Countywide Reclamation Services MSR & SOI Study (2nd Round) - Final

Countywide Reclamation Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Update (2nd Round) – FINAL Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission Approved November 18, 2015 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO PREPARED FOR: CONTRA COSTA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION _____________________________________________________________________________________ COMMISSIONERS Don Tatzin, City Member Rob Schroder, City Member Federal Glover, County Member Mary Piepho, County Member Donald Blubaugh, Public Member Michael McGill, Special District Member Igor Skaredoff, Special District Member ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS Tom Butt, City Member Candace Andersen, County Member Sharon Burke, Public Member Stan Caldwell, Special District Member STAFF Lou Ann Texeira, Executive Officer Kate Sibley, Executive Assistant/LAFCO Clerk CONSULTANT TEAM Project Resource Specialists: Harry Ehrlich, SDA, Principal Aldrich and Associates: Robert Aldrich, Project Manager E Mulberg and Associates: Elliot Mulberg, Technical & Services Specialist 1 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 10 II. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) .................................................................................... 16 Municipal Service Reviews ...................................................................................................................... 16 Spheres of Influence ............................................................................................................................... 17 Scope of 2015 Reclamation Districts MSR/SOI Update .......................................................................... 18 Exhibit 2-1, Contra .............................................................................................................................. 19 III. THE SACRAMENTO/SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ............................................................................................ 20 Overview – History/Function .................................................................................................................. 20 The Delta Boundary ................................................................................................................................ 21 Table 3-1, Contra Costa County Reclamation & Municipal Improvement Districts by Delta Zone .... 21 Challenges ............................................................................................................................................... 21 Demographics – Projected Growth ......................................................................................................... 22 Table 3-2, Delta Counties and California Population Growth, 2015 – 2050 ....................................... 23 IV. RECLAMATION DISTRICTS OVERVIEW.................................................................................................. 24 Reclamation Districts - History ................................................................................................................ 24 Recent Interest in the Delta and Reclamation ........................................................................................ 24 Protecting California’s Water Supply ...................................................................................................... 25 The Delta’s Fragile Ecosystem ................................................................................................................. 25 The Delta as a “Place” ............................................................................................................................. 26 2 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Maintenance of Delta Levees ................................................................................................................. 26 Reclamation Districts and LAFCO Oversight ........................................................................................... 26 Recent Legislative Efforts ........................................................................................................................ 27 V. RECLAMATION DISTRICTS – FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................................... 28 Table 5-1, Contra Costa County Reclamation & Municipal Improvement Districts and Funding Sources ................................................................................................................................................ 28 Property Tax ............................................................................................................................................ 28 Special Assessments................................................................................................................................ 29 Warrants ................................................................................................................................................. 29 Grant Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................ 29 Grant Funding Programs and Projects .................................................................................................... 31 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Programs ............................................................................ 34 Other Agency Grant Programs ................................................................................................................ 35 Summary of Future Grant Funding Opportunities .................................................................................. 36 VI. AGENCY PROFILES/MSR-SOI DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................. 38 Table 6-1, Contra Costa County Reclamation District’s Progress Comparison, 2009-2015 ................ 39 Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District ........................................................................................... 41 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence .............................................................................................. 41 Table 6-2, Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Snapshot .................................................. 43 Exhibit 6-1, Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Boundary and SOI Map .......................... 44 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities............................................................................................. 44 Table 6-3, Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Revenues and Expenditures .................... 45 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ....................................................................................................... 46 Table 6-4, Bethel Island MID Services and Facilities ........................................................................... 47 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ................................................................................................. 48 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ....................................................................................... 48 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................... 49 Other Issues ............................................................................................................................................ 50 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................... 50 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ........................................................................ 52 Reclamation District 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) ................................................................................................. 54 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence .............................................................................................. 54 3 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-5, Reclamation District 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) Snapshot ........................................................ 55 Exhibit 6-2, Reclamation District No. 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) Boundary and SOI Map ......................... 56 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities............................................................................................. 57 Table 6-6, RD 799 Revenues and Expenditures .................................................................................. 57 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ....................................................................................................... 58 Table 6-7, RD 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) Services and Facilities ................................................................ 58 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ................................................................................................. 59 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ....................................................................................... 59 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................... 60 Other Issues ............................................................................................................................................ 60 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................... 61 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ........................................................................ 63 Reclamation District 800 (Byron Tract) ....................................................................................................... 65 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence .............................................................................................. 65 Table 6-8, Reclamation District 800 (Byron Tract) Snapshot .............................................................. 66 Exhibit 6-4, Reclamation District 800 (Byron Tract) Boundary and SOI Map ..................................... 67 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities............................................................................................. 68 Table 6-9, RD 800 Revenues and Expenditures .................................................................................. 69 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ....................................................................................................... 69 Table 6-10, RD 800 (Byron Tract) Services and Facilities .................................................................... 70 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ................................................................................................. 71 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ....................................................................................... 71 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................... 71 Other Issues ............................................................................................................................................ 72 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................... 72 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ........................................................................ 74 Reclamation District 830 (Jersey Island) ..................................................................................................... 76 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence .............................................................................................. 76 Table 6-11, Reclamation District 830 (Jersey Island) Snapshot .......................................................... 77 Exhibit 6-5, Reclamation District 830 (Jersey Island) Boundary and SOI Map .................................... 78 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities............................................................................................. 79 4 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-12, RD 830 Revenues and Expenditures ................................................................................ 79 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ....................................................................................................... 80 Table 6-13, RD 830 (Jersey Island) Services and Facilities .................................................................. 81 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ................................................................................................. 82 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ....................................................................................... 83 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................... 83 Other Issues ............................................................................................................................................ 84 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................... 84 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ........................................................................ 86 Reclamation District 2024 (Orwood and Palm Tracts) ................................................................................ 87 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence .............................................................................................. 87 Table 6-14, Reclamation District 2024 (Orwood/Palm Tracts) Snapshot ........................................... 88 Exhibit 6-6, Reclamation District 2024 (Orwood and Palm Tracts) Boundary and SOI Map .............. 89 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities............................................................................................. 90 Table 6-15, RD 2024 Revenues and Expenditures .............................................................................. 90 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ....................................................................................................... 91 Table 6-16, RD 2024 (Orwood/Palm Tracts) Services and Facilities ................................................... 92 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ................................................................................................. 93 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ....................................................................................... 93 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................... 93 Other Issues ............................................................................................................................................ 93 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................... 94 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ........................................................................ 95 Reclamation District 2025 (Holland Tract) .................................................................................................. 96 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence .............................................................................................. 96 Table 6-17, Reclamation District 2025 (Holland Tract) Snapshot ....................................................... 97 Exhibit 6-7, Reclamation District 2025 (Holland Tract) Boundary and SOI Map ................................ 98 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities............................................................................................. 99 Table 6-18, RD 2025 (Holland Tract) Revenues and Expenditures ..................................................... 99 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ..................................................................................................... 100 Table 6-19, RD 2025 (Holland Tract) Services and Facilities ............................................................. 100 5 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ............................................................................................... 101 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ..................................................................................... 101 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................. 101 Other Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 102 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................. 102 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ...................................................................... 103 Reclamation District 2026 (Webb Tract) ................................................................................................... 105 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence ............................................................................................ 105 Table 6-20, Reclamation District 2026 (WebbTract) Snapshot ......................................................... 106 Exhibit 6-8, Reclamation District 2026 (Webb Tract) Boundary and SOI Map ................................. 107 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities........................................................................................... 108 Table 6-21, RD 2026 Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................ 108 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ..................................................................................................... 109 Table 6-22, RD 2026 (Webb Tract) Services and Facilities ................................................................ 109 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ............................................................................................... 110 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ..................................................................................... 110 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................. 110 Other Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 111 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................. 111 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ...................................................................... 112 Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island) ............................................................................................. 113 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence ............................................................................................ 113 Table 6-23, Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island) Snapshot .................................................. 114 Exhibit 6-9, Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island) Boundary and SOI Map ........................... 115 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities........................................................................................... 116 Table 6-24, RD 2059 Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................ 116 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ..................................................................................................... 116 Table 6-25, RD 2059 (Bradford Island) Services and Facilities .......................................................... 117 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ............................................................................................... 118 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ..................................................................................... 118 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................. 118 6 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Other Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 118 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................. 119 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ...................................................................... 120 Reclamation District 2065 (Veale Tract) ................................................................................................... 122 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence ............................................................................................ 122 Table 6-26, Reclamation District 2065 (Veale Tract) Snapshot ........................................................ 123 Exhibit 6-10, Reclamation District 2065 (Veale Tract) Boundary and SOI Map ................................ 124 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities........................................................................................... 125 Table 6-27, RD 2065 Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................ 125 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ..................................................................................................... 126 Table 6-28, RD 2065 (Veale Island) Services and Facilities ............................................................... 126 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ............................................................................................... 127 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ..................................................................................... 127 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................. 128 Other Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 128 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................. 128 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ...................................................................... 130 Reclamation District 2090 (Quimby Island) .............................................................................................. 132 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence ............................................................................................ 132 Table 6-29, Reclamation District 2090 (Quimby Island) Snapshot ................................................... 133 Exhibit 6-11, Reclamation District 2090 (Quimby Island) Boundary and SOI Map ........................... 134 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities........................................................................................... 135 Table 6-30, RD 2090 Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................ 135 Table 6-31, RD 2090 (Quimby Island) Services and Facilities ........................................................... 136 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ............................................................................................... 137 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ..................................................................................... 137 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................. 137 Other Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 138 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................. 138 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ...................................................................... 139 Reclamation District 2117 (Coney Island) ................................................................................................. 140 7 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence ............................................................................................ 140 Table 6-32, Reclamation District 2117 (Coney Island) Snapshot ...................................................... 141 Exhibit 6-12, Reclamation District 2117 (Coney Island) Boundary and SOI Map.............................. 142 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities........................................................................................... 143 Table 6-33, RD 2117 Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................ 143 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ..................................................................................................... 144 Table 6-34, RD 2117 (Coney Island) Services and Facilities .............................................................. 144 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ............................................................................................... 145 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ..................................................................................... 145 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................. 145 Other Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 146 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................. 146 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ...................................................................... 148 Reclamation District 2121 (Bixler Tract) ................................................................................................... 149 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence ............................................................................................ 149 Table 6-35, Reclamation District 2121 (Bixler Tract) Snapshot ........................................................ 150 Exhibit 6-13, Reclamation District 2121 (Bixler Tract) Boundary and SOI Map ................................ 151 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities........................................................................................... 152 Table 6-36, RD 2121 Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................ 152 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ..................................................................................................... 152 Table 6-37, RD 2121 (Bixler Tract) Services and Facilities ................................................................ 153 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ............................................................................................... 154 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ..................................................................................... 154 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................. 154 Other Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 154 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................. 154 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ...................................................................... 156 Reclamation District 2122 (Winters Island) .............................................................................................. 157 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence ............................................................................................ 157 Table 6-38, Reclamation District 2122 (Winters Island) Snapshot ................................................... 158 Exhibit 6-14, Reclamation District 2122 (Winter Island) Boundary and SOI Map ............................ 159 8 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities........................................................................................... 160 Table 6-39, RD 2122 Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................ 160 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ..................................................................................................... 161 Table 6-40, RD 2122 (Winters Island) Services and Facilities ........................................................... 161 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ............................................................................................... 162 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ..................................................................................... 162 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................. 162 Other Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 163 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................. 163 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ...................................................................... 164 Reclamation District 2137 (Dutch Slough) ................................................................................................ 166 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence ............................................................................................ 166 Table 6-41, Reclamation District 2137 (Dutch Slough) Snapshot ..................................................... 167 Exhibit 6-15, Reclamation District 2137 Boundary and SOI Map ..................................................... 168 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities........................................................................................... 169 Table 6-42, RD 2137 Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................ 169 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ..................................................................................................... 170 Table 6-43, RD 2137 (Dutch Slough) Services and Facilities ............................................................. 170 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ............................................................................................... 171 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ..................................................................................... 171 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................. 171 Other Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 172 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................. 172 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ...................................................................... 174 VII. APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 175 Acronyms .............................................................................................................................................. 176 Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 178 9 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Countywide Reclamation District Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Update (2nd Round) focuses on 14 special districts (13 reclamation districts and one municipal improvement district) located in Contra Costa County (see Exhibit 2-1) that provide reclamation and levee services. These districts include:  Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District  Reclamation District 799 (Hotchkiss Tract)  Reclamation District 800 (Byron Tract)  Reclamation District 830 (Jersey Island)  Reclamation District 2024 (Orwood and Palm Tracts)  Reclamation District 2025 (Holland Tract)  Reclamation District 2026 (Webb Tract)  Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island)  Reclamation District 2065 (Veale Tract)  Reclamation District 2090 (Quimby Island)  Reclamation District 2117 (Coney Island)  Reclamation District 2121 (Bixler Tract)  Reclamation District 2122 (Winter Island)  Reclamation District 2137 Special District Summaries The following provides an overview of the 14 special districts addressed in the Municipal Service Review (MSR), including land use, population and growth, infrastructure, funding and recommended sphere of influence (SOI) determinations on an agency-by-agency basis: Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District: The Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID), approximately 3,500 acres in size, encompasses Bethel Island located in northeastern Contra Costa County. BIMID is one of the eight western Delta islands that the DWR has identified as critical to control the salinity in the Delta, 10 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO protecting water quality to all water users in the State. Bethel Island supports both agricultural activities together with a large on-island residential population and commercial/recreational businesses. On- island improvements are below mean sea level which creates a levee system that functions more like a dam than an intermittent flood control facility. There have been no changes in land use on Bethel Island since 2009. The Delta Coves project, approved by Contra Costa County in the 1970s for up to 561 homes, appears to be moving forward after a long period of inactivity. In August 2015, Bethel Island voters approved a new assessment fee to help fund enhanced ongoing maintenance and the local matching funds required for future grants and special projects. Of the total 11.5 miles of BIMID levees, approximately 3.5 miles (29 percent) are below Delta Specific PL 84-99 standards. Nearly one mile (or eight percent) of the levee system was below the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standard of one foot above the 100-year floodplain but has since been raised to the HMP standard with the recent completion of a Department of Water Resources (DWR) Special Project. Reconfirmation of the current non-coterminous SOI for BIMID is recommended at this time. Reclamation District 799 (Hotchkiss Tract): Reclamation District (RD) 799, located at the eastern portion of the City of Oakley, contains approximately 3,100 acres. The tract has been determined to be critical to the health of the Delta. The District includes agricultural land for cattle grazing, and residential and recreational land uses. Planned residential development and a large ecological restoration project will result in significant land use changes to RD 799 in the future, although the City and County do not have a timetable available for construction and implementation. The District collects annual assessments from property owners and participates in the DWR Levee Subventions Program each year. No property tax revenues are received. RD 799 maintains 11.7 miles of levees. The 2009 MSR reported that just over three miles of levees meet Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood protection standards (three feet above the 100- year flood plain), over five miles of levees meet the HMP standard (one foot above the 100-year floodplain), and the remaining three miles of levees do not meet the HMP standard. Due to budget constraints, the levee status remains unchanged. Reconfirmation of the current SOI for RD 799 is recommended at this time. Reclamation District 800 (Byron Tract): RD 800, comprising approximately 6,933 acres, includes a majority of the unincorporated community of Discovery Bay, surrounding agricultural lands and public facilities. The District provides flood protection to approximately 3,718 properties, including 3,390 residential parcels and 26 non-taxable parcels. The District maintains 18.9 miles of levees. RD 800 receives property tax revenues on improved properties and agricultural lands, providing about 45 to 50 percent of overall revenues. RD 800 has assessment fee revenue of approximately 40 to 45 percent. The District’s levees currently provide 100-year flood protection. Consultants to the District are currently developing cost estimates for projects necessary to bring the District up to 200-year flood protection status. In December 2013, Contra Costa County approved the Pantages Bay project which will include the construction of 292 homes. Eventual annexation to RD 800 and the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District would be required to 11 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO provide services to the development. Expansion of the RD 800 SOI to include the 172-acre Pantages Bay development is recommended at this time. Reclamation District 830 (Jersey Island): RD 830 consists of a 3,561-acre island located northeast of the City of Oakley and west of Bethel Island. The island has been determined to be critical to the health of the Delta. RD 830 is under the ownership of a single landowner - Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD). The District maintains 15.5 miles of levees. Recently, RD 830 entered into a $6 million agreement with DWR to serve as lead agency providing approximately $5.9 million worth of mitigation credits to all eligible Delta reclamation districts. In addition to an annual assessment, the District is also reimbursed annually for management costs by ISD as part of a Memo of Understanding (MOU) for the purchase and ongoing maintenance of RD 830. Reaffirmation of the current SOI for RD 830 is recommended. Reclamation District 2024 (Orwood and Palm Tracts): RD 2024 is approximately 6,574 acres in size with a current population of approximately 40, the majority being seasonal farmworkers. The District anticipates no population growth or development in the foreseeable future. There are 18 landowners within the District. The predominant land use (approximately 95 percent of the District territory) within both tracts is agriculture. The District receives funding from several sources, including: property assessments; the State Delta Levee Subvention and Special Levee Project Programs; and, financial assistance from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). RD 2024 has completed several projects in the past five years and has applied for additional funds to complete levee improvements to meet PL 84-99 standards. Since the 2009 MSR, the District has expended over $3 million on improvements to the Orwood Tract and over $5 million on the Palm Tract. The District reports that all 14.6 miles levee system now meets the PL 84-99 standard. Reaffirmation of the current SOI for RD 2024 is recommended. Reclamation District 2025 (Holland Tract): RD 2025 is a Delta island located in the eastern portion of the County, northeast of the community of Knightsen. The tract has been determined to be critical to the health of the Delta. Approximately 4,090 acres in size, the District includes primarily agricultural and recreational land uses. There are 18 landowners within the District, and approximately 27 residents. The District has not experienced recent growth and no significant population growth is anticipated in the future. The District funds capital facilities and maintenance by collecting annual assessments on the District’s 18 property owners with additional funding from the DWR Levee Subventions Program. The District obtained two Special Project Grants totaling $5,719,500 of which the District must fund approximately $686,340 over the three-year period. The District also obtained short-term warrant financing from a local Stockton, California bank for $1,150,000 that is due over the next three years. Since the 2009 MSR, 7.2 miles (or 65 percent) of the District’s levees have undergone rehabilitation. Currently, all 11 miles of the District’s levees meet the PL 84-99 Standard and all planned levee rehabilitation is complete. Reaffirmation of the current SOI for RD 2025 is recommended at this time. 12 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 2026 (Webb Tract): RD 2026, 5,500 acres in size, is located in the northeastern corner of Contra Costa County. The tract has been determined to be critical to the health of the Delta. The District is under the ownership of a single landowner (Delta Wetlands Properties) and contains agricultural land uses and farming operations. No one lives on the island, and no growth is anticipated in the future. The District collects assessments on properties annually for maintenance and grant match funding. The District also participates annually in the Levee Subvention Program. Three Special Project Grants have been received since 2010 totaling $9,000,000. Of this, $4,711,616 has been spent as of December 2014. The District utilizes bank loans in the form of short-term “warrants” to finance the cash flow and District share until the projects are completed. In the 2009 MSR, the District reported that all 13 miles of levees met the HMP standard of one foot above the 100-year floodplain. Since that time, the District has rehabilitated approximately 6.25 miles to PL 84-99 standards. The District has also completed a 5-year capital improvement plan and received $9 million in grant funding from the DWR with a long-term goal of upgrading the entire levee system to PL 84-99 standards. Reaffirmation of the current SOI for RD 2026 is recommended at this time. Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island): RD 2059, approximately 2,200 acres in size, is located in northeastern corner Contra Costa County. The island has been determined to be critical to the health of the Delta. Inaccessible by road, RD 2059 is provided ferry service from Jersey Island. The District’s land uses include agricultural, commercial, residential, and gas extraction. Local business activity consists primarily of cattle grazing and small commercial operations. The District did not respond to the information request sent by LAFCO for updated growth, land use and infrastructure data. RD 2059 operates on revenues from property owner assessments, levee subvention grants and ferry service fees. The District has been successful in receiving two Special Project Grants since 2010 totaling a reported $7.5 million and at a 100 percent grant funding level. The District operates the ferry service at a financial loss and has been looking at ways to generate more revenues or obtain support funding to keep the ferry in operation for the users of the property and their clients. The RD 2059 levee system consists of 7.5 miles of levees, all of which meet HMP height standards. Additional fill dirt and rock materials are being stockpiled on the island and used where most needed in cooperation with the levee upgrade and maintenance projects. Reaffirmation of the current SOI for RD 2059 is recommended at this time. Reclamation District 2065 (Veale Tract): RD 2065 is located on the westerly edge of the Delta, approximately two miles east of the community of Knightsen. The District boundaries encompass 1,365 acres. RD 2065 is under the ownership of four landowners and consists primarily of agricultural lands along with two single family dwellings, farm worker housing and out-buildings. There are 14 residents within the District, and no significant increase in population is projected in the next 10 to 15 years. RD 2056 maintains 5.1 miles of levees. Approximately 4.2 miles (84 percent) of existing levees meet the HMP Standard. Since the 2009 MSR, the District has focused primarily on levee maintenance and the status of the levee has not changed. In 13 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO February 2014, the District entered into a Project Funding Agreement with the DWR in which DWR will provide up to 90 percent of the costs of a 2.2 million dollar levee rehabilitation project. If the DWR funding is secured, the District plans to rehabilitate the entire levee to meet HMP standards during FY 2015-16. RD 2065 currently has a “provisional coterminous SOI.” Reaffirmation of the current SOI for RD 2065 is recommended at this time. Reclamation District 2090 (Quimby Island): RD 2090 (Quimby Island) is a Delta Island located in easternmost Contra Costa County. The District’s land uses are primarily agricultural. The population on the island is one person, with four to five additional persons seasonally. No growth is anticipated in the foreseeable future. The District property is owned by one company and is utilized for agricultural purposes generating some revenues for the landowner. No regularly scheduled assessments are levied, but financial contributions have been made based upon needs for maintenance or matching State Levee Subvention Projects in FYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 and occasional Special Project Grants. All of the 7.0 miles of levees within RD 2090 meet the HMP standards. The District reports that it has spent considerable resources on levee maintenance and repairs since the previous MSR, and continues to seek funding to continue its rehabilitation efforts. However, no Special Project Grants expenditures for infrastructure upgrades have been reported, according to the most recent State Controller’s reports. Reaffirmation of the current SOI for RD 2090 is recommended at this time. Reclamation District 2117 (Coney Island): RD 2117 is a Delta island located in the most southeasterly portion of Contra Costa County. The District covers 935 acres and is under the ownership of a single landowner. The owners live on site and farm portions of the land. No significant increase in population is projected in the next 10 to 15 years. The District maintains 5.48 miles of levees. RD 2117 funds operations and administration through a combination of property assessments as needed and any grant funding that is available from the State Delta Levee Subventions Program or Special Grants for projects. The District has been approved for a Special Project Grant of $2.22 million but will be required to match approximately 11 percent of that amount. RD 2117 does not prepare a budget or audit and prioritizes spending funds based on annual needs. Hazard Mitigation Plan standards have been met for 98 percent of levee length. Since the 2009 MSR, improvements have been completed to approximately 75 percent of the levee length which now meet PL 84-99 standards. The District’s goal is to meet and exceed the PL 84-99 standard for all agricultural levees. Reaffirmation of the current SOI for RD 2117 is recommended at this time. Reclamation District 2121 (Bixler Tract): RD 2121 encompasses 584 acres and is located along the western edge of the Delta, approximately three miles east of the City of Brentwood. The District is a family-run operation (the Bloomfield family) that provides maintenance services to non-project levees and internal drainage facilities. Land uses are primarily agricultural. RD 2121 maintains two miles of levees. The District does not have any employees – maintenance activities are carried out by employees of the Bloomfield family and Bloomfield 14 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Vineyards. The District is not functioning as a governmental agency and has not recorded financial transactions for the past six years to the State Controller’s Office. The property owners report that some improvements on the levees have been made with rock materials, but no value to the District has been recorded. Unless the District reactivates its activities and financial reporting, it is assumed that no State Levee Subvention or Special Project funding will be available. Adoption of a zero SOI for RD 2121, which indicates that the agency should be “reorganized” (e.g., dissolved, consolidated, etc.) at some time in the future, is recommended at this time. Reclamation District 2122 (Winter Island): RD 2122, located northeast of the City of Pittsburg, is 428 acres in size. The property is only accessible by boat, and there is no ferry service to the island. The sole landowner, Winter Islands Farms, operates a private duck hunting club on the island. There is no permanent residential population on the island, no anticipated development, and no growth anticipated for the foreseeable future. The District employs no full-time or part-time staff positions. Maintenance of levees and flood control facilities are completed on an as needed basis and no regular assessments are collected or budgeted. RD 2122 maintains five miles of levees. The District reports that 1.5 miles of levees meet the HMP standard, and the remaining 3.5 miles of levees do not meet the HMP standard. This is unchanged since the 2009 MSR. In June 2012, the District approved a Five Year Plan to support future planning efforts by the District and the DWR. The District’s goal is to complete all rehabilitation work on the levees to meet the HMP levees standard within five years. Engineering, planning, mitigation and construction are expected to cost approximately $4.482 million, according to the District’s Plan. For purposes of the Plan, the District assumes that funding will be available under the Special Projects Program and the Subventions Program over the five-year period. Reaffirmation of the current SOI for RD 2122 is recommended at this time. Reclamation District 2137: RD 2137 encompasses 785 acres and is primarily within the boundaries of the City of Oakley. The District reports a population of two, with no anticipated growth in the foreseeable future. District lands make up a majority of the Dutch Slough Restoration Project site which was purchased by DWR in 2003. The design for the Dutch Slough Restoration is near completion and construction should begin once all environmental permits are secured. The District is comprised of three landowners, one of whom has 93 percent of the assessed valuation. Landowners pay the expenses of the operations and projects not covered by levee grants from DWR. The District received two Special Project Grants totaling $9.4 million. The District has collected property assessments for the past several years to match funding needs of the Levee Subventions and Special Project Grants. The District reports that three miles of the 3.8 mile levee system meet HMP standards which were previously reported in the 2009 MSR. Since the 2009 MSR, the District has raised the levee crown elevation as part its ongoing maintenance program. Reaffirmation of the current SOI for RD 2137 is recommended at this time. 15 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO II. INTRODUCTION Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) In the 1960’s, the California Legislature and then Governor Pat Brown identified concerns to direct attention and control to the formation and responsibilities of local government, primarily to the over 400 cities and 2,500 special districts in the state. In 1963, the Knox-Nesbitt Acts were passed creating a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in each of the 58 counties within California to oversee local government service boundaries and their spheres of influence (SOI). In 1997, the State Legislature convened a special commission to study and make recommendations to address California’s rapidly accelerating growth. The Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century focused their energies on ways to empower the already existing LAFCOs. The Commission’s final report, Growth Within Bounds, recommended various changes to local land use laws and LAFCO statutes. Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg incorporated many of the recommendations of the Commission into Assembly Bill 2838, the Cortese-Knox-Herzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act). The law provided LAFCOs with additional responsibilities and powers, including periodic SOI updates and the preparation of Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs). Municipal Service Reviews Beginning in 2001, LAFCOs in each county in California were required to review and, as necessary, update the SOI of each city and special district. SOIs are boundaries, determined by a LAFCO, which define the logical, ultimate service area for cities and special districts. No SOI can be updated, however, unless the LAFCO first conducts a MSR. MSRs evaluate how agencies currently provide municipal services within their agency service area and the impacts on those services from future growth and other changes. The MSR report is also required to identify potential opportunities to address any shortfalls, gaps, and/or impacts on services and governmental structure that may currently exist or are anticipated in the future. The MSR process does not require a LAFCO to initiate changes of organization based on service review findings. California Government Code §56430 does require, however, that LAFCOs, upon receipt and consideration of an MSR, adopt written findings addressing each of the following areas: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the SOI. 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any DUCs within or contiguous to the SOI. 16 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. Spheres of Influence In 1972, LAFCOs were given the power to establish SOIs for all local agencies under their jurisdiction. As defined by the CKH Act, LAFCO’s governing law, “sphere of influence” means a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Commission (Government Code §56076). SOIs are designed to both proactively guide and respond to the need for the extension of infrastructure and delivery of municipal services to areas of emerging growth and development. The requirement for LAFCOs to conduct MSRs was established by the CKH Act as an acknowledgment of the importance of SOIs, and recognition that periodic updates of SOIs should be conducted on a five-year basis (Government Code §56425(g)), with the benefit of better information and data through MSRs (Government Code §56430(a)). Contra Costa LAFCO reviews and approves SOIs for each city and special district within Contra Costa County. SOIs define the logical, long-term service boundary for an agency. SOIs can be the same, larger, or smaller than the existing jurisdictional boundary of a city or special district. Agencies can also receive a “zero” SOI that means, in the long term, LAFCO has determined that the agency should be “reorganized” (e.g., dissolved, consolidated, etc.) at some time in the future and that an alternative governance structure is desired. Among the factors that LAFCO considers in determining SOIs are: population and growth projections, present and planned capacity, infrastructure, fiscal strength, shared facilities, and accountability/transparency of the agency. LAFCOs are required to make five written determinations in accordance with Government Code §56425(e) when establishing, amending, or updating an SOI for any local agency that address the following: 1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. 5. For an update of an SOI of a city or special district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection, the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities with the existing sphere of influence. 17 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Additionally, LAFCOs are required to establish the nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes of services provided by existing districts (Section 56425(i) and may require existing districts to file written statements specifying the functions or classes of services provided by those districts (Section 56425(j). Scope of 2015 Reclamation Districts MSR/SOI Update A countywide MSR and SOI Update (1st Round) was previously completed for Contra Costa’s 13 reclamation districts (RDs) in 2009. The Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID) was reviewed separately in 2008 as part of the East County Sub-regional MSR. At the time the 1st round MSRs were prepared, LAFCO adopted MSR and SOI determinations for each of these districts. The 2009 study was both data driven and comprehensive in scope. It is not the intent of the 2nd Round MSR/SOI Study to replicate the 2009 Study in either scope or level of detail. In fact, for many of Contra Costa County’s RD’s, the condition and operation of the RD’s have changed little since 2009. Rather, the 2015 MSR/SOI update will be focused on three key issues:  Updating the Commission on the physical improvements, if any, which have been completed by the districts over the last five years;  Changes in the fiscal viability, if any, of each of the districts; and,  Identifying potential funding opportunities that may assist the districts in maintaining and/or improving their levee systems. A collaborative approach with the agencies has been used throughout the preparation of this MSR. Multiple opportunities were provided for input from the RD’s under study. Initially, draft statistical profiles of each agency were developed and provided to each agency and LAFCO staff for review and comment during January and February 2015. In July 2015, individual Draft agency reports were completed and distributed to each agency and LAFCO staff (including proposed MSR and SOI determinations) for additional review and comment. Distribution of this Public Review Draft of the MSR-SOI Study, which incorporates all agency and LAFCO comments received to date, provided another opportunity for public agencies, LAFCO, and the general public to review and comment on the MSR-SOI Draft report. A Final Draft MSR-SOI Study is anticipated to be completed by late October 2015 which will allow a fourth opportunity for affected agencies to review and provide comments. In addition, public hearings will be conducted by LAFCO to consider the Draft and Final versions of the MSR-SOI Study, allowing additional opportunities for comment before the Commission. This report provides an overview of the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta (Section III), an overview of RD’s and their challenges (Section IV), a description of how RD’s are funded (Section V), and individual descriptions of each of the 14 RD’s located in Contra Costa County along with recommended MSR and SOI determinations (Section VI). 18 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 2-1, Contra Costa County Reclamation Districts 19 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO III. THE SACRAMENTO/SAN JOAQUIN DELTA Overview – History/Function The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) is a vast and vitally important ecosystem and water source located east of the San Francisco Bay on the northern edge of Contra Costa County and south of Sacramento. Encompassing 1,314 square miles at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, it is the largest estuary1 on the west coast of North and South America. The Delta and its islands create a habitat for hundreds of aquatic and terrestrial species, some of which are unique to the region. The Delta is a place with historic towns, working farms, and waterways used for boating, bird watching and other recreational activities. Currently, the Delta is home to 500,000 residents2 and supports critical infrastructure of statewide importance, including energy transmission lines, petroleum pipelines, nearly 1,000 miles of navigable waterways for ships and recreational uses, and water delivery facilities that provide a critical link to California’s water supply system. Freshwater originating in the Sierra Nevada flows through the Delta, providing water supplies for 25 million Californians and the economies in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley and Southern California. Delta water irrigates farms where much of the nation’s domestic produce is grown. Many of the Delta’s 60 islands were carved by dredges to reclaim land for agricultural use. This process transformed the Delta from a vast network of tidally influenced marshland and sloughs to some of the most fertile agricultural land in the world. Today, agricultural land covers more than a half-million acres in the Delta, or in excess of two-thirds of the total Delta area. In Contra Costa County, farmland (including prime farmland) is found in all but one of the RD’s. Farming has thrived in the Delta due to the close proximity to a fresh water source. The Delta islands keep fresh water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers from mixing with the salt waters of the San Francisco Bay. Fresh water from the Delta serves as an important water source for 25 million Californians, including 87 percent of all municipal water used in the East Bay Area, and provides irrigation for California’s agricultural industry, consisting of nearly three million agricultural acres. Over 1,100 miles of levees protect the water quality, thousands of Delta residents, and billions of dollars in infrastructure and agricultural land from flooding. The California Water Code §21311 identifies protecting eight eastern Delta islands as a priority. Of the eight islands, five are protected by RD’s in Contra Costa County (Bradford, Holland, Hotchkiss, Jersey and 1 An estuary is an inland body of water where fresh river water mixes with salty sea water. 2 Bay Delta Conservation Plan, 2014 20 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Webb); and one is protected by a municipal improvement district (Bethel Island). The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) gives priority to these western Delta islands for funding via the Special Projects Program because these islands have been determined to be critical to the control of salinity in the Delta, protecting water quality and native habitat to all water users in the State. The Delta Boundary The legal boundary of the Delta was established by the 1959 Delta Protection Act (California Water Code §12220), consisting of 738,239 acres. The 1992 Delta Protection Act refined the legal boundary of the Delta to include Primary and Secondary Zones. The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of approximately two-thirds of the Delta’s area, and was defined as “land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within the urban limit line (ULL) or SOI of any local government’s general plan or studies existing as of January 1, 1992.”3 The Secondary Zone of the Delta was defined as all Delta land and water area not included within the Primary Zone. The Primary Zone of the Delta was intended to “remain relatively free from urban and suburban encroachment to protect agriculture, wildlife habitat and recreation uses,” and the Secondary Zone was “intended to include an appropriate buffer zone to prevent impacts on the lands in the Primary Zone.” Table 3-1, below, identifies the Delta Zone location of the 14 districts located within Contra Costa County. Table 3-1, Contra Costa County Reclamation & Municipal Improvement Districts by Delta Zone Primary Delta Secondary Delta Both Delta Zone Zone Zones RD 830 RD 2024 RD 2025 RD 799 RD 2026 RD 800 RD 2065 RD 2059 RD 2137 RD 2090 BIMID RD 2117 RD 2121 RD 2122 Challenges Approximately 150 years ago, the levees of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta were raised to prevent 3 California Public Resources Code §29728. 21 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO flooding on what remains some of the most fertile farmland in the nation. While the peat soils were excellent for agriculture, they were not the best choice to create strong foundations for levee barriers meant to contain a constant flow of river water. As farmers settled the valleys, the Gold Rush drew prospectors to the hills. Many used high-pressure water jets that washed entire mountainsides into local streams and rivers, depositing enormous amounts of silt in the riverbeds of the Central Valley and increasing flood risk. As a remedy to these rising riverbeds, levees were built very close to the river channels to keep water velocity high and scour away the sediment. The design of these narrow channels has not been successful – with the Gold Rush silt long gone, the erosive force of the constrained river continues to eat away and undermine the structural integrity of the levee system. The natural flows of the Delta are also altered by operation of the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project (CVP) which deliver water to millions of Californians. Many other factors affect species health in the Delta, including water quality issues, nonnative species, illegal fishing and smaller, local water diversions. The Delta is also threatened by continuing land subsidence, seismic risk and effects of climate change. Failure of the Delta levees would have a devastating effect, not only on the region, but Statewide. The quality of the Delta’s water could be severely compromised as salt water rushes in from the Bay to equalize water levels; resulting in harm to plant and animal species which would be devastating. Additionally, the supply of water would be immediately affected as pumps that move Delta water southward to the Central Valley and Southern California would be shut down to contain the saltwater intrusion. It has been estimated that the loss to California’s economy could be $30 to $40 billion in the event of massive levee failures caused by a 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Delta region. Levee failures have not been uncommon in the Delta. Over the past century, 140 levee failures have been recorded.4 However, as levees age and subside, and community development increasingly encroaches on the Delta, concern heightens for not only the economic and ecological issues associated with levee failures, but risk to public safety as well. In the summer of 2004, a levee along the Jones Tract in the southeastern Delta area suddenly collapsed without warning causing the largely agricultural island to flood. Pumping to drain and restore the island was completed at a cost of more than $90 million. Demographics – Projected Growth The demographic composition of the Delta varies greatly. It can be characterized by small towns and dispersed rural residences in the interior of the Delta, and large urban areas on the periphery. In general, the population density of the inner Delta is very low. Most of the population resides in or near the peripheral urban areas. The highest concentration of people is in the urban centers of Sacramento to the north, Antioch and Pittsburg to the west, and Stockton and Tracy to the southeast. 4 http:/calwater.ca.gov/calfed/newsroom/Delta_Flood_Risk.html (accessed January 29, 2015) 22 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO The southwestern portion of the Delta lies in Contra Costa County which extends from the Delta on its eastern and northeastern boundary to San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay on the west. Identified communities in Contra Costa County that are in the statutory Delta area include Bay Point, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen. Communities in Contra Costa County that are partially in the Delta include Antioch, Bethel Island, Brentwood, Byron, Oakley and Pittsburg. In 2010, more than 290,000 people, almost 28 percent of the County’s population, resided in communities located partially or completely in the Delta. Of these, the City of Antioch has the largest population, at 102,372 residents, and Byron has the smallest at 1,277 residents. The Delta Protection Commission’s Economic Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta reported a growth rate of approximately 54 percent within the Delta between 1990 and 2010, as compared with a 25 percent growth rate Statewide during the same period. The report also indicated that population growth had occurred in the Secondary Zone of the Delta but not in the Primary Zone, and that population in the central and south Delta areas had decreased since 2000. Table 3-2, below, illustrates past, current and future population trends for the five Delta counties. In 2015, the combined population of the Delta counties is approximately 3.9 million. Sacramento County contributed 37.7 percent of the population of the Delta counties and Contra Costa County contributed 27.8 percent. Yolo County had the smallest population of all the Delta counties. Table 3-2, Delta Counties and California Population Growth, 2015 – 2050 2015 2020 Projected 2025 Projected 2050 Projected Area Population Population Population Population (millions) (millions) (millions) (millions) Contra Costa County 1.10 1.16 1.21 1.50 Sacramento County 1.47 1.56 1.64 2.09 San Joaquin County 0.71 0.80 0.86 1.29 Solano County 0.42 0.45 0.47 0.57 Yolo County 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.30 Delta Counties 3.90 4.18 4.42 5.75 California 38.70 40.82 42.72 51.01 Source: California Department of Finance, E-1 City, Counties & State Population, January 2015 Based upon the above forecasted growth trends, the population increase and dependence upon the Delta water supply in the Delta counties, and Contra Costa County, will increase at a greater rate than the statewide rate. This places an added emphasis upon the need to manage the Delta area and facilities to ensure a safe and reliable levee system and water supply. 23 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO IV. RECLAMATION DISTRICTS OVERVIEW Reclamation Districts - History The origin of RD’s began in 1850 when the U.S. Congress passed the Reclamation Act authorizing lands to be purchased and placed into reclamation holdings for preservation and use. A series of new laws in California followed, including allowing counties to sell “swamp land” for $1 per acre for reclamation purposes (1855) and authorizing the local County Board of Supervisors to apply assessments on property for improvement and maintenance (1861). From 1866 to 1911, the authority for oversight of RD’s changed from the Swamp Land Commission to each of the County Board of Supervisors and then to the State Board of Reclamation. As described earlier, when the Legislature created LAFCOs and the responsibility to establish service boundaries and SOI’s, RD’s came under the oversight of LAFCO as to boundary and SOI approval. Contra Costa County is one of 16 counties in California that have RD’s. In 1972, after several major flooding events in Central California, the Federal and State governments settled claims and, through the Federal Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, authorized engineering and financial support for the preservation of waterways in the State Delta Zone and river tributaries. Various plans and funding programs have been enacted since that time and are described later in this report. Recent Interest in the Delta and Reclamation At the direction of the State legislature, the Delta Stewardship Council (Council) recently embarked on the development of a new approach to investing in the Delta levees. Working together with the other affected State and local agencies, Delta residents, and a wide variety of Delta stakeholders, the Council is developing a comprehensive Delta Levees Investment Strategy. The Strategy will incorporate a methodology that considers the assets protected by Delta levees, the threats to Delta levees, the multiple beneficiaries of Delta levee investments, and both structural and non-structural approaches for reducing risk. The outcome of the project included a draft report which began the development of a Delta Levee Investment and Risk Reduction Strategy that outlines a suite of investments that best addresses State goals and priorities. The draft Investment Strategy is still under review and, when adopted, is expected to result in proposed revisions to the current Delta Plan’s flood risk reduction regulatory policies and recommendations. Several interim policy and procedure reports have been reviewed and approved by the Council in April, July, and August 2015. The final calendar was included in the report for the August 27, 2015 meeting, and a link to the report is included below. The Council's new approach is expected to be used to guide existing (and new) Delta levee programs, including setting priorities for future funding. A Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the proposed Investment Strategy was published in May 2015, and comments were due to the Stewardship Council Assistant Manager by June 30, 2015. The final document and EIR are expected to be considered in the spring or summer of 2016. A 24 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO full calendar of dates in the public review process is available on the Council website at: http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-levees-investment-strategy Protecting California’s Water Supply The Delta provides water for in-Delta users, including local municipalities such as the City of Stockton, the Contra Costa Water District, agricultural users, and for export through the State Water Project and the CVP. All these uses rely upon the quality of the Delta’s waters, governed by objectives established in the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan to protect beneficial uses of Delta water. Delta levees affect the quality of water on which these users rely because they influence the hydrodynamics of the Delta and the mixing of brackish and fresh water and other constituents. Select Delta levees also are important to the conveyance of water from the Sacramento River through the Delta for export by State Water Project and the CVP. In the south Delta, levees on Roberts Island and Jones Tract (San Joaquin County), for example, protect East Bay Municipal Utility District’s aqueduct that conveys water from the Mokelumne River to the East Bay. Failure or alterations of levees that result in degraded water quality can also harm water supplies by requiring the release of large amounts of water from storage to flush out brackish water. Some studies indicate, however, that pre-flooding selected Delta islands could reduce the possibility that a large volume of saltwater would be drawn into the Delta after levee failures and would reduce the disruptions to water exports. The DWR Delta Risk Management Strategy Phase 2 report concluded that, from the perspective of the statewide economic impacts, levee improvements that reduce the risk to fresh-water exports from the Delta have the highest benefits to California as a whole. The Delta’s Fragile Ecosystem The Delta’s aquatic ecosystem, including the Delta Smelt, Longfin Smelt, and other aquatic life, depends on the quality of Delta waters. Attainment of the SWRCB’s Bay Delta Water Quality Plan objectives that protect ecosystem values relies on the existing levee system, which influences ecosystem water quality in the same ways that levees affect municipal, agricultural, and export water supplies. Some local levee-maintaining agencies, however, suggest that pursuing ecosystem-related goals and objectives redirect funds that would otherwise be available to improve levees to protect lives and property or secure a more reliable water supply. Vegetation on levees and adjoining berms also contributes to the Delta ecosystem by providing habitat for birds and shade that cools adjoining waters. Protection and management of levee vegetation is an ongoing challenge, partly because of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulations that require clearance from levees. The Delta Plan recommends that the USACE exempt Delta levees from its levee vegetation policy, where appropriate. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 requires the USACE to revise its vegetation management policy for levees to take into consideration and incorporate regional characteristics, habitat for species of concern, and levee performance. While 25 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO there is no new policy yet, the USACE will no longer disqualify a levee system from its Rehabilitation Program (PL-84-99) due solely to vegetation issues. The Delta as a “Place” The Delta Plan, first adopted by the DWR in 1975 (and updated several times subsequently), the 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, as well as legislative provisions in the California Water Code (§§85305-07), all identify unique values of the Delta and recognize the Delta as “a place”. The Delta’s geography of low-lying islands and tracts, shaped by rivers, sloughs, and shipping channels, is defined by the region’s levees. Agriculture in the Delta, central to the region’s rural economy, depends on levees which protect farms from flooding, enable their drainage, and incorporate irrigation and water control facilities. Recreation, including resorts and marinas, are often found adjacent to levees. Some levees provide recreation such as riverside biking or walking trails, viewpoints, and bank fishing access. Scenic roads atop and adjoining some Delta levees are popular for recreational motorists. The 14 RD’s in Contra Costa County are an integral part of the overall Delta System and Plan. Continued emphasis and oversight to assure that the levees in Contra Costa County are properly maintained and managed is a central focus of this MSR. Maintenance of Delta Levees Most Delta levees, whether project levees or non-project levees, are private property with easements allowing levee construction and maintenance by flood control and drainage agencies. Almost all Delta levees are maintained by local agencies, usually RD’s. RD’s are organized and controlled by their landowners, who are typically allotted votes based on the assessed value or acreage of their ownership (California Water Code §50704). Metropolitan-type flood control agencies are generally well funded and staffed, but many local agencies including most RD’s have small budgets and limited staffing. The DWR guides many flood management activities across the State. DWR’s statewide perspective, engineering and environmental expertise, and size all contribute to its role as the leading State flood management agency in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. For project levees, DWR develops and recommends proposed project funding through the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. For non-project levees, DWR administers two key programs. The first is the Delta Levee Maintenance Subvention Program, which cost shares local agencies’ maintenance of Delta levees. The second program is the Delta Levees Special Flood Control Projects Program which funds improvements to levees and levee-related wildlife and fish habitats. Reclamation Districts and LAFCO Oversight RD’s have been authorized by the State Water Code for over 100 years. Since 1963, the Knox-Nesbitt Act, and later the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act of 2000, has provided legislative direction and authority for LAFCO to oversee the formation, changes of organization and dissolution of special districts, 26 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO including RD’s. The emerging importance of the Bay-Delta in relation to identified climate change policy and the recent drought has brought more attention to the function and importance of RD’s. The primary role of LAFCO in reviewing the services of cities and special districts is to determine the level of services currently provided by these agencies and their long-term capability of providing services in the future. In the case of RD’s, most are small but provide very important service benefits for maintaining levees and drainage control to their island properties. Many RD’s have limited operating and capital budgets. A review of past LAFCO MSRs indicates that these studies often result in preliminary recommendations to consolidate some of the RD’s to reduce administrative overhead and improve overall efficiencies in providing maintenance operations. Generally, the response from the landowners within RD’s is that RD’s serve a limited property area, consolidation is not a benefit in terms of cost sharing and liability sharing, and it may limit funding opportunities in the future. There are some exceptions where populated development has occurred and levee systems are essential to protecting people and property. The question arises as to whether LAFCO’s are the best agencies to oversee RD’s, or if there is another agency at the State or county level that might better oversee the purpose and functions of these agencies. Possibilities to be considered are the DWR or each county that has RD’s. It is not clear if such a policy issue discussion has been undertaken in other LAFCO’s, or at the State governance level, but it may be an issue worthy of further review and consideration. Recent Legislative Efforts On March 25, 2015, at the recommendation of Governor Brown and a bipartisan group of legislators, two bills were passed that authorized approximately $1.1 billion in previously approved bond funds to address emergency drought and anticipated climate change impacts to the State’s water system. Included in these authorizations are allocations for flood management and levee maintenance. It is reported that a high priority will be to consider previously submitted project requests for water quality and system reliability benefits, including levee protection improvements. A major goal of this MSR process is to encourage collaboration of the various RD’s and BIMID, and to implement improvements to their levee systems to extend their useful life and integrity. Identifying the various plans and project needs of the RD’s, and documenting the progress of the individual RD projects, is hoped to be a successful outgrowth of this MSR study. 27 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO V. RECLAMATION DISTRICTS – FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES RD’s are a unique type of special district. Typically they are formed by landowners to protect their property from flooding by maintaining the levees or the natural habitat. RD’s have several unique funding mechanisms. Many RD’s are funded by a combination of property tax, special assessments, the sale of warrants, and grants. Other RD’s have been more creative in seeking funding. Some RD’s, for example, receive revenues by charging owners to use the levees as roads. A summary of key funding sources for Contra Costa County RD’s are shown in Table 5-1, below, and described in detail in the following section. Table 5-1, Contra Costa County Reclamation & Municipal Improvement Districts and Funding Sources Funding Programs Property Special Delta Levees Subventions Special Projects Tax Assessment Program/DWR Funds 2011-12; Funds 2008-14 s Special Projects 12-13 or 13-14* RD 799 (Hotchkiss Tract)  (SP) $ 59,791 $ 671,000 RD 800 (Byron Tract)    (SP) $ 111,163 $5.1 M RD 830 (Jersey Island)   (SP) $ 498,942 $2.3 M, $2.8 M RD 2024 (Orwood and   $ 100,127 Palm Tracts) RD 2025 (Holland Tract)   (SP) $ 163,817 $5.0 M RD 2059 (Bradford Island)   (SP) $ 192,672 $5.57 M, $2.05 M (2013-14) RD 2065 (Veale Tract)   (SP) $ 6,783 $2.2 M RD 2090 (Quimby Tract)   (SP) $ 46,132 RD 2117 (Coney Island) As needed  $ 42,586 (2011-12) RD 2121 (Bixler Tract) -- -- -- -- RD 2122 (Winter Island) As needed  $ 79,858 RD 2137   $ 72,813 $2.0 M RD 2026 (Webb Tract)   (SP) $ 67,499 $2.0 M, $5.0 M BIMID   **  (SP) $ 137,415 $1.6 M, $3.5 M (2012-13) Notes: * Levee Subventions Funds are shown for FY 2012-13 unless noted differently. These funds vary each year depending upon applications, completion of work and invoicing. **Bethel Island MID property owners voted on August 6, 2015, to levy an assessment on each property in the District for $110 per Equivalent Parcel per acre (for a total calculated benefit of $213,947 in year 2015-16). The assessment is authorized for up to ten years. RD 2024 has also received special financial assistance from the East Bay Municipal Utilities District for levee rehabilitation. (SP) is a Special Projects term for specific grant funding based upon the qualifications of the levee, location and benefit to the Delta system. Grants are solicited as funds are available. A new authorization for Levee Subventions Funds Grants (2015-16) is expected to be announced in late September 2015 totaling $12 million in State funding. Property Tax Some districts receive a portion of the property tax. For example, BIMID receives about 90 percent of its revenues in the form of property tax. Taxes are collected by the County and redistributed based on the 28 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO percentage that agency received in 1978 plus an incremental value that is based on the change in assessed value for the previous year. Special Assessments Most of the RD’s receive revenues from special assessments paid by landowners within the districts. In most cases, these assessments are based on the benefit that each parcel receives from the levee system. This summer, BIMID asked property owners to increase the annual assessment to improve and maintain the levee system. Since special assessments are based on the proportion of benefit received, in the case of Bethel Island, assessments are based on the size and elevation of the parcel and whether the parcel contains buildings. Special assessments require a vote of the landowners. The vote is weighted by the benefit received and the voting threshold is 50 percent plus one. BIMID reports that the annual assessment was approved by 68 percent of the voting landowners. Warrants Many times a RD will require funds for capital improvements. These projects are often front funded by warrants (which are authorized within the Water Code) and drawn on local financial institutions. Board members and/or residents essentially provide the district funds through the issuance of warrants. In return, they receive the benefit of improved flood protection but also earn interest on the value of the warrant. Grant Funding Sources The following section describes grant funding opportunities available from State bond measures, the DWR, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and CALFED. State programs primarily derive funding from bond measures approved by the voters of California. The main source of funding has been derived primarily from Proposition 84, Proposition 1E and Proposition 13. In 2014, voters approved Proposition 1 which identified $239 million for statewide and delta levee projects. All bond funding is identified in the bond measure by function, and is often allocated regionally based upon need and benefit. Most levee grant programs are administered based upon identified need and benefit as overseen by DWR and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB).  Proposition 84 Proposition 84 provides renewed funding for the Flood Protection Corridor Program (FPCP) in the amount of $40,000,000. The FPCP was created by Proposition 13 in March 2000 to provide grant funding for nonstructural flood management projects. In addition to demonstrating a significant reduction of peak flood flows, flood stage, flood risk or potential flood damage, projects must also provide for agricultural land preservation or wildlife habitat protection or enhancement, or both. Grants are available to any local agency or nonprofit organization with interest in flood management issues that seek to acquire, restore, enhance and protect real property for the 29 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO purposes of flood control protection, together with agricultural land preservation and/or wildlife habitat protection. These agencies, termed sponsoring agencies, can partner with other types of agencies and organizations as necessary to ensure diverse funding sources and necessary expertise on the project team. The involvement of cost-sharing partners is strongly encouraged. A grant cap of $5 million per project has been established for grants from the FPCP, so grant funds can be distributed to the greatest number of deserving projects. However, exceptional projects requesting funding greater than the established cap are considered on a case-by-case basis. Smaller projects with greater financial participation by partners are encouraged to allow widest possible distribution of funds.  Proposition 1E The “Disaster Preparedness & Flood Protection Bond Act of 2006” (Proposition 1E) makes funding available to improve local flood emergency response. Up to $5 million in funding is available through this grant and requires no local match. California public agencies with primary responsibility for flood emergency response and coordination are eligible to apply for this competitive grant. The geographic scope of this grant is the legal Delta, including primary and secondary zones. Funding is available through this program for projects such as preparing or updating the local flood emergency plan, coordinating flood emergency planning and preparedness, developing processes to effectively communicate and coordinate response to flood emergencies, collecting and exchanging flood information, and purchasing and installing equipment for emergency communications.  Proposition 13 California voters passed Proposition 13, the "Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed protection, and Flood Protection Act" in March of 2000. This proposition provided funding for nonstructural flood management projects that include wildlife habitat enhancement and/or agricultural land preservation. This funding was first made available for direct expenditure projects during the fiscal year of 2001-2002, followed by a competitive solicitation for grant-funded project proposals in fiscal year 2002-2003. Most of these funds have been expended but the Legislature continues to have a small amount available when identified needs occur.  Proposition 1 In November 2014, California voters passed a $7.1 billion bond measure for state water supply infrastructure projects, such as public water system improvements, surface and groundwater storage, drinking water protection, water recycling and advanced water treatment technology, 30 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO water supply management and conveyance, wastewater treatment, drought relief, emergency water supplies, and ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration. Included in the bond measure is $395 million for flood management. Of that total, $295 million is designated to reduce the risk of levee failure and flooding in the Delta. Guidelines for applying for the funding are still in the development stage under the purview of the DWR and CVFPB. Grant Funding Programs and Projects Many of the districts rely on grants administered by the DWR. Most of the grants come from three main programs, the Delta Levees Program, the Flood Control Subventions Program, and Flood Protection Corridor Program. There are also grant programs available from the CDFW for some habitat restoration. Grants are available for: o Non-structural flood damage reduction projects within flood corridors o Acquisition of real property or easements in a floodplain o Setting back existing flood control levees or strengthening or modifying existing levees in conjunction with levee setbacks o Preserving or enhancing flood-compatible agricultural use of the real property o Preserving or enhancing wildlife values of the real property through restoration of habitat compatible with seasonal flooding o Repairing breaches in the flood control systems, water diversion facilities, or flood control facilities damaged by a project developed pursuant to Chapter 5, Article 2.5 of the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Act of 2000 o Establishing a trust fund for up to 20 percent of the money paid for acquisition for the purpose of generating interest to maintain the acquired lands o Paying the costs associated with the administration of the projects DWR Programs  Delta Levees Program This program provides financial assistance to local agencies in the Delta and portions for the Suisun Marsh as outlined in California Water Code §12200 et seq. for levee maintenance and improvements costs, and to provide mitigation and environmental enhancement associated with Delta and Suisun Marsh levee maintenance and improvements. There are several components of the Delta Levees Program. They offer a variety of tools to implement projects efficiently in order to achieve program goals. The two largest components are the Special Flood Control Projects and Delta Levee Subventions. The 31 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO majority of the Delta Levees Program is used to plan and build levee maintenance, levee improvement, and habitat-related projects. These programs receive funding from Proposition 84, $265 million, and Proposition 1E, $320 million. Funding sources began awarding grants in FY 2007-08. The Delta Levees Special Flood Control Projects provides financial assistance to local levee maintaining agencies for rehabilitation of levees in the Delta. The program was established by the California Legislature under SB 34, SB 1065, and AB 360. Since the inception of the program, more than $100 million have been provided to local agencies in the Delta for flood control and related habitat projects. The Special Project is authorized in the California Water Code, §§12300 thru 12314. The intent of Legislature, as stated in the Water Code, is to preserve the Delta as much as it exists at the present time. The program presently focuses on flood control projects and related habitat projects for eight western Delta Islands--Bethel, Bradford, Holland, Hotchkiss, Jersey, Sherman, Twitchell and Webb Islands--and for the Towns of Thornton and Walnut Grove.  Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Program The Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Program is authorized by the California Water Code, §§12980 thru 12995. The Subventions Program has been in effect since 1973 and has been modified periodically by legislation. The Water Code §12981 states the intent of the legislature as “...the physical characteristics of the delta should be preserved essentially in their present form; and that the key to preserving the delta's physical characteristics is the system of levees defining the waterways and producing the adjacent islands...” The Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Program is a cost share program that provides technical and financial assistance to local levee maintaining agencies in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta for the maintenance and rehabilitation of non-project and eligible project levees. In 2000, the state statute was amended to require flood management projects to meet prescribed requirements prior to state authorization and to create a variable state cost- share percentage based on the objectives of the projects, ranging from a minimum of 50 percent to a maximum of 70 percent. The Central Valley Flood Protection Board (formerly Reclamation Board) reviews and approves the Department's recommendations and enters into agreements with local agencies to reimburse eligible costs of levee maintenance and rehabilitation, usually at a 75 percent share of qualified expenses after the initial $1,000 per mile of levee by the RD. There are also several types of projects that are eligible for subventions funding. In 2000, Assembly Bill 1147 (AB 1147) prescribed new requirements for projects authorized after January 1, 2002: 32 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO o Major Flood Control Projects - these are major U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects that are specifically authorized by Congress. Generally, the federal authorization is done in a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). These major Corps projects must also be specifically authorized by the Legislature. o Small Flood Control Projects - these are small USACE projects authorized by §205 of Public Law 80-858 and the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers. These small Corps projects are authorized by California Water Code §12750 and are subject to certain findings by the Department. o Watershed Protection Projects - these are Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) watershed protection projects that are authorized by the Administrator of the NRCS after the reports are reviewed by the Agriculture Committees of Congress. These watershed protection projects are authorized by Water Code §12868 and are subject to completion of specified administrative actions and to findings by the Department. Historically, the Subventions Program has reimbursed an average of about $6 million annually. Since the passage of Propositions 1E and 84, the funding level for the Subventions Program has significantly increased to approximately $12 million per year. This increased funding has been used to support the maintenance and rehabilitation activities of over 700 miles of project and non-project levees annually. Propositions 1E and 84 have provided $656 million in total Program funding (since FY 2007-2008). As of January 2013, just over $400 million remains in proposition funding, some of which has been committed to existing authorized projects. DWR staff reports that the proposed projects in 2015-16 ($12 million in total funding) will be considered by the CVFPB in September-October 2015. Flood Protection Corridor Program The goal of the Flood Protection Corridor Program is to fund primarily nonstructural flood management solutions through direct expenditures and grants to local public agencies and nonprofit organizations. Funding under this Program is intended to be used for acquisition, restoration, enhancement and protection of real property while preserving sustainable agriculture and enhancing wildlife habitat in and near flood corridors throughout the state. Implementation of the Program seeks to avoid future flood damage and correct existing problems by restoring natural fluvial and related biological processes in flood corridors by acquiring, through easement or fee title, rights to real property that is subject to periodic damaging flood flows. The Flood Protection Corridor Program (FPCP) was established when California voters passed Proposition 13, the "Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Act" in March of 2000. This proposition provided funding for nonstructural flood management projects that include wildlife habitat enhancement and/or agricultural land preservation. This funding was first made available for direct expenditure projects during FY 2001-2002, followed by a competitive solicitation for grant-funded project proposals in FY 2002-2003. 33 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Proposition 84 - the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality & Supply, Flood Control, and River & Coastal Bond Act of 2006 - provides $40 million in renewed funding for the FPCP. Proposition 1E - the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006 - provides $38 million in additional funds for the FPCP’s regular activities as well as funding for constructing new levees necessary for the establishment of a flood protection corridor or bypass and relocating or flood proofing structures necessary for the establishment of a flood protection corridor. Flood Emergency Response Projects DWR has made additional funding available for the Flood Emergency Response Projects grants. The original amount of $5 million was increased to $10 million in early 2013, and another $5 million was added in mid-2013. $10 million in funding has been awarded for statewide projects and Delta communications equipment, while the remaining $5 million has been recommended for projects in the legal Delta. An additional $5 million is available for the second round of statewide grants being considered for later in 2015. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Programs  California State Duck Stamp Project The California State Duck Stamp (CSDS) was created by legislation in 1971 (Fish and Game Code §3702). The stamp is required when hunting waterfowl and purchased by stamp collectors. All funds generated by the sale of stamps are deposited in the State Duck Stamp Account. The funds can only be used for projects approved by the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) for the purpose of protecting, preserving, restoring, enhancing, and developing migratory waterfowl breeding and wintering habitat, evaluating habitat projects, and conducting waterfowl resource assessments and other waterfowl related research. These funds also may be used to reimburse nonprofit organizations for completed habitat projects. The goals of the CSDS, are to protect, preserve, restore, enhance, and develop migratory waterfowl breeding and wintering habitat, evaluate habitat projects, and conduct waterfowl resource assessments and other waterfowl related research. The CDFW awards grants for waterfowl conservation purposes to nonprofit organizations, local government agencies, state departments and federal agencies. The organizations must have the specific capacity in waterfowl habitat enhancement, restoration, creation and or research experience.  Wetlands Restoration for Greenhouse Gas Reduction The CDFW administers the Wetlands Restoration for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. The program is funded through the Air Resources Board’s Cap-and-Trade Program as part of its overall greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategy. The program will support projects that 34 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO reduce GHGs and provide co-benefits such as enhancing fish and wildlife habitat, protecting and improving water quality and quantity, and helping California adapt to climate change. The program is focused on GHG emission reduction through restoration or enhancement of Delta and coastal wetlands and mountain meadow habitat. This grant program will focus on two areas. One area includes the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Coastal Wetlands, to develop and implement projects in the Delta and coastal areas with measurable objectives that will lead to reductions in GHGs. The other area is Mountain Meadow Ecosystems, to develop and implement mountain meadow projects throughout the State with measurable objectives that will lead to reductions in GHGs. The first round of grants awarded approximately $30 million to several projects in the northern area of the delta but none in Contra Costa County. Other Agency Grant Programs  CALFED Water Use Efficiency Grants The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has $2 million to award under the Bay-Delta Restoration Program: CALFED Water Use Efficiency Grants. The federal funding cap is $300,000 per award, not to exceed 50 percent of project costs. The Bay-Delta Restoration Program is a collaborative effort among 25 state and federal agencies. Their joint mission is to improve California’s water supply and the ecological health of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta). The Bay-Delta provides water for urban, agricultural, industrial and environmental uses. A key element of the Bay-Delta Restoration Program is water use efficiency. The CALFED Water Use Efficiency Grant Program was established to accelerate the implementation of cost-effective actions that provide state-wide benefits of water conservation. Water conservation and water use efficiency are critical elements of any plan to address Bay-Delta water concerns. With leveraged water efficiency grants, an important step will be taken towards increasing conservation for a more efficient use of water in California. Applicants encouraged consider cost sharing with projects emphasizing water use efficiency and conservation activities that will improve ecosystem health, water supply reliability and water quality.  Endangered Species Recovery Land Acquisition Grant Program The Endangered Species Recovery Land Acquisition (RLA) Grant Program is one of four grant programs administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) and authorized through Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The RLA Grant Program is part of what is known as the Nontraditional Section 6 Program, and provides funding to States and Territories for the 35 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO acquisition of threatened and endangered species habitat in support of approved and draft species recovery plans. The RLA Grant Program is coordinated by CDFW Wildlife Branch in California.  Ecosystem Restoration Program The Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) is a multi-agency effort aimed at improving and increasing aquatic and terrestrial habitats and ecological function in the Delta and its tributaries. The ERP Focus Area includes the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Suisun Bay, the Sacramento River below Shasta Dam, the San Joaquin River below the confluence with the Merced River, and their major tributary watersheds directly connected to the Bay-Delta system below major dams and reservoirs. Principal participants overseeing the ERP are CDFW, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), collectively known as the ERP Implementing Agencies. The ERP implements restoration projects through grants administered by the ERP Grants Program. The vast majority of these projects focus on fish passage issues, species assessment, ecological processes, environmental water quality, or habitat restoration. The ERP uses several processes to achieve its goals and ecosystem restoration activities. ERP uses both State and federal funding to accomplish projects and activities. In addition, ERP coordinates and collaborates with other funding entities to accomplish restoration activities. The primary sources of State funding for ERP projects include Proposition 204 (the Safe, Clean, reliable Water Supply Act - 1996), Proposition 13, Proposition 50 (the Water Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking Water Projects Act - 2002), and Proposition 84. Summary of Future Grant Funding Opportunities Funding for delta levee and water supply projects is very competitive and is usually based upon the need for the funding, benefit to water supply reliability, and water quality and other program objectives. The Legislature and Governor Brown have supported increasing the funding for these grants and directed DWR to coordinate with all parties including counties, resource agencies, and RD’s to identify plans for needed facility improvements and allocation of funds where they may be best utilized. Funding for the construction and maintenance of project and non-project levees continues to be a particular challenge for RD’s in Contra Costa County. Most RD’s are generally small in size and used primarily for agricultural purposes. This makes securing the use of grant funds or loans to fund major capital improvements challenging for many landowners. Most of the RD’s operate from year-to-year utilizing short-term borrowing to match annual Levee Subvention Program Grant funding. Many grants require from five to 50 percent local matching funds which places constraints upon local property owners with limited revenue resources to provide the matching funds. Special Project Grants and loans have been made available to RD’s with high priority 36 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO levees as identified in the Delta Plan and will be evaluated in the future under the Delta Stewardship Council Delta Levee Investment Strategy process. In July 2015, representatives of DWR stated that the next round of Delta Levees Maintenance Subvention Program (Subventions Program) grants is tentatively scheduled for consideration in September 2015 but have not been published as of the date of this report. The Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Program is a cost share program that provides technical and financial assistance to local levee agencies in the Delta for the maintenance and rehabilitation of non-project and eligible project levees. The Central Valley Flood Protection Board reviews and approves DWR’s recommendations and enters into agreements with local agencies to reimburse eligible costs of levee maintenance and rehabilitation. The anticipated funding level for FY 2015-16 is estimated to be $12 million (the maximum allowed in the program) to be distributed among the approximately 70 RD’s that participate in the program. In a report issued by DWR in 2015, a graphic summary of Special District Funding by RD area (for the period of 1997 to 2014) was included and is reproduced in the Appendix of this report beginning on page 176. The staff at DWR also reports that they are available to discuss opportunities for grants and loans and assist, where possible, with the smaller RD agencies. DWR staff contacts are available through the DWR website: www.water.ca.gov 37 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO VI. AGENCY PROFILES/MSR-SOI DETERMINATIONS This section provide individual profiles for each of the 14 agencies (13 reclamation districts and one municipal improvement district) that provide levee and drainage maintenance services within Contra Costa County. Each profile provides a discussion of:  Background/history of each agency  Funding sources for agency operations  Cooperative/shared facilities  Identification of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, if applicable  Governance and governance structure alternatives  Improvements completed since the 2009 MSR  Recommended MSR/SOI Determinations Table 6-1, below, tracks the overall progress the Districts have made (e.g., infrastructure investment, levee improvements, etc.) since 2009. Most have made significant investments in levee infrastructure and completed long-range planning through adoption of 5-year plans. Challenges remain for many, however, in securing “match” funds for grants and other potential funding opportunities. The districts show little interest in sharing services. In terms of an overall assessment, since the 2009 MSR, seven of the 14 Districts are considered “improved,” five remain the “same,” one has a “lower capability,” and one (RD 2059) has not provided sufficient information to complete a comparative assessment. (Intentionally left blank) 38 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-1, Contra Costa County Reclamation District’s Progress Comparison, 2009-2015 Reclamation Current Infrastructure Levee Expanded Website 5-Year Plan Overall Assessment Districts Budget/Audit Investments Improvements Cooperative (Complete/Not (Improved, Same or Lower Programs/ Completed) Capability of overall Levee System) Shared Services BIMID Budget - Yes Yes - $2.1 M project Yes – Annually Yes – CC Public Yes Improved Audits - Yes in process; $3.5 M Works contract for Completed (financial status has pending drainage been of concern for maintenance future operations & projects; assessment district approved by voters for next 10 years) RD 799 Budget - Yes Yes - $127,000 Yes – Annually No No Completed Same (Hotchkiss Audits - No Tract) RD 800 Budget - Yes Yes - $3.0 M Yes – Annually No Yes Completed Improved (Byron Tract) Audits - Yes Dry Land levee - $634.5 K RD 830 Budget - Yes Yes - $2.07 M Yes – Annually Yes – Ironhouse Yes Completed Improved (Jersey Island) Audits - Yes SD/Habitat RD 2024 Budget - No Yes - $8 M Yes- Annually No No Completed Improved (Orwood and Audits - Yes Palm Tracts) RD 2025 Budget – Yes Yes - $3.8 M Yes – Annually No No Completed Improved (Holland Tract) Audits - Yes RD 2026 Budget - Yes Yes - $ 9 M; $4.7 Yes – Annually No No Completed Improved (Webb Tract) Audits - Yes spent to date RD 2059 No Response Yes - $7 M Yes - Annually Provides ferry Yes Completed Unknown (Bradford to RFI service Insufficient information; Island) SC Reports show annual assessments and subventions revenues of approximately $650K RD 2065 Budget - No No – plan for DWR Yes – Annually No No Completed Same (Veale Tract) Audits - Yes Grant project to upgrade at $2.2 M RD 2090 Budget - No No Yes – Annually Equipment sharing No Completed Same (Quimby Audits - Yes with Ellis Farms Island) RD 2117 Budget - No No – Seeking $2.22 Yes- Annually No No Completed Lower Capability (Coney Island) Audits - Yes M Grant at minimum (pending grant funds for amount improvements) RD 2121 Budget - No No NR No No Not Completed Same (Bixler Tract) Audits - No (considered inactive) RD 2122 Budget - No No – 5 Year Plan Yes – Annually No No Completed Same (Winter Island) Audits - NR prepared at minimum (single landowner; amount seeking grant funds but matching funds a challenge) RD 2137 Budget - Yes Yes – 2 Special Yes - Annually Yes – Dutch Slough No Completed Improved Audit – 2014 Projects - $9.4 M Project only 39 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Pt Description of categories:  Budget and audit – Does the RD prepare an annual budget and/or annual audit?  Infrastructure Investment – Has the RD implemented levee and system improvement projects since 2009?  Levee Improvements - list the approximate budget of funded levee project improvements approved by the district and DWR.  Expanded Cooperative Programs/Shared Services - Has the RD implemented any new or expanded cooperative programs or shared services with other RD’s or Agencies since the 2009 MSR?  Website - Does the RD have a website or regularly published newsletter?  Overall Assessment - Does the review of the recent three years of financial and operations information reflect an improvement, no improvement or decrease in the operational effectiveness of the District? (Intentionally left blank) 40 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence The Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID) was formed in 1960 by a special act of the Legislature (“Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Act”), replacing and succeeding Reclamation District No. 1619. BIMID, approximately 3,500 acres in size, encompasses Bethel Island located in northeastern Contra Costa County (see Exhibit 6-1). Located adjacent to a major Delta channel where fresh water and salt water mix, Bethel Island is one of the eight western Delta islands that the Department of Water Resources (DWR) has identified as critical to control the salinity in the Delta, protecting water quality to all water users in the state. It is located within the Secondary Zone5 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and is located inside the countywide urban limit line (ULL). Bethel Island is unique in comparison with the other seven western islands in that the island supports both agricultural activities together with a large on-island residential population and commercial/recreational businesses. Additionally, the on-island improvements are below mean sea level which creates a levee system that functions more like a dam than an intermittent flood control facility. There have been no changes in land use on Bethel Island since 2009. The bulk of the development (primarily single family homes and marina/recreational facilities) is located and concentrated along the perimeter of the island. The Delta Coves project, approved by Contra Costa County in the 1970s, 5 The 1992 Delta Protection Act refined the legal boundary of the Delta to include Primary and Secondary Zones. The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area, and was defined as “land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the ULL or SOI line of any local government’s general plan or studies existing as of January 1, 1992. The Secondary Zone of the Delta was defined as all Delta land and water area not included with the Primary Zone. The Primary Zone of the Delta was intended “to remain relatively free from urban and suburban encroachment to protect agriculture, wildlife habitat and recreation uses,” and the Secondary Zone was “intended to include an appropriate buffer zone to prevent impacts on the lands in the Primary Zone. 41 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO appears to be moving forward after a long period of inactivity. The project was purchased by SunCal in mid-2012 (following the bankruptcy of the prior owner) and is proposed to have up to 561 homes with private boat docks built around a man-made lagoon. BIMID is expected to assume responsibility of most of the infrastructure and operational facilities for the levee and pump stations once a plan and agreement is reached with the developer and the County in the future. The negotiations on the plan and agreement have taken longer than anticipated. The District will eventually benefit financially from this new development by increasing property taxes over time as homes and HOA facilities are built and properties are re-assessed under Proposition 13. Such revenues will help the District’s overall baseline budget gradually improve over time to better provide enhanced levee and drainage maintenance services throughout Bethel Island. BIMID and Delta Coves currently remain in complex negotiations regarding BIMID’s possible assumption of responsibility for maintenance of all Delta Coves’ operational facilities (other than the lagoon circulation system and its associated water quality issues). BIMID will only be responsible for dissolved oxygen monitoring associated with the required MS4 permit. According to the District, the intended outcome of the negotiation process will result in the Delta Coves’ facilities maintenance responsibilities (assumed by BIMID) being completely funded by the Community Facilities District formed by Delta Coves in conjunction with Contra Costa County. This will ensure that no funding deficit will occur over the decades ahead, and no BIMID General Fund revenues (i.e., taxpayer generated) will be necessary to subsidize the maintenance of this private development. Water service to the new development is proposed to be provided by Diablo Water District. The District reports that the major challenges for the agency in the next five years include District revenue and funding, providing sufficient, qualified staff to operate the District, and strategic planning to accommodate new development impacts from the Delta Coves project (including the formation of a Community Facilities District by the developer and potential issues involving water quality in the planned Delta Coves lagoon). Bethel Island is a Census Designated Place (CDP). According to the most recent U.S. Census Data, the island contains a population of 2,137 (2010 Census), and 1,311 housing units. According to the District, the population nearly doubles during the summer due to the island’s abundant recreation facilities. As stated previously, the Delta Coves marina project, at build-out, is expected to bring a total of 561 residential homes to the island. If completed, this project could increase the island’s population to approximately 3,400, a significant increase (44 percent) over the current population. The current SOI for BIMID (adopted by LAFCO in 1976) was set at the middle of the sloughs surrounding the island. The District’s SOI was last reaffirmed by Contra Costa LAFCO on December 10, 2008. 42 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-2, Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Snapshot General Information Agency Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Address Office: 3085 Stone Road, Bethel Island, CA 94511 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 244, Bethel Island, CA 94511 Principal Act Bethel Island Municipal Improvement Act, 1960, State Legislature First Extraordinary Session, Chapter 22 Date Formed 1960 Population 2,137 (2010 Census); population nearly doubles during summer due to recreational activities Last SOI Update 2009; SOI is not coterminous with District boundary; current District boundaries run along the “bank” of the slough; current SOI runs to the middle of waterway surrounding the island. Services Provided Levee maintenance, drainage maintenance Contact Person L. Jeff Butzlaff, Interim District Manager, bimid@sbcglobal.net; (925) 684-2210 Website www.bimid.com Governance Board of Directors Anthony Berzinas (2016); Dennis Eisenbeis (2016); Robert Amrine (2016); Leland Simpson (2018); Bruce Smith (2018) Compensation None Public Meetings 3rd Thursday of each month Operations Number of Employees 2 half time office staff (secretary, District Clerk); full time, fully benefited Levee Superintendent (40 hours/week); currently non-benefited Interim District Manager (35 hours/week); two laborers (hourly, as needed) and one park worker (hourly, as needed) Service Area 3,500 acres (5.5 square miles) Facilities 14.5 miles of levees; 2 pump stations; 19.1 miles of internal drainage system Contract Services Fiscal Trends FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Total Revenues $ 579,948 $ 553,746 $ 543,271 Total Expenditures $ 656,764 $ 595,736 $ 654,090 Infrastructure Investment $255,796 $ 150,625 $160,352 Debt NR NR NR 43 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-1, Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Boundary and SOI Map Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities Over the past five years, the District reports that the economic recession resulted in significant staff reductions and turnover, forcing the District to operate with minimal staffing consisting of one half-time secretary, one half-time District Clerk, a full time, fully benefited Levee Superintendent, a 35-hour per week non-benefitted Interim District Manager, two hourly laborers and one hourly park worker. Funding Sources The District relies on property taxes as its only locally generated source of baseline revenue, currently comprising around 75 percent of its overall revenue for operations and levee maintenance and repairs. 44 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Other income (under five percent) includes a modest annual storm water/drainage contribution from Contra Costa County Public Works, plus a minor land lease, small community park fund contributions, and relatively negligible miscellaneous income. Subvention revenue is generally up to 75 percent of levee maintenance expenses eligible for reimbursement, but typically are less than that due to the number of districts submitting claims exceeding the DWR subventions available. Since FY 2007-08, BIMID’s property tax revenues declined drastically (over 30 percent) due to the recession. This made it more difficult to “front” costs for materials eligible for subvention funding (such as rip rap for the levee) given the up to two-year gap from submittal of subventions applications to the actual receipt of reimbursement checks. This situation is despite commensurate reductions in personnel costs of up to 50 percent since FY 2008-09 which resulted in minimal staffing levels. As indicated above, although property taxes are slowly beginning to recover, the District expects recovery to be more gradual and extended than the rapid decline of property taxes since the housing “bubble” burst in FY 2008-09. The major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-3, below, for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14): Table 6-3, Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Property Lease Income -- -- $ 2,500 Property Tax $ 371,971 $ 358,642 $ 373,654 DWR Subventions $ 20,410 $ 130,653 $ 66,934 DWR Special Projects $ 155,935 $ 6,762 $ 30,440 Miscellaneous $ 31,632 $ 57,689 $ 69,743 Total Revenues $ 579,948 $ 553,746 $ 543,271 Expenditures Levee Repairs $ 255,796 $ 150,625 $ 160,352 Management Fees (Audit) $ 217,006 $ 228,007 $ 235,587 Professional Services $ 39,350 $ 57,280 $ 86,178 Insurance $ 37,908 $ 36,377 $ 20,481 Other Expenses $ 106,704 $ 123,447 $ 151,492 Total Expenditures $ 656,764 $ 595,736 $ 654,090 Revenues - Expenditures ($ 76,816) ($ 41,990) ($ 110,819) Notes: The estimated Fund Balance at 6/30/14 was $265,650 and unrestricted funds were $276, an Operating Reserve was available of $165,000. An interview with the Interim General Manager on 5/20/15 estimated current Fund Balance available of $37,000. Opportunities The District has been successful in obtaining DWR Levee Subvention Funds and Special Project Grants in the past five years. Two Special Projects Grants have been awarded by DWR. Due to a favorable construction bid, the first project – the HMP Project – was recently completed for approximately 50 percent of the originally approved $1.6 million project cost. The District’s required local share was approximately $40,000. The funding agreement for the second project – the Horseshoe Bend Multi- 45 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Benefit Levee Rehabilitation Project – was approved in July 2015 for $3.5 million, of which BIMID’s required local share of funding will be $210,000 over the next three years. The challenge for BIMID has been to obtain voter approval this summer for an Assessment Fee to help fund enhanced ongoing maintenance and the local matching funds for future grants and special projects. The formal counting of the ballots for the District’s assessment district election was held on August 6, 2015, and the property owners approved it by a 68% affirmative vote. The proposed assessment fee (calculated and distributed by relative risk and benefit among various property categories, sizes and characteristics) is based on a two-story single family unit equivalent rate of $110. According to the District, if the tax measure had failed, the District would continue to operate at a below acceptable levels in staffing and may not have funds to make needed levee and other facility improvements. However, since the Assessment Fee passed, the District will have additional funds in the coming years as part of an ongoing long-term program of major levee improvements and improved operations. Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity Approximately 95 percent of BIMID’s 3,500 acres are below sea level. The island lands were initially reclaimed in the late 1800’s through the installation of approximately 11.5 miles of levee improvements. These improvements defined the limits of the outer perimeter of the island. The Delta Coves Project has already constructed its 3.5 miles of additional internal levees. Ultimately, depending on the successful outcome of the current negotiations outlined above, it is anticipated that BIMID will assume maintenance responsibility for the Delta Coves levees and associated storm drain, dewatering pump and drainage facilities, and the breach structure. BIMID adopted a 5-Year Plan (Milan & Associates) for the period 2011-2016. The Plan was subsequently updated in January 2013. Key infrastructure in the District includes 14.5 miles of levees, two pump stations, and 19.1 miles of internal drainage facilities. According to the District, out of the total 11.5 miles of BIMID levees, approximately 3.5 miles (29 percent) are below Delta Specific PL 84-99 standards6. Nearly one mile (or five percent) of the levee system was below the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standard of one foot above the 100-year floodplain but has since been raised to the HMP standard with the recent completion of the DWR Special Project. There have been no levee breaches since the last MSR (2008). The District inspects the entire 11.5-mile Bethel Island levee approximately two times per month during the summer months. During the winter months, levee inspections are done more frequently, especially as weather conditions warrant. Complete levee inspections are also performed after each earthquake event. Levee inspections in specific locations (non-routine) are performed on an as needed basis when a 6 The PL 84-99 levee standard was established by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1999. To meet the PL 84-99 standard, a levee must meet the following criteria: 1.5 feet above the 100 year flood frequency water surface elevation; 16 foot crown width; water side levee slopes of 2 to 1; and, land side levee slopes of 3 to 1 to 5 to 1, depending on height of levee and depth of peat. 46 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO concern is raised by a property owner or resident. If, during a routine or non-routine levee inspection, the Levee Superintendent or District Manager determine there is a need for engineer review, the District’s consulting engineer will be contacted for further review and analysis. Table 6-4, Bethel Island MID Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – Bethel Island MID Services Provided (indicate yes or no; if yes, indicate if service is by contract) Levee Maintenance Yes, in house Weed Abatement Yes, in house (levee crown and slope, drainage ditches only) Flood Control Yes, in house Slope Protection Yes, in house Drainage Yes, in house Vector/Rodent Control Yes, in house Upkeep of Levee Access Roads Yes, in house Levee Patrol Yes, in house Irrigation Water No Flood Fighting Yes, in house District Overview Total Levee Miles 14.5 Surface Elevation 8 to 12 Feet NGVD ’29 Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type No Standard 0 Dry Land Levee No 0 HMP Standard 11.5 Urban Levee Yes-Delta Coves 3 PL 84-99 Standard 8.0 Agricultural Levee Yes 11.5 Bulletin 192-82 Standard N/A Other No District Facilities Internal Drainage System 19.1 miles Pump Station(s) 2 Detention Basins(s) 0 Bridges 0 Floodplain FIRM Designation Zone AE B a se Flood Elevation 7.0 Levee Inspection Practices Routine inspections are completed approximately every other week; more frequent inspections are conducted when weather conditions and/or earthquake activity warrant. Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection (Date) 2014 I n s p e c tion Rating Good Levee Segment Description Condition NP NP NP Levee Maintenance (since prior 2009 MSR) Miles Rehabilitated about ½ Mile Miles Needing Rehabilitation 3.5 % Rehabilitated 5% % Needing Rehabilitation 30% Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* $60,000 Maintenance Cost per Levee Mile** $10,000 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Most levees need to be improved to PL 84-99 Standard and rehabilitated. The Horseshoe Bend Multi-Benefit Project Grant has been awarded based on a 6% ($210,000) local share requirement, which the approved Assessment District will now make possible. Notes: NP = Not Provided * Rehabilitation cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on capital improvements in FY 12-13 divided by the number of levee miles rehabilitated in FY 12-13. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 12-13 divided by the total number of levee miles. 47 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities BIMID has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the American Red Cross. The District works closely with the Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services and has mutual aid commitments with various districts, cities and counties to provide support in times of emergency. As indicated above, BIMID also participates in a maintenance contract with Contra Costa County Public Works to help with the cost to maintain the drainage ditches on Bethel Island, and just completed a project through the Contra Costa County Community Development Block Grant Program which provides a 75 percent cost share to replace and upgrade a new power pump to transfer water from the Bethel Island drainage system into the Delta to help prevent island flooding and a FY 2016-17 75 percent CBDG-funded Emergency Response Trailer/Mini Command Center Project. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Senate Bill 244, enacted in 2012, made changes to the CKH Act related to “disadvantaged unincorporated communities.” Disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) are defined as inhabited territory containing 12 or more registered voters that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income (MHI) that is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. The MHI data is derived from the U.S. Census Bureau – American Community Survey 2006-2010. The State MHI for this period was $60,883. The qualifying income for a DUC is 80% of that figure, $48,706. CKH Act Section 56375(a)(8)(A) prohibits LAFCOs from approving a city annexation of more than 10 acres if a DUC is contiguous to the annexation territory but not included in the proposal, unless an application to annex the DUC has been filed with LAFCO. The legislative intent is to avoid “cherry picking” of agencies’ tax generating land uses while leaving out under-served, inhabited areas with infrastructure deficiencies and lack of access to reliable potable water and wastewater services. The challenge in identifying DUCs per the CKH Act is that Census Geography does not necessarily match unincorporated fringe, island, or legacy communities. For purposes of this MSR, DUCs were identified and mapped by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Geographic Information System (GIS) Group, using primarily Census Designated Place (CDP) data. Census data was reviewed at the CDP, Census Tract, and Census Block Group geographic levels. If one of these geographies had a Mean Household Income (MHI) less than 80% of the statewide MHI, the unincorporated community associated with the geographic unit was identified as a DUC. The entirety of Bethel Island has been identified as a DUC. Any future changes in the BIMID’s SOI or service territory would require a detailed evaluation of BIMID’s capability to adequately serve these communities. 48 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District has gone through a series of District Managers since 2007. For the first half of 2007, the District was without a District Manager. A District Manager was hired in early 2008, but only stayed a few months. A new District Manager was hired in March 2008 and stayed for three years until March 2011. A November 2010 ballot measure (“Measure X”) to raise funds for levee and drainage repairs was not supported by the voters and the Board of Directors laid off two employees in March 2011, one being the District Manager. District Manager responsibilities were then divided between the remaining employees and the Board President. In FY 2012-13, the District Clerk served as Interim District Manager until February 2014. A new Interim District Manager was hired in February 2014 and is currently serving as a contract employee. The District has changed legal counsel representation four times since 2006. The current legal counsel was retained in 2010 and continues to serve BIMID. The District is governed by a five-member board chosen in District-wide elections. BIMID’s last contested election was in November 2008. There have been five Board member resignations since 2008: one resignation in July 2009, one resignation in August 2011, two resignations in 2012 (June and September), and one resignation in November 2013. In May 2011, the Contra Costa Grand Jury issued a report (“Report 1105 – Ethics and Transparency Issues in Contra Costa County”) addressing accountability issues among Contra Costa County agencies. BIMID reviewed and responded to the report by:  Tracking all reimbursable and non-reimbursable District activities.  Adopting Policy 2050 (“Committee Protocols”) to increase public participation in standing committee meetings.  Updating the District website which now provides users with District contacts, history, project updates, frequently asked questions, and Board meeting dates, agendas and meeting minutes.  Adopting Board Resolution 13-05-16A (“In Recognition of Sunshine Week, March 10-16, 2013”) which directed that: (1) the District website include the last three years of audits; (2) a Financial Reserves Policy be adopted and added to the District website; (3) a Reimbursement and Compensation Policy be adopted and added to the District website; (4) Board Members’ ethics training certificates be posted on the District website; and (5) a link to the State Controller’s webpage, which identifies the compensation of Board Members and staff, be added to the District’s website. Governance Structure Alternatives The 2009 MSR identified one alternative governance option for BIMID – consolidation with another reclamation district such as RD 800 or RD 830. The District reports that it desires to remain as is, but is exploring some interest expressed from RD 799 on a possible consolidation at some point in the future. There may also be opportunities for BIMID to enter into mutual aid agreements with adjacent 49 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations. Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. Bethel Island contains a population of 2,137, and 1,311 housing units. The population nearly doubles during the summer due to the island’s abundant recreation facilities. The Delta Coves project, at build-out, is expected to bring a total of 561 residential units to the island. If completed, this project could increase the island’s population to approximately 3,400, a significant increase (44 percent) over the current population. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged The entirety of Bethel Island qualifies as a DUC. Any unincorporated communities within or contiguous to future change in the BIMID’s sphere of influence (SOI) the sphere of influence. or service territory would require a detailed evaluation of BIMID’s capability to adequately serve these communities. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, The entirety of Bethel Island qualifies as a DUC. Any adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs future change in the BIMID’s SOI or service territory or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and would require a detailed evaluation of BIMID’s industrial water, and structural fire protection in any capability to adequately serve these disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within communities. The District appears adequately prepared or contiguous to the sphere of influence. to meet the present and future needs of its service area. Several levee upgrade project needs were identified to meet 200 year flood standards. Overall, the levees are reported to be adequately maintained and the District has plans for additional improvements. The District maintains that it has prepared a Five-year Facilities Plan and has obtained approval of Special Project funding of $3.5 million. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of property taxes, owner assessments, and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. Based on the information provided, the District has the potential to provide services for a 100- year flood and is working toward improving the levees to meet the 200-year flood standard to protect the district areas. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The District has been very successful in obtaining DWR Levee Subvention Funds and Special Project Grants in the past five years. Two Special Project Grants have been obtained - one is currently funding construction 50 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO for about 50 percent of $1.6 million in levee improvements. A second grant of $3.5 million has recently been approved for major improvements to the Horseshoe Bend area of the Bethel Island levee. The challenge for BIMID has been to obtain voter approval for an Assessment Fee to help fund ongoing enhanced maintenance and the local matching funds for future grants and special projects to further improve the District’s levee system. Approximately $210,000 will be needed over the next three years for the District’s local share of funding for the Horseshoe Bend Project along. A vote (per Proposition 218) occurred between June and August 6, 2015, and the Assessment Fee was approved. With approval of this new funding source, the District has shown in its assessment district report and analysis that it will have the financial resources to make capital improvements and increase operational maintenance for at least the next ten years. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. BIMID has a Memorandum of Understanding with the American Red Cross. The District also works closely with the Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services and has mutual aid commitments with various districts, cities and counties to provide support in times of emergency. BIMID also participates in a maintenance contract with Contra Costa County Public Works to maintain the drainage ditches on Bethel Island, and is currently participating in a project with the Contra Costa County Community Development Block Grant Program which is providing a 75 percent cost share to purchase and install a new power pump to transfer water from the Bethel Island drainage system into the Delta to help prevent island flooding. A FY 2016-17 additional 75% CDBG grant has also been approved for the acquisition and stocking of an Emergency Response Trailer/Mini Command Center. Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by a five-member board chosen government structure and operational facilities. in District-wide elections. BIMID’s last contested election was in November 2008. Since the 2008 MSR, BIMID has added a website which provides users with District contacts, history, updates, frequently asked questions, Board meeting dates, agendas and meeting minutes. BIMID recently implemented several additional measures to improve transparency, including:  Tracking all reimbursable and non- reimbursable District activities.  Adopting Policy 2050 (“Committee Protocols”) to increase public participation in standing committee meetings. 51 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO  Adopting Board Resolution 13-05-16A (“In Recognition of Sunshine Week, March 10-16, 2013”) which directed that: (1) the District website include the last three years of audits; (2) a Financial Reserves Policy be adopted and added to the District website; (3) a Reimbursement and Compensation Policy be adopted and added to the District website; (4) Board Members’ ethics training certificates be posted on the District website; and (5) a link to the State Controller’s webpage, which identifies the compensation of Board Members and staff, be added to the District’s website. Two alternative governance structure options have been identified: (1) develop and implement mutual aid agreements with neighboring reclamation districts to assist nearby districts in times of need, and (2) undertake a joint study with RD 799 to explore the fiscal and operational benefits of consolidation of the two districts. Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including The bulk of the Bethel Island’s development (primarily agricultural and open-space lands. single family homes and marina/recreational facilities) is located and concentrated along the perimeter of the island. The Delta Coves project, approved by Contra Costa County in the 1970s, appears to be moving and is proposed to have up to 561 homes with private boat docks built around a man-made lagoon. Present and probable need for public services and The Delta Coves project was purchased by SunCal in services in the area. mid-2012 and is proposed to have up to 561 homes. A developer facilities agreement was approved in March 2015 with the Diablo Water District to allow construction of water facilities to accommodate the project’s water service needs. BIMID is expected to assume responsibility of the most of the levee and pump station infrastructure and operational facilities in the future which will be completely funded by a Community Facilities District set up by Delta Coves with the County for this purpose to assure that no BIMID public taxpayer subsidy will ever need to be provided to this private development. Property tax revenues generated by the project will, over time, help improve BIMID’s overall financial and service capabilities. 52 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of Approximately 95 percent of BIMID’s 3,500 acres are public services that the agency provides or is below sea level. The island lands were reclaimed authorized to provide. through the installation of approximately 11.5 miles of levee improvements. These improvements defined the limits of the outer perimeter of the island. The Delta Coves Project has already constructed an additional 3.5 miles of internal levees. Ultimately, BIMID is expected to assume maintenance of the Delta Cove levees and associated storm drain and dewatering pump/drainage facilities once an agreement is reached with the developer. BIMID adopted a 5-Year Plan (Milani & Associates) for the period 2011-2016. The Plan was subsequently updated in January 2013. Key infrastructure in the District includes 14.5 miles of levees, two pump stations, and 19.1 miles of internal drainage facilities. According to the District, out of the total 11.5 miles of BIMID levees, approximately 3.5 miles (29 percent) are below Delta Specific PL 84-99 standards. Nearly one mile (or five percent) was below the HMP standard of one foot above the 100-year floodplain but has since been raised to the HMP standard with the recent completion of a DWR Special Project. There have been no levee breaches since the last MSR (2008). Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Present and probable needs for those public facilities The entirety of Bethel Island has been identified as a and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated DUC. Any future changes in the BIMID’s SOI or service communities within the existing sphere of influence. territory would require a detailed evaluation of BIMID’s capability to adequately serve these communities. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reaffirm the current SOI for the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District. 53 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Reclamation District (RD) 799 (Hotchkiss Tract), formed in 1911, is an independent special district originally formed to provide levee and drainage maintenance services. RD 799 is located at the eastern portion of the City of Oakley, at the intersection of East Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road, as shown on Exhibit 6-2. The District, approximately 3,100 acres in size (4.8 square miles), is entirely within Contra Costa County. RD 799 is within the Secondary Zone7 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and is within the countywide urban limit line (ULL). The District includes agricultural land for cattle grazing, and residential and recreational land uses. According to the District, there are 1,250 parcels in the Hotchkiss Tract. Recent Census data indicate that there are 969 residents within the District boundaries. Planned residential development and a large ecological restoration project will result in significant land use changes to RD 799, including:  A new residential development by Alta California Development, LLC  A potential residential development by Sprinnaker Cove at the end of Dutch Slough Road  A 1,200-acre parcel (the “Dutch Slough Restoration Project”) acquired by the Coastal Conservancy and the CAL-FED Bay-Delta Program for large scale ecological restoration.  The District has also been informed that Shea Homes has sold their vacant lots to Meritage Homes. The County of Contra Costa and the City of Oakley have approved a master development plan within the District’s boundaries (“East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan”) which defines land uses and densities. New development will pay an annual assessment to RD 799. The assessment amount will be determined at 7 The 1992 Delta Protection Act refined the legal boundary of the Delta to include Primary and Secondary Zones. The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area, and was defined as “land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the urban limit line or sphere of influence line of any local government’s general plan or studies existing as of January 1, 1992. The Secondary Zone of the Delta was defined as all Delta land and water area not included with the Primary Zone. The Primary Zone of the Delta was intended “to remain relatively free from urban and suburban encroachment to protect agriculture, wildlife habitat and recreation uses,” and the Secondary Zone was “intended to include an appropriate buffer zone to prevent impacts on the lands in the Primary Zone. 54 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO the time of development. This growth will require new levees/flood control features. However, the City and County do not have a timetable available for construction of the approved and/or proposed residential units making future population projections for RD 799 challenging. The current SOI for RD 799 was adopted by LAFCO in 1984, and was subsequently reduced by the Commission in November 2009 (see Exhibit 6-2). Table 6-5, Reclamation District 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) Snapshot General Information Agency Reclamation District 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) Address 6325 Bethel Island Road, Bethel lsland, CA 94511 Mailing Address: PO Box 353, Bethel Island, CA 94511 Principal Act California Water Code §50300 et seq. Date Formed 1911 Population 1,250 parcels; 969 residents (estimate) Last SOI Update 2009 Services Provided Levee operation and maintenance; drainage facilities Contact Person Dina Holder, District Secretary, dinard799@outlook.com, (925) 684-2398 Website www.rd799.org Governance Board of Directors James Hopwood (2017); Jim Price (2017); Arthur Hanson (2017); Richard Kent (2015); Karla Fratus (2015) Compensation None Public Meetings Monthly (last Thursday, 2 PM) Operations Number of Employees 3 (all part time) Service Area 3,100 acres Facilities 11 miles of earthen levees; four pumping stations Contract Services Fiscal Trends FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Total Revenues $ 367,008 $ 513,910 $ 681,759 Total Expenditures $ 476,436 $ 396,948 $ 373,823 Infrastructure Investment NR NR NR Debt NR NR NR 55 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-2, Reclamation District No. 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) Boundary and SOI Map 56 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities Funding Sources The District collects annual assessments from property owners and participates in the DWR Levee Subventions Program each year. No property tax revenues are received. The District reports it has no long-term debt. RD 799 has applied for several grants from DWR, and the District was advanced $127,528 for a levee rehabilitation project. The District has also submitted an application with the California Conservation Corps to fund construction of pump stations. The award of funds is expected in the summer of 2015. Since the 2009 MSR, the District has implemented a reserve fund as part of its annual budget process. RD 799 also maintains an account with the State’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) which currently contains $160,947 and is designated for use only in an extreme emergency. The District’s major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-6, below, for FYs 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14: Table 6-6, RD 799 Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2011-12* FY 2012-13** FY 2013-14** Property Assessments $ 286,597 $ 389,487 $ 350,387 DWR Subventions $ 53,782 $ 87,825 $ 76,003 DWR Special Projects -- -- $ 165,340 Miscellaneous $ 26,629 $ 36,598 $ 90,029 Total Revenues $ 367,008 $ 513,910 $ 681,759 Expenditures Levee Repairs NR $ 56,357 $ 52,805 Management Fees/Payroll $ 105,849 $ 114,625 $ 128,806 Professional Services NR $ 122,891 $ 100,042 Insurance NR $ 11,420 $ 11,283 Other Expenses $ 370,587 $ 91,655 $ 80,887 Total Expenditures $ 476,436 $ 396,948 $ 373,823 Revenues - Expenditures ($109,428) $ 116,962 $ 307,936 Notes: * Data from State Controllers Report for 2011-12; **Information from budgets and Profit & Loss Statements provided by the district. Opportunities The District reports that administration and operations are similar to those of the prior report period. Despite having 969 residents in the District, a majority of land is in agriculture and similar uses. The District participates in the Levee Subventions Program and is maintaining the levees at the minimum safety criteria. No additional information was provided. 57 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity Key infrastructure in the District includes over 11 miles of earthen levees and four pumping stations. The 2009 MSR reported that just over three miles of levees meet FEMA flood protection standards (three feet above the 100-year flood plain), over five miles of levees meet the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standard (one foot above the 100-year floodplain), and the remaining three miles of levees meet less than the HMP standard. The levee status remains unchanged. The District prepared a Five-Year Plan (May 2012) funded by DWR. A key goal in the Plan is to improve all non-project levees to meet minimum PL 84-99 height and width standards by 2017. The District indicates that implementation of the Plan’s projects will begin as funding becomes available. Although the current levee status remains unchanged, the District reports that it has invested considerable time and resources in ongoing levee maintenance, including:  Conducting annual routine levee maintenance including repair of slip outs and erosion, and conducting vegetation control  $90,225 (not including in house labor) expended on levee slope and erosion repairs on Dutch Slough Road  Annual vegetation control  Installation of fish screens The 2009 MSR noted that the District’s assessments are insufficient to provide adequate levee maintenance throughout the District. The District reports that it has managed to conduct general routine maintenance with the exception of being able to complete cleaning and maintenance of all the District’s drainage ditches in a single year. “High priority” ditches continue to be routinely cleaned using contract labor, but budget constraints preclude cleaning all of the ditches at one time. The FY 2014-15 budget amount for ditch cleaning and maintenance was recently increased by the District Board to $27,500. Table 6-7, RD 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – RD 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) Service Provider Levee Maintenance Direct W e e d A b a t e m ent Direct Flood Control Direct S l o p e P r o t e c t i o n Direct Drainage Direct V e c t o r / R o d ent Control Direct Upkeep of Levee Access Roads Direct L e v e e Patrol Direct Irrigation Water None Flood Fighting Direct District Overview Total Levee Miles 11.7 Surface Elevation 5 to -5 feet Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type No Standard 3.3 Dry Land Levee 0.0 HMP Standard 5.2 Urban Levee 3.2 PL 84-99 Standard 0.0 Agricultural Levee 8.5 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 Other 0 58 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO FEMA Standard 3.2 District Facilities Internal Drainage System Yes Pump Station(s) Yes -4 Detention Basins(s) No B r i d g e s No Floodplain FIRM Designation A-22 Base Flood Elevation 7 feet Levee Inspection Practices Levee patrols are performed on a daily basis by District staff. Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection NP Inspection Rating NP Levee Segment Description Condition Dutch Slough North and east District boundaries NP Rock Slough Southern District boundary NP Contra Costa Canal Southwest District boundary NP Little Dutch Slough Western District boundary NP South Summer Lake Levee Internal subdivision ring boundary NP Levee Maintenance (since prior 2009 MSR) Miles Rehabilitated Selected Areas Miles Needing Rehabilitation NP % Rehabilitated 0% % Needing Rehabilitation NP Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* NP Maintenance Cost per Levee Mile** NP Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies NP Notes: NP = Not Provided * Rehabilitation cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on capital improvements in FY 12-13 divided by the number of levee miles rehabilitated in FY 12-13. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 12-13 divided by the total number of levee miles. Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities The District reports that it shares forms and compares budgets with Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID). RD 799 is entirely contained with the City of Oakley jurisdictional boundaries. As referenced earlier in this section, the County of Contra Costa and the City of Oakley have jointly developed a master development plan within the District’s boundaries (“East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan”) which defines land uses and densities. No other cooperative/shared programs and facilities were identified by the District. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities RD 799 is not a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC). However, Bethel Island has been identified by the County as a DUC and is contiguous to RD 799. If annexation of territory or an SOI expansion is ever considered by RD 799 to include the Bethel Island area, a detailed analysis would be required to evaluate the ability of RD 799 to provide service to this area. 59 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by a five-member board. For contested elections, board members are selected by landowners to staggered four-year terms, with each voter entitled to cast one vote per dollars of assessment paid to the District. Since the 2009 MSR, the District has implemented a website (www.rd799.com) which provides agendas, meeting minutes, contact information, by-laws, funding information, budgets and audits. The Board of Trustees meets monthly on the last Thursday of the month at 2PM. Meetings are held in the District offices. It was noted in the 2009 MSR that the District’s full-time levee superintendent position was vacant. The District reports that this position has been filled, and the current superintendent has completed all required testing, obtained the required spray license, and regularly attends flood fighting and safety seminars. Three governance options were identified in the 2009 MSR: (1) retain the existing coterminous sphere of influence (SOI); (2) reduce the District’s SOI in the western portion of the District (between Jersey Island Road and Little Dutch Slough) to remove territory in the Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project area; and (3) expand the District’s SOI to signal a future consolidation with the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID). According to the District, the RD 799 Board of Trustees has not pursued any of the identified governance alternatives due to budget and financial concerns. Additionally, there may be opportunities for RD 799 to enter into mutual aid agreements with adjacent reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations. Other Issues The 2009 MSR included discussion regarding RD 799 potentially assuming parking permit services if it was allowed under the District’s principal act. Parking of cars on the levee along Dutch Slough Road was reported to have become problematic. The District now reports that RD 799 staff continues to monitor the parking situation along Dutch Slough Road, issues “no parking” notices, and tows cars that are in non-compliance. Since 2009, there have been minimal complaints regarding the parking issue, according to the District representatives. 60 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed Municipal Service Review (MSR) determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. Recent Census data indicate that there are 969 residents within the District’s boundaries. Planned residential development, if constructed, will result in a population increase to RD 799 within the next five to ten years. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged There are no DUCs located within RD 799. Bethel Island unincorporated communities within or contiguous to is a DUC and is contiguous to RD 799. the sphere of influence. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, There are no DUCs located within RD 799. Bethel Island adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs is a DUC and is contiguous to RD 799. Any future or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and change in the SOI or service territory would require a industrial water, and structural fire protection in any detailed evaluation of the District’s capability to disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within adequately serve the areas. or contiguous to the sphere of influence. RD 799 appears adequately prepared to meet the present and future needs of its service area. Overall, the levees are reported to be adequately maintained and the District has plans for additional improvements. The District has prepared a Five-year Facilities Plan and has applied for Special Project funding. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of owner assessments and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. Based on the information provided, the District has the potential to provide services for a 100- year flood in 8 of the 11 miles of levees and is working toward improving the levees to meet the 200-year flood standard to protect the District areas. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The District collects annual assessments from property owners and participates in the DWR Levee Subventions Program each year. No property tax revenues are received. The District reports it has no long-term debt. RD 799 reports that it has managed to conduct general routine maintenance with the exception of being able to complete cleaning and maintenance of all the District’s drainage ditches in a single year. “High priority” ditches continue to be routinely cleaned using contract labor, but budget constraints preclude cleaning all of the ditches at one time. Based on the last three years of data, the District has sufficient funding to adequately fund the maintenance and repair of the facilities as needed through landowner assessments and grants. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District reports that it shares forms and compares budgets with Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID). The County of Contra Costa and the 61 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO City of Oakley have approved a master development plan within the District’s boundaries (“East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan”) which defines land uses and densities. Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by a five-member board. Since government structure and operational facilities. the 2009 MSR, the District has implemented a website (www.rd799.com) which provides agendas, meeting minutes, contact information, by-laws, funding information, budgets and audits. The Board of Trustees meets monthly on the last Thursday of the month at 2PM. Meetings are held in the District offices. Two governance options have been identified for RD 799: (1) explore the feasibility of entering into mutual aid agreements with adjacent reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations; and 2) explore a shared website with the other RD’s in Contra Costa County possibly hosted by the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of RD’s). Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. 62 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including The District includes agricultural land for cattle grazing, agricultural and open-space lands. and residential and recreational land uses. Planned residential development and a large ecological restoration project will result in significant land use changes to RD 799 in the next five to ten years. Present and probable need for public services and Recent Census data indicate that there are 969 services in the area. residents within the District boundaries. Planned residential development and a large ecological restoration project will result in significant land use changes to RD 799, including:  A new residential development by Alta California Development, LLC  A potential residential development by Sprinnaker Cove at the end of Dutch Slough Road  A 1,200-acre parcel (the “Dutch Slough Restoration Project”) acquired by the Coastal Conservancy and the CAL-FED Bay-Delta Program for large scale ecological restoration.  The District has also been informed that Shea Homes has sold their vacant lots to Meritage Homes. The County of Contra Costa and the City of Oakley have approved a master development plan within the District’s boundaries (“East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan”) which defines land uses and densities. New development will pay an annual assessment to RD 799. The assessment amount will be determined at the time of development. This growth will require new levees/flood control features. However, the City and County do not have a timetable available for construction of the approved and/or proposed residential units making future population projections and service needs within RD 799 difficult to project at this time. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of Key infrastructure in the District includes over 11 miles public services that the agency provides or is of earthen levees and four pumping stations. The 2009 authorized to provide. MSR reported that just over three miles of levees meet FEMA flood protection standards (three feet above the 100-year flood plain), over five miles of levees meet the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standard (one foot above the 100-year floodplain), and the remaining three miles of levees meet less than the HMP standard. The District prepared a Five-Year Plan (May 2012) funded by DWR. A key goal in the Plan is to improve all 63 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO non-project levees to meet minimum PL 84-99 height and width standards by 2017. The District indicates that implementation of the Plan’s projects will begin as funding becomes available. Existence of any social or economic communities of RD 799 is entirely contained within the City of Oakley interest in the area if the Commission determines they jurisdictional boundaries. The County of Contra Costa are relevant to the agency. and the City of Oakley have jointly developed a master development plan within the District’s boundaries (“East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan”) which defines land uses and densities. No other cooperative/shared programs and facilities were identified by the District. Present and probable needs for those public facilities There are no DUCs within RD 799 SOI. Bethel Island is a and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated DUC and is contiguous to RD 799. communities within the existing sphere of influence. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reconfirm the current SOI for RD 799. 64 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 800 (Byron Tract) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Reclamation District (RD) 800 (Byron Tract) was formed in 1909 to provide levee and drainage maintenance services to land owned by the West-Wilhoit Company. The boundary of RD 800 is located entirely within Contra Costa County and consists of the Byron Tract which is bisected by State Route 4 (SR4) and is adjacent to the Contra Costa-San Joaquin County line at Old River as shown on Exhibit 6-8. RD 800 is within the Secondary Zone8 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The portion of RD 800 north of SR 4 is within the countywide urban limit line (ULL), while the southern portion is outside the ULL. RD 800, comprising approximately 6,933 acres, includes a majority of the unincorporated community of Discovery Bay, surrounding agricultural lands and public facilities. The District provides flood protection to approximately 3,718 properties, including 3,390 residential parcels and 26 non-taxable parcels. The population of RD 800 is currently 7,656. Although the predominant use is agricultural (alfalfa, corn and row crops), there are varied urban uses within the community of Discovery Bay. 8 The 1992 Delta Protection Act refined the legal boundary of the Delta to include Primary and Secondary Zones. The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area, and was defined as “land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the ULL or SOI line of any local government’s general plan or studies existing as of January 1, 1992. The Secondary Zone of the Delta was defined as all Delta land and water area not included with the Primary Zone. The Primary Zone of the Delta was intended “to remain relatively free from urban and suburban encroachment to protect agriculture, wildlife habitat and recreation uses,” and the Secondary Zone was “intended to include an appropriate buffer zone to prevent impacts on the lands in the Primary Zone. 65 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-8, Reclamation District 800 (Byron Tract) Snapshot General Information Agency Reclamation District 800 (Byron Tract) Address 1540 Discovery Bay Blvd., Suite A, Discovery Bay, CA 94505 (office) P.O. Box 262, Byron, CA 94515 (mailing) Principal Act California Water Code §50300 et seq. Date Formed 1909 Population 7,656 Last SOI Update 2009 Services Provided Flood protection; levee maintenance; drainage; water circulation Contact Person Sonnet Rodrigues, sonnet@rd800.org Website www.rd800.org Governance Board of Directors Bob Anderson (2017); Pete Hansen (2017); David Harris (2015); Tom Judge (2015); Robert Lyman (2017) Compensation $250 per meeting Public Meetings Monthly (first Thursday, 10 AM) Operations Number of Employees 4 Service Area 6,933 acres Facilities Internal drainage system; 2 pump stations Contract Services None Fiscal Trends FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Total Revenues $1,461,826 $1,487,371 $1,451,294 Total Expenditures $1,018,738 $ 899,203 $ 917,374 Infrastructure Investment NR NR NR Debt NP NP NP Notes: NP = Not Provided; NR = None Reported; Source of Financials = Agency Audited Statements 66 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-4, Reclamation District 800 (Byron Tract) Boundary and SOI Map 67 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO The Town of Discovery Bay is a water recreation-oriented development which includes residential units, a marina and yacht club, an 18-hole golf course, neighborhood commercial and retail uses, parks, an elementary school, fire station and sheriff’s substation. A majority of the Town’s community services are provided by the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (DBCSD) which has a different boundary than RD 800. The portion of Discovery Bay within RD 800 is largely built out, and no significant population growth is anticipated within the next 10 to 15 years. The County is currently processing two development projects in the Discovery Bay area – Newport Pointe (approximately 67 single family homes) and Pantages Bay (approximately 292 single family homes). In December 2013, Contra Costa County approved the Pantages Bay project which, in addition to the 292 homes, includes 47 acres of man-made bays and coves to provide water access for some of the homes, a public trail, 46 acres of open space, and the widening of Kellogg Creek immediately east of the project. RD 800 is co-sponsoring the proposed Kellogg Creek widening which will reduce water velocities in that section of Kellogg Creek and improve boater safety. The widening will also reduce bank erosion and sedimentation, and limit the need for dredging. Eventual annexation to RD 800 and DBCSD would be required to provide services to the development. The District reports that the development of Newport Pointe will have no impacts on the operations of RD 800. Development of the larger Pantages Bay project, according to the District, will have minimal impact on District operations. The current SOI for RD 800 was adopted by LAFCO in 1984, and was most recently modified by the Commission in November 2009. Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities Funding Sources The District receives property tax revenues on improved properties and agricultural lands, providing about 45 to 50 percent of overall revenues. The District has assessment fee revenue of approximately 40 to 45 percent. Other services such as land grazing and agriculture leases provide revenues of a nominal amount (approximately four percent). The District participates annually in the Department of Water Resources Levee Subvention Program. A longer term levee upgrade project is currently being processed and a special project grant is being planned. The District’s major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-9, below, for FYs 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14: 68 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-9, RD 800 Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Property Taxes $ 658,538 $ 715,832 713,178 Property Assessments 635,963 632,186 636,458 DWR Subventions 149,238 128,341 31,295 DWR Special Projects -- -- -- Miscellaneous/Other 18,087 11,012 63,700 Total Revenues $1,461,826 $1,487,371 $1,451,294 Expenditures Levee Repairs $ 220,649 $ 123,061 $ 528,792 Management Fees/Salaries/Benefits 207,281 221,039 278,151 Professional Services 47,578 54,931 58,094 Insurance 52,061 49,765 49,741 Other Expenses 490,856 540,407 248,318 Total Expenditures $1,018,738 $ 899,203 $1,449,548 Revenues – Expenditures $ 443,088 $ 588,168 $ 1,746* Notes: *Contributed capital of lighthouse and easements not reflected in amount of $85,200. Opportunities The District has established several funds for specific needs including facility replacement, equipment replacement and special projects. The District’s unrestricted net position balance on 6/30/2014 was $5,475,676 and includes funds for future projects. The District coordinates projects and services with DBCSD. There are two planned development projects that may provide benefits of additional improvements and mitigation when processed. Cooperative improvements for these projects may provide benefits to both RD 800 and DBCSD. Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity RD 800 provides direct services to three types of levees:  Agricultural non-project levees (9.7 miles)  Urban levees (6.5 miles)  Dry land levees (2.7 miles) Agricultural non-project levees with rock rip rap on the water side extend from the northeast corner of the Discovery Bay development easterly along the south side of Indian Slough to Old River, then south along the west side of Old River to its intersection with Italian Slough on the south end of the District. In 1990, the District began a comprehensive levee retrofit for the entire 9.7 miles of the agricultural levees to meet the PL 84-99 standard9. The multi-phase project was completed in 2001. During the 9 The PL 84-99 levee standard was established by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1999. To meet the PL 84-99 standard, a levee must meet the following criteria: 1.5 feet above the 100 year flood frequency water surface elevation; 16 foot crown width; water side levee slopes of 2 to 1; and, land side levee slopes of 3 to 1 to 5 to 1, depending on height of levee and depth of peat. 69 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO preparation of the 2009 MSR, the District was in the process of documenting the agricultural levees for accreditation through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The District reports that FEMA accreditation was completed in 2009 and remains current. An urban levee, constructed to FEMA urban levee standards, is located within the original Discovery Bay Development area. The levee segments (integrated into the development as streets or adjacent to streets) help protect the interior of the development including the elementary school, commercial areas, and non-waterfront residential areas. The 2009 MSR noted that several hundred feet of this levee needed additional height to meet federal guidelines. RD 800 reports that the District completed the necessary improvements in 2009 and received FEMA accreditation (which remains current). The District’s levees currently provide 100-year flood protection. No levee failures or breaches have occurred since 2009 MSR. The District is in the process of re-evaluating its entire levee system. Geotechnical borings have been formed to evaluate levee strength and seismic stability. Consultants to the District are currently developing cost estimates for projects necessary to bring the District up to 200- year flood protection status. The District reports that levees are inspected twice daily (one in each direction) by RD 800 personnel. The District reports that the most recent written inspection was completed in 2011 and received an “acceptable” rating. It is not clear whether the District conducts comprehensive inspections annually and submits them to DWR as provided in the DWR Guidelines for Maintenance of Levees. The District is encouraged to confirm that this inspection procedure is being implemented. One issue of note is that the District provides drainage maintenance services in a portion of the agency area. One issue that was identified in the 2009 MSR was ongoing siltation issues from Kellogg Creek and developed areas west of the District boundaries. At that time, the District was working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board on potential solutions, including the possible purchase of land and grant funding to build a bioflter retention facility. The land was purchased, but construction of the retention facility has been put on hold due to lack of need. The District reports that farmers in the area have switched to a drip irrigation system significantly reducing the amount of silt. Table 6-10, RD 800 (Byron Tract) Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – RD 800 (Byron Tract) Service Provider Levee Maintenance Direct W e e d A b a t e m ent Direct Flood Control Direct S l o p e P r o t e c t i o n Direct Drainage Direct V e c t o r / R o d ent Control Direct Upkeep of Levee Access Roads Direct L e v e e Patrol Direct Irrigation Water None Flood Fighting Direct District Overview Total Levee Miles 18.9 Surface Elevation -4 to 13 feet Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type 70 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO No Standard 0.0 Dry Land Levee 2.7 HMP Standard 0.0 Urban Levee 6.5 PL 84-99 Standard 9.7 Agricultural Levee 9.7 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 Other 0 FEMA Standard 18.9 District Facilities Internal Drainage System Yes Pump Station(s) Yes - 2 Detention Basins(s) No B r i d g e s No Floodplain FIRM Designation B Base Flood Elevation Less than 1-foot Levee Inspection Practices Twice per day (one in each direction) by RD 800 personnel Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection 2011 Inspection Rating Acceptable Levee Segment Description Condition Dry Land Levee West boundary of District south of Excellent (field observations) Highway 4 Urban Levee Within Discovery Bay community Excellent (field observations) Agricultural Levee Indian Slough, Old River and Good (field observations) Italian Slough Levee Maintenance (since prior 2009 MSR) Miles Rehabilitated Selected Areas Miles Needing Rehabilitation 0 % Rehabilitated 5% % Needing Rehabilitation 0 Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* $263,500 M a i n t e n a nce Cost per Levee Mile** $9,000 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies District levees met the 100-year flood protection standard in 2009; the District is currently working on levee upgrades to meet the 200-year flood protection standard currently being planned. Notes: NP = Not Provided * Rehabilitation cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on capital improvements in FY 12-13 divided by the number of levee miles rehabilitated in FY 12-13. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 12-13 divided by the total number of levee miles. Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities The District reports that it does not participate in significant facility sharing or cooperative programs with other agencies at this time. Legal, engineering and accounting services are provided by contract. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities There are no Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the District’s sphere of influence. Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by a five-member board. Board members are elected to staggered four-year terms, with votes based on landowner assessment values. The Board of Trustees meets monthly on the 71 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO first Thursday at 10:00 a.m. in the District Office. The District maintains a user friendly website (www.RD800.org) which provides the public with current and past Board agendas, updates on levee improvements, District history, and contact information. Budget/audit information is not included on the website at this time. Three governance options were identified in the 2009 MSR: (1) retain the existing coterminous sphere of influence (SOI); (2) adjust the SOI to add an 80-acre agricultural parcel on the west side of the District that is within a dry land levee and remove a 200-acre agricultural parcel outside the levee system adjacent to Byron Highway and Clifton Court Road which does not need District service; and, (3) expand the SOI to include the 172-acre Pantages Bay property in anticipation of the proposed residential development project. In 2009, LAFCO expanded the District’s SOI to include the 80-acre agricultural parcel and reduce the District’s SOI by 200 acres to remove a parcel outside the levee system adjacent to Byron Highway and Clifton Court Road that does not need District service. RD 800 has not pursued annexation of the 80- acre agricultural parcel. The District reports that it already provides some services to the property, and it is not cost effective to pay the required annexation fees necessary to complete the annexation process. No action was taken to expand the District’s SOI to include the Pantages Bay project due to the development’s inactivity at that time. There may be opportunities for RD 800 to enter into mutual aid agreements with adjacent reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations. Additionally, a shared website with the other reclamation districts in Contra Costa County (hosted by the County, LAFCO, a consortium of reclamation districts, or a professional webmaster) should be explored by RD 800 to enhance agency transparency. Finally, recognizing the December 2013 approval of the Pantages Bay development project and the future need for services, consideration should be given to expanding the RD 800 SOI to include this project area. Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed Municipal Service Review (MSR) determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. The population of RD 800 is currently 7,656. The portion of Discovery Bay within RD 800 is largely built out, and no significant population growth is anticipated within the next 10 to 15 years. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD unincorporated communities within or contiguous to 800. 72 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO the sphere of influence. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, The Reclamation District is adequately prepared to adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs meet the present and future needs of its service area. or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and No major infrastructure needs were identified. Overall, industrial water, and structural fire protection in any the levees are reported to be adequately maintained disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within and the District has plans for additional improvements. or contiguous to the sphere of influence. The District maintains that it has prepared a Five-Year Facilities Plan and has applied for Special Project funding as outlined. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of property owner assessments and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. Based on the information provided, the District has the potential to provide services for a 100- year flood and is working toward improving the levees to meet the 200-year flood standard to protect the District areas. There are no DUC’s located within or contiguous to the District. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The District receives property tax revenues on improved properties and agricultural lands providing about 45 to 50 percent of overall revenues. The District has assessment fee revenue of approximately 40 to 45 percent. Other services such as land grazing and agriculture leases provide revenues of a nominal amount (approximately four percent). The District also participates annually in the DWR Levee Subvention Program. The District has been able to adequately fund maintenance and capital projects through assessments and tax revenues on a regular basis. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District does not participate in significant facility sharing or cooperative programs with other agencies at this time. Legal, engineering and accounting services are provided by contract. Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by a five-member board. Board government structure and operational facilities. members are elected to staggered four-year terms, with votes based on landowner assessment values. The District maintains a user friendly website (www.RD800.org) which provides the public with current and past Board agendas, updates on levee improvements, District history, and contact information. Budget/audit information is not included on the website at this time. Three governance options are identified for Commission consideration: (1) recognizing the December 2013 approval of the Pantages Bay development project and the need for services, expand the RD 800 SOI to include this project area; (2) develop and implement mutual aid agreements with neighboring reclamation districts to assist nearby districts in times of need; and (3) explore the development of a shared website with the other reclamation districts in Contra Costa County (hosted by 73 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts). Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including RD 800 includes a majority of the unincorporated agricultural and open-space lands. community of Discovery Bay, surrounding agricultural lands and public facilities. Present and probable need for public services and The population of RD 800 is currently 7,656. No services in the area. significant growth is projected within RD 800 for the next 15 to 20 years. The Pantages Bay development project, which includes 292 single family homes, was approved by the County in December 2013, and will eventually require annexation to RD 800 for services. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of RD 800 provides direct services to three types of levees: public services that the agency provides or is  Agricultural non-project levees (9.7 miles) authorized to provide.  Urban levees (6.5 miles)  Dry land levees (2.7 miles) In 1990, the District began a comprehensive levee retrofit for the entire 9.7 miles of the agricultural levees to meet the PL 84-99 standard. An urban levee, constructed to FEMA urban levee standards, is located within the original Discovery Bay Development area. The levee segments (integrated into the development as streets or adjacent to streets) help protect the interior of the development and non-waterfront residential areas. The District completed the necessary improvements in 2009 and received FEMA accreditation (which remains current). All of the District’s levees currently provide 100-year flood protection. No levee failures or breaches have occurred since 2009 MSR. The District is in the process of re-evaluating its entire levee system. Geotechnical borings have been formed to evaluate levee strength and seismic stability. Consultants to the District are currently developing cost estimates for projects necessary to bring the District up to 200-year flood protection status. The District should adopt a formal levee inspection procedure to inspect all levees at least annually. Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. 74 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Present and probable needs for those public facilities There are no DUCs within or contiguous to the RD 800 and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated sphere of influence. communities within the existing sphere of influence. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Expand the RD 800 SOI to include the 172-acre Pantages Bay development which was approved by Contra Costa County in December 2013. 75 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 830 (Jersey Island) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Reclamation District (RD) 830 (Jersey Island), formed on March 11, 1911, is an independent special district originally formed to provide levee and drainage maintenance services to Jersey Island. The District’s boundary is located entirely within Contra Costa County and consists of an island northeast of the City of Oakley and west of Bethel Island as indicated on Exhibit 6-11. Approximately 3,561 acres in size, the District is within the Primary Zone10 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and is outside the countywide urban limit line (ULL). Jersey Island is under the ownership of a single landowner - Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD). ISD purchased the last 50 acres of the island from Delta Properties in 2011. The District’s territory is primarily used for agriculture, cattle grazing, and habitat preservation. RD 830 has a population of three persons, and no population growth is expected within the next 10 to 15 years. The current SOI for RD 830 was adopted by LAFCO in 1984 and is coterminous with the District boundaries (see Exhibit 6-5). The District’s SOI was last reaffirmed by Contra Costa LAFCO on November 18, 2009. 10 The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area and is defined as “…land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the ULL or SOI of any local government’s general plan or studies as of January 1, 1992.” 76 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-11, Reclamation District 830 (Jersey Island) Snapshot General Information Agency Reclamation District 830 (Jersey Island) Address 450 Walnut Meadows Drive, Oakley, CA 94561 (office) P.O. Box 1105, Oakley, CA 94561 (mailing address) Principal Act Special Act of California Legislature, Statutes 1911:342, California Water Code §50300 et seq. Date Formed 1911 Population 3 Last SOI Update 2009 (coterminous) Services Provided Levee maintenance and related drainage facilities; District supplies irrigation water per License 1310 Contact Person Chad Davisson, davisson@isd.us.com Website www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com Governance Board of Directors David Dal Porto (Dec. 2015), Michael Welty (Dec. 2015), Chad Davisson (Dec. 2015) Compensation None Public Meetings As needed Operations Number of Employees 0 Service Area Approximately 3,561 acres Facilities Internal drainage system (15 miles); one pump station Contract Services District contracts with ISD for levee maintenance, flood control, drainage, upkeep of levee access roads, weed abatement, slope protection, vector/rodent control, levee control, and flood protection Fiscal Trends FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 Audited Audited Approved Budget Total Revenues $1,108,550 $4,235,078 $3,738,175 Total Expenditures $701,482 $4,045,416 $3,776,750 Infrastructure Investment $511,488 $3,733,394 $3,559,800 Debt None None None Notes: (1) FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 Audits Provided; 2014-15 Budget Provided (2) Unrestricted Fund Balance on 6/30/2014 was $2,489,476 (3) Estimated Unrestricted Fund Balance for 6/30/2015 would be $2,450,901 based upon Approved Budget (4) District Approved a 5- Year Plan in June 2012 77 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-5, Reclamation District 830 (Jersey Island) Boundary and SOI Map 78 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities RD 830 is one of 14 agencies that maintains levees in the Contra Costa County area and is an integral part of the Bay-Delta ecosystem operation. RD 830, also known as Jersey Island, was formed in 1911 by the prior owners to provide levee maintenance and land for cattle grazing and related uses. The most recent purchase of the island by the ISD has changed the focus of land use on the island. Recently, the District entered into a $6 million agreement with DWR to serve as lead agency providing approximately $5.9 million worth of mitigation credits11 to all eligible Delta reclamation districts. Funding Sources The District is owned by one land owner, the ISD, which is responsible for funding operations and maintenance costs absent any grants or revenues received by the District. Historically, the District has collected an annual assessment from the property owners based upon the net revenue needs after other revenues (including the annual Delta Levee Subvention Grant and any Special Projects funds) are received. The District is also reimbursed annually for management costs by ISD as part of a Memo of Understanding (MOU) for the purchase and ongoing maintenance of RD 830 lands. The major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-12, below, for FYs 2011- 12, 2012-13, and 2013-14): Table 6-12, RD 830 Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 Property Assessments $ 548,468 $ 547,314 $ 547,315 DWR Subventions $ 466,539 $ 232,273 $ 881,860 DWR Special Projects $ 78,672 $3,437,133 $ 2,300,000 Miscellaneous $14,871 $ 18,358 $9,000 Total Revenues $ 1,108,550 $4,235,078 $ 3,738,175 Expenditures Levee Repairs $ 511,488 $ 3,733,394 $ 3,559,800 Management Fees $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Professional Services $ 75,158 $ 77,788 $ 49,000 Insurance $ 18,935 $ 18,773 $ 20,000 Other Expenses $ 35,901 $ 155,461 $ 87,950 Total Expenditures $ 701,482 $ 4,045,416 $ 3,776,750 Revenues - Expenditures $ 407,068 $ 189,662 $ 38,575 11 Mitigation banking is the preservation, enhancement, restoration or creation of a wetland, stream, or habitat conservation area which offsets, or compensates for, expected adverse impacts to similar nearby ecosystems. The goal is to replace the exact function and value of the specific wetland habitats that would be adversely affected by a proposed activity or project. In the Delta region, the DWR requires mitigation for the disturbance or destruction of wetland, stream, or endangered species habitat. A mitigation bank may sell credits to developers whose projects impact these various ecosystems. 79 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Opportunities RD 830 (Jersey Island) is an example of a Reclamation District that has taken forward steps to look for opportunities to plan and collaborate with other area agencies. The District’s efforts further the long- term mission of the District and levee property owners to safeguard and maintain the integrity of the land and natural resources protected by the levee system. RD 830 has achieved this through:  Entering into cooperative agreements with the ISD, DWR, Westervelt Ecological Services, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) which have secured over $6 million in funds toward levee and habitat enhancement and helped meet the environmental needs of the ISD and area habitat agencies. These efforts and successes can be viewed as models for other reclamation districts to evaluate (and, if possible, replicate) in a collective effort to improve the region’s levee system and habitat resource effectiveness.  Cooperative use of rock and fill dirt from other areas for levee fill and improvement at a lower cost.  Sharing of equipment and labor.  Collaboration on District and regional levee enhancement projects for design and construction phasing and cost reductions.  Development of regional plans for applying for State and Federal funding including Proposition 84 and 1 grant funds. RD 830 is in a unique situation whereby a single owner has been successful in implementing a habitat preservation plan for both funding and operational benefits on a regional scale. However, this “outside the box” approach is not unlike the programs that many cities and special districts are currently implementing (e.g., cost sharing, shared services, contracting, consolidation, etc.) to reach long-term service goals and reduce overall costs. The critical role that reclamation districts play in the long-term sustainability of the Delta cannot be understated. Seeking new and unique solutions to these challenges will undoubtedly become the norm rather than the exception. Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity The Jersey Island levee system consists of 15.5 miles of levees, all of which meet HMP12 height standards, and 14.8 miles meet HMP width standards. A majority of the levees needing toe berms to buttress levee improvements were upgraded during the past six years. The District’s system of three discharge pipes have been replaced and raised to address subsidence issues. The District’s one pump station is scheduled to be relocated, and a project design is underway. RD 830 adopted a 5-Year Plan in June 2012 to help the District plan and prioritize expenditures. 12 In the early 1980s, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Army Corps of Engineers, and California DWR set a short-term Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standard as an interim standard for non-project levees in the Delta, with a long-term goal of upgrading all levees to the more stringent US Army Corps of Engineers’ Public Law (PL) 84-99 standard. 80 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO The pump and discharge system is operating at acceptable levels and no inundation incidents have occurred in the past six years since the prior 2009 MSR. Additional fill dirt and rock materials are being stockpiled on the island and used where most needed in cooperation with the levee upgrade and maintenance projects. Since the 2009 MSR, the District has completed a number of infrastructure upgrades, including:  2.5 miles of levee improvements  Raised and completed the replacement of three dewatering pipes over the levee  Initiated the design phase of the pump station relocation  Completed “toe berm” improvements covering 3.6 miles  Upgraded all levee areas to meet HMP height standards, and approximately 14.7 miles to meet HMP width standards  Received a Special Project Grant, revised to $3.6 million, to include an emergency amendment to construct of 0.95 miles of levee improvement and rehabilitation to not less than the minimum HMP standard cross-section, and include a splash berm, toe berm, all-weather road surface, and hydro seeding. The project supports the Emergency Drought Barrier project which was installed by the DWR in mid-2015. Table 6-13, RD 830 (Jersey Island) Services and Facilities Service Provider Levee Maintenance By contract with ISD Weed Abatement By contract with ISD Flood Control By contract with ISD Slope Protection By contract with ISD Drainage By contract with ISD Vector/Rodent Control By contract with ISD Upkeep of Levee Access Roads By contract with ISD Levee Patrol By contract with ISD Irrigation Water Per License 1310 Flood Fighting By contract with ISD District Overview Total Levee Miles 15.5 Surface Elevation -16 to 15 feet Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type No Standard 0.7 Dry Land Levee 0.0 HMP Standard 14.8 Urban Levee 0.0 PL 84-99 Standard 0.0 Agricultural Levee 15.5 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 Other 0.0 District Facilities Internal Drainage System Yes – 15 miles Pump Station(s) Yes - 1 Detention Basins(s) No Bridges No Floodplain FIRM Designation AE Base Flood Elevation 9.4 NAVD (1988) Levee Inspection Practices The District conducts informal levee inspections and keeps written inspection logs. Informal levee inspections are conducted by ISD employees. Levee inspections are performed daily during severe weather events. Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection NP Inspection Rating NP Levee Segment Description Condition Dutch Slough Along southern District boundary 3.8 miles need rehabilitation 81 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO San Joaquin/False River Along northern District boundary 0.8 miles need rehabilitation Piper Slough/Taylor Slough Along eastern District boundary 1.3 miles need rehabilitation Levee Maintenance Miles Rehabilitated, FY 13-14 2.5 Miles Needing Rehabilitation 5.9 Percent Rehabilitated, FY 13-14 16% % Needing Rehabilitation 38% Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* $ 794,700 Maintenance Cost per Levee Mile** $ 55,097 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Levee rehabilitation is needed on 7.1 miles of levees. Highest priority areas are in the northern portion of the District along the San Joaquin River/False River segment and in the southwestern portion of the District along the Dutch Slough segment. Other infrastructure needs include the relocation of the pump station, as the current location suffers from subsidence. Notes: Levee condition and rehabilitation needs are as reported by RD 830 as of June 2012. NP = Not Provided * Rehabilitation cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on capital improvements in FY 13-14 divided by the number of levee miles rehabilitated in FY 13-14. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 13-14 divided by the total number of levee miles. Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities The District has undertaken a number of collaborative and facility sharing opportunities since 2009, including:  Entered an agreement with ISD and the DWR to create up to 100 acres of enhanced habitat in the Western Delta; RD 830 secured an $8.95 million grant from DWR to implement the enhancement project on ISD and DWR property which helps support mandatory enhancement requirements for all DWR Special Project and Subvention Programs.  Entered into a partnership with Westervelt Ecological Services, and an agreement with DWR, to secure approximately $6 million in mitigation credits and serve as the lead agency overseeing a Delta-wide bulk purchase of mitigation credits to benefit all reclamation districts in the Delta; additionally, the bulk purchase of credits allowed RD 830 to purchase the credits at a discount as well as freeze the costs per credit (for as long as the credits lasted), providing a higher value programmatic mitigation within the Delta.  RD 830 entered into a management agreement with ISD to reimburse ISD for estimated time that ISD management staff allocated to serving as an RD 830 Trustee.  RD 830 reports that the District utilizes ISD personnel and equipment for levee and reclamation purposes and reimburses ISD for equipment and personnel costs; in return, RD 830 is reimbursed up to 75 percent of ISD labor and equipment costs by the DWR (through the State’s Delta Levees Subventions Program).  The District has arranged with outside vendors to receive free clean fill material which is used to improve its levee toe-mass placement on a continual basis. 82 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities RD 830 is not a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC). However, Bethel Island has been identified by the County as a DUC and is contiguous to RD 830. If annexation of territory or an SOI expansion is ever considered by RD 830 to include the Bethel Island area, a detailed analysis would be required to evaluate the ability of RD 830 to provide service to this area. Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by a three-member Board. All board members are employees of ISD, the sole landowner on Jersey Island. The District reported that there have been no contested elections since the 2009 MSR. The District has a link on the ISD website (www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com), but the webpage only provides limited information regarding RD 830. As noted previously, RD 830 serves as a model for revenue sharing and implementing cooperative programs with other RD’s. RD 830 could also serve as model for transparency by expanding their website link to include District budget and audit information, meeting agendas and minutes, key contact information, project updates, Board membership and terms, etc. Public meetings are held “as needed” and are not scheduled on a regular reoccurring schedule. According to the District, inspection/certification procedures have been formalized by the District and are currently in use. District staff has indicated that, like other reclamation districts, RD 830 has distinct boundaries, unique geology and hydrology, level of subsidence and levee conditions. Each reclamation district also differs in the number of landowners, availability of on-island borrow material, funding resources, liabilities, access restrictions and sophistication of landowners and Board of Trustees. RD 830 management has stated that while consolidation of reclamation districts may make sense on paper, the complexities of combining two or more independent districts separated by water may, in many cases, actually complicate the management, maintenance, and improvement of levee systems. RD 830 (Jersey Island) has taken forward steps to look for opportunities to plan and collaborate with other area agencies. Through cooperative agreements with ISD, DWR, Westervelt Ecological Services, and the California DFW, the District has secured significant funding for levee improvements and habitat preservation. The District’s efforts serve as a model for other reclamation districts in the region. One alternative governance structure option has been identified: develop and implement mutual aid agreements with neighboring Reclamation Districts. RD 830 staff has identified the potential for mutual aid agreements between reclamation districts in times of need. For example, the District has 1,000 tons of rip-rock, sandbags, a small dump truck, and a D-6 bulldozer that could be used to assist nearby districts. RD 830 and its surrounding reclamation districts should explore this opportunity with surrounding districts. 83 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed Municipal Service Review (MSR) determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. The District’s territory is primarily used for agriculture, cattle grazing, and habitat preservation. RD 830 has a population of three persons, and no population growth is expected within the next 10 to 15 years. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged RD 830 is not a Disadvantaged Unincorporated unincorporated communities within or contiguous to Community (DUC). However, Bethel Island has been the SOI. identified by the County as a DUC and is contiguous to RD 830. If annexation of territory or an SOI expansion is ever considered by RD 830 to include the Bethel Island area, a detailed analysis would be required to evaluate the ability of RD 830 to provide service to this area. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, The District appears adequately prepared to meet the adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs present and future needs of its service area. Overall, or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and the levees are reported to be adequately maintained industrial water, and structural fire protection in any and the District has plans for additional improvements. disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within The District has prepared a Five-year Facilities Plan and or contiguous to the sphere of influence. has obtained approval of Special Project funding. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of one landowner assessment and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. Based on the information provided, the District has the potential to provided services for a 100-year flood and is working toward improving the levees to meet the 200-year flood standard to protect the District areas. RD 830 is not a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC). However, Bethel Island has been identified by the County as a DUC and is contiguous to RD 830. If annexation of territory or an SOI expansion is ever considered by RD 830 to include the Bethel Island area, a detailed analysis would be required to evaluate the ability of RD 830 to provide service to this area. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. Recently, the District entered into a $6 million agreement with the DWR to serve as lead agency providing approximately $5.9 million worth of mitigation credits to all eligible Delta reclamation districts. The District has historically had an operating budget of $500,000 to $4 million in expenditures that 84 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO varies with maintenance and capital improvement needs. The District has been able to fund needed improvements and maintenance over the past several years, and with purchase of the property by Ironhouse SD, the funding levels have improved. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District has undertaken a number of collaborative and facility sharing opportunities since 2009, including:  Entered an agreement with ISD and the DWR to create up to 100 acres of enhanced habitat in the Western Delta.  Entered into a partnership with Westervelt Ecological Services, and an agreement with DWR, to secure approximately $6 million in mitigation credits and serve as the lead agency overseeing a Delta-wide bulk purchase of mitigation credits to benefit all reclamation districts in the Delta.  RD 830 utilizes ISD personnel and equipment for levee and reclamation purposes and reimburses ISD for equipment and personnel costs; in return, RD 830 is reimbursed up to 75 percent of ISD labor and equipment costs by DWR.  The District has arranged with outside vendors to receive free clean fill material which is used to improve its levee toe-mass placement on a continual basis. Accountability for community service needs, including RD 830 is governed by a three-member Board. All government structure and operational facilities. board members are employees of ISD, the sole landowner on Jersey Island. The District reported that there have been no contested elections since the 2009 MSR. The District does not maintain a website. Public meetings are held “as needed” and are not scheduled on a regular reoccurring schedule. According to the District, inspection/certification procedures have been formalized by the District and are currently in use. Two alternative governance structure options have been identified: (1) develop and implement mutual aid agreements with neighboring reclamation districts including, but not limited to, using RD 830’s rip rock, sandbags, dump truck and bulldozer to assist nearby districts in times of need. RD 830 should pursue formalizing this arrangement through implementation of mutual aid agreements with nearby reclamation districts; and 2) explore an expanded or shared website with other RD’s in Contra Costa County (hosted by the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of RD’s). Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. 85 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including The District’s territory is primarily used for agriculture, agricultural and open-space lands. cattle grazing, and habitat preservation. RD 830 secured an $8.95 million DWR grant to create 100 acres of enhanced habitat to support all DWR Special Grant and Subvention Programs. No change in land uses are anticipated in the foreseeable future. Present and probable need for public services and The District’s territory is primarily used for agriculture, services in the area. cattle grazing, and habitat preservation. No population growth is expected in the foreseeable future. Future public service needs are limited. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of The Jersey Island levee system consists of 15.5 miles of public services that the agency provides or is levees, all of which meet Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) authorized to provide. height standards, and 14.8 miles meet HMP width standards. A majority of the levees needing toe berms to buttress levee improvements were upgraded during the past six years. The pump and discharge system is operating at acceptable levels and no inundation incidents have occurred in the past six years since the prior 2009 MSR. Additional fill dirt and rock materials are being stockpiled on the island and used where most needed in cooperation with the levee upgrade and maintenance projects. Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Present and probable needs for those public facilities RD 830 is not a Disadvantaged Unincorporated and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated Community (DUC). However, Bethel Island has been communities within the existing sphere of influence. identified by the County as a DUC and is contiguous to RD 830. If annexation of territory or an SOI expansion is ever considered by RD 830 to include the Bethel Island area, a detailed analysis would be required to evaluate the ability of RD 830 to provide service to this area. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reaffirm the current SOI for RD 830. 86 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 2024 (Orwood and Palm Tracts) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Reclamation District (RD) 2024 (Orwood/Palm Tracts) was originally formed on April 15, 1918 as an independent special district. The District consisted of the Orwood Tract, and was formed to provide drainage, irrigation and complete reclamation of lands within District boundaries. In 1995, RD 2036 (Palm Tract) was dissolved and the area was annexed to RD 2024. The original three-member Board of Trustees for each District was expanded to the current five-member Board serving both tracts. RD 2024 is approximately 6,574 acres in size (approximately 10.27 square miles). Current population is approximately 40, the majority being seasonal farmworkers. The District anticipates no population growth or development in the foreseeable future. RD 2024 is entirely located within Contra Costa County, as shown on Exhibit 6-6. The District is within the Primary Zone13 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and is outside the countywide urban limit line (ULL). Access to the District is via Orwood Road from Bixler Road and SR 4 from the south, or Bixler Road and Chestnut Street in Brentwood from the west. Orwood Road traverses the north side of Orwood Tract westerly until it terminates at Old River. Private levee roads provide perimeter access around each tract, and private agricultural service roads provide access to the interior of each tract. There are 18 landowners within the District. The predominant land use (approximately 95 percent of the District territory) within both tracts is agriculture – primarily wheat, corn, safflower and grapes. Portions of each tract are dedicated to wildlife habitat and waterfowl. The District lands contain limited residential uses – two single family homes and ancillary farmworker and caretaker housing. The current SOI for RD 2024 is coterminous with the District’s boundaries. It was last reaffirmed by Contra Costa LAFCO on November 18, 2009. 13 The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area and is defined as “…land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the ULL or sphere of influence of any local government’s general plan or studies as of January 1, 1992.” 87 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-14, Reclamation District 2024 (Orwood/Palm Tracts) Snapshot General Information Agency RD 2024 (Orwood/Palm Tracts) Address 235 East Weber Avenue, P.O. Box 1461, Stockton, CA 95201 Principal Act California Water Code §50000 et seq. Date Formed 1918 (Consolidation with RD 2036 in 1995) Population 8 permanent residents; 40 farmworkers (seasonal) Last SOI Update 2009 Services Provided Levees, flood control and drainage Contact Person Dante John Nomellini, Sr. (209) 465-5883 Website None Governance Board of Directors Robert Cecchini (2015), John Jackson (2015), Don Wagenet (2017) Compensation 0 Public Meetings As needed, usually quarterly Operations Number of Employees 0 Service Area 6,574 acres Facilities Internal drainage system, 6 pump stations Contract Services Levee maintenance (direct and contract); flood control (direct and contract); drainage (direct and contract); upkeep of levee access roads (direct and contract); irrigation water (direct and contract); weed abatement (direct and contract); slope protection (direct and contract); vector/rodent control (direct and contract); levee patrol (direct and contract); flood fighting (direct and contract). Fiscal Trends FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Total Revenues $4,320,492 $3,366,749 $ 524,506 Total Expenditures $3,212,226 $6,356,763 $ 375,273 Infrastructure Investment $2,727,018 $5,370,681 -- Debt NR NR NR 88 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-6, Reclamation District 2024 (Orwood and Palm Tracts) Boundary and SOI Map 89 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities The District receives funding from several sources, including: property assessments; the State Delta Levee Subvention and Special Levee Project Programs; and, financial assistance from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). EBMUD’s aqueduct facilities cross the District property. RD 2024 has completed several projects in the past five years and has applied for additional funds to complete levee improvements to meet PL84-099 standards. Excess funds on hand are deposited with the Contra County Treasurer. The District currently has approximately $1,000,000 in funds for future project share needs. At the end of FY 2012-13, the District had $1,007,596 in Unrestricted Assets. Major utility facilities (e.g., EBMUD aqueducts, Kinder Morgan pipeline, PG&E gas and electric lines, WAPA electric lines and the BNSF railroad) cross the District property. Continued participation by those entities and interest by the state and federal agencies have made improvement and maintenance of RD 2024 levees a high priority. EBMUD, Kinder Morgan, PG&E and BNSF are on the District’s assessment roll. The District reports that that EBMUD has in the past provided funding over and above its assessment and without their efforts and the financial assistance the State special project funding provides, completion of levee improvement work would not have taken place. There is no commitment from EBMUD to provide future funding beyond payment of its assessments. The District reports that the Delta Stewardship Council is developing a levee investment strategy which could result in the demise of State levee assistance for RD 2024. The District views its funding beyond its current assessments as “uncertain.” The District is cooperating with the County’s Operation and Emergency Services Program to document the facilities and prevent flood events. The major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-15, below, for FYs 2011- 12, 2012-13, and 2013-14): Table 6-15, RD 2024 Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Property Assessments $ 319,535 $ 316,298 $ 315,606 DWR Subventions $ 928,018 -- $ 67,880 DWR Special Projects $ 5,397,035 $ 3,050,412 $ 140,939 Miscellaneous $371,845 $ 39 $ 81 Total Revenues $ 6,695,579 $ 3,366,749 $ 524,506 Expenditures Levee Repairs $ 2,829,722 $ 5,694,251 $ 133,198 Management Fees $ 7,200 $ 8,400 $ 34,275 Professional Services $ 242,226 $ 322,904 $ 103,476 Insurance $ 27,973 $ 24,075 $ 26,473 90 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Other Expenses $ 105,105 $ 307,133 $ 77,851 Total Expenditures $ 3,212,226 $ 6,356,763 $ 375,273 Revenues - Expenditures $ 3,483,353 ($2,990,014)* $ 149,233 Notes: *Other funds were available from project agreements Opportunities The District is in a key location in the Delta and levee system and has important utility and government facilities in its territory. Protection of those facilities is important to all of the involved agencies and users of other businesses in the area. EBMUD assists RD 2024 with maintenance and repair of areas adjacent to their aqueduct facilities. Continuation of these joint efforts is encouraged. Cooperative efforts to obtain levee grant funds to upgrade levees to federal standards is also an important goal for the District and the utility agencies. Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity Key infrastructure in the District includes 14.6 miles of levees, as well as internal drainage channels, six pump stations, and one flood gate. Levees are constructed out of earthen materials with rock rip rap on the water side. The Indian Slough Segment on Orwood Tract has been extensively rocked on the water side in order to eliminate water damage from speedboats entering and leaving the Discovery Bay development area. The District reports that it has completed a Five Year Plan and submitted it to DWR for review. Since the 2009 MSR, major rehabilitation work has been completed within RD 2024 – over $3 million expended on improvements to the Orwood Tract and over $5 million dollars on the Palm Tract. The District reports that since the 2009 MSR, improvements have been made to bring the entire levee system to meet HMP14 height and width standards. With the completion of a recent project to address the remaining .3 miles of levee below the PL 84-99 standard, the District reports that all 14.6 miles levee system now meet the more stringent PL 84-99 standard. The District has a 5-Year Plan to meet the District’s adopted levee standard (which has a wider crown with corresponding side slopes) for the entire system. To achieve this goal, State funding will be required. There have been no breaches or failures since 2009. RD 2024 does not have a formal levee inspection procedure. District Trustees monitor the levees on a regular basis, and provide continuous inspections during rain, wind and high-tide events. The District Engineer also makes periodic inspections although the District does not maintain written inspection reports. 14 In the early 1980s, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Army Corps of Engineers, and California Department of Water Resources (DWR) set a short-term Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standard as an interim standard for non-project levees in the Delta, with a long-term goal of upgrading all levees to the more stringent US Army Corps of Engineers’ Public Law (PL) 84-99 standard. 91 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-16, RD 2024 (Orwood/Palm Tracts) Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – RD 2024 Service Provider Levee Maintenance Direct & Contract Weed Abatement Direct & Contract Flood Control Direct & Contract S l o pe Protection Direct & Contract Drainage Direct & Contract V ector/Rodent Control Direct & Contract Upkeep of Levee Access Roads Direct & Contract L evee Patrol Direct & Contract Irrigation Water Floodgate Direct & Contract F l o o d F i g h t i ng Direct & Contract District Overview Total Levee Miles 14.6 Surface Elevation -10 feet (average) Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type District Standard 12.4 D r y Land Levee 0 HMP Standard 14.6 Urban Levee 0.0 PL 84-99 Standard 14.6 Agricultural Levee 14.6 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 Other 0.0 District Facilities Internal Drainage System Yes Pump Station(s) Yes - 6 Detention Basins(s) No B r i d g es No Floodplain FIRM Designation A2 Base Flood Elevation 8-foot (Orwood); 7-foot (Palm) Levee Inspection Practices Levee inspections are performed on a regular basis by District Trustees; periodically by the District Engineer; levee inspections are performed multiple times per day during severe weather events. Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection NP Inspection Rating NP Levee Segment Description Condition Palm Tract Werner Dredger Cut Segment Good Palm Tract Old River Segment Good Orwood Tract Old River Segment Good Orwood Tract Indian Slough Segment Good Orwood Tract Werner Dredger Cut Extension Segment Good Levee Maintenance (since prior 2009 MSR) Miles Rehabilitated NP Miles Needing Rehabilitation to PL 84-99 Standard 0 % Rehabilitated NP % Needing Rehabilitation NP Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* NP Maintenance Cost per Levee Mile** NP Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies The District is working toward meeting the District Standard for all level segments. Notes: NP = Not Provided District comments: Some portions of the levee require more work than others. The portion on softer foundation materials will require an ongoing rehabilitation. In rough numbers, since 2009 about $8,500,000 was expended on about 9 miles of levee. Of that amount, about $1,500,000 was expended to construct a levee to support wildlife habitat. 92 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities The District reports there are limited opportunities for significant facility sharing. RD 2024 stores its container of flood fighting materials at the EBMUD’s Bixler Maintenance Yard. RD 2024 contracts out for all major services including legal counsel and engineering services. Levee maintenance, flood control, drainage, upkeep of levee access roads, weed abatement, slope protection, vector/rodent control, levee patrol, flood fighting are provided through a direct or contract basis. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities There are no Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the District’s sphere of influence. Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by a five-member Board. Board members are elected by landowners to staggered four-year terms, with the number of votes determined by the annual assessment paid by each landowner. Board members serve on a volunteer basis and receive no compensation. Currently, two of the five Board member positions are vacant. The District reports that due to liability and regulatory concerns, there appears to be a lack of enthusiasm among landowners to serve on the Board. The District Board meets on an “as needed” basis with approximately four meetings held each year. Meetings are generally held in the District Secretary’s conference room in Stockton. The District does not maintain a website. However, with a limited number of landowners, constituent outreach efforts are limited. The 2009 MSR identified one governance alternative – consolidation of RD 2024 with RD 2065 (Veale Tract) to achieve efficiencies and reduce administrative costs. Since the 2009 MSR, RD 2024 staff has not pursued such a consolidation due to a lack of common facilities. The District indicated that while the Orwood and Palm levee systems are related (and the Districts were consolidated in 1995), no such commonalities exist for RD 2024 and RD 2065. RD 2024 has no interest in moving forward with a consolidation at this time. There may be opportunities for RD 2024 to enter into mutual aid agreements with adjacent reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations. Additionally, a shared website with the other reclamation districts in Contra Costa County (hosted by the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts) should be explored by RD 2024 to enhance agency transparency. Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. 93 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. Current population is approximately 40, the majority being seasonal farmworkers. The District anticipates no population growth or development in the foreseeable future. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD unincorporated communities within or contiguous to 2024. the sphere of influence. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs 2024. The District appears adequately prepared to or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and meet the present needs of its service area. Overall, industrial water, and structural fire protection in any the levees are reported to be adequately improved to a disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within Five Year plan standard for additional improvements. or contiguous to the sphere of influence. The District has completed an $8 million project for levee improvements through the Special Project Grants and reports that all levees now meet the HMP 200 year standard. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of the landowner assessments and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. Based on the information provided, since the 2009 MSR, improvements have been made to upgrade the entire levee system to meet HMP height and width standards. Additionally, all 14.6 miles levee system now meets the more stringent PL 84-99 standard. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The District receives funding from several sources, including: property assessments; the State Delta Levee Subvention and Special Levee Project Programs; and, financial assistance from EBMUD. Excess funds on hand are deposited with the Contra County Treasurer. The District currently has approximately $1,000,000 in funds for future project share needs. At the end of FY 2012- 13, the District had $1,007,596 in Unrestricted Assets. Major utility facilities cross the District property. Continued participation by those entities and interest by the state and federal agencies have made improvement and maintenance of RD 2024 levees a high priority. The District has been able to collect adequate funds for operations and to establish a capital reserve. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. There are limited opportunities for significant facility sharing. RD 2024 stores its container of flood fight materials at the EBMUD’s Bixler Maintenance Yard. The District contracts out for all major services including legal counsel and engineering services. Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by a five-member Board. Board government structure and operational facilities. members are elected by landowners to staggered four- year terms, with the number of votes determined by 94 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO the annual assessment paid by each landowner. Currently, only three of the five board seats are filled. The District does not maintain a website. Two alternative governance structure options have been identified for RD 2024: (1) pursue the development and implementation of mutual aid agreements with neighboring reclamation districts to assist each other in times of need; and (2) study the feasibility of a implementing a countywide reclamation district website hosted through the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts to enhance accountability and transparency. Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including The predominant land use (approximately 95 percent of agricultural and open-space lands. the District territory) within RD 2024 is agriculture – primarily wheat, corn, safflower and grapes. Portions of RD 2024 are dedicated to wildlife habitat and waterfowl. The District lands contain limited residential uses – two single family homes and ancillary farmworker and caretaker housing. No change in land uses are anticipated in the foreseeable future. Present and probable need for public services and Primarily agricultural in nature, RD 2024 has limited services in the area. demand for public services. The District anticipates no population growth or development in the foreseeable future. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of Key infrastructure in the District includes 14.6 miles of public services that the agency provides or is levees, as well as internal drainage channels, six pump authorized to provide. stations, and one flood gate. Since the 2009 MSR, improvements have been made to bring the entire levee system to meet HMP height and width standards. Additionally, all 14.6 miles levee system now meet the more stringent PL 84-99 standard. The District has a 5- Year Plan to meet the District’s adopted levee standard (a wider crown with corresponding side slopes) for the entire system. To reach this goal, State funding will be required. Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Present and probable needs for those public facilities There are no disadvantaged unincorporated and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the RD 830 communities within the existing sphere of influence. sphere of influence. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reaffirm the current SOI for RD 2024. 95 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 2025 (Holland Tract) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Reclamation District (RD) 2025 was formed in 1918 as an independent special district to provide levee maintenance services. Entirely located within Contra Costa County, RD 2025 is a Delta island located in the eastern portion of the County, northeast of the community of Knightsen, as shown on Exhibit 6-7. The boundaries of the District comprise approximately 4,090 acres, or about 6.4 square miles. RD 2025 is located entirely within the Primary Zone15 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and is outside of the countywide urban limit line (ULL). RD 2025 consists primarily of agricultural and recreational land uses. Local business activities include cattle grazing operations within the District and marinas located along the Delta waterways, outside of the levees. There are 18 landowners within the District, and approximately 27 residents according to recent Census data. Delta Wetlands Properties, the island’s largest landowner, owns approximately 75 percent of the island. The District has not experienced recent growth and no significant population growth is anticipated in the future. The current SOI for RD 2025 is coterminous with the District boundaries (see Exhibit 6-7). 15 The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area and is defined as “…land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the ULL or SOI of any local government’s general plan or studies as of January 1, 1992.” 96 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-17, Reclamation District 2025 (Holland Tract) Snapshot General Information Agency Reclamation District 2025 (Holland Tract) Address 343 East Main Street, Suite 815, Stockton, CA 95202 Principal Act Reclamation District Act Date Formed 1918 Population 27 (estimated) Last SOI Update 2009 (coterminous) Services Provided Improve and maintain levees; maintain and operate flood control system including pumps, canals and ditches Contact Person Al Warren Hoslett, hoslettlaw@sbcglobal.net Website None Governance Board of Directors David Forkel (2015); John L. Winther (2015); Kris Kaiser (2015, then two-year term); Board of Trustees shared with RD’s 756 and 2028, but each board operates independently. Compensation None Public Meetings As needed; dates and times vary Operations Number of Employees NP Service Area 4,090 acres Facilities Levees (11 miles); 3 pump stations; internal drainage system (8 miles) Contract Services RD 2025 shares administrative, engineering, legal and audit services with other RD’s in Contra Costa and San Joaquin Counties Fiscal Trends FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Total Revenues $ 308,483 $ 336,890 $2,983,669 Total Expenditures $ 742,476 $ 376,282 3,170,051 Infrastructure Investment $2,400,000 $ 75,000 $2,540,364 Debt NR NR NR 97 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-7, Reclamation District 2025 (Holland Tract) Boundary and SOI Map 98 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities Funding Sources Since the 2009 MSR, RD 2025 has completed a 5-Year Plan (prepared by MB Engineers) and submitted it to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). The District funds capital facilities and maintenance by collecting annual assessments on the District’s 18 property owners. Additional funding has come from the DWR Levee Subventions Program to maintain the levees in a safe condition and make repairs as needed. The District obtained two Special Project Grants totaling $5,719,500 of which the District must fund approximately $686,340 over the three-year period. The District also obtained short-term Warrant financing from a local Stockton, California bank for $1,150,000 that is due over the next three years. The District has considered increasing the property assessments but has not pursued that as yet due to the cost of conducting an assessment Proposition 218 election. Opportunities The District shares services and facilities with several other reclamation districts in Contra Costa and San Joaquin counties that save costs and provides efficiencies in legal and engineering services. The District continues to use these coordinated services and has used them for plan and contract development. The District does not see consolidation with other districts as a legal or functional benefit due to non- contiguous properties and individual liabilities of property owners and districts. Table 6-18, RD 2025 (Holland Tract) Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Property Assessments $ 151,688 $ 154,097 $ 167,703 DWR Subventions $ 156,795 $ 182,793 DWR Special Projects -- -- $ 2,439,960 Miscellaneous -- -- $ 376,006 Total Revenues $ 308,483 $ 336,890 $ 2,983,669 Expenditures Levee Repairs $ 369,597 $ 234,369 $181,260 Management Fees/Payroll $ 69,121 $ 72,552 $77,599 Professional Services $ 92,154 $ 56,635 $ 35,314 Insurance $ 9,432 $ 10,007 $ 12,134 Other Expenses* $ 202,172 $ 2,719 $ 2,894,344 Total Expenditures $ 742,476 $ 376,282 $ 3,179,051 Revenues – Expenditures ($ 433,993) ($ 39,392) ($ 195,382) Notes: The District received a Special Projects Grant of $8.95 million of which $1.7 million is expected to be spent in FY 2013-14. $2.4 million was expended from short-term warrant revenues in a special fund to be partially reimbursed from Project Grants. *In FY 2013-14, special project expenditures of $2,540,364 99 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity The District includes 11 miles of earthen levees, eight miles of irrigation canals and three pumping stations. Since the 2009 MSR, the District reports that 7.2 miles (or 65 percent) of the District’s levees have undergone rehabilitation. Currently, all 11 miles of levees meet the PL 84-99 Standard.16 According to the District, all planned levee rehabilitation is complete. Table 6-19, RD 2025 (Holland Tract) Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – RD 2025 (Holland Tract) Service Provider Levee Maintenance By Contract Weed Abatement By Contract Flood Control By Contract Slope Protection By Contract Drainage By Contract Vector/Rodent Control By Contract Upkeep of Levee Access Roads By Contract Levee Patrol By Contract Irrigation Water None Flood Fighting By Contract District Overview Total Levee Miles 11.0 Surface Elevation 0 to -15 feet Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type No Standard 0.0 Dry Land Levee 0.0 HMP Standard 0.0 Urban Levee 0.0 PL 84-99 Standard 11.0 Agricultural Levee 11.0 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 Other 0.0 District Facilities Internal Drainage System Yes – 8 miles Pump Station(s) Yes - 3 Detention Basins(s) No Bridges No Floodplain FIRM Designation A30 Base Flood Elevation 7 feet Levee Inspection Practices Levee inspections are performed on a daily basis by on-site farmers; levee inspections are performed multiple times per day during severe weather events. Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection NP Inspection Rating NP Levee Segment Description Condition Old River/Holland Cut Eastern District boundary 3.96 miles at PL 84-99 Sand Mound Slough Western District boundary 4.6 miles at PL 84-99 Rock Slough Southern District boundary 2.41 miles at PL 84-99 Levee Maintenance (since prior 2009 MSR) Miles Rehabilitated 7.2 Miles Needing Rehabilitation 0 % Rehabilitated 65% % Needing Rehabilitation 0 Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* NP Maintenance Cost per Levee Mile** $18,748 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies District indicates that all planned rehabilitation has been completed. Notes: 16 The PL 84-99 levee standard was established by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1999. To meet the PL 84-99 standard, a levee must meet the following criteria: 1.5 feet above the 100 year flood frequency water surface elevation; 16 foot crown width; water side levee slopes of 2 to 1; and, land side levee slopes of 3 to 1 to 5 to 1, depending on height of levee and depth of peat. 100 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO * Rehabilitation cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on capital improvements in FY 12-13 divided by the number of levee miles rehabilitated in FY 12-13. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 12-13 divided by the total number of levee miles. Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities The District does not directly employ any full-time or part-time staff positions. The District contracts out for all major services, including levee maintenance, flood control, drainage, levee access road upkeep, weed abatement, slope protection, vector/rodent control, and levee patrol. RD 2025 shares administrative facilities and legal/administrative services with ten other reclamation districts located in both Contra Costa and San Joaquin counties. RD 2025 also shares engineering services with five reclamation districts, and shares a Board of Trustees with three reclamation districts (RD’s 756, 2026 and 2028) that have either single landowners or a small number of landowners. The Board of Trustees serves without compensation. The District reports that having one engineer and one legal representative serving multiple reclamation districts reduces the cost to individual districts considerably. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities There are no Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the District’s sphere of influence. Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by a three-member Board. For contested elections, board members are elected by landowners to staggered four-year terms, with each voter entitled to cast one vote per acre owned with the District. The District reports that there have been no recent contested elections. Uncontested vacancies on the governing body are filled by appointment by the Board of Supervisors. The District’s constituent outreach activities consist of posting agendas and notices at the District office and maintaining an email distribution list for landowner notification. The District does not maintain a website. However, with only a small number of landowners, constituent outreach is limited. The District meets on an as-needed basis, with approximately four meeting held each year. One governance structure option was identified in the prior 2009 MSR: (1) Consolidation of RD 2025 with RD 2026 (Contra Costa County), RD 756 (Bouldin Island, San Joaquin County) and RD 2028 (Bacon Island, San Joaquin County). District staff has indicated that, like other reclamation districts, RD 2025 has distinct boundaries, unique geology and hydrology, level of subsidence and levee conditions. Each reclamation district also differs in the number of landowners, funding resources, liabilities, access restrictions and sophistication of landowners and Board of Trustees. The District does not believe consolidation with adjacent reclamation districts would result in significant savings. 101 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO There may be opportunities for RD 2025 to enter into mutual aid agreements with adjacent reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations. Additionally, a shared website with the other reclamation districts in Contra Costa County (hosted by the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts) should be explored by RD 2025 to enhance agency transparency. Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. There are 18 landowners within the District, and approximately 27 residents according to recent Census data. Delta Wetlands Properties, the island’s largest landowner, owns approximately 75 percent of the island. The District has not experienced recent growth and no significant population growth is anticipated in the future. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD unincorporated communities within or contiguous to 2025. the sphere of influence. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs 2025. The District appears adequately prepared to meet or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and the present and future needs of its service area. Overall, industrial water, and structural fire protection in any the levees are reported to be adequately maintained disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within and the District has plans for additional improvements. or contiguous to the sphere of influence. The District has prepared a Five-year Facilities Plan and has obtained approval of two Special Project funding grants. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of the landowner assessments and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. Based on the information provided, the District has the potential to provide services for a 100-year flood and has improved the levees to meet the 200-year flood standard to protect the District areas. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The District funds capital facilities and maintenance by collecting annual assessments on the District’s 18 property owners. Additional funding has come from the DWR Levee Subventions Program and two Special Project Grants (totaling $5,719,500). The District participates in the Delta Levee Subventions program and has secured funding fairly regularly based upon need and availability. The District has considered increasing the property assessments but has not pursued that as yet due to the cost of conducting an 102 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO assessment Proposition 218 election. The District has been able to collect adequate funding for the past three years and is developing a plan to increase property assessment funding for needed grant funded projects. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. RD 2025 shares administrative facilities and legal/administrative services with ten other reclamation districts located in both Contra Costa and San Joaquin counties. RD 2025 also shares engineering services with five reclamation districts, and shares a Board of Trustees with three reclamation districts (RD’s 756, 2026 and 2028) that have either single landowners or a small number of landowners. Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by a three-member Board. For government structure and operational facilities. contested elections, board members are elected by landowners to staggered four-year terms, with each voter entitled to cast one vote per acre owned with the District The District does not maintain a website. The District meets on an as-needed basis, with approximately four meeting held each year. Two governance structure alternatives have been identified for RD 2025: (1) enter into mutual aid agreements with adjacent reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations; and (2) explore the development of a shared website with the other reclamation districts in Contra Costa County (hosted by the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts) to enhance agency transparency. Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including RD 2025 consists primarily of agricultural and agricultural and open-space lands. recreational land uses. Local business activities include cattle grazing operations within the District and marinas located along the Delta waterways, outside of the levees. Present and probable need for public services and The District’s territory is primarily used for agriculture services in the area. and recreation. No population growth is expected in the foreseeable future. Future public service needs are limited. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of The District includes 11 miles of earthen levees, eight public services that the agency provides or is miles of irrigation canals and three pumping stations. 103 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO authorized to provide. Since the 2009 MSR, the District reports that 7.2 miles (or 65 percent) of the District’s levees have undergone rehabilitation. Currently, all 11 miles of levees meet the PL 84-99 Standard. According to the District, all planned levee rehabilitation is complete. Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Present and probable needs for those public facilities There are no DUCs within or contiguous to the RD 2025 and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated sphere of influence. communities within the existing sphere of influence. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reaffirm the current SOI for RD 2025. 104 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 2026 (Webb Tract) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Reclamation District (RD) 2026 was formed in 1918 as an independent special district to provide levee maintenance services within its boundary area which includes the entirety of the Webb Tract. RD 2026 is a Delta island located in the northeastern corner of Contra Costa County. The District’s territory includes 5,500 acres (approximately 8.6 square miles) and is entirely located within Contra Costa County. RD 2026 is located with the Primary Zone17 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and is outside the countywide urban limit line (ULL). RD 2026 is one of the eight western Delta islands that the Department of Water Resources (DWR) has identified as critical to control the salinity in the Delta, protecting water quality to all water users in the state. The District is under the ownership of a single landowner (Delta Wetlands Properties) and contains agricultural land uses and farming operations. Crops grown on the island include corn and wheat. According to the District, no one lives on the island and no growth is anticipated in the future. The current SOI for RD 2026 is coterminous with the District boundaries (see Exhibit 6-8). 17 The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area (approximately 500,000 acres) and is defined as “…land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the ULL or SOI line of any local government’s general plan or studies as of January 1, 1992.” 105 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-20, Reclamation District 2026 (WebbTract) Snapshot General Information Agency Reclamation District 2026 (Webb Tract) Address 343 East Main Street, Suite 815, Stockton, CA 95202 Principal Act CA Water Code §50300 et seq. Date Formed 1918 Population 0 Last SOI Update 2009 (coterminous) Services Provided Levee maintenance/improvements; maintain flood control system, including pumps, canals and ditches Contact Person Al Warren Hoslett, hoslettlaw@sbcglobal.net Website None Governance Board of Directors David Forkel (2017); Kris Kaiser (2015); John Winther (2015); Board membership shared with RD’s 756, 2025 and 2028, but each board operates independently of the others. Compensation None Public Meetings As needed; dates and times vary Operations Number of Employees NP Service Area 5,500 acres Facilities Levees (12.9 miles); 3 pump stations; internal drainage system (8 miles) Contract Services Levee maintenance, flood control, drainage, access roads, levee patrol, ferry service, weed abatement, slope protection, vector/rodent control, flood fighting; additionally, RD 2026 shares administrative, engineering, legal and audit services with ten other RD’s in Contra Costa and San Joaquin Counties; RD 2026 also shares ferry service with RD 2059. Fiscal Trends FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Total Revenues $ 525,273 $ 615,689 $2,456,735 Total Expenditures $ 447,447 $ 859,198 $2,615,115 Infrastructure Investment NR NR $1,600,132 Debt Short term warrants Short term warrants Short term warrants $175,000 $150,000 $150,000 106 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-8, Reclamation District 2026 (Webb Tract) Boundary and SOI Map 107 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities Funding Sources The District collects assessments on properties annually for maintenance and grant match funding. The District participates annually in the Levee Subvention Program (75 percent grant and 25 percent match). Three Special Project Grants have been received since 2010 totaling $9,000,000 to which the District must match five percent up front in addition to planning and engineering costs. Of this, $4,711,616 has been spent as of December 2014. The District utilizes bank loans in the form of short-term “warrants” to finance the cash flow and District share until the projects are completed. The major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-21, below, for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. Table 6-21, RD 2026 Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Property Assessments $ 418,358 $ 414,006 $ 195,644 DWR Subventions $ 106,915 $ 201,683 Included below DWR Special Projects -- -- $ 2,256,677 Miscellaneous -- -- 4,414 Total Revenues $ 525,273 $ 615,689 $ 2,456,735 Expenditures Levee Repairs $ 184,835 $ 468,265 $ 65,616 Special Projects -- -- $ 1,600,132 Management Fees/payroll $ 104,475 $ 94,280 $ 76,787 Professional Services $ 13,566 $ 16,819 $ 9,809 Insurance $ 11,032 $ 9,270 $ 14,513 Debt Service/interest $ 1,235 $ 637,047 Other Expenses $ 315,143 $ 270,564 $ 211,211 Total Expenditures $ 447,447 $ 859,198 $ 2,615,115 Revenues – Expenditures $ 77,826 ($ 243,509) ( $ 158,380)* Notes: *Use of warrants and restatement of prior fund balance result in ending fund balance of $337,106 Opportunities The District has been successful in receiving DWR Special Project funding based upon the importance of the area levee system to the Delta water flows. Continued participation in both the Special Projects and Levee Subvention Grant Programs should assist the District in upgrading of levees and maintaining them in safe and operational condition. 108 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO The District reports that cooperative efforts on engineering and management services are expected to continue and no other changes to operations or land use are expected. Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity Key infrastructure in the District includes almost 13 miles of earthen levees, eight miles of irrigation canals, and two pumping stations. In the 2009 MSR, the District reported that all 13 miles of levees met the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standard of one foot above the 100-year floodplain. Since that time, the District has rehabilitated approximately 6.25 miles to PL 84-99 standards18. The District has also completed a 5-year capital improvement plan and received $9 million in grant funding from the DWR with a long-term goal of upgrading the entire levee system to PL 84-99 standards. Table 6-22, RD 2026 (Webb Tract) Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – RD 2026 (Webb Tract) Service Provider Levee Maintenance By Contract Weed Abatement By Contract Flood Control By Contract Slope Protection By Contract Drainage By Contract Vector/Rodent Control By Contract Upkeep of Levee Access Roads By Contract Levee Patrol By Contract Irrigation Water By Contract Flood Fighting By Contract District Overview Total Levee Miles 12.9 Surface Elevation -5 to -20 feet Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type No Standard 0.0 Dry Land Levee 0.0 HMP Standard 12.9 Urban Levee 0.0 PL 84-99 Standard 6.25 Agricultural Levee 12.9 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 Other 0.0 District Facilities Internal Drainage System Yes – 8 miles Pump Station(s) Yes - 2 Detention Basins(s) No Bridges No Floodplain FIRM Designation A30 Base Flood Elevation 7 feet Levee Inspection Practices Levee inspections are performed on a daily basis by on-site farmers. Levee inspections are performed multiple times per day during severe weather events. Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection NP Inspection Rating NP Levee Segment Description Condition Fisherman’s Cut Western District boundary 1.85 miles at HMP 18 The PL 84-99 levee standard was established by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1999. To meet the PL 84-99 standard, a levee must meet the following criteria: 1.5 feet above the 100 year flood frequency water surface elevation; 16 foot crown width; water side levee slopes of 2 to 1; and, land side levee slopes of 3 to 1 to 5 to 1, depending on height of levee and depth of peat. 109 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO False River Southern District boundary NP San Joaquin River Northern District boundary NP Old River Eastern District boundary 1.06 miles at HMP Levee Maintenance Miles Rehabilitated, FY 12-13 NP Miles Needing Rehabilitation NP Percent Rehabilitated NP % Needing Rehabilitation NP Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* NP Maintenance Cost per Levee Mile** NP Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies RD 2260 has rehabilitated approximately 6.25 miles of levee (to PL 84-99 standards) since the 2009 MSR. Notes: NP = Not Provided * Rehabilitation cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on capital improvements in FY 12-13 divided by the number of levee miles rehabilitated in FY 12-13. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 12-13 divided by the total number of levee miles. Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities RD 2026 shares administrative facilities and administration services with ten other RD’s located in San Joaquin and Contra Costa counties. RD 2026 also shares engineering services with several RD’s, including RD’s 2025, 756, 2028 and 2137. RD 2026, along with RD’s 756, 2025 and 2028, has a single or limited number of landowners and shares a Board of Trustees that serves without compensation. RD 2026 also shares ferry service with RD 2059. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities There are no Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the District’s SOI. Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by a three-member board. For contested elections, board members are elected by landowners to staggered four-year terms, with each voter entitled to cast one vote per acre owned within the district. The District reports that there have been no recent contested elections. Uncontested vacancies are filled by appointment of the Board of Supervisors. The single landowner of RD 2026 is Delta Wetlands Properties, a private for profit entity. Board members are not compensated by RD 2026. The Board meets on an “as needed” basis, with approximately four meetings per year. Agendas and notices are posted at the District office. RD 2026 does not have a website. The 2009 MSR identified one alternative governance option for consideration: consolidation of RD 2026 with RD 2025 (Holland Tract) in Contra Costa County, and RD 756 (Bouldin Island) and RD 2028 (Bacon Island) in San Joaquin County. The District reports that it has not elected to pursue this option citing lack of financial benefit and potential loss of cost sharing opportunities. There may be opportunities for RD 2026 to enter into mutual aid agreements with adjacent reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations. Additionally, a shared website with the other reclamation districts in Contra Costa County (hosted by the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts) should be explored by RD 2026 to enhance agency transparency. 110 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. The island is uninhabited and no population growth is anticipated in the foreseeable future. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD unincorporated communities within or contiguous to 2026. the sphere of influence. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs 2026. The District appears adequately prepared to or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and meet the present and future needs of its service area. industrial water, and structural fire protection in any Overall, the levees are reported to be adequately disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within maintained, and the District has plans for additional or contiguous to the sphere of influence. improvements. The District has prepared a Five-year Facilities Plan and has obtained approval of two Special Project funding grants. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of the landowner assessments and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. Based on the information provided, the District has the potential to provide services for a 100-year flood and is working toward improving the levees to meet the 200- year flood standard to protect the district areas. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The District collects assessments on properties annually for maintenance and grant match funding. The District participates annually in the Levee Subvention Program (75 percent grant and 25 percent match). Three Special Project Grants have been received since 2010 totaling $9,000,000 to which the District must match five percent plus up front planning and engineering costs. Of this, $4,711,616 has been spent as of December 2014. The District utilizes bank loans in the form of short-term “warrants” to finance the cash flow and District share until the projects are completed. The District has historically been able to fund needed operations through property owner assessments. In order to make improvements to levees and match available grants, landowners have provided bank warrant funding to match the needed funding. This shows a willingness to provide needed funding for the District. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. RD 2026 shares administrative facilities and administration services with ten other reclamation districts located in San Joaquin and Contra Costa counties. RD 2026 also shares engineering services with several reclamation districts and shares a Board of Trustees who serves without compensation. RD 2026 also shares ferry service with RD 2059. 111 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by a three-member board. For government structure and operational facilities. contested elections, board members are elected by landowners to staggered four-year terms, with each voter entitled to cast one vote per acre owned within the district. The Board meets on an “as needed” basis, with approximately four meetings per year. Agendas and notices are posted at the District office. RD 2026 does not have a website. Two alternative governance structure options have been identified for RD 2026: (1) pursue the development and implementation of mutual aid agreements with neighboring reclamation districts to assist each other in times of need; and (2) study the feasibility of a implementing a countywide reclamation district website hosted through the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts to enhance accountability and transparency. Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including The District is under the ownership of a single agricultural and open-space lands. landowner (Delta Wetlands Properties) and contains agricultural land uses and farming operations. No change in land uses are anticipated in the foreseeable future. Present and probable need for public services and The island is uninhabited. Future public service needs services in the area. are limited. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of Key infrastructure in the District includes almost 13 public services that the agency provides or is miles of earthen levees, eight miles of irrigation canals, authorized to provide. and two pumping stations. Since 2009, the District has rehabilitated approximately 6.25 miles to PL 84-99 standards. The District has also completed a 5-year capital improvement plan and received $9 million in grant funding from the Department of Water Resources with a long-term goal of upgrading the entire levee system to PL 84-99 standards. Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Present and probable needs for those public facilities There are no DUCs within or contiguous to the RD 2026 and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated sphere of influence. communities within the existing sphere of influence. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reaffirm the current SOI for RD 2026. 112 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Formed on November 21, 1921 as an independent special district, Reclamation District (RD) 2059 (Bradford Island) is located entirely within Contra Costa County. The District is a Delta Island located in northeastern corner Contra Costa County, adjacent to Sacramento County (in the north and west), as shown on Exhibit 6-9. The District boundary includes approximately 2,200 acres, or about 3.4 square miles. Inaccessible by road, RD 2059 is provided ferry service from Jersey Island. The District is within the Primary Zone19 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and is outside the countywide urban limit line (ULL). RD 2059 provides levee maintenance services and internal drainage services. The District’s land uses include agricultural, commercial, residential, and gas extraction land uses. Local business activity consists primarily of cattle grazing and small commercial operations. The current SOI for RD 2059 is coterminous with the District’s boundaries. 19 The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area (approximately 500,000 acres) and is defined as “…land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the ULL or SOI of any local government’s general plan or studies as of January 1, 1992.” 113 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-23, Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island) Snapshot General Information Agency Reclamation District 2059 Address Office Location: 19 Minaret Road, Oakley, CA 94561 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1029, Oakley, CA 94561 Principal Act Reclamation District Act, California Water Code, Division 15, §50000- 53903 Date Formed 1921 Population 63 (approximately) Last SOI Update 2009 Services Provided Maintenance services to non-project levees and internal drainage facilities Contact Person Angelia Bradford, angelia_bradford@sbcglobal.net Website http://www.bradfordisland.com/ Governance Board of Directors Cate Kuhne (2015); Michael Craig (2015); William Hall (2013); Gilbert Orozco (2013); Robert Davies (2017) Compensation None Public Meetings As needed Operations Number of Employees N/A Service Area 2,200 acres Facilities Levees (7.5 miles); 1 pump station; internal drainage system (7+ miles) Contract Services District Engineer (recruitment underway) Fiscal Trends FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Total Revenues $ 418,544.00 $ 2,229,692.00 $ 523,123.00 Total Expenditures $ 643,711.00 $ 837,982.00 $ 633,175.00 Infrastructure Investment $ 255,277.00 $ 539,856.00 $ 390,197.00 Debt NR NR NR 114 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-9, Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island) Boundary and SOI Map 115 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities RD 2059 operates on revenues from property owner assessments, levee subvention grants and ferry service fees. The District has been successful in receiving two Special Project Grants since 2010 totaling a reported $7.5 million and at a 100 percent grant funding level. The District is part of the Delta Ferry Authority, a Joint Powers Authority, which operates the ferry service. The District’s portion of ferry service costs are funded by District assessments and sale of ferry tickets. The District’s major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-24, below, for FYs 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14: Table 6-24, RD 2059 Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Property Assessments $ 193,387.00 $ 286,303.00 $ 308,709.00 DWR Subventions $ 184,666.00 $ 6,358.00 $ 192,672.00 DWR Special Projects -- $1,916,597.00 -- Miscellaneous $ 40,491.00 $20,434.00 $21,742.00 Total Revenues $ 418,544.00 $2,229,692.00 $ 523,123.00 Expenditures Levee Repairs $ 152,929.00 $ 44,306.00 $ 177,231.00 Management Fees $ 76,518.00 $ 47,117.00 $ 80,861.00 Professional Services $ 58,351.00 $ 333,205.00 $ 33,801.00 Insurance $ 5,118.00 $ 6,670.00 $ 7,557.00 Other Expenses $ 350,795.00 $ 406,684.00 $ 333,725.00 Total Expenditures $ 643,711.00 $ 837,982.00 $ 633,175.00 Revenues - Expenditures ($ 225,166) $1,301,710.00 ($ 110,052) Opportunities RD 2059 properties have some revenue generating uses but not enough to fund needed improvements on a long term basis. Special Project Grants have given the District needed levee improvements at an important time to extend the useful life of the important levees for the island. During the prior MSR process, the District considered consolidation with two other districts (RD’s 830 and 2026), but due to low revenue generating capability, no progress was made on those possible actions. Consolidation with other Districts is not feasible due to the isolated nature of the District as an island accessible only by ferry, and because the District’s needs differ from adjoining reclamation districts. Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity Key infrastructure in the District includes over seven miles of earthen levees, approximately seven miles of internal drainage ditches, and one pumping station. The District concluded substantial levee rehabilitation projects in 2014, including raising the levee crown, applying supplemental rip-rap to the 116 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO waterside levee slope, and performing landside levee back slope reinforcement. All of the District’s levees meet or exceed HMP standards. Table 6-25, RD 2059 (Bradford Island) Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – RD 2059 Services Provided (indicate yes or no; if yes, indicate if service is by contract) Levee Maintenance By Contract W e e d A b atement By Contract Flood Control By Contract S l o p e P r o t e c tion By Contract Drainage By Contract V e c t o r / R odent Control By Contract Upkeep of Levee Access Roads By Contract L e v e e P a trol By Contract Irrigation Water By Contract F l o o d F i g hting By Contract District Overview Total Levee Miles 7.5 Surface Elevation -5 to -15 ft. Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type No Standard 0.5 Dry Land Levee 0.0 HMP Standard 7.0 Urban Levee 0.0 PL 84-99 Standard 0.0 Agricultural Levee 7.5 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 Other 0.0 District Facilities Internal Drainage System Yes – 7mi. Pump Station(s) Yes - 1 Detention Basins(s) No B ridges No Floodplain FIRM Designation A2 B ase Flood Elevation 7 ft. Levee Inspection Practices The District keeps weekly written inspection reports prepared by the levee superintendent. Formal levee inspections will be conducted by the District engineer twice a year. Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection N/A Inspection Rating N/A Levee Segment Description Condition San Joaquin River Northern District Boundary 1.5 mi. at HMP, 0.5 mi. <HMP San Joaquin River Western District Boundary 1.9 mi. at HMP False River Southern District Boundary 1.6 mi. at HMP Fisherman’s Cut Eastern District Boundary 2.1 mi. at HMP Levee Maintenance (since prior 2009 MSR) Miles Rehabilitated 0.0 Miles Needing Rehabilitation 0.5 % Rehabilitated 0% % Needing Rehabilitation 1% Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* N/A Maintenance Cost per Levee Mile** $2,500 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Levees were raised in 2014 to meet at least the minimum HMP standard. The District is currently reviewing the final construction documents/design. The levees may meet PL 84-99 or higher standards. Infrastructure needs include additional rock riprap for slopes and four low spots and encroachments. Notes: NP = Not Provided * Rehabilitation cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on capital improvements in FY 12-13 divided by the number of levee miles rehabilitated in FY 12-13. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 12-13 divided by the total number of levee miles. 117 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities Blake Johnson, P.E., is the District’s Consulting Engineer. The District participates in the Delta Ferry Authority, a Joint Powers Authority, to provide access to the island. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities There are no Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the District’s SOI. Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by a five member board. For contested elections, board members are elected by landowners to staggered four-year terms, with each voter entitled to cast one vote per dollars’ worth of real estate owned and assessed within the District. Uncontested vacancies on the governing body are filled by appointment by the Board of Supervisors. RD 2059 board members serve on a volunteer basis and do not received compensation. The District maintains a website which has links to meeting agendas and minutes, important documents, forms and permits, board member information, and contact information. Contra Costa County’s reclamation districts, in general, operate independently and there has been reluctance to pursue consolidation options identified in the prior MSR. RD’s have indicated that, in most cases, the consolidation options identified are not fiscally viable and could result in the loss of funding benefits for individual reclamation districts. Municipal Service Reviews, by their nature, look at long- term governance options. Although some government structure alternatives may not be feasible at this time, there is value in raising options for future consideration. Because RD 2059 and adjacent RD 2026 (Webb Tract) both rely on ferry service, consolidation of the two districts may allow for cost-sharing opportunities. Three alternative governance structure options have been identified for RD 2059: (1) pursue the development and implementation of mutual aid agreements with neighboring reclamation districts to assist each other in times of need; (2) study the feasibility of a implementing a countywide reclamation district website hosted through the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts to enhance accountability and transparency; and, (3) consolidate RD 2059 with RD 2026 (Webb Tract) to facilitate potential cost-sharing arrangements to fund ferry services. Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. 118 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. The population of RD 2059 is fewer than 10 full-time residents. The District is located outside the ULL. No planned or proposed projects are anticipated at this time, and no population growth is expected within the next 10 to 15 years. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD unincorporated communities within or contiguous to 2059. the sphere of influence. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, The Bradford Island levee system consists of 7.5 miles adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs of levees, all of which meet Hazard Mitigation Plan or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and (HMP) height standards. The drainage, pump and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any discharge system is operating at acceptable levels and disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within no inundation incidents have occurred in the past six or contiguous to the sphere of influence. years since the prior 2009 MSR. The District appears adequately prepared to meet the present and future needs of its service area. Overall, the levees are reported to be adequately maintained and the District has plans for additional improvements. The District has prepared a Five-year Facilities Plan and has obtained approval of a Special Project funding grant of $7 million. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of the landowner assessments and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. Based on the information provided, the entirety of the Island’s 7.5 miles of levees meets the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) height standards. There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD 2059. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. RD 2059 operates on revenues from property owner assessments, levee subvention grants and ferry service fees. The District has been successful in receiving two Special Project Grants since 2010 totaling a reported $7.5 million and at a 100 percent grant funding level. The District operates the ferry service at a financial loss and has been looking at ways to generate more revenues or obtain support funding to keep the ferry in operation for the users of the property and their clients. The District has been able to collect adequate funds to operate and make improvements over the past several years and is studying ways to improve its funding needs. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. None have been identified by the District. Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by a five member board. For government structure and operational facilities. contested elections, board members are elected by landowners to staggered four-year terms. Uncontested 119 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO vacancies are filled by appointment by the Board of Supervisors. RD 2059 board members serve on a volunteer basis and do not received compensation. RD 2059 is one of the few RD’s that maintain a comprehensive website which has links to meeting agendas and minutes, important documents, forms and permits, board member information, and contact information. Three alternative governance structure options have been identified for RD 2059: (1) pursue the development and implementation of mutual aid agreements with neighboring reclamation districts to assist each other in times of need; (2) study the feasibility of a implementing a countywide reclamation district website hosted through the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts to enhance accountability and transparency; and, (3) consolidate RD 2059 with RD 2026 (Webb Tract) to facilitate potential cost-sharing arrangements to fund ferry services. Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including The District’s territory is primarily used for agriculture, agricultural and open-space lands. cattle grazing, and habitat preservation. RD 2059 secured a $7.5 million DWR grant to maintain the island levees and agricultural uses. No change in land uses are anticipated in the foreseeable future. Present and probable need for public services and The District’s territory is primarily used for agriculture, services in the area. cattle grazing, and habitat preservation. No population growth is expected in the foreseeable future. Future public service needs are limited. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of The Bradford Island levee system consists of 7.5 miles public services that the agency provides or is of levees, all of which meet Hazard Mitigation Plan authorized to provide. (HMP) height standards. The drainage, pump and discharge system is operating at acceptable levels and no inundation incidents have occurred in the past six years since the prior 2009 MSR. Additional fill dirt and rock materials are being stockpiled on the island and used where most needed in cooperation with the levee upgrade and maintenance projects. 120 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Present and probable needs for those public facilities There are no DUCs within or contiguous to the RD 2059 and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated sphere of influence. communities within the existing sphere of influence. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reaffirm the current SOI for RD 2059. 121 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 2065 (Veale Tract) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Reclamation District 2065 (RD 2065) was formed on April 22, 1923 as an independent district to provide reclamation of lands within the District’s boundaries. The District’s boundary is located entirely within Contra Costa County and is on the westerly edge of the Delta, approximately two miles east of the community of Knightsen, as depicted on Exhibit 6-10. The boundaries encompass 1,365 acres (approximately 2.1 square miles). A majority of the District is within the Secondary Zone20 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, but the westerly portion of the District (along with the community of Knightsen) is within the Primary Zone21 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. RD 2065 is outside the countywide urban limit line (ULL). RD 2065 is under the ownership of four landowners. The District’s territory consists primarily of agricultural lands (row crops, alfalfa, and irrigated pasture) along with two single family dwellings, farm worker housing and out-buildings. The 2009 MSR identified a pending development proposal by Delta View Properties to split a 74-acre parcel within RD 2065 into three home sites. There were concerns raised at that time regarding encroachment of the home sites, waterside docks and related improvements that could interfere with ongoing RD 2065 operations. The District reports the property was subsequently sold, the development proposal terminated, and that the new owner has no plans to pursue development at this time. According to the District, there are 14 residents within the District, and no significant increase in population is projected in the next 10 to 15 years. The original SOI for RD 2065 was adopted by LAFCO in 1984. In 2009, Contra Costa LAFCO adopted a “provisional” SOI with a 12-month update requirement (see Exhibit 6-10) based on interest from the 20 The Secondary Zone of the Delta is all Delta land and water area within the boundaries of the legal Delta not included within the Primary Zone. The secondary zone consists of approximately one-third of the Delta’s area (approximately 238,000 acres). 21 The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area (approximately 500,000 acres) and is defined as “…land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the ULL or SOI line of any local government’s general plan or studies as of January 1, 1992.” 122 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO District in the potential annexation of territory west of their current boundary and located within the Knightsen Town Community Services District (KTCSD). After exploring the issue further, neither RD 2065 nor KTCSD currently support annexation at this time. Table 6-26, Reclamation District 2065 (Veale Tract) Snapshot General Information Agency Reclamation District 2065(Veale Tract) Address 235 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202 (office) P.O. Box 1461, Stockton, CA 95201-1461 Principal Act California Water Code §50000 et seq. Date Formed 1923 Population 14 Last SOI Update 2009 (coterminous) Services Provided Reclamation including levees, flood control and drainage Contact Person Dante John Nomellini, Jr., dantejr@pacbell.net Website None Governance Board of Directors Coleman Foley (2017); Thomas Baldocchi, Sr. (2015); Thomas Baldocchi Jr. (2017) Compensation None Public Meetings As needed Operations Number of Employees 0 Service Area Approximately 1,365 acres Facilities 5.1 miles of levee; 2 pump stations Contract Services Engineering, legal services; contract or direct: levee maintenance, flood control, drainage, upkeep of levee access roads, weed abatement, slope protection, vector/rodent control, levee patrol Fiscal Trends FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Total Revenues $125,188 $63,762 $ 531,720 Total Expenditures $105,073 $84,605 $123,434 Infrastructure Investment Debt $98,000 123 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-10, Reclamation District 2065 (Veale Tract) Boundary and SOI Map 124 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities Funding Sources The District funds operations and administration through a combination of property assessments and any grant funding that is available from the State Delta Levee Subventions Program or Special Grants for projects. The District deposits excess funds with the Contra Costa County Treasurer. The balance on June 30, 2014 was $21,167. The District has outstanding warrants payable on a bank loan in the amount of $98,000 earning an interest rate of 6.5 percent and outstanding liabilities of $36,094. The District obtains bank loans when necessary to provide additional funding to carry out large scale levee maintenance or rehabilitation projects. The major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-27, below, for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14: Table 6-27, RD 2065 Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Property Assessments $ 72,632 $ 63,762 $ 98,500 DWR Subventions 17,556 -- 33,620 DWR Special Projects 35,000 -- 399,600 Miscellaneous -- Total Revenues $125,188 $ 63,762 $ 531,720 Expenditures Levee Repairs $ 21,004 2,359 $ 21,772 Management Fees (Audit) 3,400 3,400 3,400 Professional Services 19,328 30,519 49,500 Insurance 15,069 6,835 7,092 Other Expenses 46,272 41,492 41,670 Total Expenditures $105,073 $ 84,605 $123,434 Revenues - Expenditures $ 20,115 ($ 20,843) $ 408,286 Opportunities The District is owned by four landowners and costs of funding operations and repairs are assessed to the owners minus revenues received from the State under the Levee Subvention Program or other grants. The District landowners stated that they see no need to make improvements at this time beyond maintaining the levees at federal and state standards. The owners are satisfied with operating and maintaining the district in the present manner. 125 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity Key infrastructure in the District includes over five miles of levees as well as internal drainage channels and two pump stations. Levees are constructed out of earthen materials with rock rip rap on some sections of the water side. RD 2065 reports that 4.2 miles (84 percent) of existing levees meet the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Standard22. Ground elevations within the interior of the tract vary between 4-feet below sea level to 2-feet above sea level. In the event of a high water event, the entire area would be covered by 5-11 feet of water. The entire District is currently classified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be within the 100-year floodplain. Since the 2009 MSR, RD 2065 reports it has focused primarily on levee maintenance and the status of the levee has not changed. However, the District is currently working to leverage State financial assistance to fund a comprehensive levee rehabilitation project. In February 2014, the District entered into a Project Funding Agreement with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in which DWR will provide up to 90 percent of the costs of a 2.2 million dollar levee rehabilitation project. RD 2065 is currently trying to secure a bank loan to “cash flow” the project and pay its cost share. DWR requires the District to cash flow 19 percent of the costs which is a financial challenge for a district of this size. If the DWR funding is secured, the District plans to rehabilitate the entire levee to meet HMP Standards, including all weather road improvements, during FY 2015-16. Table 6-28, RD 2065 (Veale Island) Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – RD 2065 (Veale) Service Provider Levee Maintenance Direct and Contract W e e d A b a t e m e n t Direct and Contract Flood Control Direct and Contract S l o p e P r o t e c t i o n Direct and Contract Drainage Direct and Contract V e c t o r / R o d e n t Control Direct and Contract Upkeep of Levee Access Roads Direct and Contract Levee Patrol Direct and Contract Irrigation Water None Flood Fighting Direct and Contract District Overview Total Levee Miles 5.1 Surface Elevation -4 to 2 feet Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type No Standard 0.9 D r y L a n d L e v e e 0 HMP Standard 4.2 U r b a n L e v e e 0.0 PL 84-99 Standard 0.0 A g r i c u l t u r a l L e v e e 5.1 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 O t h e r 0.0 District Facilities Internal Drainage System Yes Pump Station(s) Yes-2 Detention Basins(s) No B r i d g e s No Floodplain 22 One foot above the 100-year flood level. 126 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO FIRM Designation A2 B a s e Flood Elevation 7 feet above sea level Levee Inspection Practices Inspected regularly by Trustees who are landowners; inspections by the District Engineer when requested. Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection N/A Inspection Rating N/A Levee Segment Description Condition Rock Slough (west of Delta Road) Lower levee at end of Rock Slough No Change Rock Slough (east of Delta Road) Earthen levee with intermittent rip rap No Change Werner Dredger Cut Earthen levee with intermittent rip rap No Change Dead Dog Slough Earthen levee at end of Dead Dog Slough No Change Levee Maintenance Miles Rehabilitated, FY 13-14 0.0 M i l e s N eeding Rehabilitation 0.9 % Rehabilitated 0% % Needing Rehabilitation 18% Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* 0.0 Maintenance Cost per Levee Mile** $5,600 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Notes: The District has an active Project Funding Agreement (PFA) with the DWR to rehabilitate the District levee to meet HMP, which includes all weather road improvements. The District plans to rehabilitate the levee during FY 2015-16 and will be able to update LAFCO on the project costs upon completion. Once the project has been completed, the District indicates that the levees will meet or exceed the HMP standard. NP = Not Provided * Rehabilitation cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on capital improvements in FY 13-14 divided by the number of levee miles rehabilitated in FY 13-14. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 13-14 divided by the total number of levee miles. Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities The District has undertaken the following collaborative and facility sharing opportunities:  The District hires third party contractors to assist, when necessary, the following services: levee maintenance, flood control, drainage, upkeep of levee access roads, weed abatement, slope protection, vector/rodent control and levee patrol.  RD 2065 participates in the DWR’s Special Levee Project and Delta Levee Subvention Programs to leverage District funds and make levee rehabilitation more affordable.  The District runs it drainage pumps during “off peak” times to minimize pumping costs.  RD 2065 has a shared contract arrangement (with several other reclamation districts) for engineering services which has resulted in reduced costs for the District.  The District contracts for legal services. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities There are no Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the District’s SOI. 127 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by a three-member Board. Board members must be landowners or legal representatives of a landowner and are elected or appointed by the County Board of Supervisors to staggered four-year terms. Elections, however, are very rare, as there are only four landowners within the District. Vacancies on the governing board are typically filled by appointment by the remaining Board members pursuant to Government Code §1780. RD 2065 Board members serve on a volunteer basis and do not receive compensation. The District does not generally conduct constituent outreach activities but keeps the landowners informed of District activities. Meeting agendas are posted at the District Secretary’s office, and agendas are mailed to each landowner. The District does not maintain a website. However, with only four landowners, constituent outreach efforts are limited. Public meetings are held “as needed” and are not scheduled on a regular reoccurring schedule. The 2009 MSR identified two specific government structure alternatives for RD 2065: (1) consolidation with another reclamation district, most likely RD 2024 (Orwood and Palm Tracts) or RD 799 (Hotchkiss Tract); and (2) collaboration with the Knightsen Town Community Services District. RD 2065 reports that these options were considered but ultimately rejected due to lack of financial benefit and lack of interest from the identified districts. There may be opportunities for RD 2065 to enter into mutual aid agreements with adjacent reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations. Additionally, a shared website with the other reclamation districts in Contra Costa County (hosted by the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts) should be explored by RD 2065 to enhance agency transparency. Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. According to the District, there are 14 residents within the District, and no significant increase in population is projected in the next 10 to 15 years. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD unincorporated communities within or contiguous to 2065. the sphere of influence. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs 2065. The District appears adequately prepared to or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and meet the present and future needs of its service area. 128 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO industrial water, and structural fire protection in any Overall, the levees are reported to be adequately disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within maintained and the District has plans for additional or contiguous to the sphere of influence. improvements. The District has prepared a Five-year Facilities Plan and has obtained approval of a Special Project funding grant of $2.2 million. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of the landowner assessments and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. Approximately 4.2 miles (84 percent) of existing levees meet the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Standard. RD 2065 is currently working to leverage State financial assistance to fund a comprehensive levee rehabilitation project. If the DWR funding is secured, the District plans to rehabilitate the entire levee to meet HMP Standards, including all weather road improvements, during FY 2015-16. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The District funds operations and administration through a combination of property assessments and any grant funding that is available from the State Delta Levee Subventions Program or Special Grants for projects. The District deposits excess funds with the Contra Costa County Treasurer. The balance on June 30, 2014 was $21,167. The District has outstanding warrants payable on a bank loan in the amount of $98,000 earning an interest rate of 6.5 percent and outstanding liabilities of $36,094. The District property owners have entered into an agreement to provide additional assessment fees to match grant funding in future years. Historically the property owners have provided adequate assessment revenues upon demand by the District. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District has undertaken the following collaborative and facility sharing opportunities:  RD 2065 participates in the DWR’s Special Levee Project and Delta Levee Subvention Programs to leverage District funds and make levee rehabilitation more affordable.  RD 2065 has a shared contract arrangement (with several other reclamation districts) for engineering services which has resulted in reduced costs for the District.  The District contracts for legal services. Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by a three-member Board. government structure and operational facilities. Board members must be landowners or legal representatives of a landowner and are elected or appointed by the County Board of Supervisors to staggered four-year terms. The District does not generally conduct constituent outreach activities but keeps the landowners informed of District activities. Meeting agendas are posted at the District Secretary’s office, and agendas are mailed to each landowner. The 129 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO District does not maintain a website. Public meetings are held “as needed” and are not scheduled on a regular reoccurring schedule. Two governance structure alternatives have been identified: (1) pursue the development and implementation of mutual aid agreements with neighboring reclamation districts to assist each other in times of need; and (2) study the feasibility of a implementing a countywide reclamation district website hosted through the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts to enhance accountability and transparency. Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including The District’s territory consists primarily of agricultural agricultural and open-space lands. lands (row crops, alfalfa, and irrigated pasture) along with two single family dwellings, farm worker housing and out-buildings. No change in land uses are anticipated in the foreseeable future. Present and probable need for public services and The District’s territory consists primarily of agricultural services in the area. lands (row crops, alfalfa, and irrigated pasture) along with two single family dwellings, farm worker housing and out-buildings. No population growth is expected in the foreseeable future. Future public service needs are limited. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of Key infrastructure in the District includes over five miles public services that the agency provides or is of levees as well as internal drainage channels and two authorized to provide. pump stations. 4.2 miles (84 percent) of existing levees meet the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Standard. RD 2065 is currently working to leverage State financial assistance to fund a comprehensive levee rehabilitation project. In February 2014, the District entered into a Project Funding Agreement with the DWR in which DWR will provide up to 90 percent of the costs of a 2.2 million dollar levee rehabilitation project. RD 2065 is currently trying to secure a bank loan to “cash flow” the project and pay its cost share. If the DWR funding is secured, the District plans to rehabilitate the entire levee to meet HMP Standards, including all weather road improvements, during FY 2015-16. Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. 130 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Present and probable needs for those public facilities There are no DUCs within or contiguous to the RD 2065 and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated sphere of influence. communities within the existing sphere of influence. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reaffirm the current SOI for RD 2065. 131 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 2090 (Quimby Island) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Formed on March 21, 1918 as an independent special district, Reclamation District (RD) 2090 (Quimby Island) is located entirely within Contra Costa County. The District is a Delta Island located in easternmost Contra Costa County, east of Holland Tract and adjacent to the Contra Costa-San Joaquin County line at Old River, as shown on Exhibit 6-11. The District boundaries include 789 acres, or approximately 1.2 square miles. The District is within the Primary Zone23 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and is outside the countywide urban limit line (ULL). RD 2090 provides levee maintenance services and internal drainage services through a contract with Ellis Island Farms, the sole landowner. The District’s land uses are primarily agricultural. The primary crop is corn with wheat grown on the land side of the levee slope. There are several structures on the island, including farm buildings, a primary residence, and farmworker housing. According to the District, the population on the island is 23 The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area (approximately 500,000 acres) and is defined as “…land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the ULL or SOI line of any local government’s general plan or studies as of January 1, 1992.” 132 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO one person, with four to five additional persons seasonally. No growth is anticipated in the foreseeable future. The current SOI for RD 2090 is coterminous with the District’s boundaries. Table 6-29, Reclamation District 2090 (Quimby Island) Snapshot General Information Agency Reclamation District 2090 (Quimby Island) Address 343 East Main Street, Suite 815, Stockton, CA 95202 Principal Act California Water Code §50500 et seq. Date Formed 1918 Population 1 Last SOI Update 2009 (coterminous) Services Provided Levee maintenance/improvement; maintenance/operation of flood control system, including pumps, canals and ditches Contact Person Al Warren Hoslett, hoslettlaw@sbcglobal.net Website None Governance Board of Directors Jake Messerli (2015); Colby Heaton (2015); Lawrence Watty (2015) Compensation None Public Meetings Called on an as-needed basis. Operations Number of Employees 4 to 5 (seasonal) Service Area 769 acres Facilities Levees (7 miles); 2 pump stations; internal drainage system Contract Services RD 2090 shares administrative, engineering, legal and audit services with ten other RD’s in Contra Costa and San Joaquin Counties. Fiscal Trends FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Total Revenues $ 34,694 $151,716 $106,407 Total Expenditures $315,602 $202,133 $126,858 Infrastructure Investment -- -- -- Debt N/A N/A N/A 133 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-11, Reclamation District 2090 (Quimby Island) Boundary and SOI Map 134 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities The District property is owned by one company and is utilized for agricultural purposes generating some revenues for the landowner. No regularly scheduled assessments are levied, but financial contributions have been made based upon needs for maintenance or matching State Levee Subvention Projects in FYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 and occasional Special Project Grants. No major changes of land use were reported, so no long-term funding needs are identified. The District’s major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-30, below, for FYs 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14: Table 6-30, RD 2090 Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Property Assessments DWR Subventions $ 76,716 $103,872 DWR Special Projects $ 35,000 Miscellaneous $ 75,000 $ 2,535 Total Revenues $ 35,000 $ 151,716 $106,407 Expenditures Levee Repairs $ 183,840 $ 162,910 $ 78,481 Management Fees $ 85,406 $ 6,773 $ 7,697 Professional Services $ 6,517 $ 11,066 $ 9,412 Insurance $ 5,936 $ 5,654 $ 6,415 Other Expenses $ 33,903 $ 15,730 $ 25,547 Total Expenditures $ 315,602 $ 202,133 $ 127,552 Revenues - Expenditures ($ 280,602) ($ 50,417) ($ 21,145) Notes: Fund balance at end of 2014 fiscal year is $48,079. Opportunities The District reports that no changes in use have occurred since the prior MSR in 2009, and no new projects are expected unless conditions change. The District continues to share equipment with the landowner, and share other services with Districts in the area. The previously suggested opportunities of expanded joint use or consolidation still exist, but the property owner has stated no interest in considering them. The District participates in the Delta Levees Subventions Program but, according to available information, has not had a Special Projects Grant to upgrade its levees. The District is encouraged to consider more aggressive efforts on state grant funding or consider coordinating with other districts to obtain additional funding for upgrading their levees. DWR is providing $5 million to improve emergency response and contribute to increased public safety in the Delta. The grantees are the five Delta counties, and part of the scope of work is to develop an emergency response plan for each reclamation district. Contra Costa County has selected a consultant to assist them in their effort; however they did not include an allocation of funds to cover any costs the 135 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO RD’s might incur during the process. The County advises that the DWR Grant did not include the requested emergency plans and equipment for the RD’s portion of the project. Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity Key infrastructure in the District includes 7.0 miles of non-project levees and two pump stations located along Sheep Slough. All of the levees within RD 2090 meet Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standards. According to the District, daily levee inspections are performed by the District Manager. The District does not keep written inspection reports. According to the District, there have been no breaches or failures on the RD 2090 levee system since the 2009 MSR. The District reports that it has spent considerable resources on levee maintenance and repairs since the previous MSR, and continues to seek funding to continue its rehabilitation efforts. The annual maintenance expenses for the levees, on average, have been $143,703, approximately $20,529 per mile of levee. However, no Special Project Grants expenditures for infrastructure upgrades have been reported, according to the most recent State Controller’s reports. Table 6-31, RD 2090 (Quimby Island) Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – RD 2090 (Quimby Island) Service Provider Levee Maintenance Direct and Contract Weed Abatement Direct and Contract Flood Control Direct and Contract Slope Protection Direct and Contract Drainage Direct and Contract Vector/Rodent Control Direct and Contract Upkeep of Levee Access Roads Direct and Contract Levee Patrol Direct and Contract Irrigation Water None Flood Fighting Direct and Contract District Overview Total Levee Miles 7.0 Surface Elevation -5 to -11 ft. with an average elevation of -8 ft. Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type No Standard 0.0 Dry Land Levee 0.0 HMP Standard 7.0 Urban Levee 0.0 PL 84-99 Standard 0.0 Agricultural Levee 7.0 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 Other 0.0 District Facilities Internal Drainage System Yes Pump Station(s) Yes - 2 Detention Basins(s) No Bridges No Ferry No Floodplain FIRM Designation A30 Base Flood Elevation 7-feet above sea level Levee Inspection Practices District Manager performs daily inspections. Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection N/A Inspection Rating N/A Levee Segment Description Condition Old River Serpentine earthen levee along north, east and south Good Sheep Slough Earthen levee along west side of island Good Levee Maintenance 136 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Miles Rehabilitated, FY 12-13 N/A Miles Needing Rehabilitation N/A Percent Rehabilitated N/A % Needing Rehabilitation N/A Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* N/A Maintenance Cost per Levee Mile** N/A Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies N/A Notes: NP = Not provided * Rehabilitation cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on capital improvements in FY 12-13 divided by the number of levee miles rehabilitated in FY 12-13. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 12-13 divided by the total number of levee miles. Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities RD 2090 shares an administrative facility, attorney, engineer and auditor with other reclamation districts both in Contra Costa and San Joaquin Counties. Further efficiencies are gained by collaboration and facility sharing efforts with Ellis Island Farms for the use of equipment and staff for levee maintenance activities. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities There are no Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the District’s sphere of influence. Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by a three member board. Board members are appointed to staggered four- year terms by the County Board of Supervisors. Board members are not compensated for attending Board meetings. The Board meets on an “as needed” basis. Notices are posted and mailed as required by the Brown Act. The District does not have a website. However, because the District has one landowner, outreach needs are limited. One government structure alternative was identified for RD 2090 in the 2009 MSR – annexation to adjacent RD 2027 (Mandeville Island) located in San Joaquin County, or RD 2025 (Holland Tract) in Contra Costa County. This option would only be feasible if the State were to fund levee repair. This alternative was not pursued by RD 2090. RD 2090 has determined that it is not cost effective to consolidate with other agencies and districts at this time. There may be opportunities for RD 2090 to enter into mutual aid agreements with adjacent reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations. Additionally, a shared website with the other reclamation districts in Contra Costa County (hosted by the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts) should be explored by RD 2090 to enhance agency transparency. 137 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. The population on the island is one person, with four to five additional persons seasonally. No growth is anticipated in the foreseeable future. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD unincorporated communities within or contiguous to 2090. the sphere of influence. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs 2090. The District appears minimally prepared to meet or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and the present and future needs of its service area. industrial water, and structural fire protection in any Overall, the levees are reported to be adequately disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within maintained, but the District has prepared a Five Year or contiguous to the sphere of influence. Plan for needed additional improvements. The District has not recently participated in the Special Projects Grant Program due to limited financial resources to match grants. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of landowner assessments and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. Based on the information provided, the District has the potential to provide a minimum level of services for maintaining the levees and is able to handle a 100-year flood event but not a 200-year flood event. The District should prepare a funding approach to implement the Five Year Plan to design and fund the 200-year flood criteria levee improvements. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The District funds ongoing maintenance and operations through assessments and reimbursement from its landowner as needs are identified. The District has been successful in obtaining Levee Subvention Grant funding with minimal landowner contributions for added maintenance. The single landowner may have to provide increased assessment fees to make necessary improvements to the agency levees. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. RD 2090 shares an administrative facility, attorney, engineer and auditor with other reclamation districts both within Contra Costa and San Joaquin Counties. Further efficiencies can be gained by collaboration and facility sharing efforts with Ellis Island Farms for the use of equipment and staff for levee maintenance activities. Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by a three member board government structure and operational facilities. appointed to staggered four-year terms by the County Board of Supervisors. The Board meets on an “as 138 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO needed” basis. Notices are posted and mailed as required by the Brown Act. The District does not have a website. Two alternative governance structure options have been identified for RD 2090: (1) pursue the development and implementation of mutual aid agreements with neighboring reclamation districts to assist each other in times of need; and (2) study the feasibility of a implementing a countywide reclamation district website hosted through the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts to enhance accountability and transparency. Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including The District’s land uses are primarily agricultural. The agricultural and open-space lands. primary crop is corn with wheat grown on the land side of the levee slope. No change in land use is anticipated in the foreseeable future. Present and probable need for public services and The District’s territory is primarily used for agriculture. services in the area. No population growth is expected in the foreseeable future. Future public service needs are limited. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of The District facilities are being maintained as needed, public services that the agency provides or is but no improvement projects have been implemented authorized to provide. in the immediate prior six years. Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Present and probable needs for those public facilities There are no DUCs within or contiguous to the RD 2090 and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated sphere of influence. communities within the existing sphere of influence. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reaffirm the current SOI for RD 2090. 139 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 2117 (Coney Island) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Reclamation District (RD) 2117 was formed on August 10, 1983 as an independent special district to improve and maintain levees, drainage, and irrigation systems within the District’s boundaries. RD 2117 is a Delta island located in the most southeasterly portion of Contra Costa County (see Exhibit 6-12). The District, which encompasses 935 acres (approximately 1.5 square miles), is entirely located within Contra Costa County. RD 2117 is within the Primary Zone24 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and is outside the countywide urban limit line (ULL). The District is under the ownership of a single landowner and contains agricultural uses with ancillary farm buildings, a primary residence, and a caretaker residence. The owners live on site and farm portions of the land. Primary crops are row crops and alfalfa. According to the District, there are four residents within the District, and no significant increase in population is projected in the next 10 to 15 years. The current SOI for RD 2117 is coterminous with the District boundaries (see Exhibit 6-12). 24 The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area (approximately 500,000 acres) and is defined as “…land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the ULL or SOI line of any local government’s general plan or studies as of January 1, 1992.” 140 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-32, Reclamation District 2117 (Coney Island) Snapshot General Information Agency RD 2117 (Coney Island) Address 235 East Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202 Principal Act California Water Code §50000 et seq. Date Formed 1983 Population 4 Last SOI Update 2009 Services Provided Levees, flood control and drainage Contact Person Dante J. Nomellini, Sr., ngmplcs@pacbell.net Website None Governance Board of Directors Herbert Speckman (2015), Joyce Speckman (2015) Compensation None Public Meetings As needed Operations Number of Employees 0 Service Area 935 acres Facilities Internal drainage system, 1 pump station, 1 bridge Contract Services Levee maintenance, flood control, drainage, upkeep of levee access roads, weed abatement, slope protection, vector control, levee patrol (direct and contract), flood fighting (direct and contract) Fiscal Trends FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Total Revenues $ 42,586 NR NR Total Expenditures $ 29,085 $ 26,409 $ 3,763 Infrastructure Investment $ 12,400 NR NR Debt NR NR NR 141 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-12, Reclamation District 2117 (Coney Island) Boundary and SOI Map 142 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities Funding Sources The District funds operations and administration through a combination of property assessments as needed and any grant funding that is available from the State Delta Levee Subventions Program or Special Grants for projects. The District does not prepare a budget and prioritizes spending funds based on annual needs. The District does complete an annual audit. District deposits excess funds with the Contra Costa County Treasurer. The cash and cash equivalents amount as of June 30, 2014 are reported to be $128,086. The District has been approved for a Special Project Grant of $2.22 million but will be required to match approximately 11 percent of that amount. The District is in the process of evaluating revenue sources and possible borrowing of funds to reach the required match amount so that the project can proceed. The major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-33, below, for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14: Table 6-33, RD 2117 Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Property Assessments NR NR NR DWR Subventions $ 42,586 -- DWR Special Projects -- Miscellaneous -- Total Revenues $ 42,586 NR NR Expenditures Levee Repairs $ 12,400 Management Fees(Audit) $ 2,400 $ 2,400 Professional Services $ 14,258 $ 24,009 Insurance Other Expenses $ 3,763 Total Expenditures $ 29,058 $ 26,409 $ 3,763 Revenues - Expenditures ($ 29,058) ($ 26,409) ($ 3,763) Notes: The District maintains a Restricted Reserve of $35,000 Opportunities The District is owned by one landowner and costs of funding operations and repairs are assessed to the owner minus revenues received from the State under the Levee Subvention Program or other grants. The District landowner has applied for a Department of Water Resources (DWR) Special Project Grant of $2.22 million but must fund $244,000 in matching funds. Unless other revenue sources can be obtained, the owner sees no benefit of pursuing additional improvements beyond maintaining the levees at federal and state standards. 143 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity Key infrastructure in the District includes 5.4 miles of non-project levees and one pump station. The District reports that Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standards25 have been met for 98 percent of levee length. Since the 2009 MSR, improvements have been completed to approximately 75 percent of the levee length and now meet PL 84-99 standards26. The District’s goal is to meet and exceed the PL 84-99 standard for all agricultural levees. Ground elevations within the interior of the island average eight feet below sea level. In the event of a high water event, the entire area would be covered by 16 feet of water. RD 2117 is currently classified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be within the 100-year floodplain. According to the District, there have been no levee breaches or failures since the previous 2009 MSR. RD 2117 does not have a formal inspection procedure and does not keep written inspection reports. The District employs no full-time or part-time staff positions. The District reports that there have been no major operational changes since the 2009 MSR and that increasing regulations have added to costs and hindered increases in efficiency. Table 6-34, RD 2117 (Coney Island) Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – RD 2117 Service Provider Levee Maintenance Contract W e e d Abatement Contract Flood Control Contract Slope Protection Contract Drainage Contract Vector/Rodent Control Contract Upkeep of Levee Access Roads Contract Levee Patrol Direct & Contract Irrigation Water None Flood Fighting Direct & Contract District Overview Total Levee Miles 5.48 Surface Elevation -9 feet (average) Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type No Standard 0.0 Dry Land Levee 0 HMP Standard 5.4 Urban Levee 0.0 PL 84-99 Standard 4.12 Agricultural Levee 5.4 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 Other 0.0 District Facilities Internal Drainage System Yes Pump Station(s) Yes - 1 Detention Basins(s) No Bridges Yes - 1 Floodplain FIRM Designation A27 Base Flood Elevation 8-feet above sea level Levee Inspection Practices 25 One foot above the 100-year flood level. 26 The PL 84-99 levee standard was established by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1999. To meet the PL 84-99 standard, a levee must meet the following criteria: 1.5 feet above the 100 year flood frequency water surface elevation; 16 foot crown width; water side levee slopes of 2 to 1; and, land side levee slopes of 3 to 1 to 5 to 1, depending on height of levee and depth of peat. 144 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Landowners/Trustees almost daily; District Engineer periodically. Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection NP Inspection Rating NP Levee Segment Description Condition Old River Along the north, east and south side of island Good West Canal Along the west side of island Good Levee Maintenance (since prior 2009 MSR) Miles Rehabilitated NP Miles Needing Rehabilitation NP % Rehabilitated NP % Needing Rehabilitation NP Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* NP Maintenance Cost per Levee Mile** NP Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Attempting to reach PL 84-99 Standards as funds become available; slowly upgrading West Canal levee. Notes: NP = Not Provided * Rehabilitation cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on capital improvements in FY 12-13 divided by the number of levee miles rehabilitated in FY 12-13. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 12-13 divided by the total number of levee miles. Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities The District reports that there are limited opportunities for cooperative/shared programs but does participate in the following:  DWR’s Delta Levee Subvention Programs to leverage District funds and make levee rehabilitation more affordable.  Shared use of equipment/staff with Coney Island Farms.  Contracting for levee maintenance, flood control, drainage, access road upkeep, weed abatement, slope protection and rodent/vector control services; direct and/or contract services for levee patrol and flood fighting services.  Contracting for legal and engineering services. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities There are no Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the District’s SOI. Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by a three-member Board of which one seat is vacant. Upon request of the District, Board members are appointed to staggered four-year terms by the County Board of Supervisors. Board members receive no compensation. The Board meets at least annually and more frequently if necessary. Board agendas are posted on the District Secretary’s office window. RD 2117 does not have a website. Because the District is under a single ownership, it is not considered necessary to conduct constituent outreach activities. 145 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO The 2009 MSR identified two alternative governance option for consideration: (1) should the island sell and the levees fail, annex the territory to the adjacent RD 1 and 2 (Union Island) which operates as a single reclamation district and is located in San Joaquin County; and (2) dissolution of RD 2117 and operation of Coney Island as a private enterprise, with protection of reclaimed lands the responsibility of the landowner. The District reports that it has not elected to pursue either option citing the benefits of maintaining the levee system extend beyond the boundaries of RD 2117 and Union 1 and 2. There may be opportunities for RD 2117 to enter into mutual aid agreements with adjacent reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations. Additionally, a shared website with the other reclamation districts in Contra Costa County (hosted by the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts) should be explored by RD 2117 to enhance agency transparency. Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed Municipal Service Review (MSR) determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. There are four residents within the District, and no significant increase in population is projected in the next 10 to 15 years. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD unincorporated communities within or contiguous to 2117. the sphere of influence. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs 2117. The District appears prepared to meet the or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and present and future needs of its service area. Overall, industrial water, and structural fire protection in any the levees are reported to be adequately disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within maintained, and the District has prepared a Five Year or contiguous to the sphere of influence. Facilities Plan for additional improvements. The District has participated in the Special Projects Grant Program and received a $2.22 million authorization. Due to the District’s limited financial resources to match grants, however, it is not clear when the project will proceed. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of the landowner assessments and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. The District reports that Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standards have been met for 98 percent of levee length. Since the 2009 MSR, improvements have been completed to approximately 75 percent of the levee length and now meet PL 84-99 standards. 146 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Financial ability of agencies to provide services. RD 2117 funds operations and administration through a combination of property assessments and any grant funding that is available from the State Delta Levee Subventions Program or Special Grants for projects. The District does not prepare a budget and prioritizes spending funds based on annual needs. The District does complete an annual audit. RD 2117 has been approved for a Special Project Grant of $2.22 million but will be required to match approximately 11 percent of that amount. The District is in the process of evaluating revenue sources and possible borrowing of funds to reach the required match amount so that the project can proceed. RD 2117 property owners will have to decide if they are willing to provide increased funding for the identified levee improvements. Based upon the past 3-4 years of budget and audit review, minimal funding has been provided by the property owners. Without additional funds, grant funding will not be available. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District reports that there are limited opportunities for cooperative/shared programs but does participate in the following:  DWR’s Delta Levee Subvention Programs to leverage District funds and make levee rehabilitation more affordable.  Shared use of equipment/staff with Coney Island Farms.  Contracting for levee maintenance, flood control, drainage, access road upkeep, weed abatement, slope protection and rodent/vector control services; direct and/or contract services for levee patrol and flood fighting services.  Contracting for legal and engineering services. Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by a three-member Board of government structure and operational facilities. which one seat is vacant. Upon request of the District, Board members are appointed to staggered four-year terms by the County Board of Supervisors. The District Board meets at least annually and more frequently if necessary. Board agendas are posted on the District Secretary’s office window. RD 2117 does not have a website. There may be opportunities for RD 2117 to enter into mutual aid agreements with adjacent reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations. Additionally, a shared website with the other reclamation districts in Contra Costa County (hosted by the County, LAFCO, or a consortium 147 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO of reclamation districts) should be explored by RD 2117 to enhance agency transparency. Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including The District is under the ownership of a single agricultural and open-space lands. landowner and contains agricultural uses with ancillary farm buildings, a primary residence and a caretaker residence. Primary crops are row crops and alfalfa. All of the land within the District is under Williamson Act Contract. No change in land uses are anticipated in the foreseeable future. Present and probable need for public services and Agricultural in nature, RD 2117 has limited demand for services in the area. public services. The District anticipates no population growth or development in the foreseeable future. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of Key infrastructure in the District includes 5.4 miles of public services that the agency provides or is non-project levees and one pump station. The District authorized to provide. reports that Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standards have been met for 98 percent of levee length. Since the 2009 MSR, improvements have been completed to approximately 75 percent of the levee length and now meet PL 84-99 standards. Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Present and probable needs for those public facilities There are no DUCs within or contiguous to the RD 2117 and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated SOI. communities within the existing sphere of influence. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reaffirm the current SOI for RD 2117. 148 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 2121 (Bixler Tract) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Formed by the Contra Costa LAFCO (LAFCO) on April 11, 1984 as an independent special district, Reclamation District (RD) 2121 is located entirely within Contra Costa County. The District encompasses 584 acres, or approximately 0.9 square miles, and is located along the western edge of the Delta, approximately three miles east of the City of Brentwood as shown on Exhibit 6-13. The District is within the Primary Zone27 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and is outside the countywide urban limit line. The District is a family-run operation (the Bloomfield family) that provides maintenance services to non- project levees and internal drainage facilities. The District’s land uses are primarily agricultural, including grapes, alfalfa, and pasture for cattle grazing. A farm headquarters facility exists on site and includes offices, farm worker housing and additional storage structures. The District does not have any employees – maintenance activities are carried out by employees of the Bloomfield family and Bloomfield Vineyards. The District reports the RD 2121 has a population of five persons. The current SOI for RD 2121 is coterminous with the District’s boundaries. 27 The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area and is defined as “…land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the urban limit line or sphere of influence line of any local government’s general plan or studies as of January 1, 1992.” 149 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-35, Reclamation District 2121 (Bixler Tract) Snapshot General Information Agency RD 2121 (Bixler Tract) Address 2030 Newton Drive, Brentwood, CA 94513 Principal Act California Water Code §50300 et seq. Date Formed 1984 Population 5 Last SOI Update 2009 (coterminous) Services Provided Reclamations (levee maintenance, flood control, drainage) Contact Person Tom Bloomfield, Manager (925) 550-5540, BTMP4@aol.com Website None Governance Board of Directors Tom Bloomfield, Jack Bloomfield, Carol Bloomfield (all serve indefinite terms) Compensation None Public Meetings Annually (December) Operations Number of Employees 0 Service Area 584 acres Facilities Internal drainage system, 1 pump station Contract Services Levee maintenance, flood control (direct and contract), drainage, access road upkeep, weed abatement, slope protection, vector control, levee patrol (direct and contract), flood fighting (direct and contract) Fiscal Trends FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Total Revenues $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Total Expenditures $ 5,000 $ 5,000 NP Infrastructure Investment NP NP $ 23,000 Debt 0 0 0 Notes: NP = Not Provided 150 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-13, Reclamation District 2121 (Bixler Tract) Boundary and SOI Map 151 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities The District is not functioning as a governmental agency and has not recorded financial transactions for the past six years to the State Controller’s Office. The property owners report that some improvements on the levees have been made with rock materials, but no value to the District has been recorded. Unless the District reactivates its activities and financial reporting, it is assumed that no State Levee Subvention or Special Project funding will be available. The major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-36, below, for FYs 2011- 12, 2012-13, and 2013-14): Table 6-36, RD 2121 Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Property Assessments DWR Subventions DWR Special Projects Miscellaneous Total Revenues $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Expenditures Levee Repairs Management Fees Professional Services Insurance Other Expenses Total Expenditures $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Revenues – Expenditures Notes: NP = Not Provided District reports that it is “Inactive” to the State Controller Opportunities It is unclear that any immediate opportunities are available unless the District reactivates its governance and financial reporting activities. Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity Key infrastructure in the District includes approximately one mile of levee on the north side along Dead Dog Slough, and one mile of levee on the east side along Werner Dredger Cut. Levees are constructed out of earthen material with concrete rubble and some rip-rap on the water side, but do not meet any particular standard. Since the 2009 MSR, the District reports that approximately 6,000 yards of fill was applied to the eastern levee, increasing the levee crown to 11 feet. In the coming years, the District indicates it will complete a similar process for the northern levee to increase the levee crown to 11 feet along the northern levee’s 4,000 foot length. 152 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO The 2009 MSR noted that RD 2121 does not have a formal levee inspection procedure and does not keep written inspection reports. According to the District, no change has been made to formalize inspections and reporting at this time. Table 6-37, RD 2121 (Bixler Tract) Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – RD 2121 Service Provider Levee Maintenance Contract W eed Abatement Contract Flood Control Direct & Contract S l o p e P r o t e c t i on Contract Drainage Contract V e c t or/Rodent Control Contract Upkeep of Levee Access Roads Contract L e v ee Patrol Direct & Contract Irrigation Water None Flood Fighting Direct & Contract District Overview Total Levee Miles 2.0 Surface Elevation -2 to 14 feet Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type No Standard 2.0 Dry Land Levee 0.0 HMP Standard 0.0 U r b a n Levee 0.0 PL 84-99 Standard 0.0 A g r i c u ltural Levee 2.0 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 O t h e r 0.0 District Facilities Internal Drainage System Yes Pump Station(s) Yes - 1 Detention Basins(s) No B r i d g es No Floodplain FIRM Designation A2 and C B a s e F l o o d Elevation 7 feet above sea level Levee Inspection Practices Levee inspections are performed on a regular basis by the District Manager and the pasture lease. Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection NP Inspection Rating NP Levee Segment Description Condition Dead Dog Slough Low level levee; primarily earth construction Fair (field observation) Werner Dredger Cut Earthen construction with some rock rip rap Fair (field observation) Levee Maintenance (since prior 2009 MSR) Miles Rehabilitated 0.0 M iles Needing Rehabilitation NP % Rehabilitated 0% % Needing Rehabilitation NP Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* 0 Maintenance Cost per Levee Mile** $0 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Improvements to the levees are made as fill dirt becomes available. Notes: District indicates that it is a family-owned reclamation district and farm; the district is inactive and does not collect budget-related data. NP = Not Provided * Rehabilitation cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on capital improvements in FY 12-13 divided by the number of levee miles rehabilitated in FY 12-13. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 12-13 divided by the total number of levee miles. 153 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities The District does not participate in any resource/facility sharing activities at this time. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities There are no Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the District’s SOI. Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by a three-member board consisting of members of the Bloomfield family. Board members are appointed by the landowner, Bixler-Bloomfield Incorporated, to indeterminate terms. There have not been any elections conducted since the District formation in 1984. Board Member Tom Bloomfield also serves as District Manager. The District does not have a website, but with a single ownership, outreach activities are limited. District Trustees meet on an “as needed” basis and meet at the residence of the General Manager in Brentwood, CA. The District considers itself an “inactive” district. Three governance alternatives were identified for RD 2121 in the 2009 MSR, including: consolidation with RD 2024, consolidation with RD 2065, and dissolution. Consolidation of RD 2121 with either RD 2024 or RD 2065 was determined to be infeasible for financial reasons. Dissolution, however, remains a feasible policy option. The District does not participate in the State Levee Subvention Program or file financial statements with the State Controller. It does not appear that that landowner considers the District is a needed public agency, and it appears that the District could be dissolved and the levee maintenance responsibilities assumed by the landowner or assigned to the countywide Flood Control and Water Conservation District. When this option was presented to the landowner, the landowner stated that their desire is to keep the RD governance structure in place and that they will initiate actions to satisfy requirements in the Government Code and Water Code. Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. RD 2121 has a current population of five residents. The District’s land uses are primarily agricultural, and no population is growth is projected in the next 15 to 20 154 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO years. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD unincorporated communities within or contiguous to 2121. the sphere of influence. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs 2121. The District appears prepared to meet the or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and present needs of its service area. Overall, the levees are industrial water, and structural fire protection in any reported to be minimally maintained. The District has disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within not prepared a Five Year Plan for additional or contiguous to the sphere of influence. improvements. Due to limited financial resources to prepare a Five Year Plan and to match grants, it is not clear when the District will proceed with a plan of levee improvements. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of the landowner assessments. The District is not a participant in the Levee Subventions Program. Based on the information provided, the District has been providing a minimum level of services for maintaining the levees. Since the 2009 MSR, the District reports that approximately 6,000 yards of fill was applied to the eastern levee, increasing the levee crown to 11 feet. In the coming years, the District indicates it will complete a similar process for the northern levee to increase the levee crown to 11 feet along the northern levee’s 4,000 foot length. Currently, the District’s two miles of levees do not meet HMP standards. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. RD 2121 considers itself “inactive.” The District is essentially not functioning as a governmental agency and has not recorded financial transactions for the past six years to the State Controller’s Office. Unless the District reactivates its activities and financial reporting, it is assumed that no State Levee Subvention or Special Project funding will be available. As currently organized and managed, the District is not able to maintain levee facilities and financial stability. A financing and budget plan should be developed to identify steps to improve operations of the District. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District does not participate in any resource/facility sharing activities at this time. Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by a three-member board government structure and operational facilities. consisting of members of the Bloomfield family. Board members are appointed by the landowner, Bixler- Bloomfield Incorporated, to indeterminate terms. The District does not have a website. District Trustees meet on an “as needed” basis and meet at the residence of the General Manager in Brentwood, CA. One alternative governance structure option has been identified: (1) dissolution of RD 2121, with the landowner, the countywide Flood Control and Water Conservation District, or another government agency assuming levee maintenance responsibilities. RD 2121, 155 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO LAFCO and the County should jointly explore the fiscal and operational feasibility of this alternative. Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including The District’s land uses are primarily agricultural, agricultural and open-space lands. including grapes, alfalfa, and pasture for cattle grazing. A farm headquarters facility exists on site and includes offices, farm worker housing and additional storage structures. No change in land uses are anticipated in the foreseeable future. Present and probable need for public services and The District’s territory is primarily used for agriculture, services in the area. cattle grazing, and habitat preservation. No population growth is expected in the foreseeable future. Future public service needs are limited. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of Key infrastructure in the District includes approximately public services that the agency provides or is one mile of levee on the north side along Dead Dog authorized to provide. Slough, and one mile of levee on the east side along Werner Dredger Cut. Levees are constructed out of earthen material with concrete rubble and some rip-rap on the water side, but do not meet any particular standard. Since the 2009 MSR, the District reports that approximately 6,000 yards of fill was applied to the eastern levee, increasing the levee crown to 11 feet. In the coming years, the District indicates it will complete a similar process for the northern levee to increase the levee crown to 11 feet along the northern levee’s 4,000 foot length. Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Present and probable needs for those public facilities There are DUCs within or contiguous to the RD 2121 and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated sphere of influence. communities within the existing sphere of influence. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Adopt a zero SOI for RD 2121 which indicates that the agency should be considered to be “reorganized” (e.g., dissolved, consolidated, etc.) and that an alternative governance structure may be desired at some point in the future. 156 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 2122 (Winters Island) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Formed on August 8, 1984 as an independent special district, Reclamation District (RD) 2122 is located entirely within Contra Costa County. RD 2122 is a Delta Island located northeast of Browns Island and the City of Pittsburg, as shown on Exhibit 6-14. According to the District, the boundaries include 428 acres. The District is within the Primary Zone28 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and is outside the countywide urban limit line (ULL). RD 2122 provides maintenance services to non-project levees and tidal gates to maintain the island’s wetlands. The District’s land uses are primarily recreational land uses and natural wetlands. Winters Island serves as a wildlife habitat to at least 13 species of waterfowl and other birds, and a variety of mammal species such as the black-tailed jackrabbit, California ground squirrel, pocket gophers, river otter, beaver, muskrat, striped skunk and raccoon. The entire island is classified as marshland by the California Department of Conservation. RD 2122 is only accessible by boat, and there is no ferry service to the island. The sole landowner, Winter Islands Farms, operates a private duck hunting club on the island. There is no permanent 28 The Primary Zone of the Delta consists of about two-thirds of the Delta’s area (approximately 500,000 acres) and is defined as “…land and water area of primary state concern and statewide significance situated within the boundaries of the Delta…but not within either the urban limit line or sphere of influence line of any local government’s general plan or studies as of January 1, 1992.” 157 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO residential population on the island, no anticipated development, and no growth anticipated for the foreseeable future. The District employs no full-time or part-time staff positions. The current SOI for RD 2122 is coterminous with the District’s boundaries. Table 6-38, Reclamation District 2122 (Winters Island) Snapshot General Information Agency Reclamation District 2122 (Winter Island) Address 293 Pueblo Drive, Pittsburg, CA 94565 Principal Act CA Water Code §50300 et seq. Date Formed 1982 Population 0 Last SOI Update 2009 (coterminous) Services Provided Levee maintenance/reconstruction; island water control Contact Person Robert Calone, Board President, calone@att.net Website N/A Governance Board of Directors Robert Calone (2015); Hugh Corum (2018); Scott O’Hara (2015); Larry Swankenberg (2018) Compensation None Public Meetings Semi-annually (April and September) Operations Number of Employees 0 (volunteers only) Service Area 453 acres Facilities Levees (5 miles); 2 flood gates Contract Services None Fiscal Trends FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 Total Revenues $ 57,676 $ 63,852 NR Total Expenditures $ 32,885 $42,345 $15,940 Infrastructure Investment -- Debt -- *State Controllers Annual Report for Special Districts; Owner representative reports no budget or activity in 2012-13. 158 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-14, Reclamation District 2122 (Winter Island) Boundary and SOI Map 159 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities The District is a single owner property with no inhabitants. The District reports that operations and maintenance of levees and flood control facilities are completed on an as needed basis and no regular assessments are collected or budgeted. It is reported that the District has set aside a reserve fund of $20,000 in the event of emergency repair needs. Improvements to the levees have been ongoing in the past few years and are expected to continue as funds are allocated by the owner. The District has prepared a Five Year Plan and submitted for a Special Projects Grant that is pending review and approval. The District’s major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-39, below, for FYs 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14: Table 6-39, RD 2122 Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Property Assessments DWR Subventions $ 6,239 DWR Special Projects Miscellaneous $ 35,573 Total Revenues $ 63,852 $ 41,812 $100,132 Expenditures Levee Repairs (Operations) $ 42,345 $ 6,111 $ 82,160 Management Fees $ 3,900 Professional Services $ 25,313 $ 20,350 Insurance $ 800 $ 390 Other Expenses $ 2,200 $ 10,430 Total Expenditures $ 42,345 $ 36,424 $117,383 Revenues - Expenditures $ 21,507 $ 5,388 ($ 17,253) Notes: NR = None Reported Information for FY 2010-11 is from the State Controllers Special District Report; FY 2012-13 & 2013-14 from District Budget documents. Opportunities The District reports that it is a single owner property and the District and has no plans for development or additional use. Maintenance and operations of the duck club onsite are expected to continue and generate minimal revenues to the property owner. The owner states there is no interest in other plans or changes in land use or management/administration of the District at this time. 160 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity Key infrastructure in the District includes 5.0 miles of earthen levees and two tidal gates. The District reports that 1.5 miles of levees meet the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standard (one foot above the 100-year floodplain), and the remaining 3.5 miles of levees do not meet the HMP standard. This is unchanged since the 2009 MSR. The District reports that levees are inspected once per month during the dry season and more often during duck season (October through January). Routine levee maintenance is performed by RD 2122 Board members directly. The District does not keep written inspection reports. In June 2012, the District approved a Five Year Plan (Plan) to support future planning efforts by the District and the Department of Water Resources. The District’s goal is to complete all rehabilitation work on the levees to meet the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) levees standard29 within five years. To meet the HMP levee standard, the District will need approximately 168,200 tons of imported fill and 17,300 tons of aggregate base, all transported by barge. Engineering, planning, mitigation and construction are expected to cost approximately $4.482 million, according to the District’s Plan. For purposes of the Plan, the District assumes that funding will be available under the Special Projects Program and the Subventions Program over the five-year period. Table 6-40, RD 2122 (Winters Island) Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – RD 2122 (Winter Island) Service Provider Levee Maintenance Direct W e e d A b a t e m e n t Direct Flood Control Direct S l o p e P r o t e c t i o n Direct Drainage Direct V e c t o r / R o d e n t C o n t r o l By Contract Upkeep of Levee Access Roads Direct L e v e e Patrol Direct Irrigation Water None F l o o d F i g h t i n g Direct District Overview Total Levee Miles 5.0 Surface Elevation 0 to 10 feet Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type No Standard 3.5 D r y L a n d L e v e e 0.0 HMP Standard 1.5 U r b a n L e v e e 0.0 PL 84-99 Standard 0.0 A g r i c u l t u r a l L e v e e 0.0 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 O t h e r 0.0 District Facilities Internal Drainage System No Flood Gates(s) Yes - 2 Detention Basins(s) No B r i d g e s No 29 HMP standards are requirements to qualify for future federal disaster assistance. Minimum standards include: (1) levees shall have one foot freeboard above the 100-year flood frequency elevation; (2) the minimum crown width shall be at least 16 feet; (3) waterside slopes shall be at least 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical with revetment in areas where erosion has been a problem; (4) landslide slope shall be at least 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, with flatter slopes in the lower portion of the levee in areas where soil stability and seepage have been problems; and (5) the levees hall have all-weather access roads. 161 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Floodplain FIRM Designation A2 Base Flood Elevation 7 feet Levee Inspection Practices Levees are inspected once per month during the dry season and more often during duck season (from October to January). The District does not create written levee inspection reports. Levee Inspection Reports Most Recent Written Inspection 7/2/2015 I n s pection Rating NP Levee Segment Description Condition Sacramento River Northern District boundary 0.5 mi. at HMP Middle Slough Western District boundary 2 mi. at HMP, 0.3 mi. <HMP New York Slough Southern District boundary 0.4 mi. at HMP Broad Slough Eastern District boundary 0.6 mi. at HMP, 1.2 mi. <HMP Levee Maintenance (since prior 2009 MSR) Miles Rehabilitated 0.0 Miles Needing Rehabilitation 3.5 % Rehabilitated 0% % Needing Rehabilitation 70% Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile* $525,000 M a i n t e n a nce Cost per Levee Mile** $100,000 Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies Notes: NP = Not Provided * Rehabilitation cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on capital improvements in FY 12-13 divided by the number of levee miles rehabilitated in FY 12-13. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 12-13 divided by the total number of levee miles. Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities The District reports that it is a “self-contained district” and has limited opportunities for cooperative programs and shared facilities with other agencies. The District contracts out for major services, including levee rehabilitation projects, engineering services and legal counsel. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities There are no Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the District’s sphere of influence. Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by an elected four-member board serving one year terms. Board members are elected on an annual basis (at the September Board meeting) by the eight partners of Winter Islands Farms, the single property owner within the District. RD 2122 board members serve on a volunteer basis and do not receive compensation. The District does not have a website. However, because the District has one landowner, outreach needs are limited. The District’s primary outreach activities consist of emailing, mailing and posting notices on Winter Island. 162 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO The 2009 MSR did not identify any government structure alternatives for RD 2122. The island’s remote location (with no neighboring reclamation districts) limits restructuring opportunities. The District is somewhat unique among other RD’s in the County because the island is maintained as a wetland and is owned by a private duck club. There may be opportunities for RD 2122 to enter into mutual aid agreements with other reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations. Additionally, a shared website with the other reclamation districts in Contra Costa County (hosted by the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts) should be explored by RD 2122 to enhance agency transparency. Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. There is no permanent residential population on the island, no anticipated development, and no growth anticipated for the foreseeable future. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged There are no disadvantaged unincorporated unincorporated communities within or contiguous to communities (DUCs) located within, or contiguous to, the sphere of influence. RD 2122. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs 2122. The District appears minimally prepared to meet or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and the present needs of its service area. Overall, industrial water, and structural fire protection in any the levees are reported to be marginally disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within maintained. The District has prepared a Five Year Plan or contiguous to the sphere of influence. for additional improvements. Due to limited financial resources to match grants, it is not clear when the District will proceed with levee improvements through the Special Project Grant. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of the landowner assessments and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. Based on the information provided, the District has been providing a minimum level of services for maintaining the levees. The District reports that 1.5 miles of levees meet the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standard (one foot above the 100-year floodplain), and the remaining 3.5 miles of levees do not meet the HMP standard. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The District is a single owner property with no inhabitants. The District reports that operations and maintenance of levees and flood control facilities are completed on an as needed basis and no regular 163 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO assessments are collected or budgeted. It is reported that the District has set aside a reserve fund of $20,000 in the event of emergency repair needs. The District has submitted for a Special projects Grant and if approved, will have to enter an agreement including a commitment to have the property owner provide additional assessment fee funding. The District has been operating at a minimal funding level for the prior four to five years. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District reports that it is a “self-contained district” and has limited opportunities for cooperative programs and shared facilities with other agencies. The District contracts out for major services, including levee rehabilitation projects, engineering services and legal counsel. Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by an elected four-member government structure and operational facilities. board serving one-year terms. Board members are elected on an annual basis (at the September Board meeting) by the eight partners of Winter Islands Farms, the single property owner within the District. The District does not maintain a website. Two government structure options have been identified for RD 2122: (1) enter into mutual aid agreements with adjacent reclamation districts to formalize a plan for assistance and the use and distribution of resources in times of need and/or emergency situations, and (2) explore the implementation of a shared website with the other reclamation districts in Contra Costa County (hosted by the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts) to enhance agency transparency. Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including The District’s land uses are primarily recreational land agricultural and open-space lands. uses and natural wetlands. Winters Island serves as a wildlife habitat to at least 13 species of waterfowl and other birds, and a variety of mammal species. The entire island is classified as marshland by the California Department of Conversation. No change in land uses are anticipated in the foreseeable future. 164 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Present and probable need for public services and The District’s territory is primarily natural wetlands and services in the area. is not populated. The island is only accessible by boat. No population growth is expected in the foreseeable future. Future public service needs are limited. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of Key infrastructure in the District includes 5.0 miles of public services that the agency provides or is earthen levees and two tidal gates. The District reports authorized to provide. that 1.5 miles of levees meet the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standard (one foot above the 100-year floodplain), and the remaining 3.5 miles of levees do not meet the HMP standard. This is unchanged since the 2009 MSR. Improvements to the levees have been ongoing in the past few years and are expected to continue as funds are allocated by the owner. The District has prepared a Five Year Plan and submitted for a Special Projects Grant that is pending review and approval. Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Present and probable needs for those public facilities There are no disadvantaged unincorporated and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the RD 830 communities within the existing sphere of influence. sphere of influence. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reaffirm the current SOI for RD 2122. 165 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Reclamation District 2137 (Dutch Slough) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence Formed on July 9, 2003 by Contra Costa LAFCO (LAFCO) as an independent special district, Reclamation District (RD) 2137 is located entirely within Contra Costa County. The District encompasses 785 acres, or approximately 1.2 square miles, and is primarily within the boundaries of the City of Oakley as shown on Exhibit 6-15. The District is within the Secondary Zone30 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and is within the countywide urban limit line (ULL). The District reports a population of two, with no anticipated growth in the foreseeable future. The District’s land uses are primarily pasture, fallow ground, and open space/habitat area. District lands make up a majority of the Dutch Slough Restoration Project site which was purchased by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2003. The project consists of 1,666 acres and a 55-acre community park site which will be acquired by the City of Oakley. The District reports that the City of Oakley has not provided a timeframe for acquisition or development of the park site. There are three major parcels within the restoration area – the 438-acre Emerson property, the 292-acre Gilbert property (both of which are in RD 2137), and the 436-acre Burroughs property (which is adjacent to RD 799). According to the District, the design for the Dutch Slough Restoration is near completion and construction should begin once all environmental permits are secured. The District did not provide a specific start date. The current SOI for RD 2137 is coterminous with the District’s boundaries. The District’s SOI was last reaffirmed by Contra Costa LAFCO on May 8, 2013. 30 The Secondary Zone of the Delta is all Delta land and water area within the boundaries of the legal Delta not included within the Primary Zone. The secondary zone consists of approximately one-third of the Delta’s area (approximately 238,000 acres). 166 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-41, Reclamation District 2137 (Dutch Slough) Snapshot General Information Agency Reclamation District 2137 Address 311 East Main Street, #504, Stockton, CA 95205 Principal Act California Water Code §50300 et seq. Date Formed 2003 Population 2 Last SOI Update 2013 Services Provided Flood control and drainage (south and east of Deep Water Channel, north of Contra Costa Water District Canal [north of Cypress Road], west of Jersey Island Road) Contact Person Al William Hoslett, hoslettlaw@sbcglobal.net Website None Governance Board of Directors James Eckman (2015), Christopher Emerson (2015), Ed Schmidt (2017) Compensation None Public Meetings As needed Operations Number of Employees 0 Service Area 785 acres Facilities Levees (3.8 miles); 2 pump stations; internal drainage system Contract Services Levee maintenance; flood control; drainage; access roads; levee patrol Fiscal Trends FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 (Budget) FY 2013-14 Total Revenues $ 716,600 $737,956 $1,111,946 Total Expenditures $750,395 $656,390 $ 966,778 Infrastructure Investment Debt NP NP NP 167 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Exhibit 6-15, Reclamation District 2137 Boundary and SOI Map 168 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities The District is comprised of three landowners, one of whom has 93 percent of the assessed valuation. Landowners pay the expenses of the operations and projects not covered by levee grants from DWR. RD 2137 cooperates with ten other districts for administrative support services and development of grant applications. The District’s major funding sources and expenditure components are outlined in Table 6-42, below, for FYs 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14: Table 6-42, RD 2137 Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2013-14 Property Assessments NR $190,005 $200,001 DWR Subventions 560,315 910,316 DWR Special Projects -- Miscellaneous 75 1,629 Total Revenues $ 716,600* $ 750,395* $ 1,111,946 Expenditures Levee Repairs $ 94,278 $ 39,782 Management Fees $ 20,598 $ 29,006 Professional Services $ 38,793 $ 873,156 Insurance $ 3,130 $ 5,250 Other Expenses $ 14,257 $ 19,584 Total Expenditures $171,056 $ 656,390* $ 966,778 Revenues - Expenditures NR-Budget $ 94,005 $145,168** only Notes: * State Controller’s Special Districts Annual 2010-11 and 2011-12 Reports **2014 Audit shows an adjustment due to change in accounting basis Opportunities The District shares administrative and engineering support services with ten other reclamation districts located in San Joaquin and Contra Costa counties. The District is within the City of Oakley and is subject to land use decisions by the City. The District received two Special Project Grants totaling $9.4 million. The first grant of $7.4 million was awarded in 2010 and is subject to the District completing the design and securing all permits. The second grant of $2 million was awarded in 2012 – project design and permitting issues are in the initial stages. Of the total $9.4 million in grants, the District is responsible for five percent, or approximately $470,000 in costs. The District has collected property assessments for the past several years to match funding needs of the Levee Subventions and Special Project Grants. 169 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity Key infrastructure in the District includes 3.8 miles of levees which are constructed out of earthen materials. The District reports that three miles of the 3.8 mile levee system meet Hazard Mitigation Project (HMP31) standards, as was previously reported in the 2009 MSR. Since the 2009 MSR, the District has raised the levee crown elevation as part its ongoing maintenance program. However, comparing the 2009 Service and Facilities Table and the District’s 2015 Services and Facilities Table (Table 6-43, below), three of the five levee segments ( Emerson Slough – West Side, Emerson Slough – East Side, and Dutch Slough – East, have gone from a “good” condition to a “fair” condition rating. As referenced earlier, RD 2137 has also received a total of $9.4 million in Special Projects grants since 2010 from DWR to rehabilitate the entire levee system. The project design is underway, and work is expected to begin by the end of 2015. RD 2137 completed its Five Year Plan as part of the application process for applying for the Special Project Grant. The District does not have a formal levee inspection procedure, and does not keep written inspection reports. Levee patrol duties are performed through contract with engineering firms. According to the District, no levee breaches have occurred in the last five years. Table 6-43, RD 2137 (Dutch Slough) Services and Facilities Service Configuration, Facilities and Inspections – RD 2137 (Dutch Slough) Service Provider Levee Maintenance Contract W e e d A batement Contract Flood Control Contract Slope Protection Contract Drainage Contract Vector/Rodent Control Contract Upkeep of Levee Access Roads Contract Levee Patrol Direct Irrigation Water None Flood Fighting Direct & Contract District Overview Total Levee Miles 3.8 Surface Elevation -10 to 10 feet Levee Miles by Standout Levee Miles by Type No Standard 0.8* Dry Land Levee 0.0 HMP Standard 3.0 Urban Levee 0.0 PL 84-99 Standard 0.0 Agricultural Levee 3.8 Bulletin 192-82 Standard 0.0 Other 0.0 District Facilities Internal Drainage System Yes Pump Station(s) 2 Detention Basins(s) No Bridges No Floodplain FIRM Designation A13, A18 B a s e Flood Elevation 7 feet above sea level Levee Inspection Practices The District contracts with engineering firms for levee patrol duties. Levee Inspection Reports 31 One foot above the 100-year flood level. 170 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Most Recent Written Inspection NP Inspection Rating NP Levee Segment Description Condition Dutch Slough West Earthen levee with minor deficiencies Good Emerson Slough – West Side Earthen levee extending to E. Cypress Road Fair Emerson Slough – East Side Earthen levee extending to E. Cypress Road Fair Dutch Slough - East Earthen levee with minor deficiencies Fair Little Dutch Slough – West Side Older earthen levee with some deficiencies Fair Levee Maintenance (since prior 2009 MSR) Miles Rehabilitated 0 Miles Needing Rehabilitation 3.8 % Rehabilitated 0 % Needing Rehabilitation 100% Rehabilitation Cost per Levee Mile $1.3 million M a i ntenance Cost per Levee Mile** $11,200 Notes: NP = Not Provided * Not all levee cross-sections meet the HMP Standard but vary slightly from the levee height requirement. ** Maintenance cost per levee mile is equal to the expenditure amount on levee maintenance in FY 12-13 divided by the total number of levee miles. Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities RD 2137 shares administrative facilities, legal counsel, engineering service and auditors with ten other reclamation districts in Contra Costa and San Joaquin Counties. The District reports that further efficiencies are achieved through the collaboration and facility sharing efforts with the three landowners – Emerson, Gilbert, and DWR – in providing equipment and staff for levee maintenance activities. The majority of the District’s lands are located within the City of Oakley. District lands make up a majority of the Dutch Slough Restoration Project site which was purchased by the DWR in 2003. The project consists of 1,666 acres and a 55-acre community park site which will ultimately be acquired by the City of Oakley. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities There are no Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the District’s SOI. Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives The District is governed by an elected three-member board serving four year terms. Two Board members are the designated representatives of the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) as the major landowner within the District. The third Trustee is a landowner appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The District does not have a website. However, most of the District’s constituent outreach activities are in conjunction with the Dutch Slough Restoration Committee, a multi-agency forum for developing the Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project. 171 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO The 2009 MSR identified five governance alternatives for RD 2137, including: (1) dissolution; (2) consolidation with adjacent RD 799 (Hotchkiss Tract); (3) detachment of the Burroughs Parcel from RD 799 and annexation of that territory to RD 2137; (4) establish RD 2137 as a subsidiary district of the City of Oakley; and, (5) construction of a new east-west “set back” levee to separate and protect residential and commercial development along the East Cypress Corridor. RD 2137 has not pursued any of these governance structure alternatives. The District reports that consolidation with other agencies is not cost effective at this time and could jeopardize certain benefits when seeking grant funding. Contra Costa County’s reclamation districts, in general, operate independently and, as noted above, there has been reluctance to pursue consolidation options identified in the prior MSR. RD’s have indicated that, in most cases, the consolidation options identified are not fiscally viable and could result in the loss of funding benefits for individual reclamation districts. MSRs, by their nature, look at long- term governance options. Although some government structure alternatives may not be feasible at this time or even in the near future, there is value in raising options for future discussion. In many cases, the primary value of MSRs is simply to start a conversation and explore possibilities. Five alternative governance structure options have been identified for RD 2137: (1) pursue the development and implementation of mutual aid agreements with neighboring reclamation districts to assist each other in times of need; (2) study the feasibility of implementing a countywide reclamation district website hosted through the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts to enhance accountability and transparency; (3) place all of the Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project area within a single reclamation district, either through dissolution of RD 2137 and annexation to RD 799, or detachment of the portion of the Project area from RD 799 and annexation to RD 2137; (4) establish RD 2137 as a subsidiary district of the City of Oakley with the City Council serving as the Board of Directors; and, (5) dissolve RD 2137, shifting responsibility for restoration of the tract as part of the Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project (along with any necessary new levee construction or repair and maintenance of existing levees) to the State of California and/or the City of Oakley as successor agencies. Other Issues No additional issues have been identified. Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR determinations pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration: Growth and population for affected area. The District reports a population of 2, with no anticipated growth in the foreseeable future. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD unincorporated communities within or contiguous to 2137. the sphere of influence. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous to, RD 172 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs 2137. The District appears prepared to meet the or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and present needs of its service area. Overall, the levees are industrial water, and structural fire protection in any reported to be adequately maintained and the District disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within has prepared a Five-Year Plan for additional or contiguous to the sphere of influence. improvements. The District has received authorization of $9.4 million for levee improvements through the Special Project Grants Program. Ongoing maintenance of the District levees is accomplished by use of the landowner assessments and Levee Subventions Grant Funding. Based on the information provided, the District has been providing a minimum level of services for maintaining the levees and is able to handle a 100- year flood event in 3.0 of the 3.8 miles of levees but not a 200-year flood event for most of its levee system. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The District is comprised of three landowners, one of whom has 93 percent of the assessed valuation. Landowners pay the expenses of the operations and projects not covered by levee grants from DWR. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. RD 2137 shares administrative facilities, legal counsel, engineering service and auditors with ten other reclamation districts in Contra Costa and San Joaquin Counties. The District reports that further efficiencies are achieved through the collaboration and facility sharing efforts with the three landowners – Emerson, Gilbert, and the DWR – in providing equipment and staff for levee maintenance activities. Accountability for community service needs, including The District is governed by an elected three-member government structure and operational facilities. board serving four year terms. Two Board members are the designated representatives of the DWR as the major landowner within the District. The third Trustee is a landowner appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The District does not have a website. However, most of the District’s constituent outreach activities are in conjunction with the Dutch Slough Restoration Committee, a multi-agency forum for developing the Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project. Five alternative governance structure options have been identified for RD 2137: (1) pursue the development and implementation of mutual aid agreements with neighboring reclamation districts to assist each other in times of need; (2) study the feasibility of implementing a countywide reclamation district website hosted through the County, LAFCO, or a consortium of reclamation districts to enhance accountability and transparency; (3) place all of the Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project area within a single reclamation district, either through dissolution of RD 2137 and annexation to RD 799, or detachment of the portion of the Project area from RD 799 and annexation to RD 2137; (4) establish RD 2137 173 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO as a subsidiary district of the City of Oakley with the City Council serving as the Board of Directors; and, (5) dissolve RD 2137, shifting responsibility for restoration of the tract as part of the Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project (along with any necessary new levee construction or repair and maintenance of existing levees) to the State of California and/or the City of Oakley as successor agencies. Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified. service delivery, as required by Commission policy. Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration: Present and planned land uses in the area, including The District’s land uses are primarily pasture, fallow agricultural and open-space lands. ground, and open space/habitat area. District lands make up a majority of the Dutch Slough Restoration Project site which was purchased by the DWR in 2003. Present and probable need for public services and The District’s territory is primarily used for pasture and services in the area. habitat preservation. Current population is two, and no population growth is expected in the foreseeable future. Future public service needs are limited. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of Key infrastructure in the District includes 3.8 miles of public services that the agency provides or is levees which are constructed out of earthen materials. authorized to provide. The District reports that three miles of the 3.8 mile levee system meet Hazard Mitigation Project (HMP) standards. Since the 2009 MSR, the District has raised the levee crown elevation as part its ongoing maintenance program. RD 2137 has also received a $9.4 million grant from the DWR to rehabilitate the entire levee system. Existence of any social or economic communities of None have been identified. interest in the area if the Commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Present and probable needs for those public facilities There are no DUCs within or contiguous to the RD 2137 and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated sphere of influence. communities within the existing sphere of influence. Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reaffirm the current SOI for RD 2137. 174 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO VII. APPENDICES 175 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Acronyms BIMID: Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act CKH Act Cortese-Knox-Herzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 CVFPB: Central Valley Flood Protection Board CVP: Central Valley Project DOF: California Department of Finance DPC: Delta Protection Commission DFG: California Department of Fish and Game DUC: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community DWR: California Department of Water Resources EBMUD: East Bay Municipal Utilities District EIR: Environmental Impact Report FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency FPCP: Flood Protection Corridor Program FY: Fiscal Year GHG: Greenhouse Gas HMP: Hazard Mitigation Plan ISD: Ironhouse Sanitary District LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission MHI Median Household Income MOU: Memorandum of Understanding MSR: Municipal Service Review NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service NA: Not Applicable NP: Not Provided NR: Not Reported 176 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO PL: Public Law RD: Reclamation District RWQMB: Regional Water Quality Control Board SOI: Sphere of Influence SWRCB: State Water Resources Control Board ULL: Urban Limit Line USACE: United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WRDA: Water Resources Development Act 177 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Resources 1. Fact Sheet for local agencies considering submittal of applications for the Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Grants is available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodsafe/fessro/deltalevees/subventions/ Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Grants are considered annually or as funds become available to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2. Fact Sheet for local agencies considering submittal of applications for the Delta Levees Special Projects Programs grants is available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodsafe/fessro/deltalevees/special_projects/ These grants are considered annually or as funds become available to the DWR to provide for enhancement and safety of the Delta levee system and habitat. 3. A listing of active Delta Levees Special Active Projects (as of 3-1-2015) can be viewed at: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodsafe/fessro/deltalevees/special_projects/ These grants are considered annually or as funds become available to the DWR to provide enhancement and safety of the Delta levee system and habitat. 4. A listing of active Delta Levees Special Projects (Multi-Benefit PSP) can be viewed at: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodsafe/fessro/deltalevees/special_projects/docs/special_multiben _projects.pdf These grants are considered as funds become available to the DWR to provide for multi-benefit projects increasing enhancement and safety of the Delta levee system and habitat. There are limited funds allocated in various approved bond programs for these projects. 178 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Total State Expenditures by Reclamation District 179