brushing teeth or rinsing dishes. • When you are washing your hands, don't let the water run while you lather. • Listen for dripping faucets and toilets that flush themselves. Fixing a leak can save 500 gallons each month. Outdoor Tips • Water your lawn and garden in 2 short cycles rather than one long one. Watering to a depth of 4 – 6” will encourage deeper healthier roots and allow the plants to go without water for longer periods of time. • Adjust your sprinkler heads to prevent water draining off your lawn and down the gutter. Reduce sprinkler run-time, remember to water at night, and don’t be a gutter flooder. • Your water meter is an important conservation tool. It not only measures the amount of water you use, but can also tell you if there is a leak in your plumbing. • A typical garden hose, without a trigger hose nozzle, will waste approximately 8 to 12 gallons per minute. 203 Sonoma County Water Agency, http://www.scwa.ca.gov/lower.php?url=residential, January 16, 2013 86 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 2. Save Water, Money, Energy Now! Top 5 Actions204 With so many ways to save water, here are the highlights for 5 key actions to help you capture the water savings around your home. Remember, every drop counts! 1. Stop Those Leaks! Check your indoor water using appliances and devices for leaks. Check out Leak Detection and Repair. Many silent leaks allow water and your money to go down the drain. To help detect unseen leaks Read Your Meter. Studies have shown homes can waste more than 10% due leaking, which costs both you and the environment. Another large water waster can be leaks in your irrigation system. Fix irrigation system leaks quickly and check for water in the gutters or mud puddles. Inspect your sprinklers and drip sprayers regularly for leaks during the daytime since the optimal time to water is in the nighttime hours when you cannot observe leaks. If you have an older irrigation system, over 50% and even more than 75% of the water can be lost to leaks. Learn more about irrigation systems. 2. Replace your old Toilet, the largest water user inside your home. If your home was built before 1992 and the toilet has never been replaced, then it is very likely that you do not have a water-efficient 1.6 gallon per flush toilet. You can check the date stamp inside the toilet by lifting the lid and looking at the back of the toilet at the manufacturer's imprint of the make, model and date of manufacture. Learn more about toilets. 3. Replace your Clothes Washer, the second largest water user in your home. Energy Star™ rated washers that also have a Water Factor at or lower than 9.5, use 35-50% less water and 50% less energy per load. This saves you money on both your water and energy bills. There is a current qualifying products listing of water efficient clothes washer models maintained by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Learn more about clothes washers. 4. Plant the Right Plants with Proper Landscape Design & Irrigation Whether you are putting in a new landscape or slowly changing the current landscaping at your home; select plants that are appropriate for your local climate conditions. Having a yard with 100% lawn turf area in a dry desert climate uses significant amounts of water. Also consider the trend towards Xeriscape™ and a more natural landscape or wildscape. Learn more about landscaping. 5. Water Only What Your Plants Need Most water is wasted in your garden by watering when you plants do not need the water or by not maintaining the irrigation system. Be attentive if you are manual watering by setting your oven timer or some other reminder to move the water promptly. Make sure your irrigation controller has a rain shutoff device and that it's appropriately scheduled. Most water is wasted in months prior to or just after the rainy season when intermittent rains occur. You can also consider installing a weather adjusting irrigation controller that automatically saves water by not watering when the plants don't need the water. Check with your local water provider to inquire if such controllers work in your area. Learn more about using the features that you have in your garage for efficient watering like your hose and irrigation controller timer. Be sure to call your local water provider for more information and potential incentives. 204 http://h2ouse.org/action/top5.cfm, March 5, 2013. 87 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 APPENDIX E ANNEXATION HISTORY CITY OF WILLIAMS ANNEXATION HISTORY205 Annexation Colusa Date of Acres Location Name LAFCO Certificate of File Completion Number Boyes Addition #69-5 September 25, 0.43 acres South of City 1969 Goforth #69-6 September 25, 4.58 acres West side of I-5, adjacent Addition 1969 to off ramp City of #74-4 March 12, 1974 8.54 acres West side of I-5 Williams Mayberry #84-3 January 3, 1985 6.40 acres West side of Zumwalt Annexation Road, south side of City Mayberry 2 #87-1 October 12, 5.68 acres East side of Engraham Annexation 1988 Road, south side of City Auction Yard #87-2 October 20, 43.22 West side of Highway 99W Annexation 1987 acres Reorganization #88-1 May 31, 1988 2563.54 West side of Highway 99W, #1 acres west side of I-5 Sutter Drive #90-11 March 29, 1991 36.75 Northeast corner of Annexation acres Hawkins Road and George Road, south side of City Theatre Drive #90-12 March 29, 1991 90.91acres East side of Zumwalt Road, Annexation south side of City 205 Colusa LAFCO, John Benoit, Executive Officer, November 2012. 88 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill AC Asphalt Concrete ADA Americans with Disabilities Act, also Anti-Drug Abuse ADWF Average Dry Weather Flows (wastewater treatment) ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ASAR adjusted sodium absorption ratio (water quality) AWWA American Water Works Association AWWF Average Wet Weather Flows (wastewater treatment) BMPs best management practices BOD Biological Oxygen Demand (water quality) CA California CALEA Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies CCR Consumer Confidence Report (water quality) CDO Cease and Desist Order (wastewater treatment) CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFD Community Facilities District CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Program City City of Williams CJPRMA California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 COBRA Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act COLA Cost of Living Adjustment CPI Consumer Price Index CPOA California Peace Officers Association CSA County Service Area D.A.R.E Drug Abuse Resistance Education 89 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 DHS Department of Health Services (California) DO dissolved oxygen DWR Department of Water Resources (California) EC Electrical Conductivity (water quality) EDU equivalent dwelling unit EMD Emergency Medical Dispatch EMS Emergency Medical Service EPA Environmental Protection Agency (US) ERAF Educational revenue Augmentation Fund ERMA Employment Risk Management Authority FD Fire Department FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency (US) FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps FMLA Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (US) FY Fiscal Year GCID Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute GPS Global Positioning System G.R.E.A.T Gang Resistance Education and Training GSRMA Golden State Risk Management Authority hcf hundred cubic feet (water) HR Human Resources I-5 Interstate Highway 5 I&I, I/I inflow and infiltration (to sewer lines) ICS Incident Command System (Law Enforcement) ISO Insurance Service Organization (Fire Protection) 90 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 IT Information Technology JPA Joint Powers Agreement K-9 Canine (Police Protection using trained dogs) LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission LAIF Local Agency Investment Fund (California) LLAD Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LAWCX Local Agency Worker Compensation Excess Joint Powers Authority LOS Level of Service (street traffic movement) LTF Local Transportation Funding M&O Maintenance and Operations MCC motor control center (wastewater treatment plant) MCL Maximum Contaminant Level (water quality) MDD Maximum Day Demand MEP maximum extent practicable MGD million gallons per day MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system MSR Municipal Service Review (LAFCO) NFPA National Fire Protection Association ND Not detectable at testing limit (water quality) NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OES Office of Emergency Services (California) OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration (US) PERS Public Employee Retirement System (California) PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PLC programmable logic controller POST Police Officer Standards and Training ppm parts per million or milligrams per liter (mg/L) PSA Protection Sport Association (Police Dogs) 91 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 psi pounds per square inch RAS return activated sludge RDA Redevelopment Area RSTP Regional Surface Transportation Program RUE residential unit equivalent SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCORE Small Cites Organized Risk Effort SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SHC sodium hypochlorite SOI Sphere of Influence (LAFCO) SR State Route (highway) SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds SWAT Special Weapons and Tactics (Law Enforcement) TDS Total Dissolved Solids (water quality) TOT Transient Occupancy Tax UPRR Union Pacific Railroad UV Ultra Violet (Light) VOC Volatile Organic Compounds WAS Waste activated sludge WD Water District WFPA Williams Fire Protection Authority (A Joint Powers Agreement) WTP Water Treatment Plant WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant 92 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 DEFINITIONS Agriculture: Use of land for the production of food and fiber, including the growing of crops and/or the grazing of animals on natural prime or improved pasture land. Aquifer: An underground, water-bearing layer of earth, porous rock, sand, or gravel, through which water can seep or be held in natural storage. Aquifers generally hold sufficient water to be used as a water supply. Bond: An interest-bearing promise to pay a stipulated sum of money, with the principal amount due on a specific date. Funds raised through the sale of bonds can be used for various public purposes. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A State Law requiring State and local agencies to regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared and certified as to its adequacy before taking action on the proposed project. Coagulation: Coagulation water treatment applies chemicals to assist water particulates in combining together. When particulates are aggregated, they can be more easily removed from the treated water.206 Community Facilities District: Under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311, et seq.) a legislative body may create within its jurisdiction a special tax district that can finance tax-exempt bonds for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, and/or operation of public facilities, as well as public services for district residents. Special taxes levied solely within the district are used to repay the bonds. Community Services District (CSD): A geographic subarea of a county used for planning and delivery of parks, recreation, and other human services based on an assessment of the service needs of the population in that subarea. A CSD is a taxation district with independent administration. Conventional Filtration Treatment (water service): A series of processes including coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration resulting in substantial particulate removal. Disinfectant: A chemical (commonly chlorine, chloramine, or ozone) or physical process (e.g., ultraviolet light) that kills microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Disinfection: A process which inactivates pathogenic organisms in water by chemical oxidants or equivalent agents. Distribution System: A network of pipes leading from a treatment plant to customers' plumbing systems. Domestic water use: Water used for household purposes, such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes, dishes, and dogs, flushing toilets, and watering lawns and gardens. About 85% of domestic water is delivered to homes by a public-supply facility, such as a county water department. About 15% of the Nation's population supplies their own water, mainly from wells.207 206 http://www.ehow.com/about_5100654_coagulation-water-treatment.html, July 13, 2010. 207 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html 93 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Environmental Impact Report (EIR): A report required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act that assesses all the environmental characteristics of an area, determines what effects or impact will result if the area is altered or disturbed by a proposed action, and identifies alternatives or other measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. (See California Environmental Quality Act.) Filtration: A process by which solids are filtered out of liquids, a stage in water treatment, a process for removing particulate matter from water by passage through porous media. Finished Water: Water that has been treated and is ready to be delivered to customers. Flocculation: A process where a solute comes out of solution in the form of floc or "flakes." The term is also used to refer to the process by which fine particulates are caused to clump together into floc. The floc may then float to the top of the liquid, settle to the bottom of the liquid, or can be readily filtered from the liquid. Groundwater: Water under the earth’s surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs. Human consumption: the ingestion or absorption of water or water vapor as the result of drinking, cooking, dishwashing, hand washing, bathing, showering or oral hygiene. Impact Fee: A fee, also called a development fee, levied on the developer of a project by a county, or other public agency as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce. California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., specifies that development fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. To lawfully impose a development fee, the public agency must verify its method of calculation and document proper restrictions on use of the fund. Infrastructure: Public services and facilities such as sewage-disposal systems, water-supply systems, and other utility systems, schools and roads. Land Use Classification: A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties. Leapfrog Development: New development separated from existing development by substantial vacant land. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): A five-or seven-member commission within each county that reviews and evaluates all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or cities, consolidation of districts, and merger of districts with cities. Each county’s LAFCO is empowered to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve such proposals. The LAFCO members generally include two county supervisors, two city council members, and one member representing the general public. Some LAFCOs include two representatives of special districts. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that EPA allows in drinking water. MCLs ensure that drinking water does not pose either a short-term or long-term health risk. EPA sets MCLs at levels that are economically and technologically feasible. Some states set MCLs which are stricter than EPA's. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant at which there would be no risk to human health. This goal is not always economically or technologically feasible, and the goal is not legally enforceable. 94 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL): the maximum allowable level of disinfectant in public drinking water. Most often, compliance with an MRDL is based on an average of multiple samples. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a disinfectant added for water treatment below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mean Sea Level: The average altitude of the sea surface for all tidal stages. Milligrams per liter (mg/L): The weight in milligrams of any substance dissolved in one liter of liquid; nearly the same as parts per million. Mello-Roos Bonds: Locally issued bonds that are repaid by a special tax imposed on property owners within a community facilities district established by a governmental entity. The bond proceeds can be used for public improvements and for a limited number of services. Named after the program’s legislative authors. Monitoring: Testing that water systems must perform to detect and measure contaminants. A water system that does not follow EPA's monitoring methodology or schedule is in violation, and may be subject to legal action. Municipal water system: A water system that has at least five service connections or which regularly serves 25 individuals for 60 days; also called a public water system.208 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Water pollution degrades surface waters making them unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. In most cases, the NPDES permit program is administered by authorized states. Since its introduction in 1972, the NPDES permit program is responsible for significant improvements to water quality.209 Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority. Potable Water: Water of a quality suitable for drinking.210 Per capita water use: The water produced by or introduced into the system of a water supplier divided by the total residential population; normally expressed in gallons per capita per day (gpcd).211 Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS): Maximum Contaminant Levels for contaminants. 208 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html 209 USEPA, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/, October 14, 2010. 210 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html 211 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 95 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Proposition 1B (Prop 1B): Proposition 1B (Prop 1B) provided $19.925 billion in bond funds for a variety of transportation priorities, including $2 billion for cities and counties to fund the maintenance and improvement of local transportation facilities. The 2007 Budget Act and Chapter 181, Statutes of 2007 (SB 88), appropriated a total of $950 million of these Prop 1B funds in 2007-08. Of this amount, Chapter 314, Statutes of 2007 (AB 196), specified that $550 million be allocated to cities and $450 million be allocated to counties. Chapter 39, Statutes of 2008 (AB 1252), appropriated an additional $87 million in these Proposition 1B funds specifically to counties. These funds are referred to as the 2008 Supplemental Appropriation for Counties. The 2008 Budget Act appropriated a total of $250 million, including $63 million available to counties and $187 million available to cities on a first-come, first-served basis. The 2009 Budget Act appropriates a total of $700 million, including $258,205,000 for cities and $441,795,000 for counties, which represents the remaining balance of Proposition 1B Local Streets and Roads funding.212 Proposition 13: (Article XIIIA of the California Constitution) Passed in 1978, this proposition enacted sweeping changes to the California property tax system. Under Prop. 13, property taxes cannot exceed 1% of the value of the property and assessed valuations cannot increase by more than 2% per year. Property is subject to reassessment when there is a transfer of ownership or improvements are made.213 Proposition 218: (Article XIIID of the California Constitution) This proposition, named "The Right to Vote on Taxes Act", filled some of the perceived loopholes of Proposition 13. Under Proposition 218, assessments may only increase with a two-thirds majority vote of the qualified voters within the District. In addition to the two-thirds voter approval requirement, Proposition 218 states that effective July 1, 1997, any assessments levied may not be more than the costs necessary to provide the service, proceeds may not be used for any other purpose other than providing the services intended, and assessments may only be levied for services that are immediately available to property owners.214 Public Health Goal (PHG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHG’s are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Public Notification: An advisory that EPA requires a water system to distribute to affected consumers when the system has violated MCLs or other regulations. The notice advises consumers what precautions, if any, they should take to protect their health. Public Water Systems (PWS): A public water system provides piped water for human consumption to at least 15 service connections or serves an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days each year, and includes the source of the water supply (i.e., surface or groundwater). PWSs can be community, nontransient noncommunity, or transient noncommunity systems, as defined by the EPA's Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program. Ranchette: A single dwelling unit occupied by a non-farming household on a parcel of 2.5 to 20 acres that has been subdivided from agricultural land. Raw Water: Water in its natural state, prior to any treatment for drinking. 212 State of California, http://www.dof.ca.gov/bonds/proposition_1b_disbursements/, October 14, 2010. 213 http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 214 http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 96 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Regulatory Action Level: The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow. Sanitary Sewer: A system of subterranean conduits that carries refuse liquids or waste matter to a plant where the sewage is treated, as contrasted with storm drainage systems (that carry surface water) and septic tanks or leech fields (that hold refuse liquids and waste matter on-site). Sanitary Survey: An on-site review of the water sources, facilities, equipment, operation, and maintenance of a public water systems for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy of the facilities for producing and distributing safe drinking water. Secondary Drinking Water Standards (SDWS): Non-enforceable federal guidelines regarding cosmetic effects (such as tooth or skin discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) of drinking water. Sedimentation: A process of settling particles out of a liquid in a treatment plant, a process for removal of solids before filtration by gravity or separation. Service area: The geographical land area served by a distribution system of a water agency.215 Source Water: Water in its natural state, prior to any treatment for drinking. Sphere of Influence (SOI): The probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the county. Surface Water: The water that systems pump and treat from sources open to the atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Total dissolved solids (TDS): A quantitative measure of the residual minerals dissolved in water that remains after evaporation of a solution. TDS is usually expressed in milligrams per liter.216 Treatment Technique: A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. Turbidity: The cloudy appearance of water caused by the presence of tiny particles. High levels of turbidity may interfere with proper water treatment and monitoring. Urban: Of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city. Urban areas are generally characterized by moderate and higher density residential development (i.e., three or more dwelling units per acre), commercial development, and industrial development, and the availability of public services required for that development, specifically central water and sewer service, an extensive road network, public transit, and other such services (e.g., safety and emergency response). Development not providing such services may be “non-urban” or “rural”. CEQA defines “urbanized area” as an area that has a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile (Public Resources Code Section 21080.14(b)). Urban Services: Utilities (such as water, gas, electricity, and sewer) and public services (such as police, fire protection, schools, parks, and recreation) provided to an urbanized or urbanizing area. Violation: A failure to meet any state or federal drinking water regulation. 215 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 216 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 97 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 Vulnerability Assessment: An evaluation of drinking water source quality and its vulnerability to contamination by pathogens and toxic chemicals. Water quality: Used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water, usually in regard to its suitability for a particular purpose or use.217 Water year: A continuous 12-month period for which hydrologic records are compiled and summarized. In California, it begins on October 1 and ends September 30 of the following year.218 Watershed: The land area from which water drains into a stream, river, or reservoir. Zoning: The division of a city by legislative regulations into areas, or zones, that specify allowable uses for real property and size restrictions for buildings within these areas; a program that implements policies of the general plan. 217 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 218 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 98 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 REFERENCES Arbuckle PUD, Small Water System 2011 Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for year Ending December 31, 2011. Arbuckle PUD, Water Rates as of January 1, 2009. Artois Community Services District, Jack Cavier, Jr., President, March 1, 2012. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Hydrologic Region Sacramento River, Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, Last update 1/20/06. California, http://www.dof.ca.gov/bonds/proposition_1b_disbursements/, October 14, 2010. California Integrated Water Quality System Questionnaire, City of Williams, September 4, 2012. California Pines CSD Service Rates Effective June 2006. California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 12, 2009. City of Colusa, Water Department, Phone 458-4740 Ex100, August 7, 2012. City of Susanville, 530-252-5111, August 3, 2012. City of Williams Adopted Budget 2008-2009, 2009-2010, June11, 2008. City of Williams, Chuck Bergson, E-Mail: cbergson@cityofwilliams.org, May 28, 2013. City of Williams, Draft 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) FY 12/13 to FY 16/17. City of Williams, Draft Water Master Plan, September 26, 2012. City of Williams, Greg Endeman, gendeman@cityofwilliams.org, October 2012. City of Williams, Financial Statements, June 30 2011, Audited by Constance Coughlan, CPS, www.MCCoughlan.com, 1250 Main Street, Suite 290, Napa, CA 94559, Phone: 707-255- 0677, fax 707-255-0687, Page 4. City of Williams Housing Element 2010-2015. City of Williams, http://www.cityofwilliams.org/community/about-williams.htm, September 25, 2012. City of Williams, http://www.cityofwilliams.org/city-administrator/index.htm, September 25, 2012. City of Williams, http://www.cityofwilliams.org/city-facilities/index.htm, September 25, 2012. City of Williams, http://www.cityofwilliams.org/finance/index.htm, September 25, 2012. City of Williams 2010 General Plan May 2012 City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2012-2013, June 20, 2012. 99 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 City of Williams Water Department, 2010 Annual Water Quality Report, PO Box 310, Williams, CA 95987, Phone: 530-473-2519. City of Williams WWTP O&M Manual, Stantec Consulting Services, March 2012 Clear Creek CSD, Lassen LAFCO Questionnaire June 6, 2012. Clear Creek CSD, Pat Mudrich, Manager, August 22, 2012 Colusa County Ordinance No. 673, An Ordinance of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors Increasing water service Fees; authorizing administrative Fees; providing for the Collection of Delinquent Charges; and Directing That No New Water Hook-ups Be Permitted for County Service Area Number 1-Century Ranch, March 16, 2004., Colusa County Ordinance No 674, An Ordinance of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors Increasing Water Service Fees; Authorizing Administrative Fees; Providing for the Collection of Delinquent charges; and Directing That No New Water Hook-ups be permitted for County Service Area Number 2-Stonyford, March 16, 2004. Colusa LAFCO, HEARING DRAFT COLUSA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS SPHERES OF INFLUENCE DECEMBER 8, 2011. Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000. Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, September 28, 2011 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html http://h2ouse.org/action/top5.cfm, March 5, 2013 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 http://www.city-data.com/city/Williams-California.html, September 25, 2012. http://www.ehow.com/about_5100654_coagulation-water-treatment.html, July 13, 2010. http://www.zip-codes.com/city/ca-williams-2010-census.asp, September 25, 2012 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-2, An Ordinance amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for Water Service by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Stephen Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294- 5524, March 1, 2011. Little Valley CSD, Director Devora Kelley, March 19, 2012. Maxwell PUD, Diana Mason, Phone 438-2505, August 8, 2012. NFPA Standard 1710, 2004. Sonoma County Water Agency, http://www.scwa.ca.gov/lower.php?url=residential, January 16, 2013 100 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 United States, 29 CFR 1910.134. US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0685586.html, November 7, 2012 USEPA, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/, October 14, 2010. Williams Unified School District, Phone 530-473-2550, November 19, 2012. Westwood Community Services District, Resolution 2011-01, A resolution of the Westwood Community Services District Increasing Water Rates, June 6, 2011. PREPARERS Colusa LAFCO, John Benoit, Executive Officer PO Box 2694, Granite Bay CA 95746 Phone: 916-797-6003 johnbenoit@surewest.net Christy Leighton, Planning Consultant 555 East Willow Street, Willows CA 95988 Phone: 530-934-4597 christyleighton@sbcglobal.net 101 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 MAPS MAP 1 HISTORY OF ANNEXATIONS TO CITY OF WILLIAMS 102 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 MAP 2 MAP SHOWING PROPOSED SOI BOUNDARIES FROM CITY AND COUNTY GENERAL PLANS 103 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 MAP 3 MAP SHOWING LAFCO RECOMMENDED SOI FOR CITY OF WILLIAMS 104 COLUSA LAFCO 2013 CITY OF WILLIAMS MSR Resolution 2013-0005 August 1, 2013 MAP 4 MAP SHOWING SOIL TYPES WITHIN PROPSED SOI FOR CITY OF WILLIAMS 105