LAFCO
“City Services” MSR & SOI Study (2nd Round) – Final
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission
Municipal Service Review Update
as Adopted
June 12, 2019
Contra Costa LAFCO Members
Commissioner Tom Butt, Chair, City Member
Commissioner Candace Andersen, Vice Chair, County Member
Commissioner Donald A. Blubaugh, Public Member
Commissioner Federal Glover, County Member
Commissioner Rob Schroder, City Member
Commissioner Michael R. McGill, Special District Member
Commissioner Igor Skaredoff, Special District Member
Commissioner Diane Burgis, County Member, Alternate
Commissioner Stanley Caldwell, Special District Member, Alternate
Commissioner Charles R. Lewis, IV, Public Member, Alternate
Commissioner Sean Wright, City Member, Alternate
Prepared by:
Lamphier-Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
and
Berkson Associates
San Anselmo, CA
This page intentionally left blank.
T C
ABLE OF ONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction and Municipal Service Review Summary ................................. 1-1
1.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Services Reviewed and Focus Areas .................................................................................. 1-4
1.3 Organization of this Introduction and Summary ................................................................ 1-6
1.4 Sphere of Influence Determinations ................................................................................ 1-22
1.5 Sphere of Influence Recommendations ........................................................................... 1-23
1.6 Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................................... 1-24
Chapter 2: City of Antioch ............................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Municipal Services Overview ........................................................................................... 2-4
2.3 Financial Overview ........................................................................................................... 2-9
2.4 Service Review Determinations ....................................................................................... 2-13
2.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ............................................................. 2-21
Chapter 3: City of Brentwood ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Municipal Services Overview ........................................................................................... 3-4
3.3 Financial Overview ........................................................................................................... 3-9
3.4 Service Review Determinations ....................................................................................... 3-13
3.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ............................................................. 3-21
Chapter 4: City of Clayton ............................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Municipal Services Overview ........................................................................................... 4-4
4.3 Financial Overview ........................................................................................................... 4-9
4.4 Service Review Determinations ....................................................................................... 4-12
4.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ............................................................. 4-19
Chapter 5: City of Concord ........................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Municipal Services Overview ........................................................................................... 5-5
5.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 5-10
5.4 Service Review Determinations ....................................................................................... 5-14
5.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ............................................................. 5-22
Chapter 6: Town of Danville ......................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Municipal Services Overview ........................................................................................... 6-4
6.3 Financial Overview ........................................................................................................... 6-9
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update i
6.4 Service Review Determinations ....................................................................................... 6-12
6.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ............................................................. 6-20
Chapter 7: City of El Cerrito ......................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Municipal Services Overview ........................................................................................... 7-5
7.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 7-10
7.4 Service Review Determinations ....................................................................................... 7-13
7.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ............................................................. 7-22
Chapter 8: City of Hercules .......................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Municipal Services Overview ........................................................................................... 8-4
8.3 Financial Overview ........................................................................................................... 8-9
8.4 Service Review Determinations ....................................................................................... 8-12
8.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ............................................................. 8-21
Chapter 9: City of Lafayette .......................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................. 9-1
9.2 Municipal Services Overview ........................................................................................... 9-4
9.3 Financial Overview ........................................................................................................... 9-9
9.4 Service Review Determinations ....................................................................................... 9-12
9.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ............................................................. 9-20
Chapter 10: City of Martinez ...................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 10-4
10.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 10-9
10.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 10-12
10.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 10-19
Chapter 11: Town of Moraga ...................................................................................... 11-1
11.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 11-1
11.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 11-4
11.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 11-9
11.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 11-12
11.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 11-22
Chapter 12: City of Oakley ......................................................................................... 12-1
12.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 12-1
12.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 12-4
12.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 12-9
12.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 12-12
12.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 12-20
Contra Costa LAFCO
ii Municipal Service Review Update
Chapter 13: City of Orinda ......................................................................................... 13-1
13.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 13-1
13.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 13-4
13.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 13-8
13.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 13-12
13.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 13-19
Chapter 14: City of Pinole........................................................................................... 14-1
14.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 14-1
14.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 14-4
14.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 14-9
14.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 14-13
14.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 14-20
Chapter 15: City of Pittsburg ...................................................................................... 15-1
15.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 15-1
15.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 15-4
15.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 15-9
15.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 15-13
15.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 15-22
Chapter 16: City of Pleasant Hill ................................................................................. 16-1
16.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 16-1
16.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 16-4
16.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 16-9
16.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 16-12
16.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 16-20
Chapter 17: City of Richmond .................................................................................... 17-1
17.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 17-1
17.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 17-5
17.3 Financial Overview ....................................................................................................... 17-10
17.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 17-14
17.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 17-23
Chapter 18: City of San Pablo ..................................................................................... 18-1
18.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 18-1
18.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 18-4
18.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 18-9
18.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 18-12
18.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 18-20
Chapter 19: City of San Ramon ................................................................................... 19-1
19.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 19-1
19.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 19-5
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update iii
19.3 Financial Overview ....................................................................................................... 19-10
19.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 19-14
19.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 19-21
Chapter 20: City of Walnut Creek ............................................................................... 20-1
20.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 20-1
20.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 20-5
20.3 Financial Overview ....................................................................................................... 20-11
20.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 20-14
20.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 20-23
Chapter 21: Crockett Community Services District ..................................................... 21-1
21.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 21-1
21.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 21-3
21.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 21-8
21.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 21-12
21.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 21-19
Chapter 22: Diablo Community Services District ........................................................ 22-1
22.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 22-1
22.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 22-3
22.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 22-8
22.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 22-11
22.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 22-17
Chapter 23: Discovery Bay Community Services District ............................................ 23-1
23.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 23-1
23.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 23-3
23.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 23-8
23.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 23-11
23.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 23-18
Chapter 24: Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District............... 24-1
24.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 24-1
24.2 Municipal Services Overview ......................................................................................... 24-3
24.3 Financial Overview ......................................................................................................... 24-7
24.4 Service Review Determinations ..................................................................................... 24-10
24.5 Sphere of Influence Review and Determinations ........................................................... 24-16
Chapter 25: Acronyms, Glossary, and Bibliography .................................................... 25-1
25.1 Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ 25-1
25.2 Glossary .......................................................................................................................... 25-3
25.3 Bibliography.................................................................................................................... 25-6
Contra Costa LAFCO
iv Municipal Service Review Update
Attachments
Attachment A – Agriculture and Open Space Policies
Attachment B – Service Level Statistics
Attachment C – Agency Fiscal Profiles
Attachment D – Response to Public Comments
Figures
Introduction and Municipal Service Review Summary
1.1: Contra Costa County ...................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2: Unincorporated Islands under 300 Acres in Contra Costa County ............................... 1-22
1.3: Disadvantaged Communities in Contra Costa County .................................................. 1-23
City of Antioch
2.1: City of Antioch Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ........................................ 2-2
2.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Antioch ............................................................................................................. 2-14
City of Brentwood
3.1: City of Brentwood Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ................................... 3-2
3.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Brentwood ........................................................................................................ 3-14
City of Clayton
4.1: City of Clayton Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ........................................ 4-2
4.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Clayton ............................................................................................................. 4-13
City of Concord
5.1: City of Concord Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ...................................... 5-2
5.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Concord............................................................................................................ 5-16
Town of Danville
6.1: Town of Danville Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence .................................... 6-2
6.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
Town of Danville ......................................................................................................... 6-14
City of El Cerrito
7.1: City of El Cerrito Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ..................................... 7-2
7.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of El Cerrito ........................................................................................................... 7-15
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update v
City of Hercules
8.1: City of Hercules Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ...................................... 8-2
8.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Hercules ........................................................................................................... 8-14
City of Lafayette
9.1: City of Lafayette Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ...................................... 9-2
9.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Lafayette ........................................................................................................... 9-14
City of Martinez
10.1: City of Martinez Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence .................................... 10-2
10.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Martinez ......................................................................................................... 10-13
Town of Moraga
11.1: Town of Moraga Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ................................... 11-2
11.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
Town of Moraga ......................................................................................................... 11-14
11.3: Area of Proposed Camino Pablo Annexation ............................................................. 11-18
City of Oakley
12.1: City of Oakley Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ....................................... 12-2
12.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Oakley ............................................................................................................ 12-14
City of Orinda
13.1: City of Orinda Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ....................................... 13-2
13.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Orinda ............................................................................................................ 13-13
City of Pinole
14.1: City of Pinole Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ........................................ 14-2
14.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Pinole ............................................................................................................. 14-14
City of Pittsburg
15.1: City of Pittsburg Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence .................................... 15-2
15.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Pittsburg .......................................................................................................... 15-14
15.3: Orbisonia Heights and Keller Canyon Landfill Areas.................................................. 15-18
Contra Costa LAFCO
vi Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pleasant Hill
16.1: City of Pleasant Hill Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence .............................. 16-2
16.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Pleasant Hill ................................................................................................... 16-14
City of Richmond
17.1: City of Richmond Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence .................................. 17-2
17.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Richmond ....................................................................................................... 17-16
City of San Pablo
18.1: City of San Pablo Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence .................................. 18-2
18.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of San Pablo ........................................................................................................ 18-14
City of San Ramon
19.1: City of San Ramon Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ................................ 19-2
19.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of San Ramon ..................................................................................................... 19-15
City of Walnut Creek
20.1: City of Walnut Creek Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence ............................ 20-2
20.2: Population, Jobs, and Household Growth Projections (2010 – 2040) for
City of Walnut Creek.................................................................................................. 20-16
Crockett Community Services District
21.1: Crockett Community Services District Sphere of Influence .......................................... 21-2
Diablo Community Services District
22.1: Diablo Community Services District Sphere of Influence ............................................. 22-2
Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District
23.1: Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District Sphere of Influence ................... 23-2
Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District
24.1: Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District Sphere of
Influence ...................................................................................................................... 24-2
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update vii
Tables
Introduction and Municipal Service Review Summary
1.1: Service Provision Overview ........................................................................................... 1-5
1.2: Year 2010, 2017, and 2040 Population Estimates and Projections, Contra
Costa County ................................................................................................................. 1-8
1.3: Jobs, Employed Residents, and Jobs per Employed Resident by Jurisdiction,
Years 2010 and 2040 ................................................................................................... 1-10
1.4: Jobs, Housing Units, and Jobs/Housing Ratio for Contra Costa
Jurisdictions, Years 2010 and 2040 .............................................................................. 1-11
1.5: Comparison of Selected City Revenue Enhancements, FY 2017 ................................... 1-13
1.6: Significant Financial Considerations by Jurisdiction ..................................................... 1-15
City of Antioch
2.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area .......................................................................... 2-3
2.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................... 2-3
2.3: Municipal Services and Service Providers ...................................................................... 2-4
2.4: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 2-10
2.5: Housing Overview ....................................................................................................... 2-15
2.6: Programs and Services for an Aging Population ........................................................... 2-16
City of Brentwood
3.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area .......................................................................... 3-3
3.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................... 3-3
3.3: Awards ........................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.4: Municipal Services and Service Providers ...................................................................... 3-4
3.5: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 3-10
3.6: Housing Overview ....................................................................................................... 3-15
City of Clayton
4.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area .......................................................................... 4-3
4.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................... 4-3
4.3: Awards ........................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.4: Municipal Services and Service Providers ...................................................................... 4-4
4.5: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 4-10
4.6: Housing Overview ....................................................................................................... 4-14
City of Concord
5.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area .......................................................................... 5-3
5.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................... 5-3
5.3: Awards ........................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.4: Municipal Services and Service Providers ...................................................................... 5-5
5.5: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 5-11
5.6: Housing Overview ....................................................................................................... 5-17
Contra Costa LAFCO
viii Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Danville
6.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area .......................................................................... 6-3
6.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................... 6-3
6.3: Awards ........................................................................................................................... 6-4
6.4: Municipal Services and Service Providers ...................................................................... 6-5
6.5: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 6-10
6.6: Housing Overview ....................................................................................................... 6-15
City of El Cerrito
7.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area .......................................................................... 7-3
7.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................... 7-3
7.3: Awards ........................................................................................................................... 7-4
7.4: Municipal Services and Service Providers ...................................................................... 7-6
7.5: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 7-11
7.6: Housing Overview ....................................................................................................... 7-16
7.7: Programs and Services for an Aging Population ........................................................... 7-17
City of Hercules
8.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area .......................................................................... 8-3
8.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................... 8-3
8.3: Municipal Services and Service Providers ...................................................................... 8-4
8.4: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 8-10
8.5: Housing Overview ....................................................................................................... 8-15
City of Lafayette
9.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area .......................................................................... 9-3
9.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................... 9-3
9.3: Awards ........................................................................................................................... 9-4
9.4: Municipal Services and Service Providers ...................................................................... 9-4
9.5: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 9-10
9.6: Housing Overview ....................................................................................................... 9-15
9.7: Programs and Services for an Aging Population ........................................................... 9-16
City of Martinez
10.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area ........................................................................ 10-3
10.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................. 10-3
10.3: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 10-4
10.4: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................. 10-10
10.5: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 10-14
Town of Moraga
11.1: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................. 11-3
11.2: Awards ......................................................................................................................... 11-4
11.3: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 11-4
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update ix
11.4: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................. 11-10
11.5: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 11-15
City of Oakley
12.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area ........................................................................ 12-3
12.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................. 12-3
12.3: Awards ......................................................................................................................... 12-4
12.4: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 12-5
12.5: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................. 12-10
12.6: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 12-15
City of Orinda
13.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area ........................................................................ 13-3
13.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................. 13-3
13.3: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 13-4
13.4: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 13-9
13.5: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 13-14
City of Pinole
14.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area ........................................................................ 14-3
14.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................. 14-3
14.3: Awards ......................................................................................................................... 14-4
14.4: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 14-5
14.5: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................. 14-10
14.6: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 14-15
City of Pittsburg
15.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area ........................................................................ 15-3
15.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................. 15-3
15.3: Awards ......................................................................................................................... 15-4
15.4: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 15-5
15.5: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................. 15-10
15.6: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 15-15
City of Pleasant Hill
16.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area ........................................................................ 16-3
16.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................. 16-3
16.3: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 16-5
16.4: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................. 16-10
16.5: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 16-15
City of Richmond
17.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area ........................................................................ 17-3
17.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................. 17-3
17.3: Awards ......................................................................................................................... 17-5
Contra Costa LAFCO
x Municipal Service Review Update
17.4: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 17-6
17.5: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................. 17-11
17.6: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 17-17
City of San Pablo
18.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area ........................................................................ 18-3
18.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................. 18-3
18.3: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 18-4
18.4: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................. 18-10
18.5: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 18-15
City of San Ramon
19.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area ........................................................................ 19-3
19.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................. 19-3
19.3: Awards ......................................................................................................................... 19-5
19.4: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 19-6
19.5: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................. 19-11
19.6: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 19-16
City of Walnut Creek
20.1: Highest Staffing Levels by Service Area ........................................................................ 20-3
20.2: Joint Powers Authority Membership ............................................................................. 20-3
20.3: Awards ......................................................................................................................... 20-5
20.4: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 20-6
20.5: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................. 20-12
20.6: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 20-17
Crockett Community Services District
21.2: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 21-3
21.2: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 21-9
21.3: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 21-13
Diablo Community Services District
22.1: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 22-3
22.2: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 22-9
22.3: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 22-12
Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District
23.1: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 23-3
23.2: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 23-9
23.3: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 23-13
Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District
24.1: Municipal Services and Service Providers .................................................................... 24-3
24.2: Summary of General Fund and Liquidity, 2015 – 2017 ............................................... 24-7
24.3: Housing Overview ..................................................................................................... 24-11
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update xi
This page intentionally left blank.
C 1
HAPTER
I M S
NTRODUCTION AND UNICIPAL ERVICE
R S
EVIEW UMMARY
1.1 OVERVIEW
Local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs) are countywide agencies created by the California
State legislature to discourage urban sprawl and encourage the orderly formation and development
of local government agencies. LAFCOs are unique to California and there is one LAFCO in each
county. LAFCO’s efforts are directed at the provision of efficient and economical municipal
services, logical and orderly development, and the preservation of agricultural and open space
lands.
LAFCOs are charged with regulating local agency spheres of influence (SOIs) and service
boundaries, including annexations and detachments; city incorporations; district formations,
consolidations, mergers and dissolutions; and extension of services outside jurisdictional
boundaries.
LAFCOs are also charged with preparing Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs). This MSR Update was
prepared by Lamphier-Gregory and Berkson Associates for Contra Costa LAFCO. MSRs are state-
mandated comprehensive analyses of specific services provided by municipalities and special
districts that fall within the purview of LAFCOs. MSRs provide information about service delivery,
evaluate how services are provided, and recommend actions to improve the provisions of services,
and highlight best practices, risks and challenges facing the agencies. The MSR culminates in
updating the sphere of influence (SOI) for each agency covered in the Review. SOIs are important
as they designate an agency’s probable future boundary and service area.
As part of the MSR process, LAFCOs must prepare written determinations for the following:
• Growth and population projections for the affected area
• Location and characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or
contiguous to the SOI
• Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public service, including
infrastructure needs and deficiencies
• Financial ability of the agency to provide services
• Status of and opportunities for shared facilities
• Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and
operational efficiencies
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 1-1
Chapter 1
In accordance with the SOI updates, LAFCOs must prepare a written statement of determinations
with respect to each of the following:
• Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands
• Present and probable need for public facilities and services
• Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services
• Existence of any social or economic communities of interest if the commission determines
that they are relevant to the agency.
• 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, that occurs
pursuant to subdivision (g) on or after July 1, 2012, the present and probable need for those
public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the
existing sphere of influence.
The information, recommendations, and determinations contained in an MSR are intended to guide
and inform decisions regarding updates to SOIs, changes of organization and reorganizations, and
service extension decisions. The Draft MSR and SOI determinations and recommendations are
included in the individual agency chapters.
Contra Costa LAFCO completed its first round MSRs in 2013. City services were covered in various
first round MSRs (i.e., fire/emergency medical, law enforcement, library, parks and recreation, city
services by sub region, water, and wastewater). To date, LAFCO has completed second round MSRs
covering water, wastewater, reclamation, fire and emergency medical, and healthcare services.
This is the second round MSR covering city services and includes a review of municipal services
provided by all 19 municipalities in Contra Costa County and four of the six Community Service
Districts (CSDs). Figure 1.1 shows the location of these entities within Contra Costa County.
Contra Costa LAFCO
1-2 Municipal Service Review Update
City Boundaries, City Spheres of Influence, and select Community Service Districts in Contra Costa County
Grizzly
C
M
o
a
u
r
n
i
t
n
y
S C o
P
o n
B S a
u o
a a b
n m
n y l
t
o
y a
Mo M nt a a n lv o in r V B i a e y w T H a il r l a s Rod H eo ERCU C §¨¦ L 88 C A r 00 o E r r e C o c S a c k SD k e e tt tt C A o
C S
P r s e o
o
t
o
a a rt
l u a
C ÄÅ
n
a
n
r 44
t
q
o y
uinezSt §¨¦ 6 r 8 a 0 it Vie M w t V H in il e l
Su
B
i
a
s
y
un
B
C
a
ly
y
de P B o a in y H t o B n a k y er PITTSBUR ÄÅ 44 G
C S o o
W
l u
Is
a
l
n
i a n
n
n t
t
e
o y
d r Sacra
mento
ÄÅ 11
R
S 6600 a
iv
n
er
Joaqu B in B re i R J g a Is e i k l v a rs e n e r d y
S
B
a
r Is a
c C
l d a
r o
f n
a
o
u
d r
m
d
n
B Is e
e t
la t
y n
h n e d
t
l
o
W Tr e a F b T c r b r t a a n c k t s Qui I m s by
R
N
ic
.
h
SAN R -w ol o li o n d g Sob
E
r
lante PINOLE MARTINEZ Pacheco
ÄÅ 224422
CONCORD ANTIOCH OAKLEY
O
J
C
o
o
S a
u
a q
n
n u
t
i
y
n
PABLO
Alhambra
ld
§¨¦ 580 RICHMOND EL
E
H
.
e
R
i
i
g
c
h
h
ts Briones
Valley
V Re a l l i l e e z y
PLE
H
A
I
S
L
A
L
NT
CLAYTON
ÄÅ
44
Knightsen R iv
e r
CERRITO C C o o n st t a ra WALNUT BRENTWOOD
§¨¦ Centre CREEK
680
Fra S n a c n isco §¨¦ ( K in e n El s i C n e g r t r o it n o C SO SD I) ORINDA LAFAYET A T c E a R la id n g e e s Saranap Migu S e a l n R S id h g e e ll N G o a r t t e h ÄÅ 44 Disc C B o a S v D y ery
Bay
8800
Castle
Hill
Byron
ÄÅ
2244 Alamo
Diablo Clifton
MORAGA CSD Court
Canyon Los Forebay
Vaqueros
DANVILLE Reservoir
Legend
Blackhawk
City Boundaries Alameda C Ta a s m sa i j n a o ra
County
City Sphere of Influence
SAN
RAMON
Community Service District *
Alameda
County
Contra Costa County
Norris
Canyon
County Urban Limit Line
§¨¦
* All Community Services Districts shown 680
have coterminous Spheres of Influence
®
This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
Co b n y s 3 e C 3 0 r 7 o v M : n a 5 u t M t 9 r i i o a r : a 4 n R p C 1 a o . o c 7 n a s r 9 d e d ta 1 a , D N t M C e e d o a v 1 u e r 0 2 t n l i 3 2 o n t / y : p e 1 0 m z D 4 7 , / e : e 2 C 0 n p 0 3 A t a 1 , . 7 r 9 G 9 t 5 m 4 I 6 S 5 e W 5 n G 3 t r o o f up its r t e a a p x b c a r a c r c o a a s u c d n e t e r u d e a p d c c D a t e a y r e t d t e . h a v a T e i , e n s h p l C . o i i r s t W i p o s m m u m c h a n u a e i r t l r e i p n y l r y t e o o c w n C o f b t C i n l i t i t s h g y t o a t a a d n L i t n t a t e i e m r s t a d a i i c f t C t s o f o t r , h o p o u e i y s m s s r t s a i e d g o t e h h d t u h r e t i r i s e i v c s C c d e e l d a o d in i a i n s m f f t t r o a c r o e a r i m m t r t e h C o a d e t o f h . t C i l s e U o ia t o n a s C b u e i a C A n l r i n t s o t y y S d u o f t a n m a o f s t r t t y a e s h g y u i G B s e m n I o o m S o e g a t a s r r P a d b p n r p e o o o a h g f a g i r r c E l e r a t e e s q i m n e r p u e f . o o a t d o n r l S . i m z s r o e a i I a b t m a t t i i m i l o d e o it n a n y a ' y . s n f o d b r e 0 2.5 Mi 5 les 10
Figure 1.1. Contra Costa County
June 2019
Chapter 1
1.2 SERVICES REVIEWED AND FOCUS AREAS
Municipalities and CSDs can provide a range of services. For this MSR Update, Contra Costa
LAFCO chose to focus on some but not all the services jurisdictions provide including:
• Animal Control • Parks and Recreation
• Broadband • Solid Waste
• Building/Planning • Streets
• Law Enforcement • Stormwater
• Library • Utilities (gas, electricity/community
• Lighting choice aggregation)
This MSR Update has four focus areas:
• Updating profile data including growth and population, jobs/housing, finances (expenses,
revenues, debt, reserves, related fiscal health indicators), and staffing
• Shared services (i.e., joint powers and joint use agreements, contracts between public
agencies, public-private partnerships)
• Infill development/sprawl prevention/islands
• Agricultural/open space preservation
There is substantial variation among jurisdictions regarding what services they provide directly and
what services are provided by others. When a service provider other than the city itself is used, the
outside provider is often the County. Examples include County library services and animal control.
In other situations, a special district (e.g., Central Contra Costa Sanitary District) provides the
services and the City has no financial role.
Table 1.1 shows services provided by the cities and CSDs, as well as under contract with other
service providers.
This report fulfills Contra Costa LAFCO’s responsibility to conduct an MSR prior to or in
conjunction with SOI updates for those jurisdictions that provided enough information for this
report. The MSR serves as a resource to help the public better understand how municipal services
are provided.
Contra Costa LAFCO
1-4 Municipal Service Review Update
Introduction and Municipal Service Review Summary
TABLE 1.1
SERVICE PROVISION OVERVIEW
CITY / CSD ANIMAL BROADBAND BUILDING / LAW LIBRARY LIGHTING PARKS & SOLID STREETS STORMWATER UTILITIES
CONTROL PLANNING ENFORCEMENT RECREATION WASTE
Antioch City SP City City SP City City SP City City SP
Brentwood SP SP City City SP SP City City City City SP
Clayton SP SP City City SP City/SP City SP City City SP
Concord SP SP City City SP City City SP City City SP
Danville SP SP Town SP SP Town Town SP Town Town SP
El Cerrito SP SP City City SP City City City/SP City City/SP SP
Hercules SP SP City/SP City SP City City City/SP City City SP
Lafayette SP SP City/SP SP SP City City/SP SP City City SP
Martinez SP SP City City SP City City SP City City SP
Moraga SP SP Town Town/SP SP Town Town SP Town Town SP
Oakley SP SP City City SP City/SP City/SP SP City City SP
Orinda SP SP City/SP SP SP City City SP City City SP
Pinole SP SP City City SP City City SP City City SP
Pittsburg SP SP City City SP City/SP City SP City City SP
Pleasant Hill SP SP City City SP City SP SP City City SP
Richmond SP SP City City City City City SP City City SP
San Pablo SP SP City City SP City City SP City City SP
San Ramon SP SP City City SP City/SP City SP City City SP
Walnut Creek SP SP City City SP City City SP City City SP
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICTS
Crockett SP SP SP SP SP SP CSD CSD/SP SP SP SP
Diablo SP SP SP CSD/SP SP CSD/SP CSD SP CSD SP SP
Discovery SP SP SP SP SP SP CSD SP SP SP SP
Bay
Kensington SP SP SP CSD SP SP CSD SP SP SP SP
SP = other service provider
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 1-5
Chapter 1
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This summary has the following sections. Key conclusions in each section are presented below.
Methodology Summary
This MSR Update was prepared by the MSR consultants under direction of the LAFCO Executive
Officer using input provided by the cities and CSDs. The work began in mid-2018. Draft chapters
were distributed to each subject agency and their comments are incorporated where relevant. The
Public Review Draft MSR was released on March 27, 2019, initiating a 30-day public comment
period.
A public hearing was held at the Contra Costa LAFCO meeting on April 17 and the public
comment period closed on April 25, 2019. This final MSR Update incorporates minor changes
related to the comments received from the Commissioners, municipalities, and public stakeholders
during the review period.
On June 12, the Commission will discuss the final draft and will be asked to accept the MSR, make
required findings and determinations, and approve the SOI updates.
Growth and Population Update
Population in the County is expected to increase from an estimated 1,132,140 in 2017 to
approximately 1,387,000 by 2040. Growth projections are not distributed evenly across the
jurisdictions and Concord, Richmond, and Antioch are expected to grow the most.
Jobs, Employed Residents and Housing
Most jurisdictions in Contra Costa have jobs/employed residents and jobs/housing units ratios that
are lower than many inner-Bay counties. These low values indicate that Contra Costa serves as a
bedroom area for those counties that attract most employment. Until conditions change, this
situation causes longer commute times, results in wasted off-peak capacity in the transportation
network, and increases the amount of pollutants emitted by transportation.
Financial Status of Municipalities and CSDs
Financial conditions vary among jurisdictions. Several jurisdictions have a healthy financial
condition. A few jurisdictions face heavy debt loads compared with their revenue and many have
large unfunded pension and to a lesser extent other post-employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities.
Short-term financial conditions are only severe in El Cerrito, where this report recommends further
analysis before any future SOI adjustment is considered. Many cities are improving their financial
condition and outlook.
Shared Services
Probably all jurisdictions participate in some shared services, either directly through a contract with
another jurisdiction or through participation in a joint powers agreement. Shared services provide
efficiencies and economies for jurisdictions and their citizens.
Contra Costa LAFCO
1-6 Municipal Service Review Update
Introduction and Municipal Service Review Summary
Infill Development/Sprawl Prevention/Islands
LAFCO encourages jurisdictions to pursue infill development before adding new land to either the
SOI or boundary. Achieving this goal is supported by the existence of voter approved Urban Limit
Lines (ULLs) and Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) covering all jurisdictions in the County, and by
Contra Costa LAFCOs Agricultural and Open Space Preservation Policy (AOSPP). These policies
also discourage sprawl.
There are 16 small “city” islands in the County, and Contra Costa LAFCO has a policy to
discourage the creation of islands and encourage annexation of small islands. Several of the islands
include disadvantaged communities that would benefit from annexation to an adjacent city.
Sphere of Influence Recommendations
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the SOIs for the 23
jurisdictions studied in this report. The report also recommends that no changes to the SOIs of six
jurisdictions be approved until further analysis is completed.
1.3.1 METHODOLOGY
The municipal services reviewed as part of this MSR Update were identified at the outset of the
process; as well as types of data required, a timeline for data collection, and criteria to be used
when making the MSR and SOI determinations required as part of this report.
In May 2018, the LAFCO Executive Officer and lead MSR consultant attended the monthly Public
Managers Association meeting to kick-off the MSR Update process. In June 2018, questionnaires
were sent to City/District Managers and Finance Directors. In addition to agency questionnaires, the
MSR team conducted a comprehensive review of publicly available documents from existing,
readily available sources (e.g., US Census, Association of Bay Area Governments, State Department
of Finance, city, district, and county websites). To assist in the data gathering process, an Agency
Profile (partially pre-populated by MSR team) was distributed to each city and CSD with a request
to verify and supplement the data. Agency profiles focused on MSR-related issues (i.e., agency
overview; agency services, finances, growth and population; boundaries, islands, disadvantaged
communities). For each of the agencies being reviewed, a list of service level statistics was
compiled to help determine the adequacy of public services provided by each city and CSD. These
agency-specific service level statistics are provided in Attachment B.
Following the verification and augmentation of the Agency Profile data, a draft profile chapter was
prepared and sent to each city and CSD for review, verification, and comments. In some cases, the
requested data was not provided in time to be included in this MSR.
Upon release of the Public Review Draft MSR, each subject agency was notified by email, and each
agency was encouraged to place the Draft MSR on their meeting agenda for public discussion. The
public comment period ended April 25, 2019.
A public hearing was held on April 17, 2019 to discuss the draft MSR. This final MSR Update
incorporates minor changes related to the comments received from the Commissioners,
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 1-7
Chapter 1
municipalities, and public stakeholders during the review period. Attachment D to this MSR
presents a compilation of the comments received and responses.
On June 12, 2019, Contra Costa LAFCO will hold a public hearing on the Final Draft MSR at which
time the Commission will be asked to accept the MSR, make the required findings and
determinations, and approve the SOI updates.
1.3.2 GROWTH AND POPULATION UPDATE
In 2018, Contra Costa County’s population was estimated by the California Department of Finance
at 1,149,363 placing it as the ninth largest county in California.1 The Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) forecasts city and County populations as shown in Table 1.2.2 Forecast 2010-
2040 growth ranges from less than 600 in Clayton to more than 76,000 in Concord while
percentage growth over the same period ranges from 5.5% in Clayton to 62.8% in Concord.
TABLE 1.2
YEAR 2010, 2017, AND 2040 POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
JURISDICTION 2010 20171 2040
Antioch 101,695 113,061 130,725
Brentwood 52,020 63,042 84,460
Clayton 10,665 11,431 11,255
Concord 122,155 129,159 198,850
Danville 42,470 44,396 47,350
El Cerrito 23,550 24,939 29,075
Hercules 23,680 26,317 28,700
Lafayette 23,995 25,655 26,815
Martinez 35,995 38,097 40,035
Moraga 16,035 16,991 18,080
Oakley 35,280 41,742 54,435
Orinda 17,300 19,199 18,745
Pinole 18,940 19,236 21,930
Pittsburg 63,415 72,647 91,615
Pleasant Hill 32,990 35,068 35,925
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
2 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
1-8 Municipal Service Review Update
Introduction and Municipal Service Review Summary
JURISDICTION 2010 20171 2040
Richmond 103,050 119,067 164,220
San Pablo 29,730 31,593 34,090
San Ramon 71,295 82,643 84,165
Walnut Creek 64,920 70,667 81,265
Crockett CSD 2,562
Diablo CSD 807
Discovery Bay CSD 14,765
Kensington CSD 5,602
Unincorporated County 162,645 172,513 199,105
Contra Costa County Total2 1,051,830 1,149,363 1,387,300
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate for cities; American
Community Survey, 2016 estimate for CSDs.
2 Total reflects total of incorporated areas and balance of unincorporated County.
1.3.3 JOBS, EMPLOYED RESIDENTS, AND HOUSING
Historically, jurisdictions in Contra Costa County have provided more housing than they have jobs.
This leads to suboptimal use of transportation resources, increases travel times and costs for
residents, produces more pollutants than would occur if commuting distances were shorter, and
allows residents less time to spend with their families and in their communities.
The jobs/employed residents’ ratio measures the balance between where people work and where
they live.
Jobs/employed resident ratios close to 1.0 imply that those who work in an area are likely to be
employed in the same area, although a 1.0 ratio does not necessarily mean that the people who
live in a municipality work there or that those who work in a municipality live there. As the size
and population of the area being considered increases, the ratio will move towards 1.0, i.e., the
ratio is more likely to be close to 1.0 for the nine-county Bay Area than for a single jurisdiction.
Higher ratios suggest more jobs than employed residents while lower ratios suggest more employed
residents than jobs.
Table 1.3 shows jobs compared with employed persons for the municipalities in Contra Costa
County. Several jurisdictions have ratios of less than 0.5, indicating a jobs/ employed resident
imbalance. Several of these jurisdictions are in eastern Contra Costa County. The overall ratio of
0.70 for Contra Costa shows the County serves as a bedroom for people who work elsewhere. For
purposes of comparison, a similar analysis conducted for Santa Clara County in 2015 showed a
county-wide Jobs/Employed Resident ratio of 1.18.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 1-9
Chapter 1
TABLE 1.3
JOBS, EMPLOYED RESIDENTS, AND JOBS PER EMPLOYED RESIDENT BY JURISDICTION
YEARS 2010 AND 2040
JOBS EMPLOYED RESIDENTS JOBS PER EMPLOYED RESIDENT
JURISDICTION 2010 2040 2010 2040 2010 2040
Antioch 20,115 25,745 48,385 61,020 0.42 0.42
Brentwood 11,625 11,990 18,095 29,030 0.64 0.41
Clayton 1,995 2,095 6,245 6,975 0.32 0.30
Concord 54,275 95,455 61,520 93,480 0.88 1.02
Danville 11,840 13,120 21,280 26,630 0.56 0.49
El Cerrito 5,315 5,910 12,590 16,170 0.42 0.37
Hercules 4,955 5,420 12,370 15,300 0.40 0.35
Lafayette 8,990 9,940 12,185 15,030 0.74 0.66
Martinez 20,710 26,085 19,565 22,000 1.06 1.19
Moraga 4,570 5,725 7,620 9,400 0.60 0.61
Oakley 3,410 5,365 15,425 23,080 0.22 0.23
Orinda 4,835 5,500 8,275 10,435 0.58 0.53
Pinole 6,700 8,485 9,345 10,665 0.72 0.80
Pittsburg 11,835 15,615 27,185 39,380 0.44 0.40
Pleasant Hill 16,360 19,800 17,420 19,550 0.94 1.01
Richmond 30,685 61,815 44,610 70,010 0.69 0.88
San Pablo 7,430 9,100 10,970 12,840 0.68 0.71
San Ramon 47,950 71,775 36,240 46,940 1.32 1.53
Walnut Creek 50,855 58,090 32,075 42,240 1.59 1.38
Unincorporated County 35,790 41,085 76,035 95,700 0.47 0.43
Contra Costa County Total 360,230 498,115 497,445 665,875 0.72 0.75
Source: ABAG Projections 2017
Another frequently used measure of whether the number of housing units can meet demand is the
jobs/housing ratio. This measures the number of jobs as a fraction of the number of housing units.
This ratio will differ from the jobs/employed resident ratio because the number of employed
residents per housing unit will differ from 1.0 and many housing units are occupied only by
residents who are not employed (e.g., retirees). Table 1.4 shows the jobs/housing ratio for
municipalities in Contra Costa. There is a close to 1:1 match between jobs and housing units
countywide, but there is much variation among jurisdictions. The ratio in several jurisdictions is
expected to move further away from 1.0 which implies an imbalance. For purposes of comparison,
a similar analysis of the cities in Santa Clara County completed in 2014 found a jobs housing ratio
of 1.63, a level exceeded by only three of Contra Costa’s 19 jurisdictions.
Contra Costa LAFCO
1-10 Municipal Service Review Update
Introduction and Municipal Service Review Summary
TABLE 1.4
JOBS, HOUSING UNITS, AND JOBS/HOUSING RATIO FOR CONTRA COSTA JURISDICTIONS
YEARS 2010 AND 2040
JOBS HOUSING UNITS JOBS/HOUSING RATIO
JURISDICTION 2010 2040 2010 2040 2010 2040
Antioch 20,115 25,745 34,849 41,830 0.58 0.62
Brentwood 11,625 11,990 17,523 27,550 0.66 0.44
Clayton 1,995 2,095 4,086 4,205 0.49 0.50
Concord 54,275 95,455 47,125 67,145 1.15 1.42
Danville 11,840 13,120 15,934 16,300 0.74 0.80
El Cerrito 5,315 5,910 10,716 12,355 0.50 0.48
Hercules 4,955 5,420 8,553 9,835 0.58 0.55
Lafayette 8,990 9,940 9,651 10,165 0.93 0.98
Martinez 20,710 26,085 14,796 15,640 1.40 1.67
Moraga 4,570 5,725 5,754 6,020 0.79 0.95
Oakley 3,410 5,365 11,484 17,050 0.30 0.31
Orinda 4,835 5,500 6,804 6,935 0.71 0.79
Pinole 6,700 8,485 7,158 7,430 0.94 1.14
Pittsburg 11,835 15,615 21,126 27,525 0.56 0.57
Pleasant Hill 16,360 19,800 14,321 14,550 1.14 1.36
Richmond 30,685 61,815 39,328 56,310 0.78 1.10
San Pablo 7,430 9,100 9,571 10,010 0.78 0.91
San Ramon 47,950 71,775 26,222 30,920 1.83 2.32
Walnut Creek 50,855 58,090 32,681 38,650 1.56 1.50
Unincorporated County 35,790 41,085 – 69,530 – 0.59
Contra Costa County Total 360,230 498,115 – 489,955 – 1.02
Sources: ABAG Projections 2017; Bay Area Census housing unit data for 2010
In addition to the ABAG projections, there are other regional planning and policymaking efforts to
help guide development in Contra Costa County. For over a decade, local governments and
regional agencies have been working together to encourage the growth of jobs and production of
housing in areas supported by amenities and infrastructure. Plan Bay Area, developed and
approved by ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), is a long-range
integrated transportation and land use/housing strategy for the San Francisco Bay Area, including
Contra Costa County. 3 Plan Bay Area was first adopted in 2013 and updated four years later as
required by law. In August 2019, ABAG and MTC will embark on another update.
3 ABAG and MTC, Plan Bay Area 2040, Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities
Strategy for the San Francisco Bay Area, 2013, as amended July 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 1-11
Chapter 1
Plan Bay Area is the regional response to California Senate Bill 375 – the California Sustainable
Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, which requires the state’s metropolitan areas to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Plan Bay Area directs new growth
within existing urban footprints, locally adopted urban growth boundaries, and along major transit
corridors, which is anticipated to provide more development in pedestrian- and bike-friendly areas
that are close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, recreation, and other amenities.4 Directing
growth to these areas has the ancillary effect of protecting farmland, open space, and natural
resources in the Bay Area, and is in line with the goals of LAFCOs.
As part of the Plan Bay Area development process, local jurisdictions have identified Priority
Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), forming the implementing
framework. PDAs are areas where new development will support the day-to-day needs of residents
and workers in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit. PCAs are areas of regionally
significant open space facing development pressure and for which there is a broad consensus for
long-term protection. Promoting development within PDAs reduces development pressure on open
space and agricultural lands—a key interest of LAFCOs. Municipalities in Contra Costa County
(except for Brentwood and Clayton) have identified at least one PDA within their boundaries.
Contra Costa County has also identified PDAs within urbanized unincorporated areas.
Other regional plans that help guide development and preserve agricultural and open space land
including the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan and various land use compacts (e.g.,
Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area compact).
1.3.4 FINANCIAL STATUS OF CITIES, TOWNS AND CSDS
In the first decade of this millennium, several jurisdictions in Contra Costa were growing rapidly
and their budgets benefitted from the increases in assessed valuation, sales tax receipts, and other
taxes and fees associated with new development. The economic slowdown that began in 2008 hit
Contra Costa local government agencies hard, especially those municipalities that had a large share
of new housing stock. Several of these jurisdictions saw their assessed valuation, which drives
property tax revenue, decline significantly due to rampant home foreclosures and vacancies.
Jurisdictions with older housing stock saw a smaller percentage decline in assessed values because
Proposition 13 caps had kept assessed valuations below market values and even as market values
declined, they did not dip below Proposition 13 assessed valuation caps. In addition, sales tax
declined significantly as did other sources of revenue.
Jurisdictions responded by cutting spending where possible. Some also raised fees as permissible
under state law and went to their voters to ask them to approve additional taxes. The result is that
even if one ignores the unequal allocation of base property taxes which can be the result of several
factors, jurisdictions are funded unevenly as is shown in Table 1.5.
4 Local jurisdictions maintain control of all decisions to adopt plans and permit or deny development
projects.
Contra Costa LAFCO
1-12 Municipal Service Review Update
Introduction and Municipal Service Review Summary
TABLE 1.5
COMPARISON OF SELECTED CITY REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS FY 2017
PROPERTY TAX 1% SALES TOTAL
PROPERTY TAX % OF GENERAL PARCEL TAX TAX ADDITIONAL LOCAL ADDITIONAL LOCAL UTILITY USERS % RATE
CITY % RATE (1) FUND SPEC. ASSESS. % OF GF SALES TAX % RATE SALES TAX EXPIRES TAX (2) (3)
Antioch 11.4% 34% n/a 37% 0.50% 2021 n/a 10.0%
Brentwood 13.4% 27% n/a 18% n/a n/a n/a 10.0%
Clayton 0.7% 54% $1,100,000 10% n/a n/a n/a 4.0%
Concord 10.6% 15% n/a 45% 0.50% 2025 n/a 10.0%
Danville 7.6% 55% $580,000 22% n/a n/a n/a 6.5%
El Cerrito 22.2% 27% n/a 22% 1.00% 2026 8% 10.0%
Hercules 5.4% 7% n/a 13% 0.50% n/a 8% 10.0%
Lafayette 6.7% 28% n/a 18% n/a n/a n/a 9.5%
Martinez 15.9% 37% n/a 21% 0.50% 2031 n/a 10.0%
Moraga 5.3% 26% n/a 12% 1.00% 2033 n/a n/a
Oakley 7.1% 46% n/a 14% n/a n/a n/a 10.0%
Orinda 7.4% 48% $514,000 15% 0.50% 2022 n/a 10.0%
Pinole 18.8% 20% n/a 44% 1.00% n/a 8% 10.0%
Pittsburg 18.3% 8% n/a 32% n/a n/a n/a 12.0%
Pleasant 5.7% 25% $560,000 35% 0.50% 2037 1% (intrastate 10.0%
Hill tel)
Richmond 28.5% 22% n/a 25% 1.00% n/a 9.5%-10% 10.0%
San Pablo 9.8% 2% n/a 9% 0.50% 2022 (.25%) 4% 12.0%
San Ramon 9.6% 39% $6,900,000 20% n/a n/a n/a 7.25%
Walnut 9.5% 27% n/a 24% n/a n/a n/a 8.5%
Creek
(1) Increment Factor (% share of tax growth) for TRA with the majority of agency assessed value (Report: EA3281-01_2017_18; fund codes from Report: DG3876 Chart of Funds; Property
Tax Division Contra Costa County Office of the Auditor-Controller).
(2) Utility Users Tax, CaliforniaCityFinance.com, Michael Coleman 530.758.3952, file: "UUT15p.xlsx", 2015.
(3) Transient Occupancy Tax, CaliforniaCityFinance.com, Michael Coleman 530.758.3952, file: "TOT15p.xlsx", 2015.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 1-13
Chapter 1
While many jurisdictions face fiscal challenges, all the subject municipalities and CSDs believe
they can meet their obligations and provide necessary services over the next five years. Several
jurisdictions have used reserves to offset revenue declines rather than relying solely on service
reductions; and as a result, their fund balances have not returned to their locally established goals.
Detailed findings can be found in the analyses of each local agency.
There are several fiscal challenges facing many jurisdictions.
• The cost of pensions and OPEBs are increasing and are likely to consume an increasing
share of jurisdictions’ expenditures. Barring new revenue sources or changes to pension
laws, there is no easy fix. The establishment of pension and OPEB trusts can help agencies
increase earnings on their deposits, and manage contributions towards growing pension
and OPEB payments when needed to mitigate impacts on funding of agency services.
• Stormwater control requirements mandated by regional and state agencies are increasing
the cost of treating stormwater without providing compensating new revenue sources. In
addition, there are other unfunded mandates facing jurisdictions.
• The incremental sales taxes approved by voters in some jurisdictions will expire and to date
voters have not been asked to approve extensions.
• Many cities used redevelopment to fund capital projects deemed necessary to the
revitalization of most cities in Contra Costa County. The importance of redevelopment
varied by city and in some cases included only a small portion of a city and in others
covered much of the incorporated area. Redevelopment funds also represented the largest
source of public funding produced by cities that was channeled into affordable housing.
Redevelopment was canceled in 2011 and obligations incurred by that time are being
funded. There are some successor programs for redevelopment but those have not been
used extensively to date.
• Many activities of jurisdictions involve providing capital infrastructure including roads and
signalization, stormwater drains, sidewalks, parks and recreation facilities, other public
buildings, and water and sewerage systems in some cities. Many cities do not spend enough
on capital facilities to offset the effects of depreciation and changes in technology. There is
some funding available from county, regional, state, and federal sources for roads and
signalization but this is often insufficient compared with the need. Some jurisdictions seek
voter approval for special taxes and fees to cover these costs. Many, but not all of these
initiatives have been successful, but a capital funding shortfall remains. Because
reinvestment in capital facilities is often less than depreciation, many jurisdictions are
recording a decline in net assets.
Highlights of finance issues for each jurisdiction are listed in Table 1.6.
Contra Costa LAFCO
1-14 Municipal Service Review Update
Introduction and Municipal Service Review Summary
TABLE 1.6
SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS BY JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION NET WORTH/RESERVES REVENUES AND OTHER
EXPENDITURES
Antioch • Stable net position and • Local sales tax expires • Require funds for road
improving liquidity in 2021 repair
ratio
• Increasing pension and
OPEB liabilities
Brentwood • Improving net position – –
and improving
liquidity ratio
Clayton • Improving net position – • Low tax and
and stable liquidity expenditure rates
ratio
• Increasing pension and
OPEB liabilities
Concord • Stable net position and • Foresees growing • Supplemental sales tax
liquidity ratio structural budget expires in 2025
deficit
• Increasing pension and
OPEB liabilities
Danville • High unrestricted – • Defined contribution
funds balance retirement plan
• Improving liquidity
ratio
El Cerrito • Stable net position and • Local sales tax expires • Low reserves
low liquidity ratio in 2026
• Increasing pension and
OPEB liabilities
Hercules • Low but stable – • High debt burden
liquidity ratio given city size
Lafayette • Stable net position and • Multiple failed local tax • Defined contribution
declining liquidity elections retirement plan
ratio
Martinez • Improving liquidity • Local sales tax expires –
ratio in 2033
• Increasing pension
liability
Moraga • Stable liquidity ratio • Local sales tax expires • Inadequate reserves
in 2033
• Increasing pension
liabilities
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 1-15
Chapter 1
JURISDICTION NET WORTH/RESERVES REVENUES AND OTHER
EXPENDITURES
Oakley • Improving liquidity – –
ratio
• Low pension and no
OPEB liability
Orinda • Declining liquidity • Local sales tax expires • Defined contribution
ratio in 2022 retirement plan
Pinole • Improving liquidity • Projecting shortfalls –
ratio due to pension costs
• Increasing pension
liability and stable
OPEB liability
Pittsburg • Decreasing liquidity • Using reserves to offset –
ratio shortfalls
• Increasing pension
liability
Pleasant Hill • Decreasing liquidity – • Low debt per capita
ratio
• Increasing pension
liability
Richmond • Low liquidity ratio • High expenditures per • Voters have approved
capita multiple additional
• Low fund balances
taxes
given budget size
• Increasing pension
liability
San Pablo • Decreasing but high • Half of local sales tax –
liquidity ratio expires in 2022
• Increasing pension
liability
San Ramon • Fluctuating liquidity – • Expenditures for new
ratio civic center affect
trends
Walnut Creek • Fluctuating liquidity – • Low debt per capita
ratio
• Increasing pension
liability
Crockett CSD • Relatively small agency – • Enterprise activities
larger than general
• Increasing pension
government activities
liability
Contra Costa LAFCO
1-16 Municipal Service Review Update
Introduction and Municipal Service Review Summary
JURISDICTION NET WORTH/RESERVES REVENUES AND OTHER
EXPENDITURES
Diablo CSD • Relatively small agency – • Defined contribution
retirement plan
• Declining liquidity
ratio
Discovery Bay • Stable liquidity ratio – • Enterprise activities
CSD larger than general
government activities
• Defined contribution
retirement plan
Kensington • Stable liquidity ratio – –
CSD
• Increasing pension
liability
POSITIVE FISCAL INDICATORS
Several cities and districts covered in this MSR Update have made positive strides to enhance fiscal
health including maintaining strong liquidity ratios (i.e., most agencies covered in this MSR),
reducing debt obligation, maintaining a positive net position, implementing successful local
revenue measures, and preparing timely financial planning reports. Some examples are presented
below.
• Cities of Clayton and Pleasant Hill, as well as Crockett, Diablo and Discovery Bay CSDs
report having no outstanding debt obligations
• Cities/towns of Danville, Lafayette, and Orinda, as well as Diablo and Discovery Bay CSDs
have no unfunded pension liabilities
• Many cities have minimal or no OPEB unfunded liabilities
• Most of the subject cities and CSDs regularly update their capital improvement programs to
plan for funding future improvements
• All the subject cities and CSDs prepare annual financial reports reviewed by independent
auditors and issue Certified Annual Financial Reports; and with a few exceptions, these
reports area prepared in a timely manner
While cities and CSDs can take steps to stabilize and improve financial conditions, over the longer-
term, state legislation is needed to address many of the issues, such as changes to the pension
system, state funding of infrastructure, and unfunded state mandates.
1.3.5 SHARED SERVICES
Probably all jurisdictions participate in some shared services, either directly through a contract with
another jurisdiction, participation in a joint powers agreement such as for solid waste management
(e.g., Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority) or in a voter approved entity including the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Shared services are valuable. Examples of shared services
are shown below and are discussed further in the individual agency profiles
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 1-17
Chapter 1
• Many cities have shared agreements with Contra Costa County for library facilities and
services.
• The City of San Pablo’s shared Police Dispatch and Records Management System is a
shared joint function with the cities of Pinole and Hercules; and the City of San Pablo has
joint use arrangements with the West Contra Costa Unified School District.
• The San Ramon Police Department (PD) participates in the Central County SWAT Team
with Martinez, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, and Bay Area Rapid Transit Police to safely
resolve critical incidents. The San Ramon PD also uses a joint-use 911 Communications
Center for all emergency and non-emergency calls for service. The City of San Ramon
shares capital facilities with San Ramon Unified School District for school parks, the aquatic
center, and the Dougherty Valley Performing Arts Center. Additionally, the two San Ramon
libraries are shared with the County library system.
• The City of Walnut Creek owns several facilities which are leased by other agencies (i.e.,
Lindsay Wildlife Experience, Gardens at Heather Farm, UC Master Gardeners, Walnut
Creek Historical Society, Assistance League of Diablo Valley, Walnut Creek Model Railroad
Society, Walnut Creek Downtown, Walnut Creek Library). Walnut Creek also provides
street sweeping services to Lafayette under a contract.
• The Discovery Bay CSD leases an old fire house station from East Contra Costa Fire
Protection District for landscaping services (i.e., crew and equipment).
1.3.6 INFILL DEVELOPMENT/SPRAWL PREVENTION/ISLANDS
Pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, LAFCO is charged
with encouraging efficient development of existing vacant lands and infill properties within an
agency’s boundary. This MSR reviews the sprawl prevention and infill development efforts of each
city.
There are a number of regional efforts that help guide orderly, efficient patterns of urban
development, prevent urban sprawl, and help preserve agricultural and open space lands. Such
plans and policies include the ABAG/MTC Plan Bay Area, the Regional Housing Need Plan, voter
approved ULLs/UGBs, regional transportation plans, and habitat conservation plans, as well as local
agency and LAFCO plans and policies.
As part of the Plan Bay Area process, many cities have identified PDAs. The PDAs are intended to
encourage the growth of jobs and production of housing in areas supported by amenities and
infrastructure. Many Contra Costa cities are growing via infill development and do not anticipate
that current or projected growth patterns will require expansion beyond their existing municipal
boundaries or SOIs. As shown in this MSR Update, a majority of cities have identified undeveloped
entitled residential acres in considering their anticipated future growth patterns, as well as a
number of commercial and residential projects in the entitlement process. Plan Bay Area
concentrates most growth in PDAs, all of which lie within existing urbanized areas.
Contra Costa LAFCO
1-18 Municipal Service Review Update
Introduction and Municipal Service Review Summary
Each jurisdiction is assigned a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) that covers an eight-year
period. Each jurisdiction must zone land in a manner suitable for the number and types of housing
required by its RHNA to receive state approval of its housing element.5 All Contra Costa
jurisdictions have done so.
Two additional regional policies discourage sprawl outside of existing urban boundaries and SOIs.
First, Contra Costa voters approved an ULL that imposes financial penalties for the County and
cities that approve development outside the ULL except in unusual circumstances. The County and
16 cities have adopted the countywide ULL. The cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon have
their own voter approved UGBs. And while special districts and LAFCO are not bound by the ULL
and UGBs, these agencies respect the growth boundaries.
Second, in 2016, Contra Costa LAFCO approved an AOSPP that promotes LAFCO’s mission of
supporting logical and orderly development and preserving agricultural and open space lands.
LAFCO’s policy provides goals, policies, and guidelines for stakeholders, applicants, and LAFCO
Commissioners relating to LAFCO applications. LAFCO’s AOSPP was developed to guide LAFCO’s
decisions regarding agricultural and open space lands in Contra Costa County, as well as to clarify
LAFCO’s expectations in reviewing applications that include agricultural and open space lands.
Contra Costa County has adopted policies intended to strengthen the agricultural sector of the
economy which will make agricultural land less attractive for conversion. Also, some cities have
developed policies relating to agriculture and open space preservation (see Attachment A).
Regarding islands, in 2012, Contra Costa LAFCO held a workshop on unincorporated islands in
Contra Costa County; and subsequently developed a policy to discourage the creation of islands
and encourage annexation of small islands. Islands create illogical boundaries and service
challenges for residents and local agencies.
There are currently 16 small “city” islands in Contra Costa County that can be annexed through an
expedited LAFCO process. These islands are located throughout the County and within the SOIs of
the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Oakley, Pleasant Hill, San Pablo, San Ramon,
and Walnut Creek. Several of these islands are disadvantaged communities which could benefit
from annexation to a city (Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3). LAFCO encourages annexation of these small
islands.
5 ABAG, Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 1-19
Unincorporated "Islands" under 300 Acres in Contra Costa County
}þ
29
§¨¦
§¨¦ 680
780 }þ
160
§¨¦
80
Pittsburg
R:73
Hercules
S:108
P:195 93%
Pinole Martinez D 8 : 9 5 % 1 }þ 242 Q:78 Antioch Oakley
San A:132 Concord 85%
Pablo C:5 E:37 M:189 U:151
B:97 T:140
98%
Pleasant
Richmond Hill N:58 Clayton Brentwood
I:10 71% }þ
4
§¨¦ El O:48
580 Cerrito F:55 Walnut 61%
96% Creek
G:190
Orinda }þ K:276
24 H:104 J:54
Lafayette 94%
§¨¦
80
}þ
80
§¨¦ }þ
980 §¨¦ 13
580
¯
MapCreated01/23/2012
byContraCostaCountyDepartmentofConservationandDevelopment,GISGroup Unincorporated"Islands"under150Ac
651PineStreet,4thFloorNorthWing,Martinez,CA94553-0095
37:59:48.455N122:06:35.384W
This D m e a v p elo w p a m s e c n re t a w te ith d d b a y t t a he fro C m on th tr e a C C o o n s t t r a a C C o o u s n ta ty C D o e u p n a ty rtm G e IS nt P o r f o C gr o a n m se . r S va o t m io e nand Unincorporated"Islands"under300Ac L:0.13 San
basedata,primarilyCityLimits,isderivedfromtheCAStateBoardofEqualization's
its ta a x cc ra u t r e ac a y re . a T s h . is W m h a ile p o co b n lig ta a i t n e s d c t o o p u y s ri e gh th te is d d in a f t o a r t m he at C io o n u a n n ty d a m s a s y um no e t s b n e o a r l e te s r p e o d n . si I b t i m lit a y y fo b r e NonCityLimitportionof"Island" Ramon Miles
reproducedinitscurrentstateifthesourceiscited.Usersofthismapagreetoreadand (%SurroundedbyCity)
accepttheCountyofContraCostadisclaimerofliabilityforgeographicinformation.
0 2 4
Figure 1.2. Unincorporated Islands under 300 Acres in Contra Costa County
June 2019
Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Determination
American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2013 - 2017)
Pittsburg
Pinole Hercules Martinez
Richmond
Oakley
Antioch
San Concord
Pablo
Pleasant
Richmond Hill
Richmond Clayton Brentwood
El Walnut
Cerrito Creek
Lafayette
Orinda
Moraga
Danville
San
Ramon
Legend
Disadvantaged Cities or Census Designated Places (CDPs)
2013-2017 DAC/DUC Comunities
µ
Disadvantaged Community includes Census Tracts, Block Groups,
and Places where the median household income is less than 80%
0 2.25 4.5 9
of the statewide median household income Miles
Figure 1.3. Location of Disadvantaged Communities in Contra Costa County
June 2019
Chapter 1
1.4 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS
Government Code section 56425(e) requires LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determinations as part of the review of the existing SOI for each local agency. The SOI
determinations in this MSR Update are summarized below.
Present and Planned Land Uses (including agricultural and open space lands) – The cities and
CSDs reviewed in this MSR Update plan for a variety of land uses within their boundaries,
representing a continuation of the current mix of uses, including industrial, office, commercial,
residential, transit oriented development, retail, agricultural, and open space. Present and planned
land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth, as demonstrated in the local
agency General Plans.
Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services – There are no anticipated changes in
the type of public services and facilities required within the SOIs for the cities and CSDs reviewed
in this MSR Update. The level of demand for these facilities and services, however, will increase
commensurate with anticipated population and job growth over the next five years.
Present and Probable Future Capacity of Public Facilities and Services – The present capacity of
public facilities in the cities and CSDs reviewed in this MSR Update appears adequate. The cities
and CSDs reviewed in this MSR Update anticipate they will continue to have adequate capacity
during the next five years.
Existence of any Social or Economic Communities of Interest – In general, communities of interest
within the municipal boundaries of the cities and CSDs covered in this MSR Update are included
within their SOIs. As part of this review, Contra Costa LAFCO has identified specific social or
economic communities of interest relevant to the cities/towns of Danville, Lafayette, Pleasant Hill,
San Pablo, and Walnut Creek.
There are several communities located in the East Danville and Camino Tassajara areas that are
within Danville’s SOI and are communities of interest. There has been some growth and
development in and around these areas. Also, there has been interest by some of the residents in
these areas for enhanced police services and annexation to the Town of Danville. This report
recommends that the Town consider annexing these areas.
In the past several years, there has been interest by neighborhood groups in the Newell Avenue/
Olympic Blvd and Reliez Valley areas to annex to the City of Lafayette. City officials have discussed
potential annexation with these neighborhoods indicating that due to deficient infrastructure (e.g.,
roads, drainage); a special tax would be needed to support City services in these areas. Discussions
continue with the interested parties.
Contra Costa LAFCO has identified three islands within the City of Pleasant Hill’s SOI that
potentially represent communities of interest that the City should consider annexing.
Contra Costa LAFCO
1-22 Municipal Service Review Update
Introduction and Municipal Service Review Summary
The Rollingwood community is a community of interest and is a small island which can be
annexed via an expedited process. LAFCO encourages the City of San Pablo to consider annexing
the Rollingwood island.
There are several communities of interest within the City of Walnut Creek’s SOI but not within the
municipal boundary. Residents in these areas have Walnut Creek addresses, travel City streets,
attend City schools, and are surrounded by the City of Walnut Creek. This report recommends that
the City consider annexing these island and pocket areas.
Present and Probable Need for Sewer, Municipal and Industrial Water, or Structural Fire Protection
Public Facilities and Services of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within the
Existing SOI – There are disadvantaged communities within the boundary, SOI, or contiguous to
the SOI of the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Concord, El Cerrito, Martinez, Oakley, Pinole,
Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, and Walnut Creek (see Figure 1.2).
Bethel Island in its entirety is a disadvantaged unincorporated community. Most of Bethel Island
does not have access to municipal water service.
1.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
following cities and CSDs reviewed in this MSR Update:
• City of Antioch • City of Pinole
• City of Brentwood • City of Pittsburg
• City of Clayton • City of Pleasant Hill
• City of Concord • City of Richmond
• Town of Danville • City of San Pablo
• City of El Cerrito • City of San Ramon
• City of Hercules • City of Walnut Creek
• City of Lafayette • Crockett CSD
• City of Martinez • Diablo CSD
• Town of Moraga • Town of Discovery Bay CSD
• City of Oakley • Kensington Police Protection and
• City of Orinda CSD
This report also recommends that any future SOI changes for the City of El Cerrito not be
considered until such time as another review is conducted to examine the City’s financial ability to
provide services; and that any future SOI changes not be considered for the City of Concord, Town
of Moraga, and City of Richmond until such time as a more complete review has been conducted
to examine their capacity, adequacy, and financial ability to provide services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 1-23
Chapter 1
1.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Since the prior MSRs were last conducted for cities, towns, and CSDs, these jurisdictions have
continued to provide service, have worked to address concerns raised in the prior MSRs, and
several have secured new funding sources to address community needs. All jurisdictions have
shown operational, financial, governance, and operational abilities to continue to provide services
and to support reasonable growth within the next five years. This MSR recommends that the SOIs
for all the studied jurisdictions remain unchanged at this time.
Many communities that were seriously affected by the Great Recession and its effects on residents
and real estate values have now largely or fully recovered. There are potentially serious financial
challenges, largely caused or exacerbated by pension obligations for those communities that offer
defined-benefit retirement programs. Many jurisdictions are addressing this growing concern.
Compared to their peers in other Bay Area counties, jurisdictions in Contra Costa have a
jobs/housing imbalance, namely too few jobs for the number of residents and housing units. This
results in severe impacts on the transportation network and longer commutes that cause more
pollution, greater commuting expenses, and excessive time away from families and communities.
The region should rely on existing planning programs to address this concern and Contra Costa
jurisdictions can advocate for a change in the policies that led to the current situation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This MSR Update would not be possible without the substantial information and time
investment provided by the 19 cities and 4 CSDs included in this report. We express our
appreciation to the leadership of these agencies, including city managers, finance directors,
public works directors, and community development directors, as well as to the staffs of the
23 agencies, whose contributions to the data gathering efforts were invaluable.
We also extend our thanks to Contra Costa LAFCO Executive Officer Lou Ann Texeira, who
provided project direction and review; Richard Berkson of Berkson Associates, who
provided the fiscal review and analysis for each agency; Don Tatzin, who provided
assistance in writing the Executive Summary; and the County demographics/GIS staff, who
prepared the maps and select demographic information for this MSR Update.
Contra Costa LAFCO
1-24 Municipal Service Review Update
C 2
HAPTER
C A
ITY OF NTIOCH
2.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Antioch, incorporated in 1872, covers an area of approximately 28 square miles. With
an estimated population of 113,061, the City has a population density of approximately 4,037
persons per square mile.1
The City of Antioch lies in eastern Contra Costa County between the cities of Brentwood and
Oakley on the east and Pittsburg on the west. County lands bound the City to the south. The Sphere
of Influence (SOI) for the City of Antioch is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with
the exception of extensions to the north (San Joaquin River and County boundary) and to the south,
as shown in Figure 2.1. The City has its own voter-approved Urban Limit Line which surrounds the
entire City.
Land uses in the City include a mix of industrial, residential, office, commercial, transit oriented
development, retail, mixed use, agricultural, and open space. Agricultural uses include hayfields,
vineyards, almond orchards, and walnut orchards.
2.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Antioch is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The publicly elected City Council consists of five members, including the directly elected Mayor;
members serve staggered four-year terms.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 2-1
Figure 2.1. City of Antioch Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Antioch
2.1.2 STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 269.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 2.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 2.1
CITY OF ANTIOCH
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police 128.0
Public Works 83.0
Finance and Administrative Services 21.0
Community Development 15.0
Source: City of Antioch
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police service function had the highest staffing
level in the City of Antioch, with 128.0 FTE employees.
2.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Antioch is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in Table
2.2.
TABLE 2.2
CITY OF ANTIOCH
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
Antioch Public Finance Authority Bond financing
Contra Costa Delta Highway Joint Powers Financing Transportation
Authority
Contra Costa Water District Treated water
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Congestion management
Delta Diablo Sanitation District Recycled water program
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 2-3
Chapter 2
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
East/Central County Wastewater Management —
Authority
East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Finance Transportation mitigation fee program
Authority
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (TriDelta) Transportation
State Route 4 Bypass Authority Transportation
Source: City of Antioch
2.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Since the first round Municipal Service Review (MSR), the City of Antioch has received the
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance
Officers Association for FYs 2013 through 2017.
2.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 2.3, municipal services for the City of Antioch are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
TABLE 2.3
CITY OF ANTIOCH
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control City of Antioch
Broadband AT&T, Comcast, River Delta Wireless, Winters Broadband
Building / Planning City of Antioch
Law Enforcement City of Antioch
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Antioch
Parks and Recreation City of Antioch
Solid Waste Allied Waste
Stormwater City of Antioch
Streets City of Antioch
Contra Costa LAFCO
2-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Antioch
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice n/a
Source: City of Antioch
The City of Antioch reports the following opportunities and challenges related to its provision of
municipal services.
Opportunities
• Brackish water desalination plant, anticipated to deliver up to 6 million gallons a day of
high quality, reliable, and sustainable water to the City
Challenges
• Creation of quality jobs
• Unfunded state mandates (e.g., affordable housing, clean water, greenhouse gas emissions)
• Funding future pension costs and the uncertainty of the projected rate of return for
California Public Employees Retirement System investments
• Staffing shortfalls and ongoing retirements in areas related to development and capital
improvements
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
2.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
The City of Antioch provides animal control services through the Antioch Animal Services Center.
The Antioch Animal Services Center is responsible for the enforcement of Local and State Laws
relating to the care, control, and protection of animals and Antioch citizens. Officers’
responsibilities include picking up and confining stray, sick, injured, vicious, and dead animals;
issuance of dog licenses; patrolling the City streets; control of animal nuisance problems and
animal euthanasia. The Animal Shelter also provides adoption, volunteer, and education programs.
City expenditures for animal control services vary year to year, at $865,468 in FY 2017, up from
$818,707 in FY 2016 and down from $867,451 in FY 2015.
For 2017, 43.5 dog licenses were issued per 1,000 population. The number of animals handled by
the City of Antioch in 2017 was 3,632 and 1,587 calls for service were received, reflecting a
downward trend from 3,058 in FY 2015.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 2-5
Chapter 2
2.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Antioch does not provide public broadband service. Although broadband service
includes Winters Broadband and River Delta Wireless, XFINITY from Comcast and AT&T Internet
are the two main internet providers in the City.2 These providers use a variety of wired technologies
including cable and DSL. The City of Antioch did not indicate concerns about the availability or
reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds to be the
standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Antioch received a grade of C-, which indicates that internet service providers did
not meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one
provider advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.3
The City of Antioch did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve the
City’s existing or growing population.
2.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Antioch Community Development Department provides building and planning
services. Department expenditures vary year to year, at $1.4 million in FY 2017, up from $1.3
million in FY 2016 and down from $1.7 million in FY 2015.
The City of Antioch issued 2,424 residential and 184 commercial building permits in 2017. Total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at $113,436,750.
Projects under construction in FY 2017 included multiple commercial and residential solar
installations, a preschool and daycare center, several commercial remodels, and a charter
elementary school. The City’s Project Development Pipeline can be viewed at
https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/community-development/planning/Project-Pipeline.pdf.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan and the Strategic Plan.
2.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Antioch Police Department provides law enforcement and dispatch services. FY 2017
expenditures were approximately $36.3 million, reflecting an upward trend from approximately
$31.6 million in FY 2015.
2 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures. Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
3 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
2-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Antioch
The City of Antioch has 0.9 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, which represents a slight
decrease from 0.93 FTE in 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per
1,000 population.4 There were 43.16 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime clearance
rate (a measure of crimes solved) was 11% in 2017, and the violent crime clearance rate was 45%.5
2.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Antioch at its Antioch Branch Library
location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48
per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.6 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditures and staffing per capita are nearly double the
County’s.
2.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of Antioch Department of Public
Works. City expenditures for light and signal maintenance were approximately $782,319 in FY
2017, up from $729,368 in FY 2015. The City maintains 87 signalized intersections, 3,132 traffic
lights, and 5,441 street lights.
2.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Antioch Department of Public Works is the service provider for parks and recreation
facilities, as well as landscaped medians and public planter beds, and the Recreation Department is
the service provider for recreation programs. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were approximately
$4 million in FY 2017, reflecting an upward trend from approximately $3.7 million in FY 2015.
4 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
5 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
6 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 2-7
Chapter 2
The City provides an extensive range of recreational activities and events for all ages, along with
sports leagues, aquatics, marina activities, spring break camps and various special events.
The City provides and maintains 2.9 park acres per 1,000 residents, 0.895 recreation center per
20,000 residents, and 24.9 miles of recreation trails.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
2.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Antioch via franchise agreement with Republic
Services. The City of Antioch FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services were $195,795, down
slightly from $196,683 in FY 2015.
The City reported approximately 63,482 tons of waste disposed per capita for 2017. The 2017 per
resident disposal rate was 3.1 pounds/resident/day.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
2.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Antioch Department of Public Works provides and maintains the City’s stormwater
drainage system. The City reports that they have 225.89 miles of closed storm drain lines and that
1.28% of their 7,422 storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of Antioch also
reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards. Stormwater
expenditures were $923,645 in FY 2017, down from $943,615 in FY 2015.
2.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Antioch Department of Public Works provides and maintains 316.58 street miles as
well as landscaped medians and other public landscaping. The lane miles of the City’s Class 1 and
2 bike lanes were unavailable at the time of this MSR update. FY 2017 expenditures for streets were
approximately $4,896,374.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
Contra Costa LAFCO
2-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Antioch
The PCI for streets in the City of Antioch was 68 (fair) in 2017, up from 66 in 2015, but remains
below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.7 Pavement at the low end of the 60-69 (fair)
range is significantly distressed and may require a combination of rehabilitation and preventive
maintenance. The City’s own 2017 Pavement Management System Report indicates a PCI of 71.
2.2.11 UTILITIES
Pacific Gas & Electric provides gas and electricity service to the City of Antioch. The City is not a
member of a Community Choice Aggregation program.
The City of Antioch did not report whether it had concerns about the ability of utility service
providers to serve the City’s existing or growing population.
2.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City’s financial health and assesses the City of Antioch’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations derives from
audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
2.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City of Antioch.
The City of Antioch prepares a biennial budget. As summarized in the City's budget, Mid-Year
Budget Review,8 and described below, the City’s revenues do not cover its expenditures in FY
2018-19, and the City will use $2.2 million of reserves to balance the budget. Even with the use of
reserves, the City's unassigned reserves exceed the City's policy that reserves equal or exceed a
minimum 20% of revenues. Table 2.4 summarizes prior year changes in General Fund
expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year (see
Attachment C).
The City's budget forecast anticipates "unsustainable structural deficits"9 beginning in FY 202018-
19. The anticipated deficits would have been compounded by the sunset of Measure C in 202110;
however, Measure C was replaced by Measure W, a once-cent sales tax approved by voters in
7 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
8 Staff Report to the City Council, Mid-Year Budget Review, March 13, 2018, pg. 13.
9 City of Antioch 2017-19 Operating Budget, pg. ii.
10 A one-half-cent local sales tax measure adopted in 2013 that generates about $6.9 million annually
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 2-9
Chapter 2
November 2018. Anticipated increases in unfunded pension liabilities and required payments will
worsen the City's fiscal position.11
The City of Antioch increased its General Fund reserve policy from 10% to 20% of revenues for FY
2018 and subsequent years; the City has consistently exceeded 35% of annual General Fund
expenditures over the past several years, even with the use of reserves in FY 2019 to cover
shortfalls (see Attachment C). The City also retains reserves for replacement, mandated liabilities,
and litigation/insurance. The City Council established a budget stabilization fund in March of 2018
during its mid-year budget review to aid in future planning and with the large projected California
Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) increases.
TABLE 2.4
CITY OF ANTIOCH
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $15,099,000 $16,363,000 $18,196,000
Sales Tax 17,595,000 19,973,000 19,395,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) 17,910,000 20,810,000 15,263,000
Total General Fund Revenues $50,604,000 $57,146,000 $52,854,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 12.9% -7.5%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $5,198,000 $7,749,000 $928,000
Administration 1
Public Safety 30,312,000 33,597,000 35,460,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) 12,503,000 13,008,000 12,136,000
Total Expenditures $48,013,000 $54,354,000 $48,524,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 13.2% -10.7%
Expenditures per capita $429 $479 $432
11 The City reports that it is preparing the next biennial budget for the 2019-21 fiscal years. Based on
preliminary revised 2018-19 projections, including the implementation of Measure W, FY 2018-19 will
no longer be using reserves to balance the budget.
Contra Costa LAFCO
2-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Antioch
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
LIQUIDITY RATIO 2
Governmental Activities 3.7 5.4 7.4
Business-type Activities 17.5 18.7 22.9
Source: Attachment C
1 FY 2017 CAFR shows cost allocations as reductions in charges to servicing department a change from prior year CAFRs.
2 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
2.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
Liquidity ratios for City of Antioch government and enterprise activities exceed 1.0 by a significant
margin, indicating adequate liquidity.12 The City's total debt has been declining over time. Total
debt was approximately $105 per capita in FY 2017,13 indicating significant reductions compared
to the $493 per capita reported for FY 2015 (see Attachment C).
2.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
Enterprise revenues have generally grown and positive net positions have increased overall, with
the exception of the marina (see Attachment C). The total positive net position of governmental
funds increased slightly between FY 2015 and FY 2017, and the negative unrestricted portion
improved. The negative unrestricted amount is largely due to net pension liabilities.
2.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
Measure C, the voter-approved one-half-cent local sales tax, generated approximately $6.9 million
(13% of the City's total revenues) and is projected to grow about 3% to FY 2019. The measure
expires in April, 2021. The funds help pay for increases in police and code enforcement services.
Measure W, a one-cent sales tax measure approved by voters in November 2018 will replace the
current one-half-cent Measure C sales tax for general purposes. The Antioch City Council will
decide how to begin allocating Measure W funding during the budget cycle in early 2019.
12 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
13 Attachment C.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 2-11
Chapter 2
2.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The City of Antioch's enterprise operations include water, sewer, marina, and waterpark. The City
also owns a golf course which is operated by a separate corporation which has been unable to
make lease payments sufficient to pay outstanding debt service on golf course improvements.
The City indicates that its General Fund subsidizes the Prewett Water Park Enterprise consistent
with adopted policy to invest in community programming.
2.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the city may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City's unfunded pension and other post-employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities continue to grow
significantly, doubling since 2013 to a combined $159.9 million as of June 30, 2017.14 The City of
Antioch is current on amortization payments of unfunded liabilities and the City has a policy that a
minimum of 50% of one-time revenues will be applied to unfunded liabilities.
The City previously considered establishing a Section 115 Trust restricted to pension and OPEB
funding; however, the City Council rejected the plan. The City Council has approved a budget
stabilization fund which will be used for various purposes as needed.15
2.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The net value of the City capital assets has generally been declining over time (see Attachment C).
This decline suggests that increased funding may be needed to keep pace with the depreciation of
the assets. The City notes that it is "unable to facilitate ongoing funding and significant investment
in roadway maintenance and preservation."16 In response, the City's developed several strategies
including updating its Pavement Management System every two years, and exploring new
technologies and revenue streams to address funding shortfalls. The City of Antioch plans to
consider a new fee study prior to expiration of current rates in 2019 to assure adequate connection
fees. The City also requires developers to construct expansion of utility distribution and collection
systems that serve the new development.
2.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
14 Staff Report to the City Council, Mid-Year Budget Review, March 13, 2018, pg. 5.
15 Staff Report to the City Council, Mid-Year Budget Review, March 13, 2018, pg. 6.
16 City of Antioch response to MSR fiscal questions.
Contra Costa LAFCO
2-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Antioch
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City of Antioch prepares long-term budget forecasts which identified the need for additional
revenues and/or cost reductions to address growing pension costs and the possible loss of Measure
C revenues.
The City is seeking measures to address its structural deficit, including minimizing General Fund
subsidies of its golf course and water park. City policies strive to set-aside a portion of one-time
revenues and surpluses into reserves. The City continues its downtown revitalization efforts
including a new restaurant and residential development.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's
website.
2.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Antioch.
2.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Antioch serves
113,061 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Antioch are depicted in Figure 2.2.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 2-13
City of Antioch
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 2.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Antioch
June 2019
City of Antioch
ABAG projects that the City of Antioch will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.8% to a
population of 130,725 between 2010 and 2040.17 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.81% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s
planning is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data18 for 2010, the City of Antioch has 43,865 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data19 for 2010 estimated 20,115 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.42 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of Antioch has 34,849 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.58.
The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied
housing units (Table 2.5), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
TABLE 2.5
CITY OF ANTIOCH
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 20,751
Renter-occupied housing units 11,501
Vacant housing units 2,597
Total existing housing units 34,849
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very Low 349
Low 205
Moderate 214
Above Moderate 680
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 1,448
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census; Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.20 The City of Antioch was assigned a RHNA of 1,448 units, as shown in Table 2.6.
17 ABAG. Projections 2017.
18 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
19 ABAG. Projections 2017.
20 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 2-15
Chapter 2
The City adopted its General Plan in 2003 and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield over 2,448 units, which are
appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and exceed
its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Antioch 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found
by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State Housing
Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all
economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.21
The City of Antioch provides a variety of programs and services in the areas of health, education,
and recreation to meet the needs of adults age 50 and older, as shown in Table 2.6.
TABLE 2.6
CITY OF ANTIOCH
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR AN AGING POPULATION
PROGRAM SERVICE
City of Antioch Operates Antioch Senior Center, provides activities,
program, and outreach services, including lunch
(funded by the County), bus rides, health insurance
counseling and advisory program, Alzheimer’s
support group, care manager/notary service, free
legal assistance, free will service, and peer
counseling.
Meals on Wheels Provides nutritious meals to homebound elderly
individuals
The Bedford Center Provides adult day health care
Senior Outreach Services Antioch Senior Center
Source: City of Antioch
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City of Antioch reported approximately 625 undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY 2017.
The City reports approximately 2,300 dwelling units and 658,500 square feet of commercial and
light industrial as either approved or in the approval process.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. Two PDAs have been identified
by the City of Antioch and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.22 The Hillcrest eBART Station and
21 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
2-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Antioch
Rivertown Waterfront PDAs are anticipated to accommodate approximately 49% of the projected
growth in households and 13% of the projected growth in employment.23 The Hillcrest eBART
Station PDA is characterized as a Suburban Center and the Rivertown Waterfront PDA is
characterized as a Transit Town Center.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Antioch has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas, nor are any included in Plan Bay Area
2040.24
The City of Antioch does not anticipate that current or projected growth patterns will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
2.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Antioch’s SOI is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the exception
of an extension to the north (San Joaquin River and County boundary) and to the south (see Figure
2.1).
There are three unincorporated islands in the City of Antioch—one near James Donlon Boulevard
former landfill), one near L Street (fairgrounds), and one near the Antioch bridge (marina area)—as
shown in Figure 2.1. The City does not provide services to the Contra Costa County Fairgrounds or
the closed County dump site that comprise these islands. In 2016, Contra Costa LAFCO approved
annexation of the third island (marina) to the City; however, the voters rejected it.
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within the City’s SOI.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
22 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
23 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
24 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 2-17
Chapter 2
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
2.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Antioch reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and
anticipates it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
The disadvantaged communities within the City’s SOI receive sewer, water, and fire protection
services.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
As noted earlier, the PCI for City streets is 67, which is below the target of 75 MTC has established.
While the City actively seeks roadway funding through grants, they have been unable to facilitate
ongoing funding and significant investment in roadway maintenance and preservation.
The City developed a Pavement Report (2017) to assess the condition of its arterial, collector, and
residential roadways and has identified strategies to address the 35.5% of roadways that are not
within the good to very good/excellent range. These strategies include ensuring that the City’s
pavement management system is updated and inspected every two years; ensuring that all
maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement treatments are updated in the pavement management
system, exploring the use of emergent pavement technologies, and continuing to explore new
revenue streams for pavement projects.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City does not
anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities. The City does not have a formal plan.
Contra Costa LAFCO
2-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Antioch
The City of Antioch reports that its capital assets funding is not sufficient to maintain roadway
infrastructure consistent with projected needs. The City continues to seek additional funding to
facilitate their investment in roadway maintenance and preservation.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to animal control,
building/planning, law enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. 25
Services related to broadband, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with
Contra Costa County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The City does not share facilities or services. No areas of overlapping responsibilities or
opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
25 Although not covered in this MSR, the City also provides sewer and water service.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 2-19
Chapter 2
2.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The City of Antioch expects General Fund deficits in the foreseeable future, which may affect its
ability to provide services. As with other cities in Contra Costa County, rising pension costs are
expected to continue to reduce funding for other priorities.
With the passage of Measure W and continued use of its unassigned reserves to cover shortfalls—as
well as reserves for replacement, mandated liabilities, and litigation/insurance—the City of Antioch
appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing services and to accommodate
infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Antioch anticipates moving from a surplus to a deficit in their general fund beginning in
FY 18-19. For FY 2018-19, the City will use $2.2 million of reserves to balance the budget.
The City Council has established a budget stabilization fund to aid in future planning and help
address projected CalPERS increases.
The City has consistently exceeded their 35% reserve goal, allowing them to maintain an
acceptable level of service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 7.4, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt has been declining and was approximately $105 per capita for FY 2017.
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow significantly; however, the City
is current on amortization payments of unfunded liabilities. The City is considering funding options
for the increasing pension liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The City issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered timely.
The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
Overall, the CAFRs are clearly presented; however, the City could incorporate changes to improve
the transparency of its financials. For example, the FY 2017 CAFR shows cost allocations as
reductions in charges to the servicing department, which can appear as very low costs in the
Contra Costa LAFCO
2-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Antioch
servicing department. Showing the total cost of service and cost allocation separately would
improve the presentation and comparability of results. Certain tables in the CAFR extend over
multiple pages; however, the left-most column does not carry over to multiple pages, affecting the
readability of the tables.
2.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Antioch website provides access to the agendas and minutes for the City Council and its
various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. The City therefore
adequately provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Antioch website provides access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Antioch website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with
regard to citizen participation.
2.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
2.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Antioch is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the
exception of an extension to the north (San Joaquin River and County boundary) and to the south,
as shown in Figure 2.1. The City of Antioch is bounded by the cities of Brentwood and Oakley on
the east and Pittsburg on the west, with County lands to the south.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Antioch.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 2-21
Chapter 2
2.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Antioch MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Antioch plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including industrial, residential, office, commercial, transit
oriented development, retail, mixed use, agricultural, and open space. Present and planned land
uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth, maintaining compatibility with
agricultural and open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan (2003).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Antioch. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Antioch appears adequate. The City of
Antioch anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the City of Antioch.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within the City’s SOI. These areas receive
sewer, water, and fire protection services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
2-22 Municipal Service Review Update
C 3
HAPTER
C B
ITY OF RENTWOOD
3.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Brentwood, incorporated in 1948, covers an area of approximately 14.8 square miles.
With an estimated population of 63,042, the City has a population density of approximately 4,202
persons per square mile.1
The City of Brentwood lies in eastern Contra Costa County adjacent to the cities of Antioch to the
northwest and Oakley to the north. County lands bound the City to the south, east, and west. The
Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of Brentwood includes the municipal boundary and extends
to the north near Oakley, as well as east and west along the southern municipal boundary, as
shown in Figure 3.1. The Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line is coterminous with the City’s
municipal boundary.
Land uses in the City include a mix of industrial, residential, commercial, office, public facility,
agricultural, and park/open space.
3.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Brentwood is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of
government. The publicly elected City Council consists of five members, including the directly
elected Mayor; members serve four-year terms.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 3-1
Figure 3.1. City of Brentwood Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Brentwood
3.1.2 STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 280 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. Table
3.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 3.1
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Law Enforcement 95.0
Water Operations 24.2
Solid Waste 24.52
Parks/Recreation/Landscaping 21.5
Source: City of Brentwood
Similar to many other cities in Contra Costa County, the law enforcement function had the highest
staffing level in the City of Brentwood, with 95.0 FTE employees.
3.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Brentwood is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 3.2.
TABLE 3.2
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Finance —
Authority
State Route 4 Bypass Authority —
Source: City of Brentwood
3.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 3.3 lists the awards the City of Brentwood has reported receiving since the first round
Municipal Service Review (MSR).
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 3-3
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.3
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Excellence in Capital Budgeting California Society of Municipal Finance Officers 2017,
annually
Excellence in Financial Reporting Government Finance Officers Association 2017,
annually
Distinguished Budget Government Finance Officers Association 2016,
biannually
Excellence in Operating Budgeting California Society of Municipal Finance Officers 2016,
biannually
Source: City of Brentwood
3.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 3.4, municipal services for the City of Brentwood are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
TABLE 3.4
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast, Sonic.net
Building / Planning City of Brentwood
Law Enforcement City of Brentwood
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Brentwood
Parks and Recreation City of Brentwood
Solid Waste City of Brentwood
Stormwater City of Brentwood
Streets City of Brentwood
Contra Costa LAFCO
3-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Brentwood
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice n/a
Source: City of Brentwood
The City of Brentwood reports the following challenges related to its provision of municipal
services:
• Addressing unincorporated islands
• Possible expansion of Urban Limit Line (or SOI) for future growth area identified as SPA 1
and SPA 2
• Regulatory compliance (e.g., wastewater, SB 1383 and 606, AB 1668)
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
3.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) provides animal control services for the City of
Brentwood and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were $324,269 for FY 2017.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
3.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Brentwood does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast, AT&T
Internet, and Sonic.net are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a variety of
wired technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Brentwood did not indicate concerns
about the availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps
upload speeds to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 3-5
Chapter 3
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Brentwood received a grade of C, which indicates that internet service providers
meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one provider
advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of Brentwood did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
3.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Brentwood Community Development Department provides building and planning
services. Department expenditures for FY 2017 were approximately $3.5 million. Major FY 2017
residential projects include Barcelona, Silvergate, and Cowell Ranch; major commercial projects
include Tractor Supply and Sprouts.
The City of Brentwood issued 2,669 residential and 71 commercial building permits in 2017. Total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 was approximately $96.9 million.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan and the Strategic Plan.
3.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Brentwood Police Department provides law enforcement and dispatch services. FY
2017 expenditures were approximately $21.4 million.
The City of Brentwood has 1.0 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, which is up slightly
from 0.9 in 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000
population.5 There were 32.6 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime clearance rate (a
measure of crimes solved) was 16% in 2017, and the violent crime clearance rate was 69%.6
3.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Brentwood at its Brentwood
Community Center Library location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY
2017, up slightly from $24.48 per capita in FY 2013.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
Contra Costa LAFCO
3-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Brentwood
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditures and staffing per capita are nearly double the
County’s.
3.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of Brentwood Department of
Public Works. City expenditures for light and signal maintenance were $512,189 in FY 2017,
reflecting a downward trend from 554,681 in FY 2015. The City maintains 76 signalized
intersections, 71 traffic lights, and 6,693 street lights.
3.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Brentwood Parks and Recreation Department is the service provider for parks and
recreation facilities and services, as well as landscape services. FY 2017 expenditures for parks and
recreation were approximately $16.1 million in FY 2017, reflecting an upward trend from
approximately $14.1 million in FY 2015.
The City provides a range of recreational programs and activities, including senior services, health
and wellness, arts, aquatics, and more.
The City provides and maintains 4.23 park acres per 1,000 residents, 0.65 recreation center per
20,000 residents, and 19.52 miles of recreation trails.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 3-7
Chapter 3
3.2.8 SOLID WASTE
The City of Brentwood Department of Public Works provides solid waste services. The City of
Brentwood FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services were approximately $11.6 million,
reflecting an upward trend from $10.3 million in FY 2015.
The City reported approximately 1.57 tons of waste disposed per capita for FY 2017 and a total
diversion rate of 70%. The FY 2017 per resident disposal rate was 3.5 pounds/resident/day.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
3.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Brentwood Department of Public Works provides and maintains the City’s stormwater
drainage system, including catch basin and storm drain repairs, as well as street sweeping, to
implement National Pollution Discharge Elimination System requirements.
The City reports that they have 257.56 miles of closed storm drain lines and that 1.03% of their
2,000 storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of Brentwood also reports
compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards. FY 2017 expenditures
for stormwater were reported for storm drain inlets at $3,224, reflecting a downward trend from
$7,212 in 2015.
3.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Brentwood Department of Public Works provides and maintains 192 street miles, as
well as landscaped public areas. The Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles provided and maintained by the
City of Brentwood Department of Public Works were not reported or were unavailable at the time
of this MSR update. FY 2017 expenditures for streets were approximately $7.4 million.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the City of Brentwood was 83 (very good to excellent) in 2017, down from 85
in 2015, which remains above the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.8 Pavement in this
range (80-100) is newly reconstructed or resurfaced with few signs of distress.
8 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
Contra Costa LAFCO
3-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Brentwood
3.2.11 UTILITIES
Pacific Gas & Electric provides gas and electric service to the City of Brentwood. The City is not a
member of a Community Choice Aggregation program.
The City of Brentwood did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to
serve the City’s existing or growing population.
3.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Brentwood’s financial health and assesses the
City’s financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations
derives from audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current
budget documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
3.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City of Brentwood.
The City of Brentwood prepares a biennial budget. According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget, the
General Fund revenues of $59.3 million are slightly exceeded by General Fund expenditures of
$59.8 million.9 Table 3.5 summarizes prior year changes in General Fund expenditures and
revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year (see Attachment C). The
General Fund's ending fund balance in FY 2017 of $23.4 million represented a healthy 50% of
General Fund expenditures; unassigned General Fund balances of $15.7 million in FY 2017 exceed
30% levels established by the City, and the reserve is expected to be $16 million at the start of FY
2019.
In addition to its growing pension and other post-employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities, the City's
budget and long-term financial planning address a number of significant capital and operating
issues including funding of increased fire protection provided by East Contra Costa Fire Protection
District and related facilities. The City's financial forecast anticipates budget stabilizing transfers
from its Pension/OPEB Obligations Fund as needed in the future to address the impacts of
pension/OPEB cost growth.
9 2018/19-2019/20 Operating Budget, City of Brentwood, June 2018, pg. 7.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 3-9
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.5
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $9,949,000 $11,106,000 $12,239,000
Sales Tax $6,837,000 $7,319,000 $8,188,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $22,295,000 $23,832,000 $24,753,000
Total General Fund Revenues $39,081,000 $42,257,000 $45,180,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 8.1% 6.9%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $5,616,000 $5,968,000 $6,633,000
Administration
Public Safety $18,089,000 $19,246,000 $21,417,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) 15,215,000 16,006,000 18,138,000
Total Expenditures $38,920,000 $41,220,000 $46,188,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 5.9% 12.1%
Expenditures per capita $682 $698 $752
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 6.5 8.5 9.8
Business-type Activities 10.6 9.8 8.5
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
3.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
Liquidity ratios over the past several years indicate that cash and short-term investments have
exceeded current liabilities by a factor of 6 to 10.10 Debt secured by revenues exceeds minimum
standards. Total enterprise and government activity debt was $157.8 million at the end of FY 2017
or $2,570 per capita (see Attachment C).
10 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
3-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Brentwood
3.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
Past years show an overall positive change for combined enterprise net position (see Attachment C).
The total positive net position of governmental funds increased slightly between FY 2015 and FY
2017, and the positive unassigned portion improved.
3.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
The City has no voter-approved sales, but the General Fund does receive about 9% of its revenues
from Community Facilities District special taxes paid by new development.11 The City's enterprise
funds regularly conduct rate studies to assure that fees and charges adequately cover costs.
3.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The City's enterprise funds have experienced operating deficits in the past two years (water
enterprise) to three fiscal years (wastewater and solid waste; see Attachment C).
The City indicates that these shortfalls are being addressed by rate studies adopted by the City
Council in June 2018 that are "sufficient to cure the deficits and cover the necessary operating
expenses, debt service, capital improvement costs and the reserve requirements of the
Enterprises."12 State-mandated drought conservation measures contributed to reduced water and
wastewater operating revenues.
The City is budgeting for a $62 million wastewater treatment plant expansion to serve its buildout
population and to comply with water discharge requirements. The capital project will be funded by
a combination of low-interest State Water Resources Control Board loans repaid by development
impact fees, replacement fund reserves, and wastewater operating revenues.13
3.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the City may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City faces continuing challenges addressing its pension and OPEB liabilities, but has taken a
number of steps to reduce future rate increases, including a $12.6 million prepayment towards its
unfunded pension obligation, and switching from an OPEB pay-as-you-go plan to a pre-funding
plan, and setting aside funds into a Pension/OPEB Obligation Fund which currently has an $11
11 2018/19-2019/20 Operating Budget, City of Brentwood, June 2018, pg. 74.
12 City of Brentwood Response to MSR Fiscal Questions.
13 2018/19-2019/20 Operating Budget, City of Brentwood, June 2018, pg. 9.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 3-11
Chapter 3
million balance.14 The City revised its OPEB benefit levels through labor negotiations to reduce
future obligations to recent hires. Beginning in FY 2018, City policy requires annual contributions at
least equal to 85% of OPEB unfunded liability.
3.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The net value of the City governmental capital assets has been relatively flat, indicating the City's
capital spending has generally kept pace with asset depreciation; enterprise capital assets show
modest growth (see Attachment C). The City maintains a number of reserves for asset replacement
and is completing detailed asset studies for the water and wastewater enterprises along with a
Parks/Landscape Lighting Assessment District and Building asset study to assure adequate funds are
set aside. These funds have projected fund balances of over $50 million at June 30, 2018.
Construction of a new library is nearly complete, funded by Community Facilities District bond
proceeds and a private placement debt issuance. The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
includes plans for a new fire station in Brentwood that will be constructed using development
impact fees.15
3.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City of Brentwood considers all budgetary decisions in the context of long-term fiscal models.16
The City uses a 10-year fiscal model17 to forecast General Fund costs and revenues, and an
enterprise fiscal model for the Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Enterprise Funds to help the
City plan for future financial needs and seek funding sources.
The City adopted an Economic Development Master Plan to address the issue of job growth not
keeping pace with increases in housing, and to encourage growth in its property tax and sales tax.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the City's
website.
14 City of Brentwood Response to MSR Fiscal Questions.
15 ibid, FY 2018/19 Brentwood Budget, pg. 8.
16 ibid, FY 2018/19 Brentwood Budget, pg. 27.
17 See https://www.brentwoodca.gov/gov/finance/docs/models.asp
Contra Costa LAFCO
3-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Brentwood
3.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Brentwood.
3.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Brentwood serves
63,042 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Brentwood are depicted in Figure 3.2.
ABAG projects that the City of Brentwood will grow at an annual rate of approximately 1.6% to a
population of 84,460 between 2010 and 2040.18 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.1% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data19 for 2010, the City of Brentwood has 19,385 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data20 for 2010 estimated 11,625 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.6 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that the
City of Brentwood has 17,523 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.66.
18 ABAG. Projections 2017.
19 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
20 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 3-13
City of Brentwood
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 3.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Brentwood
June 2019
City of Brentwood
The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied
housing units (Table 3.6), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
TABLE 3.6
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 12,580
Renter-occupied housing units 3,914
Vacant housing units 1,029
Total existing housing units 17,523
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 234
Low 124
Moderate 123
Above Moderate 279
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 760
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census; Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.21 The City of Brentwood was assigned a RHNA of 760 units, as shown in Table 3.6.
The City adopted its General Plan in 2014 and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 8,097 units, which
are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and
exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Brentwood 2015–2023 Housing Element has
been found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with
State Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.22
21 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
22 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 3-15
Chapter 3
The programs and services provided by the City for adults age 50 and older include a variety of
classes, activities, and events hosted at the Brentwood Senior Activity Center.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City reported 310.5 undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY 2017. Projects identified as
part of the projected growth for the City (dwelling units and commercial space) that have been
approved or are in the approval process were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this
MSR update.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. No PDAs have been identified by
the City of Brentwood or included in Plan Bay Area 2040.23
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Brentwood has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas in Plan Bay Area or the City’s
General Plan.24
The City of Brentwood reports that current or projected growth patterns within areas identified in
the General Plan (SPA 1 – southwest Brentwood and SPA 2 – northeast Brentwood) will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
3.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Brentwood’s SOI includes the municipal boundary and extends to the north near
Oakley, as well as east and west along the southern municipal boundary (see Figure 3.1).
There are two unincorporated islands totaling 281 acres within the City SOI and urban limit line.
These areas are located in north Brentwood, bifurcated by Brentwood Boulevard, adjoining the
south boundary of the City of Oakley:
• An approximately 140-acre area of unincorporated land substantially surrounded (98%) by
the cities of Oakley and Brentwood and within Brentwood's SOI. This island is located
where Lone Tree Way intersects with Virginia Drive west of Brentwood Boulevard. Land
uses include residential, commercial, and agricultural.
• An approximately 151-acre area of unincorporated land substantially surrounded (85%) by
the City of Brentwood and within Brentwood's SOI. This island is bounded by Delta Road
to the north and Brentwood Boulevard to the west. The area is largely undeveloped. Land
uses include limited residential and active agricultural (prime farmland).
With the exception of commercial properties abutting Brentwood Boulevard, these islands are
developed with mainly large lot residences. Public utility services are not provided within these
islands.
23 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
24 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
3-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Brentwood
The City of Brentwood is preparing the “Community Build-out Plan” (CBOP), which will ultimately
be considered by the City Council as an amendment to the General Plan. The CBOP is intended to
comprehensively establish a policy framework for the future growth areas that are identified by the
General Plan, such as the two unincorporated islands. This plan is scheduled to be completed in
the fall of 2019.
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.25
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Updated identified a disadvantaged community within the City’s boundary.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
25 The City does provide water and wastewater service to 8011 Lone Tree Way, but these services are not
under review in this MSR.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 3-17
Chapter 3
3.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Brentwood appears to adequately serve all areas within its municipal boundary and is
likely to continue to do so in the foreseeable future based on available information.
The disadvantaged community within the City’s SOI receives sewer, water, and fire protection
services.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The City is in the process of completing their Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan which will
help identify facility needs and funding strategies.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City does not
anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City addresses the need to replace facilities and infrastructure through the use and funding of
replacement funds. They report that the CIP is sufficient to maintain and expand facilities and
infrastructure consistent with projected needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
Contra Costa LAFCO
3-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Brentwood
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. 26 Services related to animal
control, broadband, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with Contra Costa
County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The City does not share facilities or services. No areas of overlapping responsibilities or
opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities based on the
information available.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
Based on available information, no excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this
review.
3.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
As with other cities in Contra Costa County, rising pension costs are expected to continue to reduce
funding for other priorities and may affect the City’s ability to provide services.
26 Although not covered in this MSR, the City also provides sewer and water service.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 3-19
Chapter 3
The City of Brentwood appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing services
and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the next five
years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Brentwood has been operating at a surplus in their General Fund over the past few
years. The City anticipates budget stabilizing transfers to help address projected CalPERS increases.
The City currently exceeds their 30% reserve goal, allowing them to maintain an acceptable level
of service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 9.8, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt for FY 17 was $2,750 per capita.
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow; however, the City has taken
several measures to reduce future rate increases. Beginning with FY 2018, City policy requires
annual contributions at least equal to 85% of OPEB unfunded liability.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The City issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered timely.
The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
3.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Brentwood website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the City
Council and its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. The City
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Brentwood website provides public access to the City’s General Plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
Contra Costa LAFCO
3-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Brentwood
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Brentwood website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with
regard to citizen participation.
3.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
3.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Brentwood includes the municipal boundary and extends to the north near
Oakley, as well as east and west along the southern municipal boundary, as shown in Figure 3.1.
The City of Brentwood is bound by the cities of Antioch to the northwest and Oakley to the north,
and County lands to the south, east, and west.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Brentwood.
3.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Brentwood MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Brentwood plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including industrial, residential, commercial, mixed use,
public, agricultural, and open space. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing
residents as well as future growth, maintaining compatibility with agricultural and open space uses,
as demonstrated in the General Plan (2014).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Brentwood. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Brentwood appears adequate. The City of
Brentwood anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 3-21
Chapter 3
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the City of Brentwood.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Updated identified a disadvantaged community within the City’s boundary. This area
receives sewer, water, and fire protection services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
3-22 Municipal Service Review Update
C 4
HAPTER
C C
ITY OF LAYTON
4.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Clayton, incorporated in 1964, covers an area of approximately 4.2 square miles. With
an estimated population of 11,431, the City has a population density of approximately 2,857
persons per square mile.1
The City of Clayton lies in central Contra Costa County and is surrounded primarily by County
lands/open space (including Mt. Diablo State Park), with the City of Concord along its northwestern
boundary. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of Clayton is mostly coterminous with the
municipal boundary, with the exception of where it extends along Marsh Creek Road and at
Mitchell Canyon Road, as shown in Figure 4.1. The voter-approved Urban Limit Line generally
follows the City boundaries, except where it extends southeast into the SOI.
Land uses in the City are primarily residential, but include some commercial uses, agriculture, and
open space.
4.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Clayton is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The publicly elected City Council consists of five members, including the directly elected Mayor.
Council members serve four-year terms and the Mayor serves a one-year term.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 4-1
Figure 4.1. City of Clayton Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Clayton
4.1.2 STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 26.2 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 4.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 4.1
CITY OF CLAYTON
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police 11.0
Maintenance 7.0
Finance and Administrative Services 2.3
Community Development 1.9
Source: City of Clayton
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police function had the highest staffing level in
the City of Clayton, with 11.0 FTE employees.
4.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Clayton is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in Table
4.2.
TABLE 4.2
CITY OF CLAYTON
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
County Connection (CCTA) Public bus service
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy JPA Land use conservation mitigation
Municipal Pooling Authority Risk Management Self-insurance pool
PACE Programs HERO, Fig Tree, CalFirst energy and water
conservation financing
Transpac/CCTA Regional sales tax funding for road improvements
Source: City of Clayton
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 4-3
Chapter 4
4.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 4.3 lists the awards the City of Clayton has reported receiving since and prior to the first
round Municipal Service Review (MSR).
TABLE 4.3
CITY OF CLAYTON
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Sixth Safest City to Live in Contra Costa County Niche 2018
Top 100 Places to Live in the Nation for small cities CNN Money Magazine 2015 – 2017
Most Walkable Small Cities in America Walking Magazine 1998
Governors Historic Preservation Award State of California 1998
(DeMartini Winery preservation and renovation to
City Hall)
Design Award (DeMartini Winery preservation California Preservation Association 1998
and renovation to City Hall)
Source: City of Clayton
4.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 4.4, municipal services for the City of Clayton are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
TABLE 4.4
CITY OF CLAYTON
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning City of Clayton
Law Enforcement City of Clayton
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Clayton,
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa LAFCO
4-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Clayton
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Parks and Recreation City of Clayton
Solid Waste Republic Services
Stormwater City of Clayton
Streets City of Clayton
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice n/a
Source: City of Clayton
The City of Clayton reports the following challenges related to its provision of municipal services:
• State mandate to increase residential density when City is mostly built out
• Meeting community desires for infill development
• Unfunded state mandates for stormwater compliance
• Unfunded infrastructure projects
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
4.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) provides animal control services for the City of
Clayton through the Martinez Animal Shelter and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal
licensing services are provided via CCAS contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter
locations—the main location is in Martinez and a smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for
animal services were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
4.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Clayton does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and AT&T
Internet are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a variety of wired
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 4-5
Chapter 4
technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Clayton did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Clayton received a grade of D, which indicates that internet service providers did
not meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one
provider advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of Clayton did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve the
City’s existing or growing population.
4.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Clayton Community Development Department provides building and planning
services. Department expenditures for FY 2017 were $288,962, up from $287,232 in FY 2015.
The City of Clayton issued 115 residential and 129 commercial building permits in 2017. Total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at $5.8 million.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan and the five-year Capital Improvement
Plan.
4.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Clayton Police Department provides law enforcement services and contracts with the
City of Concord for dispatch services. FY 2017 expenditures were approximately $2.1 million, up
from approximately $1.9 million in FY 2015.
The City of Clayton has 1 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, which has remained
consistent since 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000
population.5 There were 12.6 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime clearance rate (a
measure of crimes solved) was 8% in 2017, and the violent crime clearance rate was 42%.6
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
Contra Costa LAFCO
4-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Clayton
4.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Clayton at its Clayton Branch Library
location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48
per capita in FY 2013. The Clayton Library Foundation raises funds to support the Clayton Branch
Library programs and materials.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditures and staffing per capita are nearly double the
County’s.
4.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is maintained by the City of Clayton Maintenance Department and via
contract with Contra Costa County. City expenditures for light and signal maintenance were
$268,231 in FY 2017, up from $236,882 in FY 2015.
The City maintains 12 signalized intersections and contracts with Contra Costa County for
maintenance of traffic lights. Street lights are maintained by the City (647 lights) and Pacific Gas
and Electric (655 lights), while other street lights (41) are privately or HOA maintained.
4.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Clayton is the service provider for parks and park facilities, including maintenance,
operation, and capital improvements for the Clayton community park, The Grove Park, and the
Clayton Community Library. Recreation facilities are provided through cooperative agreements
with the Mt. Diablo Unified School District. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were approximately
$476,928 in FY 2017, down from approximately $581,787 in FY 2015.
The City provides and maintains 1.2 park acres per 1,000 residents, 1.7 recreation centers per
20,000 residents, and 27 miles of recreation trails.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 4-7
Chapter 4
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 10 acres per 1,000 residents.8
4.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Clayton via franchise agreement with Republic
Services. The City of Clayton reports that FY 2017 expenditures data are not available because a
franchisee provides the City’s solid waste services.
The City reported approximately 0.55 tons of waste disposed per capita for FY 2017, up slightly
from FY 2015. The FY 2017 per resident disposal rate was 3 pounds/resident/day, also up slightly
from FY 2015.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
4.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Clayton Maintenance Department maintains the City’s stormwater drainage system. The
City reports that they have 50 miles of closed storm drain lines and that 4% of their 650 storm drain
inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of Clayton also reports compliance with National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards. FY 2017 expenditures for stormwater were
$155,189, down slightly from $157,436.
4.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Clayton Maintenance Department maintains 45 street miles and approximately 10 Class
1 and 2 bike lane miles, as well as landscaped medians and public planter beds. FY 2017
expenditures for streets were $423,341, down from $50,501 in FY 2015. Annual expenditure
trends for street and road maintenance are non-linear and fluctuate as it generally takes more than
one year to accumulate sufficient HUTA, RMRA, Measure J and other restricted funding necessary
to undertake significant street projects.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the City of Clayton was 84 (very good to excellent) in 2017, up from 81 in
2015, which remains above the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.9 Pavement in this
8 Incudes 3 acres developed parks and 7 acres active open space.
9 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
Contra Costa LAFCO
4-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Clayton
range (80-100) is newly reconstructed or resurfaced with few signs of distress. The most recent
assessment by Contra Costa County Transportation Authority determined a PCI of 85 for the City.
4.2.11 UTILITIES
Pacific Gas & Electric provides gas and electric service to the City of Clayton. The City is not a
member of a Community Choice Aggregation program.
The City of Clayton did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
4.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Clayton’s financial health and assesses the City’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations derives from
audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
4.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
The City of Clayton prepares an annual budget. According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget,10 the
City’s General Fund revenues of $4.7 million slightly exceed General Fund expenditures of $4.6
million. The City has reported a surplus over the past several years. The General Fund's unassigned
reserve at the end of FY 2017 totaled $5.4 million, or about 128% of expenditures that year; this
significantly exceeds the City's policy of an amount not less than 50% in its General Fund Reserve
Contingency (see Attachment C).11 Table 4.5 summarizes prior year changes in General Fund
expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year.
10 City of Clayton Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2019, pg. 2, pg. 10.
11 City of Clayton Investment Policy, Resolution No. 10-2015, Sec. XV.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 4-9
Chapter 4
TABLE 4.5
CITY OF CLAYTON
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $2,302,000 $2,257,000 $2,339,000
Sales Tax $398,000 $373,000 $455,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $1,541,000 $1,757,000 $1,553,000
Total General Fund Revenues $4,241,000 $4,387,000 $4,347,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 3.4% -0.9%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $1,019,000 $1,069,000 $1,178,000
Administration
Public Safety $1,926,000 $2,138,000 $2,104,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $897,000 $802,000 $874,000
Total Expenditures $3,842,000 $4,009,000 $4,156,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 4.3% 3.7%
Expenditures per capita $344 $356 $366
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 17.7 27.9 18.4
Business-type Activities n/a n/a n/a
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
4.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
Liquidity ratios over the past several years indicate that cash and short-term investments have
exceeded current liabilities by a factor of 15 or more.12 The City has no outstanding debt.
12 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
4-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Clayton
4.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
Past years show a slightly negative change for the Endeavor Hall enterprise’s positive net position
(see Attachment C). The total positive net position of governmental funds increased slightly
between FY 2015 and FY 2017, and the positive unassigned portion improved.
4.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
The City relies on $1.1 million of annual revenues generated by its Landscape Maintenance District
parcel tax, which was renewed for 10 years by voters in June 2016 (Measure H). In November
2014 Clayton voters extended the Grove Park Mello-Roos restricted special tax (Community
Facilities District 2006-1), which generates about $134,200 annually, for another 20 years.
4.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
Endeavor Hall, a rental facility, is the City's only business type activity and operates at a minimal
deficit of about $5,000 to $10,000 annually. The City anticipates improved rentals to result from its
improved website and online reservation system.
4.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the City may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City's net pension liability totaled $4.4 million in FY 2017, and its unfunded other post-
employment benefit (OPEB) liability equaled $143,000 (see Attachment C).
The City is addressing its pension liabilities in several ways: with approval of the FY 2018 budget,
the City established a Pension Rate Stabilization Internal Service Fund funded initially with
$170,200. The City also took steps to require that new sworn police hires share in the "normal"
pension cost previously funded by the City. The City does not provide a formal OPEB plan to
provide retiree health benefits, but does offer the Public Employee Medical Health Care Act
minimum as mandated by the state for California Public Employees' Retirement System health plan
enrolled business partners; the plan is administered on a "pay as you go" basis.
4.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The net value of the City capital assets has been declining slightly over time, indicating the City's
capital spending has generally not kept pace with asset depreciation (see Attachment C). The City
acknowledges that its capital priority has been for street repaving and overlay projects; the City's
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) tracks other, unfunded needs including: park improvements,
bridge improvements, library upgrades, vacant historical facility rehabilitation (Keller House), and
hillside slide prevention improvements.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 4-11
Chapter 4
4.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's
website.
4.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Clayton.
4.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Clayton serves
11,431 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Clayton are depicted in Figure 4.2.
Contra Costa LAFCO
4-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Clayton
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 4.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Clayton
June 2019
Chapter 4
ABAG projects that the City of Clayton will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.2% to a
population of 11,245 between 2010 and 2040.13 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.2% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data14 for 2010, the City of Clayton has 5,314 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data15 for 2010 estimated 1,995 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.38 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of Clayton has 4,086 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.49.
The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied
housing units (Table 4.6), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
TABLE 4.6
CITY OF CLAYTON
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 3,621
Renter-occupied housing units 385
Vacant housing units 80
Total existing housing units 4,086
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 51
Low 25
Moderate 31
Above Moderate 34
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 141
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census; Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
13 ABAG. Projections 2017. ABAG data estimates the 2010 population at 10,655, growing to 11,245 in
2040, representing the 0.2% annual growth rate. The 2018 California Department of Finance estimated
population for Clayton (11,431) exceeds ABAG’s estimate for 2040; as a result, the annual growth rate is
likely inaccurate.
14 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
15 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
4-14 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Clayton
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.16 The City of Clayton was assigned a RHNA of 141 units, as shown in Table 4.6.
The City amended its General Plan in 2007 and adopted its Housing Element in 2014. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield over 288 units, which
are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and
exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Clayton 2015–2023 Housing Element has been
found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State
Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of
all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.17
The City of Clayton did not report programs and services to meet the needs of adults age 50 and
older.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City of Clayton reported approximately nine undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY 2017.
Verna Way and Southbrook (total of eight dwelling units) are currently under construction.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. No PDAs have been identified by
the City of Clayton or included in Plan Bay Area 2040.18
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Clayton has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas in Plan Bay Area or the City’s General
Plan.19
The City of Clayton, which is mostly built out, does not anticipate that current or projected growth
patterns will expand beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
4.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Clayton’s SOI is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the exception
of where it extends along Marsh Creek Road and near Mitchell Canyon Road (see Figure 4.1).
16 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
17 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
18 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
19 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 4-15
Chapter 4
There is one unincorporated island within the Clayton area located east of Mitchell Canyon Road
and is primarily built out with equestrian use (see Figure 4.1).
The City has identified properties adjacent to Marsh Creek Road—east of the City limits but within
the SOI—for potential annexation to accommodate development and services needed related to
potential future development and to connect this area to City services and infrastructure.
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the City of Clayton
and therefore, no disadvantaged communities are relevant to this analysis.
4.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband. The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the status
of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of levels of
service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on infrastructure
needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency has the
ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Clayton reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and
anticipates it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the City’s SOI.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 84, which indicates the City’s streets are in very good condition and
primarily require funding at a level to maintain the current condition. The City has indicated
concerns about currently unfunded infrastructure projects.
Contra Costa LAFCO
4-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Clayton
The City of Clayton is mostly built out. When accounting for the projected growth and population
increases over the next five years, as well as the identified challenges related to its provision of
municipal services, the City does not anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or
meeting infrastructure needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City did not report on the sufficiency of its CIP to maintain and expand facilities and
infrastructure consistent with projected needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
Although the City is mostly built out, they are planning for continued growth. The additional
growth is expected to be accommodated by way of regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local
plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by
the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State housing
element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all
economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. Services related to animal
control, broadband, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with Contra Costa
County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The library facility is owned by the City of Clayton and Contra Costa County Library staffs and
operates the facility. The adjoining City meeting room is used for library programs.
The City does not share other facilities or services. No areas of overlapping responsibilities or
opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 4-17
Chapter 4
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
4.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
Overall, the City of Clayton appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services, as well as to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement, as
indicated below. As with other cities in Contra Costa County, rising pension costs are expected to
continue to reduce funding for other priorities.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Clayton has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund over the past several
years.
The City currently exceeds their 50% reserve goal, allowing them to maintain an acceptable level
of service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 18.4, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
The City has no outstanding debt.
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow; however, the City has
implemented several measures to address the increasing pension liabilities, including establishing a
Pension Rate Stabilization Internal Service Fund.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The City issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered timely.
The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
Overall, the CAFRs are clearly presented; however, the City could incorporate changes to improve
the transparency of its financials. For example, certain tables in the CAFR extend over multiple
pages, but the left-most column does not. To ensure readability of multi-page tables, all columns of
all tables should be carried over for each page.
Contra Costa LAFCO
4-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Clayton
4.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Clayton website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the City Council
and its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. City Council
meetings are streamed live and archived on the City website. The CityTV shared government
channel also shows Clayton City Council meetings. The City therefore adequately provides
accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Clayton website provides public access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Clayton website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. In addition to the City website, there are three public posting
board locations within the City—City hall, the library, and downtown. The City also issues press
releases, including distribution to Claycord20 social media and the local press. The City therefore
adequately provides accountability with regard to citizen participation.
4.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
4.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Clayton is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the
exception of where it extends along Marsh Creek Road and near Mitchell Canyon Road, as shown
in Figure 4.1. The City of Clayton is surrounded primarily by County lands/open space (including
Mt. Diablo State Park), with the City of Concord along its northwestern boundary.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Clayton.
20 Serving the cities of Clayton, Concord, Walnut Creek, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 4-19
Chapter 4
4.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF CLAYTON
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Clayton MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN-SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Clayton plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing
residents as well as future growth, maintaining compatibility with agricultural and open space uses,
as demonstrated in the General Plan (2007).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Clayton. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Clayton appears adequate. The City of
Clayton anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the City of Clayton.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER, OR
STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the City of Clayton
and therefore no present or probable need for the City to provide structural fire protection, sewer,
or water facilities and services to any disadvantaged communities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
4-20 Municipal Service Review Update
C 5
HAPTER
C C
ITY OF ONCORD
5.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Concord, incorporated in 1905, covers an area of approximately 31 square miles. With
an estimated population of 129,159, the City has a population density of approximately 4,166
persons per square mile.1
The City of Concord lies in central Contra Costa County between the cities of Pleasant Hill and
Martinez on the west, the City of Clayton on the southeast, the City of Pittsburg on the northeast,
the City of Walnut Creek on the south, and the Carquinez Strait on the north. County lands lie to
the north and south of the City. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of Concord includes the
municipal boundary and extends to the north (Suisun Bay and County boundary), to the west
toward I-680, and to the northeast past Highway 4, as shown in Figure 5.1. The SOI also includes
an unincorporated island within the City’s municipal boundary. The voter-approved Urban Limit
Line surrounds the entire City and the majority of the SOI, with the exception of the far northern
SOI areas adjacent to the Suisun Bay.
Land uses in the City are primarily residential, but include some commercial and mixed uses as
well as and open space. There are no agricultural land uses in the City of Concord.
5.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Concord is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The City Council is publicly elected by district and consists of five members, including the Mayor
who is selected from the Council members. Council members serve four-year terms and the Mayor
rotates every year.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 5-1
Figure 5.1. City of Concord Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Concord
5.1.2 STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 419 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. Table
5.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 5.1
CITY OF CONCORD
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police 213.0
Public Works 82.0
Community and Economic Development 52.0
Finance 19.0
Source: City of Concord
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police function had the highest staffing level in
the City of Concord, with 213.0 FTE employees.
5.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Concord is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 5.2.
TABLE 5.2
CITY OF CONCORD
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
ABAG Finance Authority for Nonprofit Corporations To have a forum for discussion and study
metropolitan area problems of mutual interest and
facilitate development of policy and action
recommendations
Bay Area Employee Relations Service Provide cost effective services and data in support of
collective bargaining and other related activities of
its members
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority Purpose of jointly funding and/or establishing
excess and other insurance programs as determined
California Enterprise Development Authority Address gaps in economic development financing
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 5-3
Chapter 5
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
California Statewide Communities Development To have access to low-cost, tax-exempt financing for
Authority projects that provide a tangible public benefit,
contribute to social and economic growth, and
improve the overall quality of life in local
communities throughout California.
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority Provide input for a countywide fixed-route and
paratransit transportation system
Central Contra Costa Transportation/Land Use —
Partnership
City of Concord and Successor Agency Joint Powers Provides financial assistance to the City by financing
Financing Authority real and personal properties and improvements for
the benefit of the residents of the City and
surrounding areas
Contra Costa Congestion Management Agency Purpose is to consolidate the designation of the
CCTA as Congestion Management Program Agency
East Bay Regional Communications System Evaluate the feasibility of developing a regional
Authority communications system to serve all jurisdictions in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
Golden State Finance Authority To join PACE Program
Marin Energy Authority (Marin Clean Energy) Provide residents with an alternative to PG&E in an
effort to reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions
TRANSPAC To cooperate in the establishment of policies and
action to more effectively respond to the
requirements of Measure C
Source: City of Concord
5.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 5.3 lists the awards the City of Concord has reported receiving since the first round
Municipal Service Review (MSR).
Contra Costa LAFCO
5-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Concord
TABLE 5.3
CITY OF CONCORD
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Award of Excellence for Economica Development California Association for Local 2018
Promotion for “A better Business” campaign in Economic Development
2017
Great Places in California Award for Todos Santos California Chapter of the American 2018
Plaza Planning Association
Helen Putnam Award for Excellence – Family League of California Cities 2016
Justice Center
Achievement for Excellence in Procurement National Procurement Institute 2012 – 2018
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Government Finance Officers 1992 – 2017
Financial Reporting Association
Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Government Finance Officers 2003 – 2013
Association
Excellence in Operating Budget California Society of Municipal 2008
Finance Officers
Source: City of Concord
5.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 5.4, municipal services for the City of Concord are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
TABLE 5.4
CITY OF CONCORD
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast, Wave Broadband
Building / Planning City of Concord
Law Enforcement City of Concord
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Concord
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 5-5
Chapter 5
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Parks and Recreation City of Concord
Solid Waste Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery
Stormwater City of Concord
Streets City of Concord
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: City of Concord
The City of Concord reports the following opportunities and challenges related to its provision of
municipal services:
Opportunities
• Concord Reuse Project Specific Plan development and buildout (2022 – 2049)
Challenges
• Regulatory challenges related to the Municipal Regional Permit under the Water Quality
Control Board
• Funding deferred maintenance
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
5.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) is the animal control service provider for the City of
Concord and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were not reported or were unavailable
at the time of this MSR update.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
Contra Costa LAFCO
5-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Concord
5.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Concord does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast, AT&T
Internet, and Wave Broadband are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a
variety of wired technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Concord did not indicate
concerns about the availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5
Mbps upload speeds to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Concord received a grade of A-, which indicates that internet service providers
meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one provider
advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of Concord, which has a Broadband Master Plan, did not indicate concerns about the
ability of broadband providers to serve the City’s existing or growing population.
5.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Concord Community and Economic Development Department provides building and
planning services. Department expenditures for FY 2017 were $4.2 million, representing an
upward trend from $1.9 million in FY 2015.
The City of Concord issued 4,178 residential and 458 commercial building permits in 2017. Total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at $140.8 million.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan and a five-year pavement management
plan. In addition, the City is developing a Specific Plan for the Concord Reuse Project Specific Plan
Area, which includes the Concord Naval Weapons Station Inland Area. The City published a
Notice of Preparation5 for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on November 20, 2018. The
Specific Plan and EIR are being prepared with anticipated public review during the fall of 2019.
The City anticipates bringing the Specific Plan and EIR forward for City Council review, adoption,
and certification by March 2020. Planning for the overall infrastructure for the Concord Reuse
Project is being done in coordination with local and regional agencies. Planning and phasing
information will be included in the Specific Plan.
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
5 Available at: https://www.concordreuseproject.org/DocumentCenter/View/1675/2018-11-20-Notice-of-
Preparation
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 5-7
Chapter 5
5.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Concord provides law enforcement and dispatch services. FY 2017 expenditures were
approximately $53.4 million, reflecting an upward trend from approximately $45.1 million in FY
2015.
The City of Concord has 1.12 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, which represents a slight
increase from 1.18 FTE in 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per
1,000 population.6 There were 31.7 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime clearance
rate (a measure of crimes solved) was 12% in 2017, and the violent crime clearance rate was 47%.7
5.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Concord at its Concord Community
Library location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from
$24.48 per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.8 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditures and staffing per capita are nearly double the
County’s.
5.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of Concord Department of Public
Works. City expenditures for light and signal maintenance were $1.2 million in FY 2017, with little
change from $1.2 million in FY 2015. The City owns and maintains 150 signalized intersections
and 8,233 street lights. The number of traffic lights maintained by the City was not reported or was
unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
6 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
7 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
8 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
5-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Concord
5.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Concord Parks and Recreation Department is the service provider for parks and
recreation programs, services, and facilities (e.g., community centers and aquatic facilities), and the
Public Works Department maintains developed parks and open space. FY 2017 expenditures for
parks were approximately $5.2 million in FY 2017, up from approximately $4.5 million in FY
2015.
The City of Concord offers a variety of programs and activities for all ages and abilities. Programs
and activities include classes, days camps, trips, tours, and special events.
The park acres per 1,000 residents, recreation centers per 20,000 residents, and miles of recreation
trails provided and maintained by the City were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this
MSR update.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
5.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Concord via contract with Mount Diablo Resource
Recovery. The City of Concord FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services were not reported or
were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
The FY 2017 per resident disposal rate was 4.2 pounds/resident/day. The City reports that it is in
compliance with disposal, diversion, and recycling requirements.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
5.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Concord Department of Public Works provides and maintains the City’s stormwater
drainage system. The City reports that they have 240 miles of closed storm drain lines and that
7.4% of their approximately 6,000 storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of
Concord also reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards.
Total FY 2017 expenditures for stormwater were $1.5 million, representing a slight upward trend
from $1.4 million in FY 2015.
5.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Concord Department of Public Works provides and maintains 310 street miles and
approximately 28 Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles, as well as landscaped medians and public planter
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 5-9
Chapter 5
beds. FY 2017 expenditures for streets were $29.5 million, which is a significant increase from
$14.5 million in FY 2015.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the City of Concord was 60 (fair) in 2017, down from 61 in 2015, which
remains below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.9 Pavement at the low end of the
60-69 (fair) range is significantly distressed and may require a combination of rehabilitation and
preventive maintenance.
5.2.11 UTILITIES
The City of Concord is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice Aggregation
program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their electricity
supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide electricity service
to the City, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also provides gas service to
the City of Concord.
The City of Concord did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
5.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Concord’s financial health and assesses the City’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations derives from
audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
5.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
The City of Concord prepares a biennial budget. As summarized in the City's budget10, the City’s
total revenues cover its expenditures in FY 2017-18, and the City will use $2.2 million of one-time
revenues to balance the budget in FY 2018-19; the budget continues all programs at current or
9 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
10 City of Concord Adopted Biennial Operating Budget FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, and Staff Report June 27,
2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
5-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Concord
enhanced levels. The City maintains a 30% reserve level11 and limits the use of Measure Q (voter
approved sales tax) dollars for operating costs to $7.5 million in both years. General Fund balances
(including assigned) have consistently exceeded 40% of annual General Fund expenditures. Table
5.5 summarizes prior year changes in General Fund expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY
2017, and liquidity ratios in each year (see Attachment C).
The City's General Fund reserve policy of 30% of operating expenditures was equaled or slightly
exceeded in FY 2018 and projected FY 2019.12 The Council formally restored the General Fund
reserve policy to the 30% level on June 23, 2015.13 Including assigned balances, General Fund
ending balances exceeded 40% in recent years.14
The City hopes to complete negotiations with the Navy for conveyance and land transfer of the
former Concord Naval Weapons Station, leading to significant new development and
corresponding increases in revenues and service responsibilities over the next 30 years.15
The City's budget forecast anticipates a deficit in future years as it reduces its reliance on Measure
Q prior to its sunset in FY 2024-25. A structural budget deficit is projected and ongoing budget
stabilization measures are needed beginning in FY 2019-20 of $6.2 million growing to $13.4
million by FY 2026-27. No deficit mitigation measures have been identified to fill the projected
shortfall; however, the City reports that it is actively working to close the gap by capitalizing on
efficiencies, new revenue sources, and cost cutting.16
TABLE 5.5
CITY OF CONCORD
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $13,600,000 $14,300,000 $15,400,000
Sales Tax $41,200,000 $45,900,000 $46,000,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $38,100,000 $37,700,000 $39,900,000
Total General Fund Revenues $92,900,000 $97,900,000 $101,300,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 5.4% 3.5%
11 City of Concord Adopted Biennial Operating Budget FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, pg. XXXVII.
12 City of Concord Adopted Biennial Operating Budget FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, pg. XVI.
13 City of Concord Adopted Biennial Operating Budget FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, pg. XVI.
14 City of Concord CAFR FY 2017, pg. 67.
15 The developer's proposal envisions approximately 13,000 units. A specific plan and environmental
documentation are anticipated in 2019 (East Bay Times, August 23, 2018).
16 City of Concord Adopted Biennial Operating Budget FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, pg. XV-XVI.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 5-11
Chapter 5
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $19,000,000 $15,500,000 $15,300,000
Administration
Public Safety $45,200,000 $49,900,000 $53,700,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $19,500,000 $30,600,000 $28,600,000
Total Expenditures $83,700,000 $96,000,000 $97,600,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 14.7% 1.7%
Expenditures per capita $670 $740 $760
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 3.5 2.8 2.7
Business-type Activities 1.4 1.6 1.8
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
5.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
General Fund and enterprise liquidity ratios have exceeded 1.0 from FY 2015 through the
present.17
The City's total debt has been declining over time. Golf course debt will be retired in FY 2018-19,
which will make funds available for capital improvements. Total debt was approximately $350 per
capita in FY 2017. The ratio of pledged net revenue to debt has been improving, and exceeded 7.5
in FY 2017 (see Attachment C). The City is scheduling accelerated internal loan repayments (e.g.,
from its Pavilion Fund to the Sewer Fund), which will improve the City's Sewer Fund balances.
5.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
Past years show an overall positive change for combined enterprise net position (see Attachment C).
The total positive net position of governmental funds increased slightly between FY 2015 and FY
2017, however the negative unassigned portion worsened as unfunded pension liabilities
17 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
5-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Concord
increased. The City’s Enterprise Funds' net position relative to expenditures exceeded a ratio of 2.0
indicating strong balance sheets.
5.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
The City relies on approximately $7.5 million of annual revenues (about 7.5% of General Fund
revenues) generated a voter approved one-half-cent use and transaction tax (Measure Q) approved
in 2010. The tax's 2016 expiration was extended by voter approval through March 31, 2025. The
City's Fiscal Sustainability Ordinance18 designated Measure Q as a “limited duration revenue
source,”19 and the City limits its annual use and plans to decrease its use over time as it finds
replacement funding sources.
5.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The City monitors and increases its utility charges as necessary to fund capital needs and its
operating costs. Total enterprise revenues in recent years have generally grown 8% to 10%,
outpacing expenditure growth of 3% to 4%. Total enterprise net position has ranged from about 2.3
to 2.4 times annual expenditures from FY 2015 through FY 2017, and their liquidity ratios exceed
1.0.20
The City's wastewater system is its primary enterprise, totaling about $29.3 million in FY 2018,
funded by revenues of $33.8 million. Costs to the City for wastewater treatment plant operations
and capital have been rising significantly in past years, contributing to increases in user charges and
rates.21 The General Fund recoups indirect costs from the Sewer Fund per the City’s Cost Allocation
Plan that was prepared by an independent consultant.
Between 2007 and 2013, the General Fund advanced the Golf Course Enterprise Fund $774,000.
From 2013 to current, the Golf Course Enterprise has been self-sufficient, and repayment of the
advances has been built in to the 10-year budget projections for the Enterprise Fund. The municipal
golf course budget is about $1.4 million annually; revenues exceed expenditures by about
$100,000.22
5.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the City may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
18 City’s Municipal Code: Chapter 3.20.020.
19 City of Concord Adopted Biennial Operating Budget FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, pg. XV.
20 City of Concord CAFRs - Citywide Changes in Net position (Table 2).
21 ibid, Concord Budget FY 2019, pg. XXXVIII.
22 City of Concord Adopted Biennial Operating Budget FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, pg. 75. See the long-term
forecast on pg. 37 for total General Expenditures.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 5-13
Chapter 5
Pension costs totaled $14.8 million in FY 2018, or about 15% of total General Fund expenditures,
and increase to $25.2 million after 10 years, accounting for 20% of General Fund expenditures.23
The portion of total pension liabilities funded has been declining over recent years to 63.4%.24 The
City's most recently reported unfunded liability totaled $177.2 million (see Attachment C). The
City's Fiscal Sustainability Ordinance prioritizes annual recommended contributions towards its
unfunded pension liabilities.
The City reformed retiree medical costs to significantly reduce its unfunded liability by $16 million
and lowered annual costs (saving $2.2 million annually).25
Unfunded unemployment benefits are listed as a prioritized use of the City’s “one-time and budget
residual funds” per the City’s Municipal Code: Chapter 3.20.020 “Fiscal Sustainability.”
5.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The net value of the City capital assets has been declining over time, particularly capital assets of its
enterprises which declined about 4% to 6% annually from FY 2015 to FY 2017.26 This decline
suggests that increased funding may be needed to keep pace with the depreciation of capital assets.
The City continues to seek grants, including a grant to support its Corridors Plan Project, and One
Bay Area Grant program grant projects. The City plans to pay off its golf course long-term debt in
FY 2018-19 and use projected increased fund balances to invest in capital improvements.27
5.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's
website.
5.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
23 City of Concord Adopted Biennial Operating Budget FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, pg. XXXII.
24 City of Concord CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Notes 10-12).
25 City of Concord Adopted Biennial Operating Budget FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, pg. XVI. See Staff Report,
Aug. 2, 2016 re: vesting of fixed contribution amounts for retiree health care benefits.
26 City of Concord CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 6 - CAPITAL ASSETS).
27 City of Concord Adopted Biennial Operating Budget FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, pg. XVIII.
Contra Costa LAFCO
5-14 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Concord
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Concord.
5.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Concord serves
129,159 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Concord are depicted in Figure 5.2.
ABAG projects that the City of Concord will grow at an annual rate of approximately 1.4% to a
population of 185,850 between 2010 and 2040.28 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 1.9% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data29 for 2010, the City of Concord has 62,173 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data30 for 2010 estimated 54,275 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.87 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of Concord has 47,125 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 1.15.
The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied
housing units (Table 5.6), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
28 ABAG. Projections 2017.
29 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
30 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 5-15
City of Concord
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 5.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Concord
June 2019
City of Concord
TABLE 5.6
CITY OF CONCORD
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 27,069
Renter-occupied housing units 17,209
Vacant housing units 2,847
Total existing housing units 47,125
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 798
Low 444
Moderate 559
Above Moderate 1,677
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 3,478
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census; Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.31 The City of Concord was assigned a RHNA of 3,478 units, as shown in Table 5.6.
The City adopted its General Plan in 2007 and its Housing Element in 2014. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 4,523 units, which
are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and
exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Concord 2014–2022 Housing Element has
been found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with
State Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.32
The City of Concord did not report programs and services to meet the needs of adults age 50 and
older.
31 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
32 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 5-17
Chapter 5
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY 2017 were not reported or were unavailable at the
time of this MSR update. Projects identified as part of the projected growth for the City (dwelling
units and commercial space) that have been approved or are in the approval process were not
reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. Three PDAs have been identified
by the City of Concord and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.33 The Community Reuse Area/Los
Medanos and Downtown PDAs are anticipated to accommodate approximately 87% of the
projected growth in households and 73% of the projected growth in employment.34
The Community Reuse Area/Los Medanos PDA is characterized as a Suburban Center and a Transit
Neighborhood, and the Downtown PDA is characterized as a City Center.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Concord has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas in Plan Bay Area or the City’s General
Plan.35
The City of Concord does not anticipate that current or projected growth patterns will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
5.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Concord’s SOI includes the municipal boundary and extends to the north, west, and
northeast (see Figure 5.1).
There are two unincorporated islands within the City’s municipal boundary—a 183-acre residential
development known as Ayers Ranch, located near Bailey Road and Concord Boulevard, and an
approximately 58-acre undeveloped area at the end of Kaiser Quarry Road (see Figure 5.1). The
City provides sewer services within the Ayers Ranch island area.
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
33 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
34 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
35 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
5-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Concord
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Update identified a portion of the Pacheco area located west of the City boundary (north
of Concord) and within the SOI as a disadvantaged community. There is also a disadvantaged
community within the City’s boundary in the Concord Avenue and Olivera Road area. The
unincorporated community of Bay Point, a portion of which is within the SOI for the City of
Concord, also meets the criteria for a disadvantaged community.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
5.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Concord reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and
SOI. Future phased development of the Concord Reuse Project is anticipated to have an effect on
City services, the extent to which is unknown at present and is expected to be analyzed as part of
the planning and environmental review process. Based on available information, sufficient data has
not been provided by the City of Concord for this MSR Update to make an accurate determination
about the City’s ability to adequately serve all areas within its municipal boundary at present and in
the foreseeable future.
Three disadvantaged communities have been identified within the City of Concord’s SOI. Sewer,
water, and fire/emergency medical services are provided for these areas
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 5-19
Chapter 5
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 60, which is below the target of 75 MTC has established and which
indicates a potential need for pavement rehabilitation funding. The City also has identified the need
for deferred maintenance funding.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City does not
anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City has deferred some infrastructure maintenance, but it continues to seek grants and other
funding opportunities to invest in capital improvements.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. 36 Services related to animal
control, broadband, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with Contra Costa
County, public vendors, or private vendors.
36 Although not covered in this MSR, the City also provides sewer service.
Contra Costa LAFCO
5-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Concord
The City does not share facilities or services. No areas of overlapping responsibilities or
opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
5.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The City of Concord expects General Fund deficits in the future, which may affect its ability to
provide services; however the City has strong financial reserves to be relied upon on as they face
expenditure pressure.
As with other cities in Contra Costa County, rising pension costs are expected to continue to reduce
funding for other priorities.
Overall, and despite these fiscal challenges, the City of Concord appears to have sufficient financial
resources (e.g., healthy reserves) to continue providing services and to accommodate infrastructure
expansion, improvements, or replacement over the next five years. Ongoing budget stabilization
measures are needed to address projected structural deficits and the sunset of Measure Q.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Concord has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund, but will anticipate a
seven-year deficit period beginning in FY 2020 if measures are not taken to secure additional funds
and reduce expenditures. The City is proactively working to close the gap using efficiencies, new
revenues, and cost cutting.
The City currently meets their 30% reserve goal, allowing them to maintain an acceptable level of
service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 2.7, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $350 per capita for FY 2017 and has been declining.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 5-21
Chapter 5
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow and currently account for 20%
of General Fund expenditures. The City’s Fiscal Sustainability Ordinance prioritizes annual
contributions to help address the unfunded liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The City issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered timely.
The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
5.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Concord website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the City
Council and its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. The City
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Concord website provides public access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Concord website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. Newsletters are also distributed to City residents. The City
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to citizen participation.
5.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
5.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Concord includes the municipal boundary and extends to the north, west,
and northeast, as shown in Figure 5.1. The City of Concord is bound by the cities of Pleasant Hill
and Martinez on the west, Clayton on the southeast, of Pittsburg on the northeast, Walnut Creek on
the south, and the Carquinez Strait on the north. County lands also bound the City on the north and
south.
Contra Costa LAFCO
5-22 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Concord
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Concord.
This report also recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO consider the option of retaining the existing
SOI with the condition that future potential annexation applications from the City require that the
City provide more information37 to demonstrate its capacity, adequacy, and ability to provide
services to the area under consideration.
5.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF CONCORD
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Concord MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Concord plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including residential, commercial, retail, and open space.
Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth,
maintaining compatibility with open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan (2007).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Concord. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years and in
conjunction with future phased development of the Concord Reuse Project.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Concord appears adequate; however, this may
change with future phased development of the Concord Reuse Project. The City of Concord
anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the City of Concord.
37 To include undeveloped entitled residential acres, expenditures for animal control and solid waste
services, and additional detail for parks and recreation services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 5-23
Chapter 5
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Update identified a portion of the Pacheco area located west of the City boundary (north
of Concord) and within the SOI as a disadvantaged community. There is also a disadvantaged
community within the City’s boundary in the Concord Avenue and Olivera Road area. The
unincorporated community of Bay Point, a portion of which is within the SOI for the City of
Concord, also meets the criteria for a disadvantaged community.
These areas receive services related to sewer, water, and structural fire protection from service
providers outside the City. There are no other disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI
for the City.
Contra Costa LAFCO
5-24 Municipal Service Review Update
C 6
HAPTER
T D
OWN OF ANVILLE
6.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The Town of Danville, incorporated in 1982, covers an area of approximately 18.8 square miles.
With an estimated population of 44,396, the Town has a population density of approximately
2,336 persons per square mile.1
The Town of Danville lies in south-central Contra Costa County with the City of San Ramon to the
south, County lands to the west and east, and the unincorporated communities of Alamo,
Blackhawk, and Diablo to the north and northeast. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the Town of
Danville is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the exception of an extension to
the east, as shown in Figure 6.1. The Town adopted the countywide Urban Limit Line in 2007.
Land uses in the Town include a mix of residential, commercial, public, open space, and
agricultural.
6.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The Town of Danville is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The publicly elected Town Council consists of five members, including the Mayor. Council
members serve four-year terms; the position of Mayor rotates annually.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 6-1
Figure 6.1. Town of Danville Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
Town of Danville
6.1.2 STAFFING
Total Town staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 124.75 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 6.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 6.1
TOWN OF DANVILLE
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Recreation Services 38.25
Police Services 37.75
Maintenance Services 31.0
Development Services 30.75
Source: Town of Danville
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police service function had the highest staffing
level in the Town of Danville, with 37.75 FTE employees.
6.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The Town of Danville is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 6.2.
TABLE 6.2
TOWN OF DANVILLE
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority Transit bus and paratransit
Contra Costa Transportation Authority One-half cent transportation sales tax program
East Bay Regional Communications System Interoperable radio communications
Authority
Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Clean Energy Community choice aggregation provider
Municipal Pooling Authority Liability insurance and risk management
RecycleSmart Solid waste and recycling
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 6-3
Chapter 6
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
TRAFFIX Measure J Traffic Congestion Agency Local congestion relief and student transportation
program
Tri-Valley - San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Megaregion rail connection from BART in the Tri-
Authority (Valley Link) Valley to the San Joaquin Valley
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Regional transportation impact fee program
Source: Town of Danville
6.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 6.3 lists the awards the Town of Danville has reported receiving since the first round
Municipal Service Review (MSR).
TABLE 6.3
TOWN OF DANVILLE
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Government Finance Officers 16 years
Financial Reporting Association
Certified Bay Area Green Business Association of Bay Area Governments 14 years
Quality in Information Technology Practices Municipal Information System 2016, 2018
Award Association of California
Source: Town of Danville
6.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 6.4, municipal services for the Town of Danville are provided by Town staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
Contra Costa LAFCO
6-4 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Danville
TABLE 6.4
TOWN OF DANVILLE
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning Town of Danville
Law Enforcement Contra Costa County
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting Town of Danville
Parks and Recreation Town of Danville
Solid Waste Republic Services/RecycleSmart
Stormwater Town of Danville
Streets Town of Danville
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: Town of Danville
The Town of Danville reports the following opportunities and challenges related to its provision of
municipal services:
Opportunities
• Collaboration with other agencies delivering subregional services
• Use of contract services
Challenges
• Approved and proposed development in surrounding communities outside the Urban Limit
Line directly impact the Town’s ability to adequately provide municipal services
A summary of the Town’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
6.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) provides animal control services for the Town of
Danville and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were $250,786 in FY 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 6-5
Chapter 6
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
6.2.2 BROADBAND
The Town of Danville does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and
AT&T Internet are the main internet providers in the Town.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The Town of Danville did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The Town of Danville received a grade of C-, which indicates that internet service providers
did not meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one
provider advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The Town of Danville did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve
the Town’s existing or growing population.
6.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The Town of Danville Development Services Department provides building and planning services.
Department expenditures vary year to year, at $1.9 million in FY 2017, up from $1.8 million in FY
2016 and down from $2 million in FY 2015.
The Town of Danville issued 626 residential and 68 commercial building permits in 2017. Total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 was not reported or was unavailable at the time of this MSR
update.
Planning efforts for the Town of Danville include the 2030 General Plan (which includes the
Housing Element), 2017-2027 Danville Parks Recreation & Arts Strategic Plan, and Annual
Operating Budget & Capital Improvement Program (which projects future service demands).
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
6-6 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Danville
6.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Town of Danville contracts with the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff for the provision
of law enforcement and dispatch services. FY 2017 expenditures for the Sheriff’s Office were
approximately $229.3 million, up from approximately $217.8 million in FY 2015.
Approximately 0.7 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population serve the Town of Danville, which
remains the same as in 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per
1,000 population.5 There were 8.6 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime clearance
rate (a measure of crimes solved) was 41% in 2017, and the violent crime clearance rate was not
reported or was unavailable at the time of this MSR update.6
The Sheriff’s Office reported 677 FTE for FY 2017, up from 664 FTE in FY 2016, with an average of
1.02 sworn staff per 1,000 population. Total property crime clearances were reported at 125 (14 in
Danville) and total violent crime clearances were reported at 340 (22 in Danville) for FY 2017.
The Town currently has an approved agreement in place with the County to provide police services
to non-Danville residents of the Alamo Springs neighborhood at the terminus of La Gonda Way. As
part of the agreement, the County transfers funds for these services to the Town.
6.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the Town of Danville at its Danville Branch
Library location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from
$24.48 per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 6-7
Chapter 6
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state averages for expenditures and staffing are nearly double the County’s.
6.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is maintained by the Town of Danville Maintenance Services
Department with assistance from Contra Costa County (signal) and PG&E (street lights). Town
expenditures for street light and signal maintenance were $223,000 in FY 2017, down from
$231,000 in FY 2015. The Town maintains 54 signalized intersections and 3,483 street lights.
6.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The Town of Danville Recreation, Arts, and Community Services Department is the service
provider for parks and recreation facilities and programs; the Maintenance Services Department
maintains these facilities. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were approximately $2.3 million in FY
2017, up slightly from approximately $2 million in FY 2015.
The Town provides a multitude of classes, programs, sports leagues and special events for all ages.
The Town provides and maintains 6.6 park acres per 1,000 residents, 2.25 recreation centers per
20,000 residents, and 6.88 miles of recreation trails.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The Town’s level of service standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
6.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the Town of Danville by RecycleSmart via contract with
Republic Services.8 The Town of Danville FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services vary
slightly year to year at $7.48 million in FY 2017, down from $7.5 million in FY 2016 and up from
$7.41 million in FY 2015.
The Town reported regional service levels, with approximately 0.52 tons of waste disposed per
capita for FY 2017, and a total diversion rate of 60%. The FY 2017 per resident disposal rate was
3.7 pounds/resident/day.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
8 RecycleSmart is a dba of Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority.
Contra Costa LAFCO
6-8 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Danville
6.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The Town of Danville Maintenance Services Department provides and maintains the Town’s
stormwater drainage system. The Town reports that they have 125 miles of closed storm drain lines
and that 1.5% of their 4,700 storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The Town of
Danville also reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards.
Stormwater expenditures were $340,014 in FY 2017, up from $316,002 in FY 2015.
6.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The Town of Danville Maintenance Services Department maintains 157.9 street miles and
approximately 21.55 Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles, as well as roadside landscaping. FY 2017
expenditures for streets were $800,000.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the Town of Danville was 77 (good) in 2016, up from 74 in 2015, and now
exceeds the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.9 Pavement in the good (70-79) range
requires mostly preventive maintenance and shows only low levels of distress. The Town reports
that its own records show a PCI of 81 for 2017.
6.2.11 UTILITIES
The Town of Danville is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice
Aggregation program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their
electricity supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide
electricity service to the Town, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also
provides gas service to the Town of Danville.
The Town of Danville did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to
serve the Town’s existing or growing population.
6.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the Town of Danville’s financial health and assesses the
Town’s financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations
derives from audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current
budget documents, and Town staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section
are provided in Attachment C.
9 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 6-9
Chapter 6
6.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
Town.
According to the Town's FY 2018-19 (FY 2019) budget10, the Town’s total revenues of $37.8
million cover its projected expenditures of $32.9 million. The budget continues to achieve its goals
of positive year-end fund balances, no unfunded future liabilities, and transfers from the General
Fund to fund high priority capital projects.11 Table 6.5 summarizes prior year changes in General
Fund expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year.
The General Fund's ending fund balance in FY 2017 of $27 million represents a healthy 140% of
General Fund expenditures. Unassigned reserves exceed 20% levels established by the Town.
The Town anticipates continued fiscal sustainability through the next ten years assuming current
service levels and use of accumulated reserves. Within the next 3-5 years, the Town will need to
evaluate its Town-wide Landscape and Lighting Assessment District (LLAD) operations and consider
assessment increases, which have not changed since 2003.12 The FY 2019 budget proposes a
transfer of $900,000 from the General Fund to subsidize LLAD operating costs.
TABLE 6.5
TOWN OF DANVILLE
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $13,593,000 $14,154,000 $13,979,000
Sales Tax $4,080,000 $4,559,000 $5,535,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $6,269,000 $6,931,000 $6,090,000
Total General Fund Revenues $23,942,000 $25,644,000 $25,604,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 7.1% -.16%
10 Town of Danville Administrative Staff report re: approving the 2018/19 Operating Budget and
Appropriation Limit, June 6, 2018.
11 ibid, FY 2018/19 Danville Budget, pg. II.
12 ibid, FY 2018/19 Danville Budget, pg. XI.
Contra Costa LAFCO
6-10 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Danville
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $1,526,000 $1,591,000 $1,623,000
Administration
Public Safety $8,061,000 $8,456,000 $8,753,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $8,865,000 $9,068,000 $9,443,000
Total Expenditures $18,452,000 $19,115,000 $19,819,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 3.6% 3.7%
Expenditures per capita $434 $434 $450
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 9.4 8.4 9.9
Business-type Activities n/a n/a n/a
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
6.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
Liquidity has exceeded a ratio of eight.13 Debt has generally been declining, and totaled $7.6
million at the end of FY 2017, or $173 per capita (see Attachment C).
6.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
Danville’s net position has been stable and growing from FY 2015 through FY 2017.
6.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
The Town has no voter-approved sales or parcel taxes. LLAD assessments help fund maintenance
activities in areas of the Town.
13 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 6-11
Chapter 6
6.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The Town has no enterprise activities.
6.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a municipality’s General Fund revenue
is insufficient to cover pension expenses, the municipality may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The Town of Danville is not a member of the California Public Employees Retirement System or a
defined benefit plan. The Town provides a 401(a) defined contribution benefit plan and provides
no retiree health care, which means it has no unfunded liabilities for those items.
6.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The net value of the Town capital assets has been increasing slightly over time, indicating that the
Town's capital spending has generally kept pace with assets.
6.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The Town’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the
agency's website.
The Town prepares a 10-year budget forecast to anticipate and plan for future budget shortfalls
affecting the ability to maintain reserve levels, meet service demands, and undertake measures to
increase revenues, for example, changes to its LLAD charges. The forecast is integrated into the
Town's budget document.
The Town adopted a Comprehensive Economic Development Plan in 2016 and is implementing a
Community Branding and Marketing Plan adopted in 2017. Successful economic development
programs could improve Town sales taxes.
6.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the Town of Danville.
Contra Costa LAFCO
6-12 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Danville
6.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the Town of Danville serves
44,396 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the Town of Danville are depicted in Figure 6.2.
ABAG projects that the Town of Danville will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.4% to a
population of 47,350 between 2010 and 2040.14 The Town is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.3% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the Town’s
planning is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data15 for 2010, the Town of Danville has 19,005 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data16 for 2010 estimated 11,840 jobs in the Town, with
approximately 0.62 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the Town of Danville has 15,934 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.74.
The number of owner-occupied units in the Town is greater than the number of renter-occupied
housing units (Table 6.6), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
14 ABAG. Projections 2017.
15 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
16 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 6-13
Town of Danville
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 6.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
Town of Danville
June 2019
Town of Danville
TABLE 6.6
TOWN OF DANVILLE
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 13,020
Renter-occupied housing units 2,400
Vacant housing units 514
Total existing housing units 15,934
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 196
Low 111
Moderate 124
Above Moderate 126
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 557
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census; Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.17 The Town of Danville was assigned a RHNA of 557 units, as shown in Table 6.6.
The Town adopted its General Plan in 2013 and its Housing Element in 2015. The Town’s 2014–
2022 Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 800 to 1,000
units, which are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to
meet and exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The Town of Danville 2014–2022 Housing
Element has been found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to
comply with State Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected
housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.18
The Town of Danville’s programs and services to meet the needs of adults age 50 and older were
not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
17 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
18 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 6-15
Chapter 6
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY 2017 were not reported or were unavailable at the
time of this MSR update. The Town reports approximately 323 dwelling units as either approved or
in the approval process.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. One PDA has been identified by
the Town of Danville and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.19 The Downtown PDA is characterized
as a Transit Town Center.20
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The Town of
Danville has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas in Plan Bay Area or the Town’s General
Plan. 21
The Town of Danville does not anticipate that current or projected growth patterns will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
6.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The Town of Danville’s SOI is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the
exception of an extension to the east (see Figure 6.1). No unincorporated islands have been
identified in the Town of Danville.
The Town does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the Town of Danville
and therefore, no disadvantaged communities are relevant to this analysis.
19 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
20 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
21 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
6-16 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Danville
6.4.3 TOWN SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The Town of Danville reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and
anticipates it will continue to do so in the near future.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the Town’s SOI.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for Town streets is 77, which indicates the Town’s streets are in good condition and
primarily require funding at a level to maintain the current condition.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the Town does not
anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The Town did not report on the sufficiency of its CIP to maintain and expand facilities and
infrastructure consistent with projected needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The Town is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the Town’s General Plan. The Town’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 6-17
Chapter 6
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The Town provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning,
lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. Services related to animal control,
broadband, law enforcement, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with
Contra Costa County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The Town does not share facilities or services. No areas of overlapping responsibilities or
opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
6.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
Overall, the Town of Danville appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the
next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The Town of Danville has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund.
The Town currently exceeds their 20% reserve goal, allowing them to maintain an acceptable level
of service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
6-18 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Danville
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The Town reported a liquidity ratio of 9.9, which indicates the Town has the
means available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $173 per capita for FY 2017 and has been declining.
The Town provides a defined contribution retirement plan and has no unfunded pension liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
by ensuring that the State Controller’s Financial Transactions Report was filed on a
timely basis and that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for most
recent fiscal year received a clean opinion and was issued within six months of
fiscal year end
The Town issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered
timely. The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
6.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF TOWN GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The Town of Danville website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the Town
Council and its various boards and commissions; the Town’s budgets; and the Town’s CAFRs.
Town meetings are livestreamed via Granicus, and these meetings and minutes are made available
on the Town's website. The Town therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to
governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF TOWN PLANNING INFORMATION
The Town of Danville website provides public access to the Town’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The Town therefore adequately provides accountability with
regard to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Town of Danville website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which Town residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the Town decision-making process. The Town regularly posts informational updates on programs,
projects, and events via social media. Newsletters are also distributed to Town residents. The Town
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to citizen participation.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 6-19
Chapter 6
6.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
6.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the Town of Danville is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the
exception of an extension to the east, as shown in Figure 6.1. The Town of Danville is bounded by
the City of San Ramon to the south, County lands to the west and east, and the unincorporated
communities of Alamo, Blackhawk, and Diablo to the north.
In conjunction with the first round MSR in 2009, LAFCO deferred action on the Town’s SOI due to
concerns between the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon related to future development
and competing interests in the Tassajara Valley. Representatives and officials from Danville, San
Ramon, and Contra Costa County met to discuss these concerns. The agencies agreed that any
future Danville and San Ramon SOI requests would not conflict or overlap with one another.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
Town of Danville.
6.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF DANVILLE
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this Town of Danville MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The Town of Danville plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including residential, commercial, public, open space, and
agricultural. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future
growth, maintaining compatibility with agricultural and open space uses, as demonstrated in the
General Plan (2013).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the Town of Danville. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the Town of Danville appears adequate. The Town of
Danville anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
Contra Costa LAFCO
6-20 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Danville
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the Town’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
There are several communities located in the East Danville and Camino Tassajara areas that are
within Danville’s SOI and are communities of interest. There has been some growth and
development in and around these areas. Also, there has been interest by some of the residents in
these areas for enhanced police services and annexation to the Town of Danville. This report
recommends that the Town consider annexing these areas.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the Town of Danville
and therefore no present or probable need for the Town to provide structural fire protection, sewer,
or water facilities and services to any disadvantaged communities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 6-21
This page intentionally left blank.
C 7
HAPTER
C E C
ITY OF L ERRITO
7.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of El Cerrito, incorporated in 1917, covers an area of approximately 4 square miles. With
an estimated population of 24,939, the City has a population density of approximately 6,234
persons per square mile.1
The City of El Cerrito lies in western Contra Costa County with the City of Richmond on the west
and east, the unincorporated community of East Richmond Heights on the north, the
unincorporated community of Kensington on the southeast, and the City of Albany and Contra
Costa–Alameda County boundary on the south. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of El
Cerrito extends beyond the municipal boundary to the northeast, where it includes the southern
portion of East Richmond Heights, and to southeast, where it includes Kensington, as shown in
Figure 7.1. The City adopted the countywide Urban Limit Line in 2006.
Land uses in the City include a mix of residential, commercial, and open space. There are no
agricultural land uses in the City of El Cerrito.
7.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of El Cerrito is a charter city. The publicly elected City Council consists of five members,
including the Mayor. All Council members serve four-year terms and the Mayor rotates every year.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 7-1
Figure 7.1. City of El Cerrito Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of El Cerrito
7.1.2 STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 170.7 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 7.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 7.1
CITY OF EL CERRITO
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police 56.4
Fire (not reviewed) 37
Public Works 24.8
Recreation 23
Source: City of El Cerrito
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police function had the highest staffing level in
the City of El Cerrito, with 56.4 FTE employees.
7.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of El Cerrito is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 7.2.
TABLE 7.2
CITY OF EL CERRITO
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost-effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
ABAG Power Wind up electric program
Automated Records Management System Automated records management system with the
Agreement City of Richmond and other contract agencies
California Statewide Communities Development Participate in California First Program
Authority
Contra Costa Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Proper removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles
Authority
Contra Costa County Municipal Risk Management Providing property, workers’ compensation, public
Insurance Authority Joint Exercise of Powers liability and other insurance coverages
Agreement
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 7-3
Chapter 7
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Contra Costa Transit Authority Congestion Plan, fund, and implement innovative transit
Management Agency programs that strengthen our diverse communities
and improve the lives of County residents
East Bay Regional Communications System Develop, build, and maintain a state-of-the-art P25
Authority compliant communication system for Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties; jointly purchasing federal
mandated P25 compliant interoperable radios
Gilman Sports Fields Complex (aka Tom Bates Maintenance of the sports fields – replacement of
Regional Sports Field) turf, additional construction of bathroom
Golden State Finance Authority Program Finance renewable energy generation, energy and
water efficiency improvements, electric vehicle
charging infrastructure, and other energy
improvements
Marin Clean Energy Community Choice Aggregation
Municipal Pooling Authority Providing liability insurance to municipal agencies
in Contra Costa County
Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing for efficiency and seismic improvements
West Contra Costa County Solid Waste Assembly Bill 939 Reporting; household hazardous
Management (RecycleMore) waste collection service
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Supports joint administration of Transportation
Committee Demand Management ordinances and programs
Source: City of El Cerrito
7.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 7.3 lists the awards the City of El Cerrito has reported receiving since the first round
Municipal Service Review (MSR).
TABLE 7.3
CITY OF EL CERRITO
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design U.S Green Building Council 2018
Certification
Environmental Beacon Spotlight Awards: California Institute for Local 2018
Government
• Gold Level – community greenhouse gas
reductions
• Platinum Level – energy savings; natural
gas savings
Honorable Mention Recycling Facility of the Year National Waste and Recycling 2018
Association
Contra Costa LAFCO
7-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of El Cerrito
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Environmental Leadership and Commitment to Marin Clean Energy 2017
Deep Green 100% Renewable Energy
Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Government Finance Officers 2010 – 2017
Association of the United States and
Canada
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Government Finance Officers 2016
Financial Reporting Association of the United States and
Canada
Best All-Around Pavement Management Program Metropolitan Transportation 2015
Commission
Voice of the People Award for Transformation in International City/County 2013
Street Repair Services Management Association
Voice of the People Award for Excellence in International City/County 2013
Recycling Services Management Association
Sustainability Award 2012 for the El Cerrito Sustainable Contra Costa Leadership 2012
Recycling and Environmental Resource Center
Program Excellence Award for Community International City/County 2012
Sustainability Management Association
Recycling and Environmental Resource Center U.S. Green Building Council 2012
LEED for New Construction Platinum
Most Improved Roads Metropolitan Transportation 2011
Commission Pavement Management
Program
Best of Contra Costa County to El Cerrito Parent’s Press Magazine 2011 – 2018
Recreation Department (various categories)
Source: City of El Cerrito
7.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 7.4, municipal services for the City of El Cerrito are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 7-5
Chapter 7
TABLE 7.4
CITY OF EL CERRITO
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning City of El Cerrito
Law Enforcement City of El Cerrito
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of El Cerrito
Parks and Recreation City of El Cerrito
Solid Waste City of El Cerrito, East Bay Sanitary Company
Stormwater City of El Cerrito, Contra Costa Clean Water Program
Streets City of El Cerrito
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: City of El Cerrito
The City of El Cerrito reports the following challenges related to its provision of municipal services:
• Unfunded mandates and regulatory requirements
• Tax limitation measures
• Unfunded pension liability
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
7.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) provides animal control services for the City of El
Cerrito and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. City expenditures for animal services were $137,559 for FY 2017.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
Contra Costa LAFCO
7-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of El Cerrito
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
7.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of El Cerrito does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and AT&T
Internet are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The City of El Cerrito did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of El Cerrito received a grade of C, which indicates that internet service providers
meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one provider
advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of El Cerrito did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
7.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of El Cerrito Community Development Department provides building and planning
services. Department expenditures for FY 2017 were approximately $2.1 million.
The City of El Cerrito issued 1,188 residential and 116 commercial building permits in 2017,
reflecting an upward trend from 1,110 residential and 93 commercial building permits in 2017.
Total building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at $29.1 million, down from $45 million in
FY 2015.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan, Strategic Plan, and the five-year Master
Plans.
7.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of El Cerrito Police Department provides law enforcement services and contracts with the
City of Richmond for dispatch services. FY 2017 expenditures for dispatch services were $501,256;
expenditures for law enforcement services were not reported.
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 7-7
Chapter 7
The City of El Cerrito has 1.6 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, which represents no
change from 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000
population.5 There were 30.78 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The City does not track property or
violent crime clearance rates (a measure of crimes solved).6
7.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of El Cerrito at its El Cerrito Branch
Library and Kensington Branch Library7 locations. County library expenditures were $25.36 per
capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48 per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.8 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state’s average expenditures and staffing levels are nearly double the
County’s.
7.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of El Cerrito Department of
Public Works. City expenditures for light and signal maintenance vary year to year, at $273,015 in
FY 2017, up slightly from $270,830 in FY 2015, but down from $301.951 in FY 2016. The City
maintains 11 signalized intersections, 11 traffic lights, and 1,606 street lights.
7.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of El Cerrito Department of Public Works is the service provider for parks and recreation
facilities, as well as landscaped medians and public planter beds, and the Recreation Department is
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 This branch is outside the municipal boundary but within the City’s SOI.
8 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
7-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of El Cerrito
the service provider for recreation programs. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were approximately
$1.6 million in FY 2017, up from approximately $1.4 million in FY 2015.
The City provides a variety of classes, programs, activities and events, including a robust services
program for older adults and youth.
The City provides and maintains 6 park acres per 1,000 residents, 10.83 recreation centers per
20,000 residents, and 3.6 miles of recreation trails.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
7.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of El Cerrito via franchise agreement with East Bay
Sanitary Company. The City of El Cerrito FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services were $2.1
million, down from $2.2 million in FY 2015. The El Cerrito Recycling and Environmental Resource
Center is open to residents for recycling and household hazardous waste.
The City reported approximately 0.69 tons of waste disposed per capita for FY 2017, and a total
diversion rate of 55%. The FY 2017 per resident disposal rate was 3.8 pounds/resident/day
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
7.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of El Cerrito provides and maintains the City’s stormwater drainage system. The City
reports that they have 38.75 miles of closed storm drain lines and that less than 7.6% of their 1,205
storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of El Cerrito also reports compliance
with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards. Total FY 2017 expenditures for
stormwater were $945,334, representing an upward trend from $831,878 in FY 2015.
7.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of El Cerrito Department of Public Works provides and maintains 68 street miles and
approximately 4 Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles, as well as landscaped medians and other public
landscaping. FY 2017 expenditures for streets vary year to year, at $3 million in FY 2017, down
from $4.1 million in FY 2016 and $3.6 million in FY 2015.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 7-9
Chapter 7
The PCI for streets in the City of El Cerrito was 84 (very good to excellent) in 2017, the same as in
2015, which remains above the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.9 Pavement in this
range (80-100) is newly reconstructed or resurfaced with few signs of distress.
7.2.11 UTILITIES
The City of El Cerrito is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice
Aggregation program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their
electricity supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide
electricity service to the City, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also
provides gas service to the City of El Cerrito.
The City of El Cerrito did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
7.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of El Cerrito’s financial health and assesses the City’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations derives from
audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
7.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget, the City’s General Fund revenues of $37.8 million
slightly exceed General Fund expenditures of $37.7 million.10 Table 7.5 summarizes prior year
changes in General Fund expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios
in each year (see Attachment C). The General Fund's unassigned General Fund balance at the end
of FY 2017 totaled $2.1 million, or about 6.3% of expenditures that year; this level is significantly
below the City's policy goal to achieve "a general fund annual operating reserve of 15%, with a
minimum of 10%, of projected General Fund operating expenditures in each fiscal year."11 The
City anticipated that reserve levels could drop to 3.4% by the start of FY 2018-19.12 These low
9 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
10 City of El Cerrito Proposed Biennial Budget, Fiscal Years 2018-19 and 2019-20, pg. 5.
11 City of El Cerrito Comprehensive Financial Policy, Approved Dec. 6, 2016, General Fund Reserve Policy
3.2.
12 ibid, City of El Cerrito Budget 2018-19 and 2019-20, pg. 6.
Contra Costa LAFCO
7-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of El Cerrito
reserves resulted from City Council decisions to draw upon reserves following the recession rather
than reduce service levels.13
TABLE 7.5
CITY OF EL CERRITO
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $8,800,000 $9,843,000 $9,082,000
Sales Tax $6,455,000 $7,551,000 $7,477,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $14,752,000 $14,975,000 $16,900,000
Total General Fund Revenues $30,007,000 $32,369,000 $34,531,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 7.9% 6.7%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $3,728,000 $4,359,000 $4,927,000
Administration
Public Safety $18,461,000 $19,326,000 $20,277,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $7,627,000 $8,252,000 $9,123,000
Total Expenditures $29,816,000 $31,937,000 $34,327,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 7.1% 7.5%
Expenditures per capita $1,236 $1,304 $1,391
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 0.4 1.2 0.8
Business-type Activities 0.5 0.5 0.5
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
7.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
In addition to low reserves, the City's liquidity ratios are less than 1.0 indicating that current
liabilities exceed short-term resources; this situation can incur increased borrowing costs and risk of
13 ibid, City of El Cerrito Budget 2018-19 and 2019-20, pg. 32.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 7-11
Chapter 7
payment defaults.14 According to the City, currently it has "sufficient cash to cover all current
liabilities and short-term debt."15 The City's outstanding debt totaled approximately $20.7 million at
the end of FY 2017, or $841 per capita.
7.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
Past years show a moderate positive change to its enterprise net position (see Attachment C). The
total positive net position of governmental funds declined about 1% between FY 2015 and FY
2017, and the negative unrestricted portion improved slightly to a negative ($45.7 million) in FY
2017.
7.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
The City supports its budget with the benefit of several voter approved measures, including a local
1-cent sales tax (Measure R) approved in 2010, and extended in 2014 for 12 years, and an 8%
utility users tax approved in 1991 and again in 2004. A Landscape and Lighting Assessment District
(LLAD) provides nearly $800,000 annually to fund certain maintenance services, although the
assessments have not increased since the LLAD was formed in 1988.
Measure V, city charter and property transfer tax measure, was approved by El Cerrito voters in
November 2018. The measure made El Cerrito a charter city and allows it to increase its property
transfer tax rate by 9.17%.
7.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The City's Integrated Waste Management is its only enterprise. As an enterprise, the City can collect
fees and charges to cover its costs. Revenues from Integrated Waste Management fees are projected
to increase by 7.5% in calendar years 2019 and 2020 in order to compensate for loss in materials
revenue.16
7.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the city may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City's net pension liability grew from approximately $46 million in FY 2016 to $54.8 million in
FY 2017 (see Attachment C). Changes to the California Public Employees' Retirement System
14 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
15 City of El Cerrito Response to MSR Fiscal Questions.
16 ibid, City of El Cerrito Budget 2018-19 and 2019-20, pg. 47.
Contra Costa LAFCO
7-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of El Cerrito
requirements will likely increase this net liability. The City's budget does not identify any specific
actions being taken to address the impact of unfunded pension liabilities on the ability to fund City
services and facilities.
The City does not provide retiree health care benefits, but does allow retirees to continue their
health insurance at their own cost. The "implied subsidy" resulting from retirees' more costly
insurance paid by retirees at the City's lower overall average cost is reported in the City's CAFR.
7.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The net value of City capital assets has been declining over time, indicating the City's capital
spending has generally not kept pace with asset depreciation (see Attachment C). FY 2018-19
capital expenditures total approximately $3.0 million and FY 2019-20 capital expenditures total
approximately $2.4 million.17
7.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's website.
The City recently changed auditing firms and consequently its audited CAFR was delayed beyond
six months following the end of the FY 2017 fiscal year. The FY 2017 CAFR was posted on the
City's website in September of 2018, more than one year after the end of FY 2017.
7.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of El Cerrito.
17 ibid, City of El Cerrito Budget 2018-19 and 2019-20, Capital Improvement Summary, pg. 163.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 7-13
Chapter 7
7.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of El Cerrito serves
24,939 residents. The City is considered built-out, and future growth will occur through infill
development and reuse of existing sites.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of El Cerrito are depicted in Figure 7.2.
ABAG projects that the City of El Cerrito will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.7% to a
population of 29,075 between 2010 and 2040.18 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.4% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data19 for 2010, the City of El Cerrito has 12,023 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data20 for 2010 estimated 5,315 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.44 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of El Cerrito has 10,716 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.50.
The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied
housing units (Table 7.6), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
18 ABAG. Projections 2017.
19 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
20 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
7-14 Municipal Service Review Update
City of El Cerrito
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 7.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of El Cerrito
June 2019
Chapter 7
TABLE 7.6
CITY OF EL CERRITO
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 6,145
Renter-occupied housing units 3,997
Vacant housing units 574
Total existing housing units 10,716
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 100
Low 63
Moderate 69
Above Moderate 166
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 398
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.21 The City of El Cerrito was assigned a RHNA of 398 units, as shown in Table 7.6.
The City adopted its General Plan in 1999 and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 796 units, which are
appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and exceed
its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of El Cerrito 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found
by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State Housing
Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all
economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.22
The City of El Cerrito provides a variety of programs and services in the areas of health, education,
and recreation to meet the needs of adults age 50 and older, as shown in Table 7.7.
21 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
22 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
7-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of El Cerrito
TABLE 7.7
CITY OF EL CERRITO
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR AN AGING POPULATION
PROGRAM SERVICE
Exercise Classes Balance, chair work, exercise, floor work, folk dance,
pickleball, tai chi, yoga
Enrichment Bridge, canasta, chess, computer classes, current
events seminar, drawing, eldertech, ikebana,
internet class, ipad/iphone class, mahjong, sing-a-
long, Spanish
Excursions Birding, hikes, day trips, extended trips, walks
Service AARP taxes, easy ride paratransit, hairdresser,
Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy
Program, lunch, massage, peer counseling,
podiatrist, respite, women’s support group
Special Events Pickleball tournament, presentations, senior
resource fair, talks
Source: City of El Cerrito
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City of El Cerrito undeveloped entitled residential acres for FY 2017 were not reported or were
unavailable at the time of this MSR update. The City’s 2015 Housing Element identifies 251 units
under construction or approved within El Cerrito, including 86 very low-income units, 38 low-
income units, 13 moderate-income units, and 114 above moderate-income units.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. One PDA has been identified by
the City of El Cerrito and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.23 The San Pablo Avenue Corridor PDAs
are anticipated to accommodate approximately 73% of the projected growth in households and
50% of the projected growth in employment.24
The San Pablo Avenue Corridor PDA is characterized as Mixed Use Corridor/Transit Oriented
Development and consists of a 2.5-mile section of San Pablo Avenue that traverses El Cerrito from
its southern border at El Cerrito Plana to its northern gateway at the Baxter Creek Gateway Park at
the Richmond border. The PDA is also included in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan.
Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
El Cerrito has identified three PCAs. The Hillside Natural Area PCA consists of 79 acres of open
space in central El Cerrito. The Ohlone Greenway PCA is a linear park that runs 2.5 miles (the
23 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
24 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 7-17
Chapter 7
length of the City). The Cerrito Creek PCA is a creek that runs along the southern border of the City.
These PCAs are included in Plan Bay Area 2040.25
The City of El Cerrito does not anticipate that current or projected growth patterns will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
7.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of El Cerrito’s SOI extends beyond the municipal boundary to the northeast, where it
includes the southern portion of East Richmond Heights, and to southeast, where it includes
Kensington (see Figure 7.1). No unincorporated islands have been identified in the City of El
Cerrito.
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Update identified an area along State Highway 123 and Potrero Avenue and within the
City’s boundary that is considered a disadvantaged community.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
25 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
7-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of El Cerrito
7.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of El Cerrito reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and
anticipates it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
The disadvantaged community within the City’s SOI receives sewer, water, and fire protection
services.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 84, which indicates the City’s streets are in very good condition and
primarily require funding at a level to maintain the current condition. The City reports that it is not
otherwise keeping pace with the aging of capital infrastructure.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City may
experience funding obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting overall infrastructure
needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City reports that its CIP is not sufficient to maintain and expand facilities and infrastructure
consistent with projected needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 7-19
Chapter 7
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, solid waste, stormwater, and streets. 26 Services related
to animal control, broadband, library, solid waste, stormwater, and utilities are provided via
contract with Contra Costa County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The City does not share facilities or services. No areas of overlapping responsibilities or
opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
7.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The City of El Cerrito is experiencing some fiscal challenges that may affect its ability to provide
services, particularly in the event of unexpected funding needs. The City’s capital spending has not
kept pace with asset depreciation. As with other cities in Contra Costa County, rising pension costs
are expected to continue to reduce funding for other priorities.
Overall, and despite these fiscal challenges, the City of El Cerrito appears to have sufficient
financial resources to continue providing services. The City’s ability to accommodate infrastructure
26 Although not covered in this MSR, the City also provides fire service.
Contra Costa LAFCO
7-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of El Cerrito
expansion, improvements, or replacement over the next five years may be compromised absent the
identification of additional funding opportunities. The additional revenue from the 2018 passage of
Measure W will help the City of El Cerrito address some of its fiscal challenges.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of El Cerrito has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund.
The City Council decided to draw upon the City’s reserves after the recession rather than reduce
service levels. As a result, the City’s reserves have been declining, with the unassigned General
Fund balance at 6.3% of expenditures for FY 2017 and projected at 3.4% for FY 2018-2019. This
level is well below the City’s 15% reserve goal and may affect the City’s ability to maintain an
acceptable level of service provision and to enact changes to maintain services..
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City’s liquidity ratio is 0.8; ratios less than 1.0 indicate that liabilities exceed
short-term resources. Although the liquidity ratio is low, the City reports that it has sufficient cash to
cover current liabilities and short-term debt.
Total debt was approximately $841 per capita for FY 2017.
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow. The City has not identified any
measures to address the increasing pension liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The City issued its CAFR over one year after fiscal year end, which is not considered timely. The
CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
7.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of El Cerrito website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the City
Council and its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. City
Council meetings are livestreamed, broadcast on radio and television, and made available on the
City website for future viewing. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to governance and municipal operations.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 7-21
Chapter 7
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of El Cerrito website provides public access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of El Cerrito website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. The City uses social media, OpenGov, radio, printed media, and
in-person workshops and meetings to notify, educate, and engage residents and other customers.
Newsletters are also distributed to City residents. The City therefore adequately provides
accountability with regard to citizen participation.
7.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
7.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of El Cerrito extends beyond the municipal boundary to the northeast, where it
includes the southern portion of East Richmond Heights, and to southeast, where it includes
Kensington, as shown in Figure 7.1. The City of El Cerrito is bound by the City of Richmond on the
west and east, the unincorporated community of East Richmond Heights on the north, the
unincorporated community of Kensington on the southeast, and the City of Albany and Contra
Costa–Alameda County boundary on the south.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of El Cerrito.
This report also recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO consider the option of retaining the existing
SOI with the condition that future potential annexation applications from the City require that the
City demonstrate its financial ability to provide services to the area under consideration.
7.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF EL CERRITO
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of El Cerrito MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of El Cerrito plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including residential, commercial, and open space. Present
and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth, maintaining
compatibility with open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan (1999).
Contra Costa LAFCO
7-22 Municipal Service Review Update
City of El Cerrito
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of El Cerrito. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of El Cerrito appears adequate. The City of El
Cerrito anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the City of El Cerrito.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
There is an area along State Highway 123 and Potrero Avenue and within the City’s boundary that
is considered a disadvantaged community. This area receives sewer, water, and fire protection
services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 7-23
This page intentionally left blank.
C 8
HAPTER
C H
ITY OF ERCULES
8.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Hercules, incorporated in 1900, covers an area of approximately 8 square miles. With
an estimated population of 26,317, the City has a population density of approximately 3,249
persons per square mile.1
The City of Hercules lies in western Contra Costa County with the City of Pinole to the south and
west, the unincorporated community of Rodeo to the north, San Pablo Bay to the west, and County
lands to the east. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of Hercules is mostly coterminous with
the municipal boundary, with the exception of an extension to the north near Highway 4, as shown
in Figure 8.1. The City adopted the countywide Urban Limit Line in 2009.
Land uses in the City include a mix of residential, research and development, commercial, and
open space. There are no designated agricultural land uses in the City of Hercules; however,
livestock grazing does occur on some open space parcels.
8.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Hercules is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The publicly elected City Council consists of five members, including the Mayor. All Council
members serve four-year terms and the Mayor rotates every year.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 8-1
Figure 8.1. City of Hercules Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Hercules
8.1.2 STAFFING
Total City staffing budgeted for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 50.95 full-time equivalent (FTE)
employees. Table 8.1 shows the four service areas with the highest budgeted staffing levels.
TABLE 8.1
CITY OF HERCULES
HIGHEST BUDGETED STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police 24.0
Landscaping and Lighting 4.92
Parks and Recreation 4.0
Wastewater 3.35
Source: City of Hercules
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police service function had the highest staffing
level in the City of Hercules, with 24.0 FTE employees.
8.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Hercules is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 8.2.
TABLE 8.2
CITY OF HERCULES
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
Association of Bay Area Governments Publicly A natural gas aggregation to purchase natural gas
Owned Energy Resources and related services
California Statewide Communities Development —
Authority
Contra Costa Transit Authority Congestion —
Management Agency
East Bay Regional Communications System —
Authority
Hercules/Pinole/Rodeo Sanitary District Disposal of treated wastewater
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 8-3
Chapter 8
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Hercules Public Financing Authority Provide financing related to the lease, acquisition,
construction, and improvement of public capital
improvements
Municipal Pooling Authority
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management
Authority
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee
Western Contra Costa County Transit Authority —
Source: City of Hercules
8.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
The City of Hercules did not report receiving any awards since the first round Municipal Service
Review (MSR).
8.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 8.3, municipal services for the City of Hercules are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
TABLE 8.3
CITY OF HERCULES
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning City of Hercules, Contra Costa County
Law Enforcement City of Hercules
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Hercules
Parks and Recreation City of Hercules
Solid Waste Republic Services/Richmond Sanitary
Stormwater City of Hercules
Streets City of Hercules
Contra Costa LAFCO
8-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Hercules
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice n/a
Source: City of Hercules
Opportunities or challenges related to the provision of municipal services for the City of Hercules
were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
A summary of the available municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided for the City in
Attachment B.
8.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) provides animal control services for the City of
Hercules and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were $142,208.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
8.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Hercules does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and AT&T
Internet are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Hercules did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Hercules received a grade of C-, which indicates that internet service providers
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 8-5
Chapter 8
did not meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one
provider advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of Hercules reports that it has an ordinance in place which requires new development to
install dark fiber and conduit as part of a possible future network and the City Council has budgeted
funds to install dark fiber and conduit when the City undertakes its own public works projects in
the public right-of-way. A variety of initial segments have been installed on this basis. The City did
not indicate specific concerns about the ability of current broadband providers to serve the City’s
existing or growing population.
8.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Hercules Building Division of the Community Development Department provides
support for building services. Contra Costa County provides contract building inspection and plan
check services; City staff coordinates most building service activity. The Planning Department staff
provides current planning services and limited long-range planning services. Department
expenditures for FY 2017 were $512,151.
The City of Hercules issued 61 residential and no commercial building permits in 2017. The total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 was approximately $20.7 million.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan, the Waterfront District Master Plan, and
several specific plans.
8.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Hercules Police Department provides law enforcement services. FY 2017 expenditures
were approximately $5.9 million, up from approximately $5.1 million in FY 2015.
The City of Hercules reports 0.917 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population for FY 2017. The
national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population.5 There were 20.25
crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The 2017 property crime clearance rate (a measure of crimes
solved) was 7% in 2017 and the violent crime clearance rate was 45%.6
8.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Hercules at its Hercules Branch Library
location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48
per capita in FY 2013.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
Contra Costa LAFCO
8-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Hercules
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.2 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditures and staff levels are nearly double the County’s.
8.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of Hercules Engineering and
Public Works Department. City FY 2017 expenditures for light and signal maintenance were a
combined total of $275,075. The City’s 10 traffic signals are maintained by the County of Contra
Costa through an inter-agency agreement. Street lights are owned and maintained by the City or
Pacific Gas and Electric depending upon location and the rate structure.8 Street light maintenance is
funded primarily through a Landscape & Lighting Assessment District.
8.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Hercules Parks and Recreation Department is the service provider for parks and
recreation facilities, as well as recreation programs. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were
approximately $1.8 million in FY 2017, which is the same as for FY 2015.
The City provides a number of activities, classes, programs and events for all ages, including online
learning opportunities and extended trips.
The City provides and maintains approximately 45.9 park acres, 3 recreation centers, and 6 miles of
recreation trails.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
8 The City did not report the number of street lights.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 8-7
Chapter 8
8.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Hercules via franchise agreement with Republic
Services/Richmond Sanitary. Republic Services/Richmond Sanitary transports solid waste collected
from the City of Hercules to the Potrero Landfill located in Suisun City. The City of Hercules FY
2017 expenditures for solid waste services were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this
MSR update.
The FY 2017 solid waste disposal rates were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
8.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Hercules Engineering and Public Works Department provides and maintains the City’s
stormwater drainage system. The City reports that they have 40 miles of closed storm drain lines
and that 80% of high trash generation areas are equipped with trash capture (31 of the City’s storm
drain inlets). The City of Hercules also reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System standards. FY 2017 expenditures for stormwater were $279,083.
8.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The street miles and Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles provided and maintained by the City of Hercules
Engineering and Public Works Department were not reported or were unavailable at the time of
this MSR update. FY 2017 expenditures for streets were $187,094, up from $166,838 in FY 2015.
Including capital costs, total FY 2017 street expenditures were $2.75 million.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the City of Hercules was 69 (fair) in 2017, down from 71 in 2015, and
remains below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.9 Pavement at the low end of the
60-69 (fair) range is significantly distressed and may require a combination of rehabilitation and
preventive maintenance. The City reports that it has significantly increased in investment in street
maintenance and repair the last three years not only due to SB 1 revenues but also other local
resources including one-time General Fund monies in some years.
9 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
Contra Costa LAFCO
8-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Hercules
8.2.11 UTILITIES
Pacific Gas & Electric provides gas and electricity service to the City of Hercules. The City is not a
member of a Community Choice Aggregation program.
The City of Hercules did not report concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
8.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Hercules’s financial health and assesses the City’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for City municipal operations derives
from audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
8.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget, the City’s General Fund revenues of $15.1 million10 are
slightly below General Fund adopted expenditures of $15.2 million.11 The General Fund's
unassigned General Fund balance at the end of FY 2017 totaled $9.4 million, or about 330% of
expenditures (see Attachment C). In FY 2018 the City added to its Fiscal Neutrality Reserve in order
to maintain the reserve at the City's policy goal of two months' expenditures.12 Table 8.4
summarizes prior year changes in General Fund expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY
2017, and liquidity ratios in each year (see Attachment C).
The General Fund's ending fund balances generally exceeded 300% of annual revenues in FY 2015
through FY 2017, however a significant portion of those balances are non-spendable advances to
other funds. In the FY 2018/19 Budget, the City increased its General Fund Reserve to 3 months
annual expenditures.
10 City of Hercules Adopted Budget, FY 202018-19 (FY 2019) pg. 68.
11 ibid, Hercules Budget FY 2019, pg. 122, Reso. No. 18-043.
12 ibid, Hercules Budget FY 2019, pg. 4.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 8-9
Chapter 8
TABLE 8.4
CITY OF HERCULES
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $1,173,000 $1,057,000 $1,110,000
Sales Tax $2,518,000 $1,803,000 $1,943,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $9,999,000 $11,260,000 $11,907,000
Total General Fund Revenues $13,690,000 $14,120,000 $14,960,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 3.1% 5.9%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $2,636,000 $2,953,000 $3,974,000
Administration
Public Safety $5,152,000 $5,590,000 $6,022,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $3,308,828 $3,607,553 $2,658,808
Total Expenditures $11,096,828 $12,150,553 $12,654,808
Change from Prior Year n/a 9.5% 4.2%
Expenditures per capita $451 $488 $483
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 2.7 0.9 1.0
Business-type Activities 32.3 4.4 6.3
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
8.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
In FY 2017 the City's governmental activities' liquidity ratio was approximately 1.0 indicating that
current liabilities approximately equaled short-term resources; this situation can incur increased
borrowing costs and risk of payment defaults.13 The FY 2016 liquidity ratio was 0.9. The City
anticipated that positive surpluses from FY 2018 would increase its reserves and liquidity going into
13 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
8-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Hercules
FY19.14 The City's total debt has been declining over time. Total outstanding debt was
approximately $1,485 per capita in FY 2017, indicating increases compared to the $1,346 per
capita reported for FY 2015 (see Attachment C).
8.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
Past years show an overall positive change for combined enterprise net position (see Attachment C).
The total positive net position of governmental funds increased between FY 2015 and FY 2017, and
the positive unassigned portion improved.
8.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
The City supports its budget with the benefit of several voter approved measures, including a local
one-half-cent sales tax (Measure B, originally adopted as Measure O) which generated about $1.1
million FY 2017, and a utility users tax increase (Measure C) that produced $1.3 million in FY 2017
in addition to the $3.3 million from the City's existing utility users tax.
Zones in the Citywide Landscape and Lighting Assessment District (LLAD) have had financial
difficulty funding costs, and efforts to increase assessments were unsuccessful. A mailed ballot
tabulated in July 2018 successfully increased rates in only one of six LLAD districts, leading to
"leading to the strong possibility of LLAD service cutbacks in those zones."15 The City's Stormwater
Fund has also been experiencing deficits due to state-mandated services and increased
expenditures that are not adequately funded by existing stormwater funding sources.
8.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The City's wastewater operation is its only enterprise. As an enterprise, the City can collect fees and
charges to cover its costs. The joint Pinole Hercules Waste Water Treatment Plant is undergoing
expansion, and may result in some "future increase in operating costs."16
8.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the city may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City last reported its unfunded pension liability of $14.5 million in FY 2016 (see Attachment
C), which is the residual owed after accounting for its 70% funded total liability. The City reports
14 ibid, Hercules Budget FY 2019, pg. 5.
15 City of Hercules website, 8/17/18, 2018 Landscape and Lighting Assessment,
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/
16 ibid, Hercules Budget FY 2019, pg. 7.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 8-11
Chapter 8
that it established a Section 115 Trust in FY18 with an initial deposit of $500,000 followed by a
deposit of $1 million in FY19 and additional deposits for a current balance of $1.54 million and is
considering options for the most effective use of the trust funds. The City recently negotiated an
employee cost-sharing of 3 percent of the CalPERS employer rate.17 The City's other post-
employment benefit accrued liability was $638,000 at the start of FY 2015. The City created an
OPEB trust which grew to $2.105 million by the end of FY18 and which would be available to
offset an OPEB liability of $3.561 million as of June 30, 2018.18
8.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The net value of City governmental capital assets has been increasing over time, indicating the
City's capital spending has generally kept pace with asset depreciation (see Attachment C).
Enterprise assets show a jump in value attributable to transfer of redevelopment assets to the City.
The City reports that its FY 2019 budget has sufficient funds and one-time revenues in excess of
operating costs to invest in "many deferred facility repairs and maintenance issues," which the
budget indicates are increasingly visible.19
8.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's website.
The City's CAFR required more than 6 months following the end of the prior fiscal year; the CPA
firm's letter is dated January 31, 2018. The City reports that “the 2017/18 audit was done prior to
December 31, 2018.”20
8.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Hercules.
17 City of Hercules comments 4/12/2019 on the Public Review Draft MSR.
18 City of Hercules comments 4/12/2019 on the Public Review Draft MSR.
19 ibid, Hercules Budget FY 2019, pg. 5.
20 City of Hercules comments 4/12/2019 on the Public Review Draft MSR.
Contra Costa LAFCO
8-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Hercules
8.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Hercules serves
26,317 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Hercules are depicted in Figure 8.2.
ABAG projects that the City of Hercules will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.6% to a
population of 28,700 between 2010 and 2040.21 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.3% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data22 for 2010, the City of Hercules has 12,264 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data23 for 2010 estimated 4,955 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.4 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that the
City of Hercules has 8,553 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.58. The
number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied housing
units (Table 8.5), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household rate.
21 ABAG. Projections 2017.
22 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
23 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 8-13
City of Hercules
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Jobs Households Population
Figure 8.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Hercules
June 2019
City of Hercules
TABLE 8.5
CITY OF HERCULES
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 6,450
Renter-occupied housing units 1,665
Vacant housing units 438
Total existing housing units 8,553
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 220
Low 118
Moderate 100
Above Moderate 244
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 682
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.24 The City of Hercules was assigned a RHNA of 682 units, as shown in Table 8.5.
The City adopted its General Plan in 1998 and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 2,732 units, which
are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and
exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Hercules 2015–2023 Housing Element has
been found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with
State Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.25
The programs and services provided by the City to meet the needs of adults age 50 and older were
not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
24 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
25 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 8-15
Chapter 8
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The undeveloped entitled residential acres for FY 2017 included only Parcel C – Muir Pointe, a
development of 144 single-family housing units. Anticipated completion of the development is FY
2019-20. Projects identified as part of the projected growth for the City (dwelling units and
commercial space) included the Sycamore Crossing Site and the Markethall Site, which lie on
opposite corners of San Pablo and Sycamore avenues. The Markethall site will include
development of a Safeway grocery store and a commercial pad building. The previously approved
Sycamore Crossing commercial project has been revised by a new developer who has proposed
120 condo units, a 105 room hotel, a CVS pharmacy, and restaurant uses.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. Two PDAs have been identified
by the City of Hercules and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.26 The Central Hercules and
Waterfront District PDAs are anticipated to accommodate approximately 52% of the projected
growth in households but none of the projected growth in employment.27 The Central Hercules
PDA is characterized as a Transit Neighborhood and the Waterfront District PDA is characterized as
a Transit Town Center.
In 2018, a mixed use Block N in the Waterfront PDA was approved for 172 multi-family housing
units and 12,000 square feet of retail which is now under construction. In early 2019, another 232
units of multi-family housing (including 15 affordable housing units) were approved in Blocks Q-R
in the Waterfront PDA, and this development is anticipated to begin construction soon.
Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Hercules has identified the Central Hercules and Waterfront District PCA. This PCA is included in
Plan Bay Area 2040.28
The City of Hercules did not report that current or projected growth patterns will expand beyond its
existing municipal boundary and SOI.
8.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Hercules’s SOI is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the exception
of an extension to the north near Highway 4 (see Figure 8.1). No unincorporated islands have been
identified in the City of Hercules.
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
26 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
27 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
28 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
8-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Hercules
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the City of Hercules
and therefore, no disadvantaged communities are relevant to this analysis.
8.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
Based on available information, not enough data has been provided by the City of Hercules for this
MSR Update to make an accurate determination about the City’s ability to adequately serve all
areas within its municipal boundary at present and in the foreseeable future.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the City’s SOI.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 69, which is below the target of 75 MTC has established and which
indicates a potential future need for pavement rehabilitation funding. The City reports that it has
many deferred facility repairs and maintenance issues.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the available information related to its provision of municipal services, the City may
experience funding obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting overall infrastructure
needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 8-17
Chapter 8
The City did not report on the sufficiency of its CIP to maintain and expand facilities and
infrastructure consistent with projected needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. 29 Services related to animal
control, broadband, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with Contra Costa
County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The City does not share facilities or services. Based on available information, no areas of
overlapping responsibilities or opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part
of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities based on the
information available.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
Based on available information, no excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this
review.
29 Although not covered in this MSR, the City also provides sewer service.
Contra Costa LAFCO
8-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Hercules
8.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The City of Hercules is experiencing some fiscal challenges that may affect its ability to provide
services. As with other cities in Contra Costa County, rising pension costs are expected to continue
to reduce funding for other priorities.
Overall, the City of Hercules appears to have adequate financial resources to continue providing
services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the
next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
After operating at a surplus for the past few years, the City of Hercules is operating at a deficit for
FY 2018-2019. The City states that “this small budgeted operating deficit is expected to transition
into a net operating surplus” given that its revenue forecasts were conservative; the relatively small
deficit should be covered by the City’s unallocated fund balances.30
The City recently added to its Fiscal Neutrality Reserve to maintain the City’s reserve goal of two
months’ expenditures, allowing it to maintain an acceptable level of service provision and to enact
changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 1.0, which indicates current liabilities
approximately equal short-term resources. Ratios less than 1.0 indicate that liabilities exceed short-
term resources.
Total debt was approximately $1,485 per capita for FY 2017, up from $1,346 for FY 2015.
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow. The City has not identified any
measures to address the increasing pension liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
by ensuring that the State Controller’s Financial Transactions Report was filed on a
timely basis and that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for most
30 City of Hercules comments 4/12/2019 on the Public Review Draft MSR.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 8-19
Chapter 8
recent fiscal year received a clean opinion and was issued within six months of
fiscal year end
The City issued its CAFR approximately 7 months after fiscal year end, which is not considered
timely. The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion. The City
reports that “the 2017/18 audit was done prior to December 31, 2018.”31
Overall, the CAFRs are clearly presented; however, the City could incorporate changes to improve
the transparency of its financials. For example, certain tables in the CAFR extend over multiple
pages; however, the left-most column does not carry over to multiple pages, affecting the
readability of the tables.
8.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Hercules website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the City
Council and its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. The City
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Hercules website provides public access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Hercules website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with
regard to citizen participation.
31 City of Hercules comments 4/12/2019 on the Public Review Draft MSR.
Contra Costa LAFCO
8-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Hercules
8.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
8.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Hercules is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the
exception of an extension to the north near Highway 4, as shown in Figure 8.1. The City of
Hercules is bound by the City of Pinole to the south, the unincorporated community of Rodeo to
the north, San Pablo Bay to the west, and County lands to the east.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Hercules.
8.5.2 Sphere of Influence Determinations for the City of Hercules
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Hercules MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Hercules plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including industrial, residential, research and development,
commercial, and open space. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as
well as future growth, maintaining compatibility with open space uses, as demonstrated in the
General Plan (1998).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Hercules. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Hercules appears adequate. The City of
Hercules anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the City of Hercules.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 8-21
Chapter 8
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the City of Hercules
and therefore no present or probable need for the City to provide structural fire protection, sewer,
or water facilities and services to any disadvantaged communities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
8-22 Municipal Service Review Update
C 9
HAPTER
C L
ITY OF AFAYETTE
9.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Lafayette, incorporated in 1968, covers an area of approximately 14 square miles. With
an estimated population of 25,655, the City has a population density of approximately 1,832
persons per square mile.1
The City of Lafayette lies in central Contra Costa County with the Town of Moraga to the south, the
cities of Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill to the east, and the City of Orinda on the west. County
lands bound the City to the north, including Briones Regional Park. The Sphere of Influence (SOI)
for the City of Lafayette is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the exception of
two extensions to the east, as shown in Figure 9.1. The City adopted the countywide Urban Limit
Line in 2008.
Land uses in the City include a mix of residential, commercial, and open space. There are no
agricultural land uses in the City of Lafayette.
9.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Lafayette is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The publicly elected City Council consists of five members, including the Mayor. Council members
serve four-year terms and the Mayor rotates every year.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 9-1
Figure 9.1. City of Lafayette Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Lafayette
9.1.2 STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 39.57 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 9.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 9.1
CITY OF LAFAYETTE
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Public Works 13.0
Community Development (Planning) 9.0
Administration 7.72
Parks 5.6
Source: City of Lafayette
Unlike many other cities in Contra Costa County, the public works function had the highest staffing
level in the City of Lafayette, with 13.0 FTE employees.
9.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Lafayette is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 9.2.
TABLE 9.2
CITY OF LAFAYETTE
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Provides solid waste services for Central Contra
Costa residents and businesses
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority —
Contra Costa Transit Authority Congestion —
Management Agency
East/Central County Wastewater Management —
Authority
Lamorinda Fee and Financing Authority Subregional transportation finance committee
Lamorinda Program Management Committee Sub-regional transportation planning committee
Lamorinda School Bus Transportation Agency School bus service—Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda
Municipal Pooling Authority Risk management
Source: City of Lafayette
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 9-3
Chapter 9
9.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 9.3 lists the awards the City of Lafayette has reported receiving since the first round
Municipal Service Review (MSR).
TABLE 9.3
CITY OF LAFAYETTE
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Government Finance Officers 2015 – 2017
Financial Reporting Association
Great Places in California American Planning Association 2017
Source: City of Lafayette
9.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 9.4, municipal services for the City of Lafayette are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
TABLE 9.4
CITY OF LAFAYETTE
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning City of Lafayette, Contra Costa County
Law Enforcement Contra Costa County
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Lafayette
Parks and Recreation City of Lafayette, East Bay Regional Park
District, East Bay Municipal Utility District
Solid Waste Allied Waste
Stormwater City of Lafayette
Streets City of Lafayette
Contra Costa LAFCO
9-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Lafayette
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: City of Lafayette
The City of Lafayette reports the following opportunities and challenges related to its provision of
municipal services:
• Meeting regional housing obligations, including the provision of housing for all incomes
• Dissolution of the former Redevelopment Agency
• Stormwater management requirements and funding sources to comply with requirements
• Unfunded housing mandates
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
9.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) provides animal control services for the City of
Lafayette and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were $144,384 in FY 2017.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
9.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Lafayette does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and AT&T
Internet are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Lafayette did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 9-5
Chapter 9
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Lafayette received a grade of C, which indicates that internet service providers
meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one provider
advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of Lafayette did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve the
City’s existing or growing population.
9.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Lafayette Planning and Building Department provides planning services and the City
contracts with the Contra Costa County Building Division for building services. Department
expenditures for FY 2017 were $766,303.
The City of Lafayette issued 473 residential and 78 commercial building permits in 2017. Total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at $65.8 million. The Town Center Phase III
residential project, under construction in 2017, includes 62 market-rate and 7 below-market-rate
condominiums and two levels of underground parking adjacent to the BART station in the heart of
downtown.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan and the Five-year Master Plan, several
master plans, and the Downtown Specific Plan.
9.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Lafayette contracts with the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office to provide law enforcement
and dispatch services. FY 2017 expenditures for the Sheriff’s Office were $229.3 million, up from
$217.8 million in FY 2015. FY 2017 expenditures for the City were approximately $4.5 million,
reflecting an upward trend from approximately $3.9 million in FY 2015.
The City of Lafayette reported 0.7 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population in FY 2016, which is
the same as in 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000
population.5 There were 20.1 crimes per sworn FTE in 2016. The property crime clearance rate (a
measure of crimes solved) was 6.94% in 2016, and the violent crime clearance rate was 37.5%.6
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
Contra Costa LAFCO
9-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Lafayette
The Sheriff’s Office reported 677 FTE for FY 2017, up from 664 FTE in FY 2016, with an average of
1.02 sworn staff per 1,000 population. Total property crime clearances were reported at 125 (30 in
Lafayette) and total violent crime clearances were reported at 340 (11 in Lafayette) for FY 2017.
The City of Lafayette has a Crime Prevention Commission which meets monthly with law
enforcement to discuss crime-related concerns and crime prevention, and to provide input and
support
9.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Lafayette at its Lafayette Branch Library
location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48
per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state’s averages for expenditures and staffing are nearly double the
County’s.
9.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of Lafayette Department of Public
Works. City expenditures for light and signal maintenance were $653,400 in FY 2017. The City
maintains 26 signalized intersections, 240 traffic lights, and 358 street lights.
9.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Lafayette Parks and Recreation Department is the primary service provider for parks and
recreation facilities, as well as recreation programs. East Bay Regional Park District also provides
and maintains parks within the City’s SOI. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were approximately
$728,000 in FY 2017, reflecting an upward trend from approximately $665,700 in FY 2015.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 9-7
Chapter 9
The City provides a range of programs and activities for all ages and interests, including inline
hockey, basketball, dodge ball, lacrosse, and family and teen skate nights at the City’s multi- sport
rink.
The City provides and maintains approximately 3.5 park acres per 1,000 residents, 1 recreation
center, and 9 miles of recreation trails. East Bay Regional Park District provides and maintains
1,000 park acres.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
9.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Lafayette via franchise agreement with Allied Waste
Services. Allied Waste Services transports solid waste collected from the City of Lafayette to the
Keller Canyon Landfill in the City of Pittsburg. The City of Lafayette has no expenditures for solid
waste services as the provision of services is included in the franchise agreement.
The City solid waste disposed disposal rates for 2017 were not reported or were unavailable at the
time of this MSR update.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
9.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Lafayette Department of Public Works provides and maintains the City’s stormwater
drainage system. The City reports that they have 57 miles of closed storm drain lines and that less
35% of the downtown storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture; the City has 1,686 storm
drain inlets in total. The City of Lafayette also reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System standards. Total FY 2017 expenditures for stormwater were $112,380,
representing an upward trend from $72,150 in FY 2015.
9.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Lafayette Department of Public Works provides and maintains 92 street miles and
approximately 78 Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles, as well as public landscaping. FY 2017
expenditures for streets were $6,768,000, which is a significant increase from $3,584,000 in FY
2015.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
Contra Costa LAFCO
9-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Lafayette
The PCI for streets in the City of Lafayette was 79 (good) in 2017, up from 77 in 2015, which
remains above the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.8 Pavement in the good (70-79)
range requires mostly preventive maintenance and shows only low levels of distress.
9.2.11 UTILITIES
The City of Lafayette is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice
Aggregation program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their
electricity supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide
electricity service to the City, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also
provides gas service to the City of Lafayette.
The City of Lafayette did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
9.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Lafayette’s financial health and assesses the City’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations derives from
audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
9.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget,9 the City’s General Fund revenues of $16.5 million10
approximately equal General Fund expenditures. The General Fund's unassigned General Fund
balance at the end of FY 2019 totaled $10.1 million, or about 61% of General Fund expenditures
(including transfers out), a slight improvement over prior years (see Attachment C).11 The City's
reserve policy targets 60%.12 Table 9.5 summarizes prior year changes in General Fund
expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year.
A shortfall of $150,000 is projected to the City's Stormwater Fund, which will require reductions in
Stormwater Fund reserves or increased use of General Funds. The City is striving to build $1.1
8 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
9 City of Lafayette Proposed Budget and Workplan, FY 2018-19 (FY 2019).
10 City of Lafayette Staff Report, FY 2018/19 Proposed Municipal Budget and Workplan, pg. 1.
11 City of Lafayette Staff Report, FY 2018/19 Budget, pg. 1.
12 City of Lafayette policy established in 2015; staff is recommending 100% reserve levels.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 9-9
Chapter 9
million in reserves in the fund; the total amount currently reserved is $450,000 although this will
be affected by the City's budget decisions.13
TABLE 9.5
CITY OF LAFAYETTE
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $4,005,000 $4,441,000 $4,722,000
Sales Tax $2,877,000 $3,194,000 $3,008,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $7,915,000 $8,633,000 $9,293,000
Total General Fund Revenues $14,797,000 $16,268,000 $17,023,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 9.9% 4.6%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $3,268,000 $3,667,000 $4,136,000
Administration
Public Safety $4,551,000 $4,603,000 $4,691,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $5,558,560 $6,632,324 $7,573,380
Total Expenditures $13,377,560 $14,902,324 $16,400,380
Change from Prior Year n/a 11.4% 10.1%
Expenditures per capita $542 $598 $651
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 4.0 3.7 3.0
Business-type Activities 2.0 0.6 1.5
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
9.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
13 City of Lafayette Staff Report, FY 2018/19 Budget, pg. 6-7.
Contra Costa LAFCO
9-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Lafayette
In FY 2017 the City's governmental activities' liquidity ratio was approximately 3.0 indicating that
short-term resources exceeded current liabilities.14 In FY 2016 the City's recreation fund's liquidity
ratio was 0.6; this situation could require borrowing from other funds, or can incur increased
borrowing costs and risk of payment defaults. In FY 2017 the recreation fund's ratio was 1.5 (see
Attachment C).
The City's total outstanding debt has been declining over time. Total $4.8 million outstanding debt
was approximately $192 per capita in FY 2017, indicating reductions compared to the $268 per
capita reported for FY 2015 (see Attachment C). The City has no enterprise debt.
9.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The enterprise’s positive net position has generally improved from FY 2015 to FY 2017 (see
Attachment C). The total positive net position of governmental funds also increased slightly
between FY 2015 and FY 2017, and the positive unrestricted portion improved.
9.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
Voters defeated a proposed 1% local sales tax in 2016 that would have raised up to $3 million
annually; Measure C received only 41.18% approval.15 The City has expressed concern about the
failure of the measure eliminating the potential for future local sales tax increases if other agencies
used the remaining sales tax capacity (up to 10% of taxable sales).
The City receives assessments from properties in its Core Area; however, the Core Area Fund has
continually run a deficit which is projected to be $246,000 in FY 2019. The budget proposes to
fund this shortfall, although it had previously established a policy to limit General Funds to
$100,000.
9.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The Recreation Fund is the City's only enterprise activity. The fund's revenues slightly exceed its
expenditures; in FY 2019 a slight increase in its cash position to $580,000 is anticipated.
9.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the city may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
14 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
15 https://ballotpedia.org/Lafayette,_California,_Sales_Tax,_Measure_C_(November_2016)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 9-11
Chapter 9
The City contributes to a defined contribution 401(a) plan and has no unfunded pension liabilities.
The City maintains an irrevocable trust account under the California Employers' Retiree Benefit
Trust Fund managed by the California Public Employees' Retirement System. As of FY 2017 the
account had a slight asset value because contributions exceeded obligations (see Attachment C).
The City’s CAFRs also report a minimal positive asset value in its other post-employment benefit
account.
9.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The net value of City governmental capital assets has declined slightly over the past several years,
indicating the City's capital spending has generally not quite kept pace with asset depreciation (see
Attachment C). The City's 5-year budget forecast shows a $1 million annual transfer to its Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) after a proposed $1.6 million contribution in FY 2019.16
In the summer of 2019, the City will complete reconstruction of the last streets remaining in the
failed road backlog, and then the City will focus on systematic pavement maintenance and
preservation, and the replacement of aging corrugated metal storm drain pipes. The City currently
has not identified sufficient resources to maintain roads at the desired level; the City has identified
$1.7 million annually for road maintenance, but needs $2.3 million to maintain a PCI of 77,
exceeding the target PCI of 75 established by MTC.17
9.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's
website.
The City has applied the California Municipal Financial Health Diagnostic, which indicated healthy
financial indicators with the exception of cautions related to recurring net operating deficits and
declining fund balances.18
9.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
16 City of Lafayette Staff Report, FY 2018/19 Budget, 5-Year Budget Forecast, pg. 11.
17 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
18 City of Lafayette Staff Report, May 27, 2014.
Contra Costa LAFCO
9-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Lafayette
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Lafayette.
9.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Lafayette serves
25,655 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Lafayette are depicted in Figure 9.2.
ABAG projects that the City of Lafayette will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.4% to a
population of 26,815 between 2010 and 2040. 19 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.3% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data20 for 2010, the City of Lafayette has 10,862 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data21 for 2010 estimated 8,990 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.83 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of Lafayette has 9,651 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.93.
The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied
housing units (Table 9.6), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
19 ABAG. Projections 2017.
20 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
21 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 9-13
City of Lafayette
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 9.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Lafayette
June 2019
City of Lafayette
TABLE 9.6
CITY OF LAFAYETTE
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 6,937
Renter-occupied housing units 2,286
Vacant housing units 428
Total existing housing units 9,651
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 138
Low 78
Moderate 85
Above Moderate 99
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 400
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.22 The City of Lafayette was assigned a RHNA of 400 units, as shown in Table 9.6.
The City adopted its General Plan in 2002 and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2014–2022
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 868 units, which are
appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and exceed
its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Lafayette 2014–2022 Housing Element has been found
by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State Housing
Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all
economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.23
The City of Lafayette provides a variety of programs and services in the areas of health, education,
and recreation to meet the needs of adults age 50 and older, as shown in Table 9.7.
22 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
23 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 9-15
Chapter 9
TABLE 9.7
CITY OF LAFAYETTE
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR AN AGING POPULATION
PROGRAM SERVICE
Lamorinda Spirit Van Offers rides to older Lamorinda residents
Senior Service Commission Development, coordination, and promotion of
Senior Service Center Programs
Source: City of Lafayette
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City of Lafayette reported approximately 35 undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY 2017.
The City reports approximately 225 dwelling units as either approved or in the approval process.
No applications for new commercial space were considered in FY 2017.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. One PDA has been identified by
the City of Lafayette and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.24 The Downtown PDA is anticipated to
accommodate approximately 63% of the projected growth in households and all of the projected
growth in employment.25
The Downtown PDA, characterized as a Transit Neighborhood consists of approximately 300 acres
south of Highway 24, between Risa Road and Pleasant Hill Road.
Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Lafayette has identified two PCAs. The Burton Ridge PCA lies between Olympic Boulevard and the
City’s southern limits. The Lafayette Ridge PCA lies between the City’s northwestern limits and
Pleasant Hill Road. These PCAs are included in the regional planning initiative called FOCUS, short
for Focusing our Vision, and Plan Bay Area 2040.26
The City of Lafayette does not anticipate that current or projected growth patterns will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
9.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Lafayette’s SOI is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the exception
of two extensions to the east (see Figure 9.1). No unincorporated islands have been identified in the
City of Lafayette.
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
24 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
25 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
26 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
9-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Lafayette
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Update identified a disadvantaged community within and contiguous to the SOI for the
City of Lafayette.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
9.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Lafayette reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and
anticipates it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
The disadvantaged community within and contiguous to the City’s SOI receives sewer, water, and
fire protection services.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 79, which indicates the City’s streets are in good condition and primarily
require funding at a level to maintain the current condition; however, expenditures for streets
nearly doubled from FY 2015 (when the PCI was 77) to FY 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 9-17
Chapter 9
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City does not
anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City’s capital spending has not kept pace with infrastructure needs, and sufficient resources
have not been identified to maintain City streets at or above the PCI target established by MTC.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning,
lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. Services related to animal control,
broadband, law enforcement, library, parks and recreation, solid waste, and utilities are provided
via contract with Contra Costa County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The City does not share facilities or services. No areas of overlapping responsibilities or
opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
Contra Costa LAFCO
9-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Lafayette
9.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
Overall, the City of Lafayette appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the
next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Lafayette has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund.
The City currently exceeds their 60% reserve goal, allowing them to maintain an acceptable level
of service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 3.0, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $192 per capita for FY 2017 and has been declining.
The City contributes to a defined contribution 401(a) plan and has no unfunded pension liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
by ensuring that the State Controller’s Financial Transactions Report was filed on a
timely basis and that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for most
recent fiscal year received a clean opinion and was issued within six months of
fiscal year end
The City issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered timely.
The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 9-19
Chapter 9
9.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Lafayette website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the City
Council and its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. Audio
recordings of City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Commission, and Circulation
Commission meetings are also made available on the City’s website. The City therefore adequately
provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Lafayette website provides public access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Lafayette website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. Newsletters are also distributed to City residents. The City
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to citizen participation.
9.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
9.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Lafayette is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the
exception of two extensions to the east, as shown in Figure 9.1. The City of Lafayette is bound by
the Town of Moraga to the south, the cities of Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill to the east, the City
of Orinda on the west, and County lands to the north, including Briones Regional Park.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Lafayette.
9.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Lafayette MSR profile.
Contra Costa LAFCO
9-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Lafayette
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Lafayette plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including residential, commercial, and open space. Present
and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth, maintaining
compatibility with open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan (2002).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Lafayette. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Lafayette appears adequate. The City of
Lafayette anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the City of Lafayette.
In the past several years, however, there has been interest by various neighborhood groups in the
Newell Avenue and Reliez Valley areas to annex to the City of Lafayette. City officials have
discussed potential annexation with these neighborhoods indicating that due to deficient
infrastructure (e.g., roads, drainage), a special tax would be needed to support City services in these
areas.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Update identified a disadvantaged community within and contiguous to the SOI for the
City of Lafayette. This area receives sewer, water, and fire protection services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 9-21
This page intentionally left blank.
C 10
HAPTER
C M
ITY OF ARTINEZ
10.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Martinez, incorporated in 1876, covers an area of approximately 12.5 square miles.
With an estimated population of 38,097, the City has a population density of approximately 2,930
persons per square mile.1
The City of Martinez lies in central Contra Costa County, with the City of Pleasant Hill to the south,
the Carquinez Strait to the north, the City of Concord and Waterbird Regional Preserve to the east,
and County lands, including the Briones hills, to the west. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the
City of Martinez extends beyond the municipal boundary to the east, north, and southeast, as well
as to the southwest, as shown in Figure 10.1. The SOI includes the unincorporated communities of
Vine Hill, Mt. View, North Pacheco, and the Alhambra Valley. The City adopted the countywide
Urban Limit Line in 2007. The municipal boundary extends beyond the Urban Limit Line to the
northeast.
Land uses in the City include a mix of industrial, residential, commercial, agricultural, and open
space. Agricultural uses include areas in the Alhambra Valley that consist of privately owned rural
lands, generally in hilly areas that are used for grazing livestock or dry grain farming.
10.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Martinez is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The publicly elected City Council consists of five members, including the Mayor; members serve
four-year terms. The Mayor is elected at large and the remaining members of the City Council are
elected by district.
The Martinez City Council also serves as Board of Directors for Contra Costa County Sanitation
District No. 6 (Stonehurst Subdivision) following annexation of the area to City in 2012.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 10-1
Figure 10.1. City of Martinez Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Martinez
10.1.2 STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 117.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 10.1 shows the three service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 10.1
CITY OF MARTINEZ
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police 52.0
Public Works 44.0
Park and Community Services 17.0
Source: City of Martinez
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police function had the highest staffing level in
the City of Martinez, with 52.0 FTE employees.
10.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Martinez is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 10.2.
TABLE 10.2
CITY OF MARTINEZ
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority —
Central Contra Costa Transportation/Land Use —
Partnership
Contra Costa Transit Authority Congestion —
Management Agency
East Bay Regional Communications System To improve communications in emergency and
Authority Operating Agreement disaster situations by coordinating with local
entities within Alameda and Contra Costa County
on the interoperability of emergency
communications equipment
East/Central County Wastewater Management —
Authority
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 10-3
Chapter 10
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Municipal Pooling Authority of Northern California To pool risk with other public entities to jointly self-
insure costs of tort liability, worker’s compensation,
property, and other risks
Pleasant Hill-Martinez Joint Facilities Agency To provide for the development and operation of
shared facilities and services
Transportation/Land Use Partnership (TRANSPAC) Aids in the establishment of policies and taking
action to more effectively respond to the
requirements of Measure C (local transportation
funding)
Source: City of Martinez
10.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
The City of Martinez has not reported receiving any awards since the first round Municipal Service
Review (MSR).
10.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 10.3, municipal services for the City of Martinez are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
TABLE 10.3
CITY OF MARTINEZ
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast, Wave Broadband
Building / Planning City of Martinez
Law Enforcement City of Martinez
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Martinez
Parks and Recreation City of Martinez
Solid Waste Allied Waste
Stormwater City of Martinez
Streets City of Martinez
Contra Costa LAFCO
10-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Martinez
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: City of Martinez
The City of Martinez reports the following opportunities and challenges related to its provision of
municipal services:
• Meeting pension obligations
• Funding capital improvements
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
10.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) provides animal control services for the City of
Martinez and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were $214,584 in FY 2017.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
10.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Martinez does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast, AT&T
Internet, and Wave Broadband are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a
variety of wired technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Martinez did not indicate
concerns about the availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5
Mbps upload speeds to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 10-5
Chapter 10
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Martinez received a grade of C, which indicates that internet service providers
meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one provider
advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of Martinez did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve the
City’s existing or growing population.
10.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Martinez Building Division provides building services and the Planning Division
provides planning services. Building Division expenditures for FY 2017 were $$806,246 and
Planning Division expenditures were $530,790.
The City of Martinez issued 1,635 residential and 73 commercial building permits in 2017. Total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at $27.5 million. The Villages at Arnold
Subdivision, a 42-unit development, was completed in 2017.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan.
10.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Martinez Police Department provides law enforcement and dispatch services. FY 2017
expenditures were approximately $10.8 million.
The City of Martinez has 0.97 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population in 2017, which remains
unchanged from 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000
population.5 There were 18 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime clearance rate (a
measure of crimes solved) was 10% in 2017, and the violent crime clearance rate was 54%.6
10.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Martinez at its Martinez Branch Library
location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48
per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
Contra Costa LAFCO
10-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Martinez
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditure and staffing levels are nearly double those of the
County.
10.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of Martinez Engineering
Department. City expenditures for light and signal maintenance in FY 2017 were $515,646. The
City maintains 27 signalized intersections, 331 traffic lights, and 550 street lights.
10.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Martinez Recreation Division is the service provider for parks and recreation facilities,
as well as recreation programs. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were $809,774.
The City offers a range of activities and program including youth, senior, aquatic, historical, marina,
sports and leagues, along with various special events. The City’s Waterfront Park completed an
extensive renovation program in 2018. Improvements included new and renovated parking lots,
safety lighting and fencing, new trails and sidewalks, a tot lot, restroom, and extensive renovations
to the existing four baseball fields.
The City provides and maintains 6.22 park acres per 1,000 residents, 5 recreation centers per
20,000 residents, and 3 miles of recreation trails.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
10.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Martinez via franchise agreement with Allied Waste
Services. Allied Waste Services transports solid waste collected from the City of Martinez to the
Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Facility located three miles east of the City of Martinez. The
City of Martinez FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services were $77.097.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 10-7
Chapter 10
The City reported approximately 20 tons of waste disposed per capita for FY 2017. The FY 2017
per resident disposal rate was 5.8 pounds/resident/day.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
10.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Martinez Engineering Department provides and maintains the City’s stormwater
drainage system. The City reports that they have 37 miles of closed storm drain lines and that
approximately 7.85% of the City’s 1,350 storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The
City of Martinez also reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
standards. FY 2017 expenditures for stormwater were not reported or were unavailable at the time
of this MSR update.
10.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Martinez Engineering Department maintains 122 street miles. The Class 1 and 2 bike
lane miles were unavailable at the time of this MSR update. FY 2017 expenditures for streets were
approximately $6.2 million.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the City of Martinez was 51 (at risk) in 2017, down from 52 in 2015, and
remains well below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.8 Pavement in the 50-59 (at
risk) has deteriorated and requires immediate attention, including rehabilitative work. The City will
use new funding obtained from SB-1 and Measure D for pavement repair to increase the PCI.
10.2.11 UTILITIES
The City of Martinez is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice
Aggregation program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their
electricity supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide
electricity service to the City, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also
provides gas service to the City of Martinez.
The City of Martinez did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
8 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
Contra Costa LAFCO
10-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Martinez
10.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Martinez’s financial health and assesses the City’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations derives from
audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
10.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
According to the City's FY 2018-19 proposed budget, the City’s General Fund revenues of $22.5
million approximately equal General Fund expenditures; a mid-year update shows revenues
improved by $300,000 but was offset by increased expenditures of $1.3 million (primarily to
improve police staff recruitment and retention).9 The net result is a reduction to the unassigned
General Fund balance at the end of FY 2019 originally proposed to be $8.3 million.10 Currently the
City maintains an unassigned General Fund balance equal to 20% of expenditures, consistent with
the City's reserve policy target of 20%.11 Table 10.4 summarizes prior year changes in General
Fund expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year.
The City seeks to improve revenues and address fiscal issues by actively pursuing development
opportunities and revitalizing its downtown. Actions include the reinstatement of the Community
and Economic Development Director position and creation of a new Economic Development
Coordinator position. The City is developing and implementing a market study, building and site
inventory, and related marketing materials.12
9 City of Martinez Mid-Cycle Amendments to the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget, City Council Agenda, June
20, 2018.
10 City of Martinez 2017-18 and 2018-19 Biennial Budget, June 21, 2017.
11 ibid, Martinez Biennial Budget, Section 15, pg. 207.
12 ibid Martinez Biennial Budget, pg. ii.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 10-9
Chapter 10
TABLE 10.4
CITY OF MARTINEZ
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $7,165,000 $7,755,000 $8,212,000
Sales Tax $3,088,000 $4,018,000 $4,729,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $10,894,000 $11,123,000 $9,270,000
Total General Fund Revenues $21,147,000 $22,896,000 $22,211,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 8.3% -3.0%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $3,359,000 $3,968,000 $4,518,000
Administration
Public Safety $9,327,000 $10,396,000 $10,576,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $6,160,000 $6,080,000 $6,328,000
Total Expenditures $18,846,000 $20,444,000 $21,422,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 8.5% 4.8%
Expenditures per capita $510 $549 $566
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 6.7 7.1 10.3
Business-type Activities 7.4 4.6 4.6
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
10.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
In FY 2017 the City's governmental activities' liquidity ratio was approximately 10.3 indicating that
short-term resources exceeded current liabilities.13 Total enterprise activities' liquidity ratio equaled
4.6 in FY 2017 (see Attachment C).
13 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
10-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Martinez
The City's total outstanding debt has been declining over time. Total outstanding debt was
approximately $903 per capita in FY 2017, indicating reductions compared to the $980 per capita
reported for FY 2015 (see Attachment C).
10.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The enterprise’s positive net position has generally improved from FY 2015 to FY 2017 (see
Attachment C). The total positive net position of governmental funds also increased between FY
2015 and FY 2017, and the negative unrestricted portion of its net position improved.
10.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
Voters approved Measure D, a half-cent sales tax, in November 2016 which currently generates
$3.2 million annually dedicated for street improvements. The City Council placed a one-half-cent
sales tax measure (Measure X) on the November 2018 ballot, which voters passed.
10.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
Although the City's "business-type activity" (water, marina and parking services) indicated
improving ending balances FY 2015 through FY 2017, the City's current water system budget
shows annual revenue shortfalls of approximately $600,000 in FY 2018 and FY 2019 (see
Attachment C). The City plans to commission a study to update its water rates, the first update in 10
years, to address increasing costs for power and capital improvement needs. A draft study and
review by the Martinez City Council is set for discussion in early 2019. The parking services fund is
positive but declining. The marina budget projects negative ending fund balances of about
($340,000) to ($300,000) in FY 2018 and FY 2019, respectively.14
10.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the city may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City's budget anticipated a 20% increase in its $2.4 million annual pension costs from FY 2018
to FY 2019, and continued increases.15 As of FY 2017, the net pension liability totaled $36.4
million (see Attachment C).
14 City of Martinez 2017-18 and 2018-19 Biennial Budget, June 21, 2017, pg. 152.
15 ibid Martinez Biennial Budget, pg. ii.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 10-11
Chapter 10
10.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
Measure D revenues have enabled the City to significantly increase its spending on road
improvements. The City's governmental assets showed a net increase in FY 2017, indicating
positive investments (see Attachment C). As noted above, water enterprise operations have shown
declining positions which the City will address in its rate study update.
10.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's
website.
10.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Martinez.
10.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Martinez serves
38,097 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Martinez are depicted in Figure 10.2.
Contra Costa LAFCO
10-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Martinez
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 10.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Martinez
June 2019
Chapter 10
ABAG projects that the City of Martinez will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.4% to a
population of 40,035 between 2010 and 2040.16 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.8% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data17 for 2010, the City of Martinez has 18,164 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data18 for 2010 estimated 20,710 jobs in the City, with
approximately 1.14 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of Martinez has 14,976 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 1.40.
The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied
housing units (Table 10.5), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
TABLE 10.5
CITY OF MARTINEZ
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 9,619
Renter-occupied housing units 4,668
Vacant housing units 689
Total existing housing units 14,976
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 124
Low 72
Moderate 78
Above Moderate 195
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 469
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
16 ABAG. Projections 2017.
17 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
18 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
10-14 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Martinez
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.19 The City of Martinez was assigned a RHNA of 469 units, as shown in Table 10.5.
The City adopted its General Plan in 2016 and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 1,156 units, which
are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and
exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Martinez 2015–2023 Housing Element has
been found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with
State Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.20
The City of Martinez provides programs and services for adults age 50 and older, including a wide
range of health, education, recreation, volunteer, and other social interaction opportunities for
participants that enhance dignity, support independence, and encourage community involvement.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City of Martinez reported no undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY 2017. Several
projects have been identified as part of the projected growth for the City and include 190 dwelling
units and 300,000 square feet of commercial space. These projects are either approved or in the
approval process.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. One PDA has been identified by
the City of Martinez and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.21 The Downtown PDA is anticipated to
accommodate approximately 29% of the projected growth in households and 48% of the projected
growth in employment.22 The Downtown PDA is characterized as a Transit Neighborhood.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Martinez has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas in Plan Bay Area or the City’s General
Plan.23
The City of Martinez does not anticipate that current or projected growth patterns will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
19 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
20 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
21 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
22 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
23 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 10-15
Chapter 10
10.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Martinez’s SOI extends beyond the municipal boundary to the east, north, and
southeast and includes the unincorporated communities of Vine Hill, Mt. View, North Pacheco,
and the Alhambra Valley. Mt. View is an unincorporated island which is substantially surrounded
by the City (see Figure 10.1).
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Update identified a disadvantaged community located within the City boundary in the
northwest area.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
10.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Martinez appears to adequately serve all areas within its municipal boundary and SOI
and is likely to continue to do so in the foreseeable future based on available information.
Contra Costa LAFCO
10-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Martinez
The disadvantaged community within the City’s SOI receives sewer, water, and fire protection
services.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 51, which is below the target of 75 MTC has established and which
indicates a pressing need for pavement rehabilitation funding. The City also has identified the need
for funding other capital improvements.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City may
experience funding obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting overall infrastructure
needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City did not report on the sufficiency of its CIP to maintain and expand facilities and
infrastructure consistent with projected needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets.24 Services related to animal
24 Although not covered in this MSR, the City also provides retail water service.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 10-17
Chapter 10
control, broadband, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with Contra Costa
County, public vendors, or private vendors.
Based on available information, no areas of overlapping responsibilities or opportunities to share
services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities based on the
information available.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
Based on available information, no excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this
review.
10.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
As with other cities in Contra Costa County, rising pension costs are expected to continue to reduce
funding for other priorities.
Overall, the City of Martinez appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the
next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Martinez has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund.
The City currently meets their 20% reserve goal, allowing them to maintain an acceptable level of
service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 10.3, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $903 per capita for FY 2017 and has been declining.
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow significantly; however, the City
has taken steps to help address the increasing costs by accounting for a 20% increase in its budgets.
Contra Costa LAFCO
10-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Martinez
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
by ensuring that the State Controller’s Financial Transactions Report was filed on a
timely basis and that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for most
recent fiscal year received a clean opinion and was issued within six months of
fiscal year end
The City issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered timely.
The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
10.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Martinez website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the City
Council and its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. The City
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Martinez website provides public access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Martinez website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with
regard to citizen participation.
10.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
10.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Martinez extends beyond the municipal boundary to the east, north, and
southeast and includes the unincorporated communities of Vine Hill, Mt. View, North Pacheco,
and the Alhambra Valley, as shown in Figure 10.1. The City of Martinez is bound by the City of
Pleasant Hill to the south, the Carquinez Strait to the north, the City of Concord and Waterbird
Regional Preserve to the east, and County lands, including the Briones hills, to the west.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 10-19
Chapter 10
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Martinez.
10.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF MARTINEZ
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Martinez MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Martinez plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including industrial, residential, commercial, agricultural,
and open space. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future
growth, maintaining compatibility with agricultural and open space uses, as demonstrated in the
General Plan (2016).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Martinez. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Martinez appears adequate. The City of
Martinez anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
The City’s SOI includes the unincorporated communities of Vine Hill, Mt. View, North Pacheco,
and the Alhambra Valley. Mt. View is an unincorporated island which is substantially surrounded
by the City. These areas could benefit from receiving City services. LAFCO encourages the City to
annex these areas. All other communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are
included within the SOI.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Update identified a disadvantaged community located within the City boundary in the
northwest area. This area receives sewer, water, and fire protection services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
10-20 Municipal Service Review Update
C 11
HAPTER
T M
OWN OF ORAGA
11.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The Town of Moraga, incorporated in 1974, covers an area of approximately 9.5 square miles.
With an estimated population of 16,991, the Town has a population density of approximately
1,699 persons per square mile.1
The Town of Moraga lies in central Contra Costa County, with the City of Lafayette to the north and
northeast and the City of Orinda to the northwest. County lands bound the Town to the south, east,
and west. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the Town of Moraga is mostly coterminous with the
municipal boundary, with the exception of an extension to the southeast, as shown in Figure 11.1.
The Town adopted the countywide Urban Limit Line in 2007.
Land uses in the Town include a mix of residential, office, commercial, public institution, and open
space. There are limited agricultural uses that include vineyards and some cattle grazing in the
Town of Moraga.
11.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The Town of Moraga is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The publicly elected Town Council consists of five members, including the Mayor. Council
members serve four-year terms and the Mayor rotates each year.
11.1.2 STAFFING
Total Town staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 was 36 FTE, with the Police Department at 13 FTE.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 11-1
Figure 11.1. Town of Moraga Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
Town of Moraga
11.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The Town of Moraga is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 11.1.
TABLE 11.1
TOWN OF MORAGA
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Provides solid waste services for Central Costa
Contra residents and businesses
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority Cooperative agreements for Measure C, Measure J,
and PDA Planning Grant Program
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Abatement of abandoned vehicles
(Abandoned Vehicle Abatement)
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Building For building inspection services
Inspections)
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Fine & Grants the power to sue and be sued in its own
Forfeiture Distribution) name
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (General For provision of various general services.\
Services)
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors For provision of technical engineering and
(Technical Engineering and Inspection) inspection services
Contra Costa Transit Authority Congestion —
Management Agency
East Bay Regional Communications System IP-based architectural communications system
Authority Operating Agreement
Lamorinda Fee and Financing Authority Subregional transportation finance committee
Lamorinda School Bus Transportation Agency School bus service—Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda
MCE Clean Energy A community-wide electricity aggregation program
known as Community Choice Aggregation
Western Riverside Council of Governments To permit the provision of property assessed clean
energy program services
Source: Town of Moraga
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 11-3
Chapter 11
11.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 11.2 lists the awards the Town of Moraga received since the first round Municipal Service
Review (MSR).
TABLE 11.2
TOWN OF MORAGA
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Emergency Project of the Year for the Northern California Chapter American Public 2019
Canyon Road Bridge Emergency Works Association
Opening
Transportation Project of the Year for Northern California Chapter American Public 2017
the Lamorinda Paving Partnership Works Association
Best All-Around Pavement Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2013
Management Program
Environmental Project of the Year for Northern California Chapter American Public 2013
the Town’s Integrated Pest Works Association
Management
Source: Town of Moraga
11.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 11.3, municipal services for the Town of Moraga are provided by Town staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
TABLE 11.3
TOWN OF MORAGA
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning Town of Moraga, Contra Costa County
Law Enforcement Town of Moraga, Contra Costa County
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting Town of Moraga
Contra Costa LAFCO
11-4 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Moraga
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Parks and Recreation Town of Moraga
Solid Waste Republic Services
Stormwater Town of Moraga
Streets Town of Moraga
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: Town of Moraga
The Town of Moraga reports the following opportunities and challenges related to its provision of
municipal services:
• Development of the Moraga Center and Rheem Center development areas to promote the
growth of retail/restaurant options, mixed use developments, and a variety of housing types
consistent with the Town’s approved Housing Element and RHNA goals
• Continued preservation of sensitive hillside and ridgeline areas while processing
development of several subdivisions in these settings
• An increase in property crimes, some of which involve violence, which requires additional
law enforcement resources to take police reports and investigate crimes
• Shifts to local-agency responsibility related to the use of non-judicial alternatives for the
disposition of criminal offenses
A summary of the Town’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
11.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) provides animal control services for the Town of
Moraga and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were not reported or were unavailable
at the time of this MSR update.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 11-5
Chapter 11
11.2.2 BROADBAND
The Town of Moraga does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and AT&T
Internet are the main internet providers in the Town.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The Town of Moraga did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The Town of Moraga received a grade of D, which indicates that internet service providers
did not meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one
provider advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The Town of Moraga did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve
the Town’s existing or growing population.
11.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The Town of Moraga Planning Department provides planning and code enforcement services and
contracts out all building permit processing and inspection services to the Contra Costa County
Building Department. Town of Moraga Planning Department expenditures for FY 2017 were
$790,707, up from $868,417 in FY 2016.
The Town of Moraga issued 518 residential and 25 commercial building permits issued in 2017.
Total building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at approximately $27.5 million.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan, Moraga Center Specific Plan, and the St.
Mary’s College Campus Master Plan. The Town is currently processing the Moraga Center Specific
Plan Implementation project to develop zoning provisions and development standards to
implement the goals and policies of the Specific Plan, revitalize the Moraga Center Priority
Development Area, and provide housing opportunities consistent with adopted state goals and
mandates.
11.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Town of Moraga Police Department provides law enforcement and contracts with the Contra
Costa County Office of the Sheriff for dispatch services. FY 2017 expenditures for the Moraga
Police Department were approximately $2.9 million, up from $2.5 million in FY 2016.
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
11-6 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Moraga
The Moraga Police Department reported 13 FTE for FY 2017, unchanged from the previous year.
The 2017 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population was not reported or was unavailable at the
time of this MSR update. The crimes per sworn FTE in 2017 were not reported or were unavailable
at the time of this MSR update. The 2017 property crime clearance rate (a measure of crimes
solved) and the violent crime clearance rate were not reported or were unavailable at the time of
this MSR update.5
11.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the Town of Moraga at its Moraga Branch Library
location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48
per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.6 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditures and staffing per capita are nearly double the
County’s.
11.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the Town of Moraga Public Works
Department. The Town formed the Assessment District No. 1979-1, Town of Moraga Street Lighting
in 1979. Town expenditures for light and signal maintenance were not reported or were
unavailable at the time of this MSR update. The signalized intersections, traffic lights, and street
lights maintained by the Town were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR
update.
5 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
6 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 11-7
Chapter 11
11.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The Town of Moraga Parks and Recreation Department is the service provider for parks and
recreation facilities, as well as recreation programs. The Parks Division of the Public Works
Department provides maintenance of park and recreation facilities. FY 2017 expenditures for parks
were approximately $1.3 million in FY 2017, reflecting a slight increase from approximately $1.2
million in FY 2016
The Town provides a variety of programs and activities for people of all ages and interests,
including special events, summer camps, senior trips, and youth classes.
Overall, the Parks Division maintains 320 acres of active and passive park land within the Town,
which equates to 20 acres per 1,000 residents. The Town has 1 recreation center and 20.5 miles of
recreation trails, of which 5.2 miles are provided and maintained by the Town.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The Town’s level of service standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
11.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the Town of Moraga via franchise agreement with Republic
Services. The Town of Moraga FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services were not reported or
were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
The FY 2017 solid waste disposal rates were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this
MSR update.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
11.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The Town of Moraga Public Works Department provides and maintains the Town’s stormwater
drainage system. The Town reports that they have 27 miles of closed storm drain lines. The
percentage of their storm drain inlets equipped with trash capture were not reported or were
unavailable at the time of this MSR update. The Town also reports compliance with National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards. FY 2017 expenditures for stormwater were
$214,640.
11.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The Town of Moraga Public Works Department provides and maintains 56 street miles. Class 1 and
2 bike lane miles were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update. FY 2017
expenditures for streets were $3 million.
Contra Costa LAFCO
11-8 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Moraga
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the Town of Moraga was 68 (fair) in 2017, up from 64 in 2015, but remains
below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.7 Pavement at the low end of the 60-69 (fair)
range is significantly distressed and may require a combination of rehabilitation and preventive
maintenance.
To maximize the Town’s PCI, the Town has implemented recommendations from the 2015
Pavement Management Report to: 1) focus on one treatment per year to maximize quantities and
lower unit bid; 2) allocate approximately 17%, 33%, and 50% of funding to overlay,
reconstruction, and surface seal treatments respectively; 3) partner with other agencies to combine
projects as a way to reduce costs; and 4) leverage Measure K as local match for grant funding.
11.2.10 UTILITIES
The Town of Moraga is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice
Aggregation program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their
electricity supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide
electricity service to the Town, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also
provides gas service to the Town of Moraga.
The Town of Moraga did not report concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve
the Town’s existing or growing population.
11.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the Town of Moraga’s financial health and assesses the
Town’s financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations
derives from audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current
budget documents, and Town staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section
are provided in Attachment C.
11.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
Town.
According to the Town's FY 2018-19 budget, the Town’s General Fund revenues of $9.3 million8
approximately equal General Fund expenditures. Table 11.4 summarizes prior year changes in
7 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
8 Town of Moraga Staff Report, Preliminary FY 2018/19 Budget, June 13, 2018 Town Council Meeting.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 11-9
Chapter 11
General Fund expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each
year (see Attachment C). The General Fund's projected unassigned balance at the end of FY 2019
totals $3.9 million, or about 42% of General Fund expenditures (see Attachment C). The Town's
reserve policy targets 50%.9 While property tax growth has been strong and the Town has
rescinded its fiscal emergency,10 the Town faces continuing needs for capital improvement funding.
TABLE 11.4
TOWN OF MORAGA
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $1,854,000 $1,983,000 $2,111,000
Sales Tax $2,755,000 $1,069,000 $1,007,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $4,876,637 $7,274,759 $5,118,817
Total General Fund Revenues $9,485,637 $10,326,759 $8,236,817
Change from Prior Year n/a 8.9% -20.2%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $1,439,000 $1,609,000 $1,676,000
Administration
Public Safety $2,494,000 $2,537,000 $2,564,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $5,529,465 $4,232,700 $4,306,480
Total Expenditures $9,462,465 $8,378,700 $8,546,480
Change from Prior Year n/a -11.5% 2.0%
Expenditures per capita $576 $505 $507
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 8.0 8.9 8.4
Business-type Activities n/a n/a n/a
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
9 Town of Moraga Preliminary Fiscal Year 2018/19 Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budgets,
policy FY 2019 budget, pg. C-7.
10 The Town of Moraga fiscal emergency was declared on June 28, 2017 as part of the FY 2017/18 Budget
process.
Contra Costa LAFCO
11-10 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Moraga
The primary cause of the Town's fiscal emergency was insufficient cash flow for day-to-day
operations. Two serious infrastructure failures contributing to the emergency, the Rheem sinkhole
and Canyon Road bridge, have been repaired and reopened in November 2017.11
11.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
In the years prior to the emergency (FY 2015 through FY 2017), the Town's governmental activities'
liquidity ratio was approximately 8.0 or greater, indicating that short-term resources significantly
exceeded current liabilities (see Attachment C).12
The Town's total outstanding debt has been declining over time. Total outstanding debt was
approximately $471 per capita in FY 2017, indicating reductions compared to the $529 per capita
reported for FY 2015 (see Attachment C).
11.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The total positive net position of governmental funds increased between FY 2015 and FY 2017, and
the positive unrestricted portion improved (see Attachment C).
11.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
Voter-approved Measure K, a one-cent local sales and use tax, generates about $1.8 million
annually. The measure is a general tax adopted in 2012 and expiring after 20 years. Currently the
Town dedicates the funds towards road maintenance.
11.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The Town does not provide any enterprise activities.
11.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the city may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
11 ibid, Town of Moraga Staff Report, FY 2019 Budget.
12 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 11-11
Chapter 11
The Town projects its annual payments towards unfunded pension liabilities to more than double
over the next four years. In FY 2019 those payments total $323,500 and could grow to $637,300 in
FY 2023.13
11.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The value of the Town's capital assets increased FY 2015 and FY 2016 partly due to road
improvements funded by Certificates of Participation; however, Town infrastructure is aging and the
Town's fiscal emergency and depleted reserves contributed to current shortfalls of funding. Roads
require additional funds to restore and maintain their condition at target levels, and shortfalls exist
in the Town's stormwater program and asset replacement program. Specific funding options to fill
the gap were not identified in the FY 2019 budget, although the Town's five-year General Fund
projections indicate revenue growth and increases in the General Fund balance.
11.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The Town’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the
agency's website.
11.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the Town of Moraga.
11.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the Town of Moraga serves
16,991 residents.
13 Town of Moraga.
Contra Costa LAFCO
11-12 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Moraga
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the Town of Moraga are depicted in Figure 11.2.
ABAG projects that the Town of Moraga will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.4% to a
population of 18,080 between 2010 and 2040.14 The Town is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.8% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the Town’s
planning is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data15 for 2010, the Town of Moraga has 7,060 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data16 for 2010 estimated 4,570 jobs in the Town, with
approximately 0.65 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the Town of Moraga has 5,754 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.79.
14 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
15 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
16 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 11-13
Town of Moraga
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 11.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
Town of Moraga
June 2019
Town of Moraga
The number of owner-occupied units in the Town is greater than the number of renter-occupied
housing units (Table 11.5), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
TABLE 11.5
TOWN OF MORAGA
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 4,673
Renter-occupied housing units 897
Vacant housing units 184
Total existing housing units 5,754
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 75
Low 44
Moderate 50
Above Moderate 60
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 229
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.17 The Town of Moraga was assigned a RHNA of 229 units, as shown in Table 11.5
The Town adopted its General Plan in 2002 and its Housing Element in 2015. The Town’s 2015–
2023 Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 644 units,
which are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet
and exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The Town of Moraga 2015–2023 Housing Element has
been found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with
State Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.18
17 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 11-15
Chapter 11
The programs and services provided by the Town to meet the needs of adults age 50 and older
include recreational, wellness, and social networking opportunities.
Moraga Municipal Code Sec. 8.104 provides for density bonuses for residential development
projects to assist in meeting the Town’s affordable housing goals, per its adopted Housing Element.
Additionally, the Moraga Center PDA provides for higher residential densities targeted for
affordable housing, including senior housing. The Town is currently working to complete the
Moraga Center Specific Plan Implementation Project, which would provide for zoning provisions
and development standards consistent with the Moraga Center Specific Plan to streamline the
approval process for affordable housing developments.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The Town reported approximately 530 undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY 2017. The
Town reports approximately 229 dwelling units as either approved or in the approval process.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. One PDA has been identified by
the Town of Moraga and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.19 The Moraga Center PDA is anticipated
to accommodate approximately 50% of the projected growth in households and 18% of the
projected growth in employment.20
The Moraga Center PDA, which encompasses approximately 187 acres, is characterized as a
Transit Town Center. In 2010, the Town adopted the Moraga Center Specific Plan to guide the
future development of this area. Since that time, approximately 20 acres have been redeveloped for
residential purposes, leaving the remainder of the Moraga Center as either vacant (approximately
79 acres) or underutilized (approximately 88 acres). Future development of these vacant or
underutilized parcels are slated for a combination of residential, retail, commercial, and mixed
uses.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The Town of
Moraga has identified the Moraga Open Space Ordinance and Non-Moraga Open Space Ordinance
Open Space PCA. This PCA is included in Plan Bay Area 2040 as MOSO and Non-MOSO.21
The Town of Moraga did not report that current or projected growth patterns will expand beyond
its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
18 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
19 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
20 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
21 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
11-16 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Moraga
11.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The Town of Moraga’s SOI is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the exception
of an extension to the southeast (see Figure 11.1). No unincorporated islands have been identified
in the Town of Moraga.
The Town of Moraga is currently processing an application for a proposed 13-unit residential
subdivision on a 24-acre site located at Camino Pablo and Tharp Drive (Assessor’s Parcel Number
258-290-023; Figure 11.3). The proposed project includes a request to annex the property into the
Town of Moraga; the project site is currently within unincorporated Contra Costa County, but is
within the Urban Limit Line for the Town of Moraga.
The southern portion of the project site (approximately 4.5 acres) has a Town of Moraga General
Plan designation of Residential, 1 Dwelling Unit Per Acre (1–DUA). The remainder of the site
(approximately 19.5 acres) has a Town of Moraga General Plan designation of Open Space (OS).
The entire site is designated Agricultural Lands (AL) in the Contra Costa County General Plan and
has a Contra Costa County zoning designation of A–2 (Agriculture).
The proposed project consists of 13 single-family residential units on individual lots. The two-story
detached houses would be clustered at the southern end of the site on approximately 8 acres, and
the remaining 16 acres would be preserved as permanent open space. The Town anticipates taking
action on this application by the end of 2019.
The Town does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 11-17
Figure 11.3. Area of Proposed Camino Pablo Annexation
June 2019
Town of Moraga
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the Town of Moraga
and therefore, no disadvantaged communities are relevant to this analysis.
11.4.3 TOWN SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The Town of Moraga reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and
SOI. Based on available information, sufficient data has not been provided by the Town of Moraga
for this MSR Update to make an accurate determination about the Town’s ability to adequately
serve all areas within its municipal boundary in the foreseeable future.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the Town’s SOI.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for Town streets is 68, which is below the target of 75 MTC has established and which
indicates a potential future need for pavement rehabilitation funding. The Town has implemented
recommendations from its Pavement Management Report to help address this need.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the available information related to its provision of municipal services, the Town may
experience funding obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting overall infrastructure
needs.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 11-19
Chapter 11
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The Town did not report on the sufficiency of its CIP to maintain and expand facilities and
infrastructure consistent with projected needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The Town is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the Town’s General Plan. The Town’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The Town provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning,
law enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. Services related to animal
control, broadband, law enforcement, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract
with Contra Costa County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The Town does not share facilities or services. No areas of overlapping responsibilities or
opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities based on the
information available.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
Based on available information, no excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this
review.
Contra Costa LAFCO
11-20 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Moraga
11.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The Town of Moraga has recovered from a 2017 fiscal emergency resulting from unplanned major
infrastructure repairs which cost the Town approximately $5 million and drained their reserve fund.
As with other cities in Contra Costa County, rising pension costs are expected to continue to reduce
funding for other priorities.
Overall, the Town of Moraga appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the
next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The Town of Moraga has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund until the 2017 fiscal
year. The Town’s 2018-2019 budget projects that revenues will approximately equal expenditures.
The Town does not currently meet their 50% reserve goal, but they appear to have the ability to
maintain an acceptable level of service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The Town reported a liquidity ratio of 8.4, which indicates the Town has the
means available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $471 per capita for FY 2017 and has been declining.
The Town's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow. The Town has not identified
any measures to address the increasing pension liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
by ensuring that the State Controller’s Financial Transactions Report was filed on a
timely basis and that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for most
recent fiscal year received a clean opinion and was issued within six months of
fiscal year end
The Town issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered
timely. The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 11-21
Chapter 11
11.5.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF TOWN GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The Town of Moraga website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the Town
Council and its various boards and commissions; the Town’s budgets; and the Town’s CAFRs. The
Town also livestreams broadcasts Council meetings as well as broadcasts them on cable TV. The
Town therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal
operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF TOWN PLANNING INFORMATION
The Town of Moraga website provides public access to the Town’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The Town therefore adequately provides accountability with
regard to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Town of Moraga website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which Town residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the Town decision-making process. Newsletters are also distributed to Town residents. The Town
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to citizen participation.
11.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
11.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the Town of Moraga is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the
exception of an extension to the southeast, as shown in Figure 11.1. The Town of Moraga is bound
by the City of Lafayette to the north and northeast, and the City of Orinda to the northwest, and
County lands to the south, east, and west.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
Town of Moraga.
This report also recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO consider the option of retaining the existing
SOI with the condition that future potential annexation applications from the Town require that the
Contra Costa LAFCO
11-22 Municipal Service Review Update
Town of Moraga
Town provide more information22 to demonstrate its capacity, adequacy, and ability to provide
services to the area under consideration
11.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF MORAGA
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this Town of Moraga MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The Town of Moraga plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including residential, office, commercial, public institution,
and open space. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future
growth, maintaining compatibility with open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan
(2002).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the Town of Moraga. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the Town of Moraga appears adequate. The Town of
Moraga anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the Town’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the Town of Moraga.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the Town of Moraga
and therefore no present or probable need for the Town to provide structural fire protection, sewer,
or water facilities and services to any disadvantaged communities.
22 To include expenditures for animal control, lighting, solid waste, stormwater/drainage, and streets/roads
services; additional detail for law enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation solid waste, stormwater
drainage, streets/road services; as well as programs and services for adults aged 50 and over.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 11-23
This page intentionally left blank.
C 12
HAPTER
C O
ITY OF AKLEY
12.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Oakley, incorporated in 1999, covers an area of approximately 16 square miles. With
an estimated population of 41,742, the City has a population density of approximately 2,608
persons per square mile.1
The City of Oakley lies in eastern Contra Costa County, with the City of Brentwood to the south,
the City Antioch to the west, the San Joaquin River to the north, and County lands to the east and
south. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of Oakley is mostly coterminous with the
municipal boundary, with the exception of an extension to the east, as shown in Figure 12.1. The
City adopted the countywide Urban Limit Line in 2008.
Land uses in the City include a mix of industrial, residential, office, commercial, institution, retail,
agricultural, and open space. Agricultural uses include vineyards, orchards, and row crops, animal
husbandry, active cultivation of crops, or some other type of use that is substantially agricultural in
nature.
12.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Oakley is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The publicly elected City Council consists of five members, including the Mayor. Council members
serve four-year terms and the Mayor rotates each year.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 12-1
Figure 12.1. City of Oakley Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Oakley
12.1.2 STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 82.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 12.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 12.1
CITY OF OAKLEY
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police 40.0
Parks and Recreation 16.0
Administration 9.5
Public Works 7.5
Source: City of Oakley
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police service function had the highest staffing
level in the City of Oakley, with 40.0 FTE employees.
12.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Oakley is a member of several joint powers authorities, which are listed in Table 12.2.
TABLE 12.2
CITY OF OAKLEY
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
East Bay Regional Communications System —
Authority Operating Agreement
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy —
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation —
Plan Implementing Agreement
East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing —
Authority
East Contra Costa Transit Authority Restated —
PACE Program, 2014 —
State Route 4 Bypass Authority 1989-2011 —
Transplan (East County) Regional Transportation —
Planning Committee
Source: City of Oakley
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 12-3
Chapter 12
12.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 12.3 lists the awards the City of Oakley has reported receiving since the first round Municipal
Service Review (MSR).
TABLE 12.3
CITY OF OAKLEY
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Public Works Project of the Year (Main Street American Public Works Association, 2018
Rehabilitation Project) Northern California
Local Government Program Excellence International City Management 2018
(Community, Diversity, and Inclusion) Association
Public Works Project of the Year (Downtown American Public Works Association, 2016
Improvement Project) Northern California
Playful City USA National Campaign for Play 2016
League of California Cities (Advancement of League of Cities 2012
Diverse Communities)
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Government Finance Officers Annually
Financial Reporting Association
Source: City of Oakley
12.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 12.4, municipal services for the City of Oakley are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
Contra Costa LAFCO
12-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Oakley
TABLE 12.4
CITY OF OAKLEY
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning City of Oakley
Law Enforcement City of Oakley
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Oakley, Pacific Gas and Electric
Parks and Recreation City of Oakley, East Bay Regional Park District
Solid Waste Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery
Stormwater City of Oakley
Streets City of Oakley
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: City of Oakley
Opportunities or challenges related to the provision of municipal services for the City of Oakley
were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
12.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) provides animal control services for the City of
Oakley and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Contract expenditures for animal services were approximately
$238,000 in FY 2017.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 12-5
Chapter 12
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
12.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Oakley does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and AT&T
Internet are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Oakley did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Oakley received a grade of C, which indicates that internet service providers
meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one provider
advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of Oakley did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve the
City’s existing or growing population.
12.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Oakley Building Division provides building services and the Planning Division provides
planning services. Department expenditures for FY 2017 were $2.1 million, up from $1.9 million in
FY 2015.
The City of Oakley issued 1,426 residential permits in 2017, reflecting an upward trend from 1,130
in 2015. The City issued 11 commercial building permits in 2017, down from 16 in 2015. Total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at $72.4 million, reflecting a downward trend
from $85.8 million in 2015.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan and the Strategic Plan.
12.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Oakley Police Department provides law enforcement and dispatch services. In 2017-18,
the City successfully transitioned from contracting with the County Sheriff’s Office for police to
services to having its own in-house police department. FY 2017 expenditures were approximately
$11.1 million, reflecting an upward trend from $8.8 million in FY 2015.
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
12-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Oakley
The City of Oakley has 0.76 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, a number which has
remained steady since FY 2015 and which they are seeking to increase. The national average in
2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population.5 There were 15 crimes per sworn FTE in
2017, down from 19.4 in FY 2015. The property crime clearance rate (a measure of crimes solved)
was 7% for FY 2017, and the violent crime clearance rate was 15%.6 The City reports that these
numbers appear very low, which may be attributable to a software problem and which they are
working to address.
12.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Oakley at its Oakley Branch Library
location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48
per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state averages for expenditures and staffing are nearly double the County’s.
12.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting is provided and maintained by the City of Oakley Public Works and Engineering
Department and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). City expenditures for light and signal
maintenance were $110,000 in FY 2017, down from $140,000 in FY 2015. The City maintains 21
signalized intersections and 1,450 street lights.
12.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Oakley Parks and Landscape Division is the service provider for parks and recreation
facilities, as well as landscaped public areas, and the Recreation Division is the service provider for
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 12-7
Chapter 12
recreation programs. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were approximately $0.56 million in FY 2017,
up only slightly from FY 2015.
The City provides a range of programs and activities including various sports and camps, along with
year-round community events.
The City provides and maintains 235 park acres per 1,000 residents. A new recreation center is
under construction, anticipated for completion in the spring of 2019. Most recreation trails are
provided and maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 6 acres per 1,000 residents.
12.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Oakley via franchise agreement with Mt. Diablo
Resource Recovery, which also serves the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Concord, and Pittsburg,
through the Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery Park. Contra Costa Waste Service, located at 1300
Loveridge Road in Pittsburg, is dedicated to recovery and recycling of as many items as possible.
Mt. Diablo Recycling, a 90,000-square foot facility located in Pittsburg, is 100% dedicated to
recycling. As part of the franchise agreement, there is no charge for solid waste services to City-
owned facilities.
Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery reported approximately 19,273 tons of waste disposed per capita for
FY 2017. The FY 2017 per resident disposal rate was 2.6 pounds/resident/day.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
12.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Oakley Public Works and Engineering Department provides and maintains the City’s
stormwater drainage system. The City reports that they have 110 miles of closed storm drain lines
and that 3% of their 2,610 storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of Oakley
also reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards. FY 2017
expenditures for stormwater were $892,000.
12.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Oakley Public Works and Engineering Department provides and maintains 136 street
miles and approximately 27 Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles, as well as landscaped public areas. FY
2017 expenditures for streets were $11.8 million, up from $10.6 million in FY 2015.
Contra Costa LAFCO
12-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Oakley
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the City of Oakley was 77 (good) in 2017, up from 75 in 2015, which is
slightly above the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.8 Pavement in the good (70-79)
range requires mostly preventive maintenance and shows only low levels of distress. The City rates
its own pavement condition, which it reports as 78 for FY 2017.
12.2.11 UTILITIES
The City of Oakley is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice Aggregation
program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their electricity
supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide electricity service
to the City, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also provides gas service to
the City of Oakley.
The City of Oakley did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
12.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Oakley’s financial health and assesses the City’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for City municipal operations derives
from audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
12.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget, the City’s General Fund revenues of $19.6 million are
slightly less than General Fund expenditures of $20.3 million. The $6.3 million available General
Fund balance at the start of FY 2019 equals about 32% of annual expenditures, exceeding the
City's 20% reserve policy.9 The City sets aside reserves for major maintenance and capital
improvement costs of its Storm Drain Program, which it met in FY 2017.10 Table 12.5 summarizes
8 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
9 City of Oakley Adopted Annual Operating and Capital Budget, Fiscal Year 2018-2019, Reserve Policies,
pg. 14.
10 City of Oakley FY 2017 Basic Financial Statements, Note 10 (item 9).
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 12-9
Chapter 12
prior year changes in General Fund expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and
liquidity ratios in each year.
Although the City meets its General Fund and Stormwater Fund reserve targets, its Vehicle and
Equipment Replacement Reserve Fund is not in compliance with the policy to maintain a reserve
balance equaling at least 50% of accumulated depreciation. The City notes that it "is not keeping
up with aging of capital infrastructure" and is investigating a computerized Asset Management
program.11
The City is experiencing difficulty funding its Lighting and Landscape District at desired levels; two
of its zones' revenues fall short of expenditures, and other zones are funded at minimum levels
without adequate set-asides for periodic repairs and replacement.12 The General Fund is loaning
one of the zones funds for park maintenance until the zone can annex sufficient newly developed
homes to provide sufficient assessment revenue. The City also anticipates a loan to its Public
Facilities Impact Fee to fund a shortfall in impact fees; the fund helps to pay debt service on 2016
debt that refinanced earlier debt and also helped pay for construction of a new community center.
TABLE 12.5
CITY OF OAKLEY
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $4,833,000 $5,324,000 $5,796,000
Sales Tax $1,506,000 $1,753,000 $1,774,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $4,441,000 $8,683,000 $5,060,000
Total General Fund Revenues $10,780,000 $15,760,000 $12,630,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 46.2% -19.9%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $1,737,000 $1,818,000 $2,323,000
Administration
Public Safety $4,523,000 $4,499,000 $4,009,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $3,860,000 $4,913,000 $9,178,000
Total Expenditures $10,120,000 $11,230,000 $15,510,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 11.0% 38.1%
Expenditures per capita $255 $279 $377
11 City of Oakley Response to MSR Fiscal Questions.
12 ibid, Oakley FY 2019 Budget, Budget Message, pg. 5.
Contra Costa LAFCO
12-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Oakley
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 5.4 6.6 7.1
Business-type Activities n/a n/a n/a
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the
degree of liquidity.
12.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
In FY 2017 the City's governmental activities' liquidity ratio exceeded 7.0 indicating that short-term
resources exceeded current liabilities.13 The City has no enterprise funds.
The City's total outstanding debt has been declining over time. Total outstanding debt was
approximately $236 per capita in FY 2017, indicating increases compared to the $169 per capita
reported for FY 2015 (see Attachment C).
12.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The total positive net position of governmental funds increased between FY 2015 and FY 2017, and
the positive unrestricted portion improved (see Attachment C).
12.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
The City has no local voter-approved tax measures.
12.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The City has no enterprise activities.
12.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
13 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 12-11
Chapter 12
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the city may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City's $1.7 million pension liability is 75% funded (see Attachment C). The City has
implemented and funded a Section 115 Trust to address the pension liability. The City has no other
post-employment benefit liabilities.
12.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The value of the City's governmental assets showed a net increase in FY 2017 (see Attachment C).
However, the net value would have shown a decline if road assets transferred to the City from the
Redevelopment Successor Agency were excluded. A decline in net value indicates that
infrastructure investments are not keeping pace with depreciation of those assets.
Development impact fees will help to fund a new fire station. In addition, the City will be obtaining
a $1.9 million no-cost loan from the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District to pay for increased
fire station costs.14
12.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's
website.
The City is investigating the prospect of obtaining a computerized Asset Management Program that
would be implemented in the coming years.
Economic development is among the City's highest priorities, and its FY 2019 budget lists a number
of recent accomplishments to advance that goal including: launch of the OpportunityOakley.com
website; participation with neighboring cities in the joint East County Economic Development
attraction website EastCounty4You.com; facilitated planning for over 20 new residential and
commercial projects; and completed Downtown revitalization loans and renovations.15
12.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
14 East Bay Times, August 15, 2018.
15 ibid, Oakley FY 2019 Budget Message, pg. 3.
Contra Costa LAFCO
12-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Oakley
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Oakley.
12.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Oakley serves
41,742 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Oakley are depicted in Figure 12.2.
ABAG projects that the City of Oakley will grow at an annual rate of approximately 1.4% to a
population of 54,435 between 2010 and 2040.16 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 1.5% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040.
The City reports that its General Plan buildout estimates (68,000 population) are higher than Plan
Bay Area 2040 projections. Overall, the City’s planning is expected to accommodate the growth
projected by ABAG.
16 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 12-13
City of Oakley
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 12.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Oakley
June 2019
City of Oakley
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data17 for 2010, the City of Oakley has 14,439 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data18 for 2010 estimated 3,410 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.24 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of Oakley has 11,484 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.30.
The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied
housing units (Table 12.6), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
TABLE 12.6
CITY OF OAKLEY
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 8,163
Renter-occupied housing units 2,564
Vacant housing units 757
Total existing housing units 11,484
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 317
Low 174
Moderate 175
Above Moderate 502
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 1,168
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the
San Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.19 The City of Oakley was assigned a RHNA of 1,168 units, as shown in Table 12.6.
The City adopted its General Plan in 2002 and its Housing Element in 2015.20 The City’s 2015–
2023 Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 2,095 units,
which are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet
and exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Oakley 2015–2023 Housing Element has
been found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with
17 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
18 ABAG. Projections 2017.
19 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
20 The City is planning an update to its General Plan in 2019/2020.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 12-15
Chapter 12
State Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.21
The City of Oakley’s Recreation Division provides some programs for adults age 50 and older.
Oakley Seniors, a nonprofit organization, provides general services to seniors in the area at the
Oakley Senior Center.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City of Oakley reported approximately 2,500 undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY
2017. Several projects have been identified as part of the projected growth for the City and include
4,500 dwelling units and 75,000 square feet of commercial space. These projects are either
approved or in the approval process.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. Three PDAs have been identified
by the City of Oakley and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.22 The Employment Center, Downtown,
and Potential Planning Area PDAs are anticipated to accommodate approximately 90% of the
projected growth in households and 75% of the projected growth in employment.23 The
Employment Area PDA is characterized as a Suburban Center, the Downtown PDA is characterized
as a Transit Town Center, and the Potential Planning Area PDA is characterized as a Transit
Neighborhood.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Oakley has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas, nor are any included in Plan Bay Area
2040.24
The City of Oakley does not anticipate that current or projected growth patterns will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI prior to the next MSR update.
12.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Oakley’s SOI is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the exception of
an extension to the east (see Figure 12.1). No unincorporated islands have been identified in the
City of Oakley.
21 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
22 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
23 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
24 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
12-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Oakley
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Update identified an area in northwest Oakley—south of Main Street along Neroly
Road—that meets the criteria of a disadvantaged community.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
12.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Oakley reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and SOI
and anticipates it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
The disadvantaged community identified within the City’s SOI receives sewer, water, and fire
protection services.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 77, which indicates the City’s streets are in good condition and primarily
require funding at a level to maintain the current condition.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 12-17
Chapter 12
The City reports that it is not keeping up with the aging of capital infrastructure and that they are
investigating the prospects of obtaining a computerized asset management program that would be
implemented in the coming years.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City does not
anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City reports that the demand for capital infrastructure construction and maintenance is
consistently higher than the resources available. The City continues to seek opportunities to
supplement CIP funding with federal and state grants.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. Services related to animal
control, broadband, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with Contra Costa
County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The City does not share facilities or services. No areas of overlapping responsibilities or
opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
Contra Costa LAFCO
12-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Oakley
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
12.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
As with other cities in Contra Costa County, rising pension costs are expected to continue to reduce
funding for other priorities.
Overall, the City of Oakley appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the
next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Oakley has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund until the 2017 fiscal
year.
The City currently exceeds their 20% reserve goal, allowing them to maintain an acceptable level
of service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 7.1, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $236 per capita for FY 2017, up from $169 per capita in FY 2015.
The City's unfunded pension liabilities continue to grow; however, the City has funded a Section
115 Trust to address the increasing pension liabilities. The City has no OPEB liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 12-19
Chapter 12
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
by ensuring that the State Controller’s Financial Transactions Report was filed on a
timely basis and that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for most
recent fiscal year received a clean opinion and was issued within six months of
fiscal year end
The City issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered timely.
The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
12.4.4 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Oakley website provides access to the agendas and minutes for the City Council and its
various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. The City therefore
adequately provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Oakley website provides access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Oakley website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. The City uses social media and also distributes newsletters to
residents. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to citizen participation.
12.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
12.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Oakley is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the
exception of an extension to the east, as shown in Figure 12.1. The City of Oakley is bound by the
City of Brentwood to the south, the City Antioch to the west, and County lands to the north, east,
and south.
Contra Costa LAFCO
12-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Oakley
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Oakley.
12.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF OAKLEY
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Oakley MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Oakley plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including industrial, residential, office, commercial,
institution, retail, agricultural, and open space. Present and planned land uses are adequate for
existing residents as well as future growth, maintaining compatibility with agricultural and open
space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan (2002).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Oakley. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Oakley appears adequate. The City of Oakley
anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
Most communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI. In
2006, the City considered annexing the area within the City’s SOI. Although the City did proceed
with annexation of a large portion of the territory in 2006, due to resistance from the residents, the
City did not pursue the annexation of a small portion within the existing SOI. Contra Costa LAFCO
has not identified other specific social or economic communities of interest relevant to the City of
Oakley.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Update identified an area in northwest Oakley—south of Main Street along Neroly
Road—that meets the criteria of a disadvantaged community. This area receives sewer, water, and
fire protection services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 12-21
This page intentionally left blank.
C 13
HAPTER
C O
ITY OF RINDA
13.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Orinda, incorporated in 1985, covers an area of approximately 12.8 square miles. With
an estimated population of 19,199, the City has a population density of approximately 1,476
persons per square mile.1
The City of Orinda lies in central Contra Costa County, with the City of Lafayette to the east and the
Town of Moraga to the southeast. County lands bound the City to the south, north, and west. The
Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of Orinda is coterminous with the municipal boundary, as
shown in Figure 13.1. The City adopted the countywide Urban Limit Line in 2009.
Land uses in the City include a mix of residential, office and community business, public, and open
space. Although there are no designated agricultural land uses in the City of Orinda, livestock
grazing may be allowable within some open space areas.
13.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Orinda is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The publicly elected City Council consists of five members, including the Mayor. Council members
serve four-year terms and the Mayor rotates each year.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 13-1
Figure 13.1. City of Orinda Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Orinda
13.1.2 STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 38.3 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 13.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 13.1
CITY OF ORINDA
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Public Works and Engineering 12.0
Park and Recreation 11.0
City Manager and Administration 8.3
Planning 6.0
Source: City of Orinda
Unlike other cities in Contra Costa County, the public works and engineering function had the
highest staffing level in the City of Orinda, with 12.0 FTE employees.
13.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Orinda is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in Table
13.2.
TABLE 13.2
CITY OF ORINDA
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Solid waste
Central Contra Costa Transportation Authority Transit
Contra Costa Transit Authority Congestion Streets and roads
Management Agency
Forensic Services Agreement Forensic services
Lamorinda Fee and Financing Authority Traffic impact fee
Lamorinda School Bus Transportation Agency School bus service
Source: City of Orinda
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 13-3
Chapter 13
13.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
The City of Orinda has not reported receiving any awards since the first round Municipal Service
Review (MSR).
13.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 13.3, municipal services for the City of Orinda are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
TABLE 13.3
CITY OF ORINDA
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning City of Orinda, Contra Costa County
Law Enforcement Contra Costa County
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Orinda
Parks and Recreation City of Orinda
Solid Waste Allied Waste
Stormwater City of Orinda
Streets City of Orinda
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice n/a
Source: City of Orinda
Opportunities or challenges related to the provision of municipal services for the City of Orinda
were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
Contra Costa LAFCO
13-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Orinda
13.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) provides animal control services for the City of
Orinda and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were $106,833 for FY 2017 and are
included as part of the Police Department budget.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
13.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Orinda does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and AT&T
Internet are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Orinda did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Orinda received a grade of D, which indicates that internet service providers did
not meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one
provider advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of Orinda did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve the
City’s existing or growing population.
13.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Orinda Planning Department provides planning services and the City contracts with the
Contra Costa County Building Division for building services. Department expenditures for FY 2017
were $1,038,101. The City does not record an expense for building services. The contract with
Contra Costa County is structured as a revenue-sharing arrangement and Contra Costa County
retains the base fees collected.
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 13-5
Chapter 13
A combined total of 889 residential and commercial building permits were issued in 2017 and the
total building permit valuation in FY 2017 was $49.8 million.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan, Strategic Plan, the five-year Capital
Improvement Plan, and the Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan.
13.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Orinda Police Department provides law enforcement and dispatch services through
contract with the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff. FY 2017 expenditures for the Sheriff’s
Office were $229.3 million, up from $217.8 million in FY 2015.
The City of Orinda has 1.3 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population. The national average in
2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population.5 There were 11.6 crimes per sworn FTE
in 2017. The property crime clearance rate (a measure of crimes solved) was 7.8% in 2017, and the
violent crime clearance rate was 0.5%.6 .
The Sheriff’s Office reported 677 FTE for FY 2017, up from 664 FTE in FY 2016, with an average of
1.02 sworn staff per 1,000 population. Total property crime clearances were reported at 125 (17 in
Orinda) and total violent crime clearances were reported at 340 (13 in Orinda) for FY 2017.
13.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Orinda at its Orinda Branch Library
location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48
per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
13-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Orinda
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state averages for expenditures and staffing are nearly double the County’s.
The City of Orinda is responsible for operating the library building and utilities as well as providing
funding for additional hours of operation. A portion of these expenses are offset by a voter-
approved parcel tax. In FY 2017, the parcel tax amount was $39 per equivalent residential unit.
The total costs paid by the City in FY 2017 were $217,043.
13.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of Orinda Public Works and
Engineering Department. City FY 2017 expenditures for light and signal maintenance were
$76,179. The City maintains 19 signalized intersections and 17 traffic lights.
132.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Orinda Parks and Recreation Department is the service provider for parks and
recreation facilities, as well as recreation programs. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were
approximately $3.6 million.
The City provides a variety of classes and programs for adults, seniors, and youth, along with adult
and youth sports leagues.
The City provides and maintains 7.45 park acres per 1,000 residents, 1 recreation center per
20,000 residents, and 12 miles of recreation trails. The City anticipates opening a second recreation
center in 2019.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
13.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Orinda via franchise agreement with Republic
Services. The City of Orinda FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services were unavailable at the
time of this MSR update. Because the City does not provide these services, it does not have an
expenditure report. Republic Services handles all billing and also services City facilities without a
charge under the franchise agreement.
The FY 2017 solid waste disposal rates were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this
MSR update.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 13-7
Chapter 13
13.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Orinda Public Works and Engineering Department provides and maintains the City’s
stormwater drainage system. The City reports that they have 19 miles of closed storm drain lines
within and that 0.4% of their storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City’s
compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards was not reported or
was unavailable at the time of this MSR update. Stormwater expenditures were $177,929 in FY
2017, with an additional $257,850 spent on drainage projects.
13.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Orinda Public Works and Engineering Department provides and maintains 92.7 street
miles, 1 mile of Class 1 and 0.8 mile of Class 2 bike lanes. FY 2017 expenditures for streets were
approximately $13 million, with $12 million spent for street related repairs.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the City of Orinda was 60 (fair) in 2017, up considerably from 49 in 2015, but
remains well below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.8 Pavement at the low end of
the 60-69 (fair) range is significantly distressed and may require a combination of rehabilitation and
preventive maintenance.
13.2.11 UTILITIES
Pacific Gas & Electric provides gas and electricity service to the City of Orinda. The City is not a
member of a Community Choice Aggregation program.
The City of Orinda did not report concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve the
City’s existing or growing population.
13.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Orinda’s financial health and assesses the City’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for City municipal operations derives
from audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
8 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
Contra Costa LAFCO
13-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Orinda
13.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
The City of Orinda prepares a biennial budget. According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget, the
City’s General Fund revenue of $13.2 million exceeds General Fund expenditures by $320,000;
the budget transfers most of the surplus to the Road and Drainage Stabilization Fund.9 The City
maintains a General Fund balance of $5.9 million consistent with its financial policy to retain a $5
million reserve plus 20% of annual revenues exceeding $10 million.10 The City has achieved and
maintained this level in prior years as well, although reductions occurred in FY 2017 from the use
of $2 million for storm and sinkhole related repairs. Table 13.4 summarizes prior year changes in
General Fund expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each
year.
The City provides funding to its M-11 Lighting and Landscape District to offset assessment
shortfalls, and is considering options that may include assessment increases, or dissolution /
replacement with a Business Improvement District.11
TABLE 13.4
CITY OF ORINDA
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $5,653,000 $6,123,000 $6,543,000
Sales Tax $2,067,000 $2,121,000 $2,107,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $5,324,183 $5,581,236 $5,114,653
Total General Fund Revenues $13,044,183 $13,825,236 $13,764,653
Change from Prior Year n/a 6.0% -0.4%
9 City of Orinda Biennial Budget Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 Adopted May 16, 2017, pg. 40.
10 ibid, Orinda FY 2019 budget, Financial Policies and Budget Procedures, pg. 27.
11 ibid, Orinda FY 2019 budget, Strategic Priorities, pg. 13.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 13-9
Chapter 13
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $1,834,000 $2,015,000 $1,977,000
Administration
Public Safety $3,960,000 $4,034,000 $4,112,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $6,368,067 $6,444,523 $9,791,389
Total Expenditures $12,162,067 $12,493,523 $15,880,389
Change from Prior Year n/a 5.9% 12.1%
Expenditures per capita $655 $663 $835
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 5.6 3.6 2.5
Business-type Activities n/a n/a n/a
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
13.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
In FY 2017 the City's governmental activities' liquidity ratio equaled 2.5 indicating that short-term
resources exceeded current liabilities (see Attachment C).12
The City's total outstanding debt has been increasing over time. Total outstanding debt was
approximately $2,700 per capita in FY 2017, indicating a significant increase compared to the
$984 per capita reported for FY 2015. Governmental activities' outstanding debt totaled $51.3
million in FY 2017 (see Attachment C).
13.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The total positive net position of governmental funds increased between FY 2015 and FY 2017, and
the positive unrestricted portion declined slightly, apparently as the result of increased investments
in capital assets (see Attachment C).
12 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
13-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Orinda
13.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
General Fund revenues are supplemented by Measure L, which generates approximately $1.1
million of annual voter-approved local half-cent sales tax. Measure L, approved in 2012 and
effective 2013 (expires after 10 years), is appropriated annually for road and drainage infrastructure
improvements.
In June 2018, the voters approved an increase in the local library tax to $69 per residential
equivalent unit, which will provide support for the 17-year old facility as well as continuing
operational funds.
13.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The City has no enterprise funds.
13.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the city may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City has no pension liability, as it provides a defined contribution retirement plan. The City is
in the process of obtaining its first other post-employment benefit actuarial estimate for retiree
medical contributions. The City obtained its first other post-employment benefit actuarial estimate
for retiree medical contributions in July 2018 and has recorded a liability of $411,965 on its
Statement of Net Position for the period ending June 30, 2018. Currently, the City contributes the
minimum payment per month and the majority of the premium is paid for by the two participating
retirees.
13.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
FY 2015 and FY 2016 showed small declines in governmental assets; however, FY 2017 net value
of depreciable assets increased significantly (see Attachment C). This increase was largely due to
completion of significant drainage and roadway improvement projects (including sinkhole repair).
Road improvements are funded by 2014 voter-approved general obligation bonds totaling $20
million. Voters approved an additional $25 million of bonds in 2016. The bonds are repaid by
annual assessments on property owners.13
13.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
13 ibid, Orinda FY 2019 budget, pg. 112-113.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 13-11
Chapter 13
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's
website.
The City prepares a 5-year forecast as part of planning its annual budget. A facility condition report
was commissioned to estimate long-term costs associated with the City's library building, and aid in
budgeting and the use of library tax revenues.14
13.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Orinda.
13.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Orinda serves
19,199 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Orinda are depicted in Figure 13.2.
14 Facility Condition Assessment Orinda Library, EMG, February 28, 2018.
Contra Costa LAFCO
13-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Orinda
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 13.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Orinda
June 2019
Chapter 13
ABAG projects that the City of Orinda will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.3% to a
population of 18,745 between 2010 and 2040.15 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.4% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data16 for 2010, the City of Orinda has 8,001 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data17 for 2010 estimated 4,835 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.6 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that the
City of Orinda has 6,804 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.71. The
number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied housing
units (Table 13.5), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household rate.
TABLE 13.5
CITY OF ORINDA
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 5,876
Renter-occupied housing units 677
Vacant housing units 251
Total existing housing units 6,804
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 84
Low 47
Moderate 54
Above Moderate 42
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 227
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.18 The City of Orinda was assigned a RHNA of 227 units, as shown in Table 13.5.
The City adopted its General Plan in 1987 and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 299 units, which are
15 ABAG. Projections 2017.
16 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
17 ABAG. Projections 2017.
18 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
Contra Costa LAFCO
13-14 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Orinda
appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and exceed
its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Orinda 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found
by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State Housing
Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all
economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.19
The City provides a number of senior services and programs, and works with other agencies and
nonprofit organizations to meet the needs of seniors in the community. The Orinda Recreation
Department sponsors fitness, recreational, and social programs, and provides referrals to the Contra
Costa County Agency on Aging and Adult Services. The City’s Senior Service Committee meets
monthly. Senior health care consulting is provided through a volunteer health insurance and
advocacy program at Orinda Senior Village. The County Connection Link program provides
paratransit, and the Orinda Association’s Seniors Around Town program provides free door-to-door
rides to seniors who are unable to drive and may not qualify for the County Connection Link
program. The Council on Aging, Lamorinda Group, Spirit Van, and the Contra Costa Library also
offer programs for seniors.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City of Orinda reported approximately 450 undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY 2017.
During FY 2017, 43 new housing units were constructed, with a comparatively higher number
submitted to the City for design approval.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. One PDA has been identified by
the City of Orinda and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.20 The Downtown PDA is anticipated to
accommodate approximately 50% of the projected growth in households and 57% of the projected
growth in employment.21 The Downtown PDA is characterized as a Transit Town Center.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Orinda has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas, and none are included in Plan Bay Area
2040.22
The City of Orinda does not anticipate that current or projected growth patterns will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and coterminous SOI.
19 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
20 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
21 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
22 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 13-15
Chapter 13
13.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Orinda’s SOI is coterminous with the municipal boundary (see Figure 13.1). No
unincorporated islands have been identified in the City of Orinda.
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the City of Orinda
and therefore, no disadvantaged communities are relevant to this analysis.
13.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Orinda appears to adequately serve all areas within its municipal boundary and SOI
and is likely to continue to do so in the next five years based on available information.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the City’s SOI.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 60, which is below the target of 75 MTC has established and which
indicates a need for pavement rehabilitation funding.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City does not
anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs.
Contra Costa LAFCO
13-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Orinda
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City of Orinda CIP forecasts available funds and proposed projects, allowing them to keep
pace with infrastructure priorities.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to planning, lighting, parks
and recreation, stormwater, and streets. Services related to animal control, broadband, building,
law enforcement, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with Contra Costa
County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The City operates the Orinda Library through a cooperative agreement with Contra Costa County.
The City does not share other facilities or services. Based on available information, no areas of
overlapping responsibilities or opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part
of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities based on the
information available.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
Based on available information, no excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this
review.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 13-17
Chapter 13
13.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
Overall, the City of Orinda appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the
next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Orinda has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund until the 2017 fiscal
year.
The City currently meets their 20% reserve goal, allowing them to maintain an acceptable level of
service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 2.5, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $2,700 per capita for FY 2017 and has been increasing over time.
The City provides a defined contribution retirement plan and has no unfunded pension liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
by ensuring that the State Controller’s Financial Transactions Report was filed on a
timely basis and that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for most
recent fiscal year received a clean opinion and was issued within six months of
fiscal year end
The City issued its CAFR approximately 8 months after fiscal year end, which is not considered
timely. The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
Overall, the CAFRs are clearly presented; however, the City could incorporate changes to improve
the transparency of its financials. For example, certain tables in the CAFR extend over multiple
pages; however, the left-most column does not carry over to multiple pages, affecting the
readability of the tables.
Contra Costa LAFCO
13-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Orinda
13.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Orinda website provides access to the agendas and minutes for the City Council and its
various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. The City of Orinda also
livestreams City Council and Planning Commission meetings. The City therefore adequately
provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Orinda website provides access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Orinda website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at which
City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in the City
decision-making process. Newsletters are also distributed to City residents. The City therefore
adequately provides accountability with regard to citizen participation.
13.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
13.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Orinda is coterminous with the municipal boundary, as shown in Figure
13.1. The City of Orinda is bound by the City of Lafayette to the east, the Town of Moraga to the
southeast, and County lands to the south, north, and west.
13.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF ORINDA
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Orinda MSR profile.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 13-19
Chapter 13
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Orinda plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including residential, office, commercial, and open space.
Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth,
maintaining compatibility with open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan (1987).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Orinda. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Orinda appears adequate. The City of Orinda
anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the City of Orinda.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the City of Orinda
and therefore no present or probable need for the City to provide structural fire protection, sewer,
or water facilities and services to any disadvantaged communities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
13-20 Municipal Service Review Update
C 14
HAPTER
C P
ITY OF INOLE
14.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Pinole, incorporated in 1903, covers an area of approximately 11.6 square miles. With
an estimated population of 19,236, the City has a population density of approximately 1,748
persons per square mile.1
The City of Pinole lies in western Contra Costa County with the cities of Richmond and San Pablo
to the south, Hercules to the north, San Pablo Bay to the west. County lands (unincorporated
Briones Hills and the communities of Bay View, Montalvin Manor, and Tara Hills) lie to the east.
The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of Pinole extends beyond the municipal boundary to the
south and west, as shown in Figure 14.1. The City adopted the countywide Urban Limit Line in
2007.
Land uses in the City include a mix of residential, multi-family residential, commercial, retail,
mixed use, and open space. Although there are no designated agricultural land uses in the City of
Pinole, some rural designated areas may allow for community gardening and specialty crop
farming.
14.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Pinole is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government. The
publicly elected City Council consists of five members, including the Mayor. Council members
serve four-year terms and the Mayor rotates each year.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 14-1
Figure 14.1. City of Pinole Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Pinole
14.1.2 STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 113.31 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 14.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 14.1
CITY OF PINOLE
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police Service 45.42
Recreation 14.18
Waste Management 11.0
Public Works 10.25
Source: City of Pinole
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police function had the highest staffing level in
the City of Pinole, with 45.42 FTE employees.
14.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Pinole is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in Table
14.2.
TABLE 14.2
CITY OF PINOLE
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
Contra Costa Abandoned Vehicle Authority Removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles
Contra Costa Transit Authority Congestion —
Management Agency
East Bay Regional Communications System Regional communication systems
Authority
Marin Clean Energy Utility services (electric) provider
Municipal Pooling Authority Workers compensation and liability self-insurance
pool
Pinole Joint Financing Authority Financing
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 14-3
Chapter 14
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Garbage service oversight
Authority
Western Contra Costa County Transit Authority —
Western Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Growth management and sub-regional planning
Committee mandates
Western Riverside Council of Governments PACE program
Source: City of Pinole
14.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 14.3 lists the awards the City of Pinole has reported receiving since the first round Municipal
Service Review (MSR).
TABLE 19.3
CITY OF PINOLE
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Excellence in Financial Reporting Government Finance Officers 2011 – 2016
Association
Award for Financial Excellence Government Finance Officers 1996 – 2017
Association
Restoration Project of the Year Contra Costa Watershed Forum 2011
Meritorious in Operating Budget California Society of Municipal 2008 – 2011,
Finance Officers 2014 – 2015
Source: City of Pinole
14.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 14.4, municipal services for the City of Pinole are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
Contra Costa LAFCO
14-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pinole
TABLE 14.4
CITY OF PINOLE
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning City of Pinole
Law Enforcement City of Pinole
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Pinole
Parks and Recreation City of Pinole
Solid Waste Republic Services
Stormwater City of Pinole
Streets City of Pinole
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: City of Pinole
Opportunities or challenges related to the provision of municipal services for the City of Pinole
were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
14.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) is the animal control service provider for the City of
Pinole and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were $108,450 for FY 2017.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 14-5
Chapter 14
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
14.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Pinole does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and AT&T
Internet are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Pinole did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Pinole received a grade of C, which indicates that internet service providers meet
the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one provider
advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of Pinole did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve the
City’s existing or growing population.
14.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Pinole Building Division provides building services and the Planning Division provides
planning services. Department expenditures for FY 2017 were $781,869.
The City of Pinole issued 261 residential and 5 commercial building permits in 2017. Total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at $9.2 million.
The City worked with Target to complete an interior store renovation, and provided final
occupancy to a new Sprouts Grocery store, Lifelong Medical Clinic, and multi-tenant retail shop
space building within the Gateway Shopping Center. The City also worked with Eden Housing to
complete the renovation and modernization of 144 affordable multi-family housing units.
Construction was initiated on a new CVS Pharmacy, AAA Office, and a DaVita Dialysis Clinic.
Additionally, the City worked with East Bay Regional Park District on the design and construction
of a new segment of the Bay Trail from the Pinole Shores Drive trailhead to Bayfront Park.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan.
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
14-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pinole
14.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Pinole Police Department provides law enforcement and dispatch services. FY 2017
expenditures were approximately $6.4 million.
The City of Pinole has 1.45 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, which represents a slight
increase from 1.41 FTE in 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per
1,000 population.5 There were 74.2 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime clearance
rate (a measure of crimes solved) was 16.8% in 2017, and the violent crime clearance rate was
78.7%.6
14.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Pinole at its Pinole Branch Library
location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48
per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state averages for expenditures and staffing are nearly double the County’s.
14.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of Pinole Public Works
Department. City expenditures for light and signal maintenance were $933,013 in FY 2017, up
from $630,182 in FY 2015. The City maintains 29 signalized intersections, 21 traffic lights, and 523
street lights.
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 14-7
Chapter 14
14.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Pinole Public Works Department maintains the parks and recreation facilities as well as
landscaped medians and public planter beds. The Recreation Department is the service provider for
recreation programs. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were approximately $1,041,074.
The City offers a variety of programs and classes for all ages and interests, including a school of
performing arts, day camps, a senior center with a robust activity schedule and trips and travel, and
various community events.
The City provides and maintains 14 park acres per 1,000 residents, 3 recreation centers per 20,000
residents, and 3.5 miles of recreation trails.8
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 3 acres per 1,000 residents.
14.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Pinole via contract with Republic Services. The City
of Pinole FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services were $234,631.
The City reported approximately 0.68 ton of waste disposed per capita for FY 2017. The FY 2017
per resident disposal rate was 3.7 pounds/resident/day.9
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
14.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Pinole Public Works Department provides and maintains the City’s stormwater drainage
system. The City reports that they have 34 miles of closed storm drain lines and that approximately
10.3% of their estimated 1,048 storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of
Pinole also reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards.
Total FY 2017 expenditures for stormwater were $241,081.
14.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Pinole Public Works Department provides and maintains 51.75 street miles and
approximately 1.5 Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles. FY 2017 expenditures for streets were $627,006.
8 The City of Pinole has a senior center which offers programs for ages 50 and over, a youth center for ages
6-17, and the tiny tot facility for ages 3-5.
9 Data from Republic Services via Recyclemore. Percentage is based on data for inbound solid waste,
green waste, construction and demolition waste, not accounting for diverted recyclables.
Contra Costa LAFCO
14-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pinole
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the City of Pinole was 68 (fair) in 2017, up from 67 in 2015, but remains
below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.10 Pavement at the low end of the 60-69
(fair) range is significantly distressed and may require a combination of rehabilitation and
preventive maintenance.
14.2.11 UTILITIES
The City of Pinole is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice Aggregation
program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their electricity
supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide electricity service
to the City, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also provides gas service to
the City of Pinole.
The City of Pinole did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve the
City’s existing or growing population.
14.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Pinole’s financial health and assesses the City’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations derives from
audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
14.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
The City of Pinole prepares an annual budget. According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget, the
City’s General Fund revenue of $14.3 million exceeds General Fund expenditures by about
$300,00011 The City's General Fund balance is projected to grow to about $8.1 million consistent
with its financial policy to retain a $5 million reserve plus 10% of annual revenues exceeding $10
million.12 Table 14.5 summarizes prior year changes in General Fund expenditures and revenues
from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year. The City’s Utility Users Tax, renewed in
November 2018, helps to maintain City revenues.
10 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
11 City of Pinole Fiscal Year 2018-19 Proposed Budget June 19, 2018 pg. B-1.
12 ibid, Pinole FY 2019 budget, Financial Policies, pg. A-9.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 14-9
Chapter 14
Several City funds, including Recreation and Cable Television, continue to require City funding.
The City's Building and Planning Fund also required City financial support, although as the result of
fluctuating development fee revenues.
The City's five-year projections indicate annual General Fund shortfalls beginning in FY 2019
assuming conservative revenue growth against increases in pension costs; however the proposed
FY 2019 budget shows a balanced budget. The Utility Users Tax will help mitigate projected
shortfalls.
TABLE 14.5
CITY OF PINOLE
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $5,132,000 $3,413,000 $3,491,000
Sales Tax $6,120,000 $7,859,000 $7,597,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $6,066,000 $6,120,000 $6,065,000
Total General Fund Revenues $17,317,575 $17,391,787 $17,152,904
Change from Prior Year n/a 0.4% -1.4%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $2,136,000 $2,685,000 $2,708,000
Administration
Public Safety $8,336,000 $9,025,000 $9,459,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $1,550,000 $2,808,000 $2,348,000
Total Expenditures $12,022,000 $14,518,000 $14,515,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 20.8% 0.0%
Expenditures per capita $644 $771 $760
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 4.9 6.0 6.6
Business-type Activities 7.0 30.9 4.6
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
14.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
Contra Costa LAFCO
14-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pinole
In FY 2017 the City's governmental activities' liquidity ratio equaled 6.6, indicating that short-term
resources exceeded current liabilities (see Attachment C).13 The City's enterprise funds' liquidity
ratio equaled 4.6 in FY 2017. Although the General Fund balance and short-term liquidity
measures appear strong, combined governmental activities' unrestricted net position at the end of
FY 2017 was a negative $31.2 million.14 This negative long-term unrestricted position reflects
significant pension and other post-employment benefit liabilities of $46.6 million in FY 2017 that
are not covered by the value of non-capital assets.
Total outstanding debt was approximately $620 per capita in FY 2017, indicating reductions
compared to the $720 per capita reported for FY 2015 (see Attachment C).
14.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The total net position of governmental activities improved from FY 2015 to a total $19.3 million in
FY 2017. As noted above, combined governmental activities' unrestricted net position at the end of
FY 2017 was a negative $31.2 million. This decrease was largely the result of net pension and other
post-employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities. The net position of the City's wastewater utility has
generally improved from FY 2015 through FY 2017.
14.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
The City helps to fund services using funds from two local sales tax measures (both Measure S)
approved by voters in 2006 and in 2014; together these sales taxes equal 1% of taxable sales and
provide about $3.9 million annually. The taxes are general revenues and can be used for any
purpose, but 2006 taxes have been dedicated by the City to public safety programs and the 2014
taxes to infrastructure projects are their highest priority.15
In November 2018, voters approved Measure C extending the existing Utility Users Tax at its
current rate of 8% with no sunset date. The tax, first approved in 1998, supports essential City
services. Fiscal year 2018-2019 revenues from this tax are estimated to be $1.9 million, or 14% of
General Fund revenues.16
14.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The City’s sole enterprise activity is its wastewater utility.
13 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
14 City of Pinole FY 2017 CAFR, pg. 6.
15 ibid, Pinole FY 2019 budget, pg. A-12.
16 ibid, Pinole FY 2019 budget, pg. A-17.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 14-11
Chapter 14
14.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the city may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City reported its unfunded pension liability of $18.6 million in FY 2015 grew to $27.1 million
in FY 2017.17 The City's reported OPEB liability was $19.5 million in FY 2017. In addition to City
payments required to pay ongoing pension costs and unfunded liabilities, the City is paying about
$500,000 annually towards a Pension Obligation Bond issued in 2006. The FY 2017 CAFR reports
$3,085,910 million pension expense paid in FY 2017 in addition to the pension bond payments
and OPEB payments.18
14.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
FY 2016 and FY 2017 show declines in the net value of governmental and enterprise assets (see
Attachment C). Completion of a Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade Project anticipated for
Spring 2019 should result in a significant increase in net value of enterprise assets. The City
includes in its wastewater rate structure a component to fund reserves for asset replacement. These
costs are shared 50% with the City of Hercules (in addition to sharing plant operations costs based
on flows).
14.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's website. The FY
2017 CAFR was prepared over 8 months after the end of the FY 2017 fiscal year, which is not
considered timely.
14.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Pinole.
17 City of Pinole MSR Fiscal Profile, Table 8.
18 Ibid, Pinole FY 2017 CAFR, pg. 54.
Contra Costa LAFCO
14-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pinole
14.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Pinole serves 19,236
residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Pinole are depicted in Figure 14.2.
ABAG projects that the City of Pinole will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.4% to a
population of 21,390 between 2010 and 2040.19 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.8% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data20 for 2010, the City of Pinole has 8,888 employed residents.
The ABAG Projections data21 for 2010 estimated 6,700 jobs in the City, with approximately 0.75
job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that the City of Pinole has
7,158 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.94. The number of owner-
occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied housing units (Table 14.6),
indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household rate.
19 ABAG. Projections 2017.
20 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
21 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 14-13
City of Pinole
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 14.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Pinole
June 2019
City of Pinole
TABLE 14.6
CITY OF PINOLE
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 4,861
Renter-occupied housing units 1,914
Vacant housing units 393
Total existing housing units 7,158
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 80
Low 48
Moderate 43
Above Moderate 126
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 297
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the
San Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.22 The City of Pinole was assigned a RHNA of 297 units, as shown in Table 14.6.
The City adopted its General Plan in 2010 and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 493 units, which are
appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and exceed
its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Pinole 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by
the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State Housing
Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all
economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.23
The City of Pinole senior center offers programs for adults age 50 and over, including morning,
afternoon, and evening classes.
22 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
23 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 14-15
Chapter 14
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City of Pinole reported approximately 1.7 undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY 2017.
Several projects have been identified as part of the projected growth for the City and include 13
dwelling units and 143,061 square feet of commercial space. These projects are either approved or
in the approval process.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. Two PDAs have been identified
by the City of Pinole and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.24 The Old Town San Pablo Avenue and
Appian Way Corridor PDAs are anticipated to accommodate approximately 56% of the projected
growth in households and employment.25 The Old Town San Pablo Avenue PDA is characterized
as a Mixed Use Corridor and the Appian Way Corridor PDA is characterized as a Transit Town
Center.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Pinole has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas, nor are any included in Plan Bay Area
2040.26
The City of Pinole does not anticipate that current or projected growth patterns will expand beyond
its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
14.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Pinole’s SOI extends beyond the municipal boundary to the south (see Figure 14.1). No
unincorporated islands have been identified in the City of Pinole.
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within the City’s SOI.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
24 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
25 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
26 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
14-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pinole
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
14.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Pinole reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and SOI
and anticipates it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
Disadvantaged communities are within or contiguous to the City’s SOI and these areas receive
sewer, water, and fire protection services.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 68, which is below the target of 75 MTC has established and which
indicates a potential future need for pavement rehabilitation funding.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the potential fiscal challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City does
not anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City did not report on the sufficiency of its CIP to maintain and expand facilities and
infrastructure consistent with projected needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 14-17
Chapter 14
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets.27 Services related to animal
control, broadband, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with Contra Costa
County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The City participates in the Tri-City Services Agreement with San Pablo and Hercules for police
dispatch and computer-aided dispatch/automated records management systems services. Pinole
provides the dispatch services and San Pablo provides the computer-aided dispatch/automated
records management systems services.
The City does not share facilities or other services. No areas of overlapping responsibilities or
opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
27 In addition to the municipal services covered in this report, the City also provides fire and emergency
medical and wastewater collection and treatment.
Contra Costa LAFCO
14-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pinole
14.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The City of Pinole is experiencing some fiscal challenges, such as General Fund deficits projected
after FY 2019 and continuing for five years, that may affect its ability to provide services,
particularly in the event of unexpected funding needs. As with other cities in Contra Costa County,
rising pension costs are expected to continue to reduce funding for other priorities.
Overall, and despite these fiscal challenges, the City of Pinole appears to have sufficient financial
resources to continue providing services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion,
improvements, or replacement over the next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Pinole anticipates moving from a surplus trend to a deficit in their general fund after FY
2019.
The City appears to meet their $5 million plus 10% reserve goal, allowing them to maintain an
acceptable level of service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 6.6, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $620 per capita for FY 2017 and has been declining.
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow. To address the increasing
pension liabilities, the City Council approved an IRS Section 115 Irrevocable Pension Trust in June
2018 and has funded over $16 million to use to pay for pension obligations through 2036; the
City’s actuarial report indicates rates should decrease significantly.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
by ensuring that the State Controller’s Financial Transactions Report was filed on a
timely basis and that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for most
recent fiscal year received a clean opinion and was issued within six months of
fiscal year end
The City issued its CAFR approximately 9 months after fiscal year end, which is not considered
timely. The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 14-19
Chapter 14
14.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Pinole website provides access to the agendas and minutes for the City Council and its
various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. The City therefore
adequately provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Pinole website provides access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Pinole website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at which
City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in the City
decision-making process. The City televises City Council and Planning Commission meetings.
Newsletters are also distributed to City residents. The City therefore adequately provides
accountability with regard to citizen participation.
14.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
14.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Pinole extends beyond the municipal boundary to the south, as shown in
Figure 14.1. The City of Pinole is bound by cities of Richmond and San Pablo to the south,
Hercules to the north, San Pablo Bay to the west, and County lands to the east.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Pinole.
14.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF PINOLE
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Pinole MSR profile.
Contra Costa LAFCO
14-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pinole
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Pinole plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a continuation
of the current mix of uses, including residential, multi-family residential, commercial, retail, mixed
use, and open space. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as
future growth, maintaining compatibility with open space uses, as demonstrated in the General
Plan (2010).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Pinole. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Pinole appears adequate. The City of Pinole
anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the City of Pinole.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within the City’s SOI. These areas receive
sewer, water, and fire protection services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 14-21
This page intentionally left blank.
C 15
HAPTER
C P
ITY OF ITTSBURG
15.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Pittsburg, incorporated in 1903, covers an area of approximately 15.5 square miles.
With an estimated population of 72,647, the City has a population density of approximately 4,540
persons per square mile.1
The City of Pittsburg lies in eastern Contra Costa County, with the City of Antioch to the east, San
Pablo Bay to the north, and the cities of Clayton and Concord to the south and west. County lands
bound the City to the south and west. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of Pittsburg
extends beyond the municipal boundary to the west, as shown in Figure 15.1. The City’s voter-
approved Urban Growth Boundary surrounds the entire City.
Land uses in the City include a mix of residential, commercial, mixed use, governmental and quasi-
public, industrial, planned development, and open space. Under the open space designation,
allowable agricultural uses include orchards and cropland, grasslands, incidental agricultural, or
related sales.
15.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Pittsburg is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The publicly elected City Council consists of five members, including the Mayor. Council members
serve four-year terms and the Mayor rotates each year.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 15-1
Figure 15.1. City of Pittsburg Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Pittsburg
15.1.2 CITY STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 268.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 15.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 15.1
CITY OF PITTSBURG
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police 110.0
Public Works – Water & Sewer Enterprises 41.0
Public Works – Maintenance Services 37.45
Administration 25.7
Source: City of Pittsburg
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police function had the highest staffing level in
the City of Pittsburg, with 110.0 FTE employees.
15.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Pittsburg is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 15.2.
TABLE 15.2
CITY OF PITTSBURG
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
California Municipal Finance Authority Bond issuance – 2011 infrastructure bonds
Contra Costa Transit Authority Congestion Congestion management/Measure C growth
Management Agency management
Delta Diablo Sanitation District Waste management
East Bay Regional Communications System Construction, operation, maintenance of public
Authority safety communications
East/Central County Wastewater Management —
Authority
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy JPA Habitat Conservation Plan
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 15-3
Chapter 15
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation —
Plan Implementing Agreement
East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Traffic mitigation fees
Authority
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority Public transportation needs in Eastern Contra Costa
County
Marin Energy Authority Provide community choice aggregation energy to
residents and businesses
Municipal Pooling Authority Self-insurance pool
Pittsburg Power Company Municipal gas and electric utility
Recycled Water Sales and Utility Service (Delta Recycled water and utility services
Diablo)
Transplan (East County) Regional Transportation —
Planning Committee
Source: City of Pittsburg
15.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 15.3 lists the awards the City of Pittsburg has reported receiving since the first round
Municipal Service Review (MSR).
TABLE 15.3
CITY OF PITTSBURG
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Distinguished Budget Presentation Government Finance Officers 2012 – 2017
Association
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Government Finance Officers 2013 – 2017
Financial Reporting Association
Source: City of Pittsburg
15.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 15.4, municipal services for the City of Pittsburg are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
Contra Costa LAFCO
15-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pittsburg
TABLE 15.4
CITY OF PITTSBURG
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning City of Pittsburg
Law Enforcement City of Pittsburg
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Pittsburg, Pacific Gas and Electric
Parks and Recreation City of Pittsburg
Solid Waste Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery
Stormwater City of Pittsburg
Streets City of Pittsburg
Utilities:
Electricity Pittsburg Power Company, Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pittsburg Power Company, Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: City of Pittsburg
The City of Pittsburg reports the following challenges related to its provision of municipal services:
• Meeting pension obligations
• Funding infrastructure improvements
• Increased housing density within areas surrounding BART stations
• Lack of vacant land for housing development
• Stress on utility infrastructure
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
15.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) is the animal control service provider for the City of
Pittsburg and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. City expenditures for animal control services were $403,833 for FY
2017, reflecting an upward trend from $369,006 in FY 2015.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 15-5
Chapter 15
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
15.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Pittsburg does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and AT&T
Internet are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Pittsburg did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Pittsburg received a grade of C-, which indicates that internet service providers
did not meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one
provider advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of Pittsburg did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve the
City’s existing or growing population.
15.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Pittsburg Community Development Department provides building and planning
services. Department expenditures for FY 2017 were $2.2 million, up from $1.9 million in FY
2015.
The City of Pittsburg issued 150 residential and 90 commercial building permits in 2017. Total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 was $89.7 million.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan, the five-year Capital Improvement
Program, and the five-year Master Plan.
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
15-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pittsburg
152.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Pittsburg Police Department provides law enforcement and dispatch services. FY 2017
expenditures were approximately $25.8 million, reflecting an upward trend from approximately
$23.1 million in FY 2015.
The City of Pittsburg has 1.1 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, which is unchanged from
2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population.5 There
were 37 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime clearance rate (a measure of crimes
solved) was 6.5% in 2017, and the violent crime clearance rate was 42.2%.6
15.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Pittsburg at its Pittsburg Branch Library
location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48
per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditures and staffing are nearly double the County’s.
15.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of Pittsburg Public Works
Department. City expenditures for light and signal maintenance were $953,278 in FY 2017, up
from $933,570 in FY 2015. The City maintains 62 signalized intersections, 620 traffic lights, and
2,054 of its 4,286 street lights.
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 15-7
Chapter 15
15.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Pittsburg Parks and Recreation Department is the service provider for parks and
recreation facilities and recreation programs. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were approximately
$4.4 million in FY 2017, up from approximately $3.9 million in FY 2015.
The City offers extensive classes and programs serving all ages and interests, including sports,
aquatics, marina, literacy, art and theatre activities, and a host of special events. A portion of the
City of Pittsburg overlaps with the Ambrose Recreation and Park District and there are shared
aquatic programs among the agencies.
The City provides and maintains 5 park acres per 1,000 residents, 1 recreation center per 20,000
residents, and 26.37 miles of recreation trails.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
15.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Pittsburg via franchise agreement with Mt. Diablo
Resource Recovery. The City of Pittsburg FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services were
$692,167, reflecting a downward trend from $812,582 in FY 2015.
The City reported approximately 0.99 ton of waste disposed per capita for FY 2017. The FY 2017
per resident disposal rate was 5.45 pounds/resident/day.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
15.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Pittsburg Public Works Department provides and maintains the City’s stormwater
drainage system. The City reports that they have 105 miles of closed storm drain lines and that
3.5% of their 3,676 storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of Pittsburg also
reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards. FY 2017
expenditures for stormwater were $1,034,380.
15.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Pittsburg Public Works Department provides and maintains 164 street miles and
approximately 44 Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles, as well as landscaped public areas. FY 2017
expenditures for streets were $3 million, up from $2.8 million in FY 2015.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
Contra Costa LAFCO
15-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pittsburg
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the City of Pittsburg was 67 (fair) in 2017, which is unchanged from 2015,
and remains below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.8 Pavement at the low end of
the 60-69 (fair) range is significantly distressed and may require a combination of rehabilitation and
preventive maintenance.
15.2.11 UTILITIES
The City of Pittsburg is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice Aggregation
program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their electricity
supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide electricity service
to the City, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also provides gas service to
the City of Pittsburg.
The City of Pittsburg did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
15.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Pittsburg’s financial health and assesses the City’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations derives from
audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
15.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget, the City’s General Fund revenue of $44.0 million is
about $600,000 less than General Fund expenditures.9 The General Fund projects a slight decline
in its FY 2019 ending balance to $13.2 million, or about 30% of annual expenditures. The City's
Fiscal Sustainability policies require a reserve of 30%.10 The City notes that it has experienced
recurring budget deficits, and has used reserves to fill the gap. Table 15.5 summarizes prior year
changes in General Fund expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios
in each year.
8 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
9 City of Pittsburg Adopted Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2018-19, pg. 59.
10 Pittsburg Municipal Code, Sec. 3.26.020 General Fund Account.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 15-9
Chapter 15
The City has maintained a significant positive net position for governmental activities and enterprise
activities (see Attachment C).11 Although the General Fund balance and short-term liquidity
measures appear strong, combined governmental activities' unrestricted net position at the end of
FY 2017 was a negative $33.3 million.12 This negative long-term position reflects significant
pension and other post-employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities that are not covered by the value of
non-capital assets. The City's long-term projections, assuming conservative revenue growth,
indicate a need for $1.5 million of additional annual revenues (and/or cost reductions) beginning in
FY 2022 in order to maintain desired reserve levels; the financial needs increase to about $5.5
million annually by FY 2030.13
The General Fund receives funding from enterprise funds consistent with the City Council adopted
policy; according to the City, these transfers are sustainable and are being reduced gradually to
eliminate the need in the future.
TABLE 15.5
CITY OF PITTSBURG
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $3,205,000 $3,301,000 $3,574,000
Sales Tax $11,746,000 $13,113,000 $13,372,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) 21,828,757 24,207,941 25,467,362
Total General Fund Revenues $36,779,757 $40,621,941 $42,413,362
Change from Prior Year n/a 12.9% -7.5%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $8,752,000 $7,411,000 $8,104,000
Administration
Public Safety $21,485,000 $22,848,000 $24,110,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $9,100,172 $9,152,934 $9,582,867
Total Expenditures $39,337,172 $39,411,934 $41,796,867
Change from Prior Year n/a 0.2% 6.1%
Expenditures per capita $586 $578 $586
11 See also FY 2017 CAFR, pg. 11.
12 City of Pittsburg FY 2017 CAFR, pg. 23.
13 ibid, Pittsburg FY 2019 budget, pg. 50 et seq.
Contra Costa LAFCO
15-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pittsburg
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 3.8 4.1 3.3
Business-type Activities 4.0 4.4 5.3
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
15.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
In FY 2017 the City's governmental activities' liquidity ratio equaled 3.3, which indicated that
short-term resources exceeded current liabilities.14 The City's enterprise funds' liquidity ratio
equaled 5.3 in FY 2017. Total outstanding debt of $78.3 million amounted to approximately
$1,097 per capita in FY 2017, indicating a reduction compared to the $1,221 per capita reported
for FY 2015 (see Attachment C).
15.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
As noted above, the City has maintained a significant positive net position for governmental
activities, although the net position declined from FY 2015 to FY 2017. The net position of
combined enterprise activities generally increased from FY 2015 through FY 2017; marina net
position declined from $14 million to $13 million in FY 2017 (see Attachment C).
15.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
The City partially funds services from a one-half-cent voter-approved local sales tax measure
approved in 2012 and subsequently extended through 2035. The sales tax measure will provide an
estimated $4.7 million annually in FY 2019. The taxes fund public safety, the Senior Center, jobs
programs, road repair, youth services and services for victims of domestic violence within the
City.15
14 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
15 ibid, Pittsburg FY 2019 budget, pg. 36.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 15-11
Chapter 15
15.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
City enterprises include water, sewer, marina, Pittsburg Power, and Waterfront Operations.
According to the City, the General Fund subsidized the City-owned golf course until its closure in
FY 2018.
15.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the city may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City's unfunded pension liability increased from FY 2015 by about $10 million to $50.4
million at the end of FY 2017 (see Attachment C). The City established a trust to accumulate funds
for future pension obligation payments; in FY 2019 $400,000 is budgeted towards the trust.16 The
City's OPEB liability was $27.2 million at the end of FY 2017; a trust was established with the
California Public Employees Retirement System to fund OPEB obligations and held a balance of
$3.8 million as of March 31, 2018 (see Attachment C).17 The long-term forecast projects total
pension and OPEB payments to grow from about $4.4 million annually in FY 2019 to $9.7 million
by FY 2029 to fully fund its obligations over time according to CalPERS requirements.18 The trusts
will help the City manage and meet its payments and reduce impacts on other General Fund
resources as payments increase. In addition, the City is paying about $3.6 million annually towards
a pension obligation bond issued in 2006.
15.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
FY 2016 through FY 2017 shows declines in the net value of governmental assets; enterprise assets
show minimal declines (see Attachment C). These declines indicate that capital investment has not
kept pace with asset depreciation. The FY 2019 budget proposes approximately $12 million in
capital improvements, the majority for water and sewer system improvements which are funded by
operating fees and charges.19 The City does not have the resources to fund everything on an ideal
replacement schedule, but uses its five-year capital budget program to identify capital needs and
funding through available funds, grants, or other funding sources.
15.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
16 ibid, Pittsburg FY 2019 budget, pg. 13.
17 See also Pittsburg FY 2019 budget, pg. 13-14.
18 ibid, Pittsburg FY 2019 budget, pg. 50 et seq.
19 ibid, Pittsburg FY 2019 budget, pg. 15.
Contra Costa LAFCO
15-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pittsburg
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's
website.
In FY05 the City established an Economic Development Fund to provide financing for economic
development activities within the City. Revenue sources include a Business Improvement District
tax, as share of the City's voter-approved sales tax, and transfers from Pittsburg's power enterprise.
The City has undertaken ongoing business retention and recruitment activities, including
collaborating with Antioch, Oakley, and Brentwood to create EastCounty4you.com, a marketing
site to promote the region.
15.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Pittsburg.
15.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Pittsburg serves
72,647 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Pittsburg are depicted in Figure 15.2.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 15-13
City of Pittsburg
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 15.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Pittsburg
June 2019
City of Pittsburg
ABAG projects that the City of Pittsburg will grow at an annual rate of approximately 1.2% to a
population of 91,615 between 2010 and 2040.20 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.9% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data21 for 2010, the City of Pittsburg has 27,266 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data22 for 2010 estimated 11,835 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.43 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of Pittsburg has 21,126 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.56.
The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied
housing units (Table 15.6), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
TABLE 15.6
CITY OF PITTSBURG
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 11,490
Renter-occupied housing units 8,037
Vacant housing units 1,599
Total existing housing units 21,126
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 392
Low 254
Moderate 316
Above Moderate 1,063
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 2,025
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.23 The City of Pittsburg was assigned a RHNA of 2,025 units, as shown in Table 15.6.
20 ABAG. Projections 2017.
21 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
22 ABAG. Projections 2017.
23 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 15-15
Chapter 15
The City adopted its General Plan in 2001 and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 5,006 units, which
are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and
exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Pittsburg 2015–2023 Housing Element has
been found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with
State Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.24
The City of Pittsburg has general policies related to senior housing included in the Housing Element
of the General Plan.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City of Pittsburg reported approximately 575 undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY
2017. Several projects have been identified as part of the projected growth for the City including
1,035 approved (but not yet built) housing units, 119 near-term future housing units, and 3,894
long-term future housing units. The Maximum Planned Buildout Scenarios estimate 4,455 total
additional housing units in various specific and master plans adopted by the City. The City has
estimated that approximately 1.13 million square feet of commercial and office space can be built
in and around its two BART Stations per the approved planning documents. An additional 870,000
square feet of commercial and industrial space is proceeding in various stages of the planning
approval process.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. Two PDAs have been identified
by the City of Pittsburg and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.25 The Railroad Avenue eBART Station
and Downtown PDAs are anticipated to accommodate approximately 50% of the projected growth
in households and 42% of the projected growth in employment.26
The Railroad Avenue eBART Station PDA is characterized as a Transit Town Center. The Railroad
Avenue eBART Station PDA consists of areas within ½ mile of the Pittsburg Center BART Station.
The Downtown PDA is characterized as a Transit Neighborhood and is bounded by the San
Joaquin River to the north, BNSF Railroad tracks to the south, Harbor Street to the east, and NRG
Pittsburg Generating Station to the west.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
24 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
25 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
26 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
Contra Costa LAFCO
15-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pittsburg
Pittsburg has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas, nor are any included in Plan Bay Area
2040.27
The City of Pittsburg does not anticipate that current or projected growth patterns will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
15.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Pittsburg’s SOI for the City of Pittsburg extends beyond the municipal boundary to the
west (see Figure 15.1). LAFCO did not identify any unincorporated islands in the City of Pittsburg.
The City has expressed an interest in the annexation of two areas--the Faria/Southwest Hills28 area,
located just southwest of the municipal boundary of the City of Pittsburg within the Southwest Hills
planning subarea of the Pittsburg General Plan, and an extension of James Donlon Boulevard, a
City-approved project to construct an approximately 2-mile roadway from the Antioch City Limits
to Kirker Pass Road. Both areas are within the City’s SOI.
The City also identified additional unincorporated island areas in which it has an interest—
Orbisonia Heights and Keller Canyon (Figure 15.3). The Orbisonia Heights area is within the City’s
SOI but not the municipal boundary or the Urban Growth Boundary; the Keller Canyon area is not
within the City’s SOI, municipal boundary or Urban Growth Boundary.
Orbisonia Heights, located south of Highway 4 east of Bailey Road, does not receive any services
from the City at this time. Ambrose Park, which is within the municipal boundary, splits the nearly
30 acres of unincorporated and vacant property. The City reports a willingness to consider
annexation of the island and to provide Code Enforcement and Police Services to the area.
Keller Canyon landfill, located south of the City limits east of Bailey Road, is adjacent to residential
property to the west and the City of Concord and the Concord Naval Weapons Station to the south.
The City shares the street maintenance and Code Enforcement of Bailey Road with the County from
the City limits south to Concord. The island does not receive any services from the City at this time.
The City of Pittsburg reports that it is evaluating the potential to annex the island and to provide
street maintenance and Code Enforcement to Bailey Road. The City is a Local Enforcement Agency
for the State of California and can provide the oversight and monitoring for the Keller Canyon
landfill.
The City does not request any additional changes to its SOI at this time. Other than the areas
indicated above, the City of Pittsburg does not provide services outside its municipal boundaries or
SOI.
27 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
28 City voters approved a measure to bring into the City’s SOI and assign General Plan designations for
Open Space and Residential.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 15-17
Keller Canyon Landfill
Figure 15.3. Orbisonia Heights and Keller Canyon Landfill Areas
City of Pittsburg
June 2019
City of Pittsburg
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County
This MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within the municipal boundary, including
the unincorporated community of Bay Point, which is within the SOI for the City of Pittsburg.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
15.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Pittsburg reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and
SOI and anticipates it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
Disadvantaged communities have been identified within the City of Pittsburg’s SOI. Sewer, water,
and fire/emergency medical services are provided for these areas.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 67, which is below the target of 75 MTC has established and which
indicates a potential future need for pavement rehabilitation funding.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City may
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 15-19
Chapter 15
experience funding obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting overall infrastructure
needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City of Pittsburg has identified capital needs and funding as part of its five-year capital budget
program.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. 29 Services related to animal
control, broadband, library, lighting, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with Contra
Costa County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The City shares aquatic programs with the Ambrose Recreation and Park District. No other areas of
overlapping responsibilities or opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part
of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
29 Although not covered in this MSR, the City also provides sewer and water service.
Contra Costa LAFCO
15-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pittsburg
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
15.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The City of Pittsburg is experiencing some fiscal challenges that may affect its ability to provide
services, particularly in the event of unexpected funding needs. The City has experienced recurring
budget deficits for which it has used reserves to address the shortfalls. As with other cities in Contra
Costa County, rising pension costs are expected to continue to reduce funding for other priorities.
Overall, and despite these fiscal challenges, the City of Pittsburg appears to have sufficient financial
resources to continue providing services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion,
improvements, or replacement over the next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Pittsburg has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund in the recent two
fiscal years.
The City currently meets its 30% reserve goal, allowing it to maintain an acceptable level of service
provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 3.3, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $1,097 per capita for FY 2017 and has been declining.
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow; however, the City has
established a trust to help address the increasing pension liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The City issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered timely.
The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 15-21
Chapter 15
15.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Pittsburg website provides access to the agendas and minutes for the City Council and
its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. All City of Pittsburg
meetings—City Council, Planning Commission, and Community Advisory Commission—are
streamed on the City’s website and broadcast on CCTV. The webcasts are archived and can be
viewed at any time after the meeting, usually by noon the day following the meetings. The City
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Pittsburg website provides access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Pittsburg website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with
regard to citizen participation.
15.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
15.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Pittsburg extends beyond the municipal boundary to the west, as shown in
Figure 15.1. The City of Pittsburg is bound by the City of Antioch to the east, San Pablo Bay to the
north, the cities of Clayton and Concord to the south and west, and County lands to the south and
west.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Pittsburg.
Contra Costa LAFCO
15-22 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pittsburg
15.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF PITTSBURG
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Pittsburg MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Pittsburg plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, and open
space. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth,
maintaining compatibility with open space (including agriculture) uses, as demonstrated in the
General Plan (2001).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Pittsburg. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years, and in
conjunction with recent annexations (Montreux and Tuscany Meadows).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Pittsburg appears adequate. The City of
Pittsburg anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the City of Pittsburg.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within the municipal boundary, as well as
the unincorporated community of Bay Point, which is within the SOI for the City of Pittsburg. These
areas receive services related to sewer, water, and structural fire protection. There are no other
disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the City.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 15-23
This page intentionally left blank.
C 16
HAPTER
C P H
ITY OF LEASANT ILL
16.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Pleasant Hill, incorporated in 1961, covers an area of approximately 8.1 square miles.
With an estimated population of 35,068, the City has a population density of approximately 4,383
persons per square mile.1
The City of Pleasant Hill lies in central Contra Costa County, with the City of Martinez to the north,
the City of Concord to the east, the City of Walnut Creek to the south, the City of Lafayette to the
southwest, and County lands to the west (Briones Hills) and south. The Sphere of Influence (SOI)
for the City of Pleasant Hill extends beyond the municipal boundary to the north and to the west,
with a small extension to the south near I-680, as shown in Figure 16.1. The City adopted the
countywide Urban Limit Line in 2008.
Land uses in the City include a mix of industrial, residential, institutional, commercial, and open
space. Although there are no agricultural land use designations in the City of Pleasant Hill, the
Mangini/Delu property remains a working farm.
16.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Pleasant Hill is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of
government. The publicly elected City Council consists of five members, including the Mayo.
Council members serve four-year terms and the Mayor rotates each year.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 16-1
Figure 16.1. City of Pleasant Hill Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Pleasant Hill
16.1.2 CITY STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 110.6 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 16.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 16.1
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police 57.0
City Administration 35.0
Public Works 25.95
Public Service Center 14.0
Source: City of Pleasant Hill
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police function had the highest staffing level in
the City of Pleasant Hill, with 57.0 FTE employees.
16.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Pleasant Hill is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 16.2.
TABLE 16.2
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
California Enterprise Development Authority Property assessed clean energy program
California Municipal Finance Authority Promote economic, cultural, and community
development activities in the City, including the
financing of projects by the Authority
California Statewide Communities Development Access economic development financing resources
Authority and participate in a JPA-affiliated property assessed
clean energy program
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority —
Central Contra Costa Transportation/Land Use —
Partnership
Contra Costa Abandoned Vehicle Service Authority Regional program to abate abandoned vehicles
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 16-3
Chapter 16
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Contra Costa Transit Authority Congestion —
Management Agency
East Bay Regional Communications System Regional interoperable communications system
Authority
East/Central County Wastewater Management —
Authority
Fire Districts Association of California Employee benefits purchasing pool
Golden State Finance Authority Include properties within the City’s jurisdiction in
the PACE program to finance or refinance the
acquisition, installation, and improvement of energy
efficiency, water conservation, renewable energy
and electric vehicle infrastructure, and such other
improvements as may be authorized.
Municipal Pooling Authority Risk management pool
Pleasant Hill-Martinez Joint Facilities Agency Shared services arrangements for provision of
municipal services
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Participate in a regional transportation planning
Cooperation association
Western Riverside Council of Governments Participate in a JPA-affiliated property assessed
clean energy
Source: City of Pleasant Hill
16.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
The award the City of Pleasant Hill has reported receiving since the first round Municipal Service
Review (MSR) includes the Growing Smart Together Awards – On the Ground Getting it Done,
awarded by the Association of Bay Area Governments.
16.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 16.3, municipal services for the City of Pleasant Hill are provided by City staff
and under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
Contra Costa LAFCO
16-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pleasant Hill
TABLE 16.3
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast, Wave Broadband
Building / Planning City of Pleasant Hill
Law Enforcement City of Pleasant Hill
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Pleasant Hill, Contra Costa County, Pacific Gas & Electric
Parks and Recreation Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District
Solid Waste Allied Waste
Stormwater City of Pleasant Hill
Streets City of Pleasant Hill
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice n/a
Source: City of Pleasant Hill
Opportunities or challenges related to the provision of municipal services for the City of Pleasant
Hill were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
A summary of the available municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided for the City in
Attachment B.
16.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) is the animal control service provider for the City of
Pleasant Hill and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were not reported or were unavailable
at the time of this MSR update.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 16-5
Chapter 16
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
16.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Pleasant Hill does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast, AT&T
Internet, and Wave Broadband are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a
variety of wired technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Pleasant Hill did not indicate
concerns about the availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5
Mbps upload speeds to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Pleasant Hill received a grade of B-, which indicates that internet service
providers meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one
provider advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of Pleasant Hill did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
16.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Pleasant Hill Building Division provides building services and the Planning Division
provides planning services. Department expenditures for FY 2017 were not reported or were
unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
The City of Pleasant Hill issued 150 residential and 90 commercial building permits in 2017. Total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 was approximately $39.7 million.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan and the Capital Improvement Program.
16.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Pleasant Hill Police Department provides law enforcement and dispatch services. FY
2017 expenditures were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
The City of Pleasant Hill has 1.3 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, which is unchanged
from 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population.5
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
Contra Costa LAFCO
16-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pleasant Hill
There were 37.5 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime clearance rate (a measure of
crimes solved) was approximately 23% in 2017, and the violent crime clearance rate was
approximately 56%.6
16.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Pleasant Hill at its Pleasant Hill Branch
Library location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from
$24.48 per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state averages for expenditures and staffing are nearly double the County’s.
16.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided by and maintained by the City of Pleasant Hill Maintenance
Division, Contra Costa County, and Pacific Gas & Electric. City expenditures for light and signal
maintenance were $178,000 in FY 2017, up from $151,000 in FY 2015. Contra Costa County
maintains the City’s 62 signalized intersections and 620 traffic lights. The number of street lights
maintained by the City is 505. Pacific Gas & Electric maintains 1,614 street lights in the City.
16.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District is the service provider for parks and recreation
facilities and recreation programs in the City of Pleasant Hill as well as unincorporated areas in
Lafayette and Walnut Creek. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were not reported or were unavailable
at the time of this MSR update.
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 16-7
Chapter 16
The Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District provides 2,300 programs and activities for all ages
and abilities, including classes, sports, camps, events and travel adventures. The park acres per
1,000 residents, recreation centers per 20,000 residents, and miles of recreation trails were not
reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 3 acres per 1,000 residents.
16.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Pleasant Hill via franchise agreement with Allied
Waste Services. Allied Waste Services transports solid waste collected from the City of Pleasant Hill
to the Keller Canyon Landfill near the City of Pittsburg. The City of Pleasant Hill FY 2017
expenditures for solid waste services were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR
update.
The FY 2017 solid waste disposal rates were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this
MSR update.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
16.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Pleasant Hill Maintenance Division maintains the City’s stormwater drainage system.
The City reports that they have 49 miles of closed storm drain lines and that 8% of their 1,363
storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of Pleasant Hill also reports
compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards. FY 2017 expenditures
for stormwater were $70,000, down from $90,000 in FY 2015.
16.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Pleasant Hill Maintenance Division provides and maintains 110 street miles and
approximately 20.7 Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles, as well as landscaped public areas. FY 2017
expenditures for streets were $7.53 million, up slightly from $7.52 million in FY 2015.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
Contra Costa LAFCO
16-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pleasant Hill
The PCI for streets in the City of Pleasant Hill was 66 (fair) in 2017, up from 65 in 2015, but
remains below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.8 Pavement at the low end of the
60-69 (fair) range is significantly distressed and may require a combination of rehabilitation and
preventive maintenance. The City self-reports a PCI of 68 for 2017.
16.2.11 UTILITIES
Pacific Gas & Electric provides gas and electricity service to the City of Pleasant Hill. The City is not
a member of a Community Choice Aggregation program.
The City of Pleasant Hill did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to
serve the City’s existing or growing population.
16.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Pleasant Hill’s financial health and assesses the
City’s financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for City municipal operations
derives from audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current
budget documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
16.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
The City of Pleasant Hill prepares a biennial budget. According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget,
the City’s General Fund revenue of $29.2 million are about equal to General Fund expenditures.9
Deficits projected in prior years (FY 2018 and FY 2017) were primarily due to “the intentional
investment of a portion of the General Fund’s high fund balance in priority projects such as street
resurfacing.”10 Table 16.4 summarizes prior year changes in General Fund expenditures and
revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year (see Attachment C).
The General Fund projects an ending FY 2019 balance of $9.9 million, or about 34% of annual
expenditures. In 2014 the City Council adopted a policy establishing General Fund reserves
totaling $8,890,000 for working capital ($5 million), economic uncertainty ($2 million),
catastrophic events ($1 million), and for an existing bank loan ($890,000).11
8 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
9 City of Pleasant Hill Proposed Fiscal Year 2018/19-2019/20 Biennial Budget, pg. iv.
10 City of Pleasant Hill Response to MSR Fiscal Questions.
11 City of Pleasant Hill Resolution Number 31-14 Adopting a Revised General Fund Reserve Policy.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 16-9
Chapter 16
The City expects to generate additional sales tax beginning in FY 2018/19 due to the formation of a
Tourism Improvement District that will market hotels in Pleasant Hill.12
The City's Five-Year Forecast predicts that revenues may not keep pace with expenditure increases,
resulting in deficits in FY 2021 through FY 2023.13 The City's Long-Term Financial Plan identifies
measures to balance the budget, including service reductions; paying down the City's unfunded
pension liability; paying down unfunded accrued leave liability; increasing General Fund reserves;
reducing deferred maintenance and making other desirable capital improvements.14
TABLE 16.4
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $5,518,000 $5,760,000 $6,111,000
Sales Tax $7,737,000 $8,598,000 $8,437,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $7,939,000 $8,583,000 $9,596,000
Total General Fund Revenues $21,194,000 $22,941,000 $24,144,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 8.2% 5.2%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $4,283,000 $4,323,000 $5,099,000
Administration
Public Safety $8,758,000 $9,499,000 $10,190,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $8,160,000 $8,870,000 $9,808,000
Total Expenditures $21,201,000 $22,692,000 $25,097,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 7.0% 10.6%
Expenditures per capita $625 $663 $718
12 ibid, Pleasant Hill FY 2019 budget, pg. 68.
13 ibid, Pleasant Hill FY 2019 budget, pg. v.
14 City of Pleasant Hill Long-Term Financial Plan for Fiscal Year 2018/19 through Fiscal Year 2022/23
Proposed June 2018.
Contra Costa LAFCO
16-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pleasant Hill
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 3.9 7.9 2.9
Business-type Activities 46.7 14.8 13.4
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
16.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
In FY 2017 the City's governmental activities' liquidity ratio equaled 2.9 indicating that short-term
resources exceeded current liabilities (see Attachment C).15 As of FY 2019, the City has no debt.
16.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The City has maintained a positive net position for governmental activities, although its net position
declined slightly from FY 2015 to FY 2017. The unrestricted portion of the governmental activities
net position was negative ($20.1 million) in FY 2017, slightly worse than FY 2015 and partly the
result of unfunded pension liabilities. The net positive position of the City’s enterprise activity
increased from FY 2015 to FY 2017 (see Attachment C).
16.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
Measure K, a 2016 voter-approved one-half-cent sales tax, is projected to generate about $4.3
million in FY 2019. Landscape and Lighting Assessment District revenues from areas of the City
help pay for maintenance services.
16.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The only City enterprise is the Diablo Vista Water System, which provides irrigation water to an
area with 474 homes within the City. The Diablo Vista County Water System was formed in 1950
to provide untreated canal water for irrigation to 475 homes in the area bounded roughly by Oak
Park Boulevard, the Contra Costa canal, Boyd Road, and Patterson Boulevard. The system is funded
15 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 16-11
Chapter 16
by assessments and property tax from the area served. The City has monitored and revised fees and
charges, including creation of a capital improvements fee, to maintain a fiscally solvent enterprise.16
16.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the City may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City's unfunded pension liability totaled $34.7 million at the end of FY 2017 (see Attachment
C). The City is reviewing options for addressing this liability in addition to making the annual
required payments to eventually pay it off. The City does not provide retirement health benefits and
has no other post-employment benefit obligations.
16.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
FY 2016 through FY 2017 generally show declines in the net value of governmental assets (see
Attachment C). However, the City indicates that its buildings have a fair amount of useful life
remaining but need to plan for their eventual replacement for example through creation of reserves
for this purpose.17 The City is in the process of preparing a 20-year infrastructure needs assessment
and capital improvement plan to address future capital needs.
16.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's
website.
16.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Pleasant Hill.
16 City of Pleasant Hill FY 2017 CAFR.
17 ibid, City of Pleasant Hill Long-Term Financial Plan, pg. 31.
Contra Costa LAFCO
16-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pleasant Hill
16.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Pleasant Hill serves
35,068 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Pleasant Hill are depicted in Figure
16.2.
ABAG projects that the City of Pleasant Hill will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.3% to a
population of 35,925 between 2010 and 2040.18 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.6% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data19 for 2010, the City of Pleasant Hill has 16,870 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data20 for 2010 estimated 16,360 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.97 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of Pleasant Hill has 14,321 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of
1.14. The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-
occupied housing units (Table 16.5), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental
household rate.
18 ABAG. Projections 2017.
19 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
20 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 16-13
City of Pleasant Hill
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 16.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Pleasant Hill
June 2019
City of Pleasant Hill
TABLE 16.5
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 8,470
Renter-occupied housing units 5,238
Vacant housing units 613
Total existing housing units 14,321
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 118
Low 69
Moderate 84
Above Moderate 177
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 448
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the
San Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.21 The City of Pleasant Hill was assigned a RHNA of 448 units, as shown in Table 16.5.
The City adopted its General Plan in 2003 and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 938 units, which are
appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and exceed
its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Pleasant Hill 2015–2023 Housing Element has been
found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State
Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of
all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.22
The programs and services provided by the City for adults age 50 and older were not reported or
were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
21 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
22 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 16-15
Chapter 16
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City of Pleasant Hill reported approximately 48.6 undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY
2017. Several new projects have been identified as part of the projected growth for the City
including approximately 17 residential projects and 16 commercial projects.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. Two PDAs have been identified
by the City of Pleasant Hill and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.23 The Diablo Valley College and
Buskirk Avenue Corridor PDAs are anticipated to accommodate approximately 23% of the
projected growth in households and 35% of the projected growth in employment.24 The Diablo
Valley College PDA, which includes selected areas within a one-quarter-mile radius of the Diablo
Valley College Transit Station, is characterized as a Transit Neighborhood. The Buskirk Avenue
Corridor PDA, which includes areas surrounding Buskirk Corridor, extending to the east and west
(not include single family residential) is characterized as a Mixed Use Corridor.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Pleasant Hill has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas, nor are any included in Plan Bay
Area 2040.25
The City of Pleasant Hill does not report that current or projected growth patterns will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
16.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Pleasant Hill’s SOI extends beyond the municipal boundary to the north and to the
west, with a small extension to the south (see Figure 16.1). The City of Pleasant Hill contains the
following three unincorporated islands, all of which are under 150 acres and can be annexed
through an expedited process:
• An approximately 5-acre area located off Alhambra Avenue (eastside of the road)
surrounded by the cities of Martinez and Pleasant Hill and within Pleasant Hill’s SOI
• An approximately 51-acre area located north of Chilpancongo Parkway, surrounded by
the cities of Martinez and Pleasant Hill, and within Pleasant Hill’s SOI
• An approximately 37-acre area adjacent to and east of the Contra Costa Country Club
that is surrounded by the City of Pleasant Hill and within Pleasant Hill’s SOI.
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
23 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
24 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
25 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
16-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pleasant Hill
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Update identified a disadvantaged community within the City’s boundary and SOI (Oak
Park Boulevard and Patterson Boulevard).
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
16.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Pleasant Hill reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary
and anticipates it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
The disadvantaged communities within and contiguous to the City’s SOI receive sewer, water, and
fire protection services.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 66, which is below the target of 75 MTC has established and which
indicates a potential future need for pavement rehabilitation funding.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 16-17
Chapter 16
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, the
City does not anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting infrastructure
needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City of Pleasant Hill has identified measures to reduce deferred maintenance and make capital
improvements. The City is also preparing a 20-year infrastructure needs assessment and capital
improvement plan.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, lighting, stormwater, and streets. Services related to animal control, broadband,
library, lighting, parks and recreation, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with
Contra Costa County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The City does not share facilities or services. Based on available information, no areas of
overlapping responsibilities or opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part
of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities based on the
information available.
Contra Costa LAFCO
16-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pleasant Hill
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
Based on available information, no excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this
review.
16.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The City of Pleasant Hill is experiencing some fiscal challenges that may affect its ability to provide
services, particularly in the event of unexpected funding needs. The City projects ongoing General
Fund deficits, which may affect its ability to provide services. As with other cities in Contra Costa
County, rising pension costs are expected to continue to reduce funding for other priorities.
Overall, and despite these fiscal challenges, the City of Pleasant Hill appears to have sufficient
financial resources to continue providing services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion,
improvements, or replacement over the next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Pleasant Hill has been operating with an overall deficit trend in their General Fund and
anticipates this trend to continue through FY 2023.
The City’s reserve goal is $8.9 million; however, it is unknown whether it meets this goal.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 2.9, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
The City has no outstanding debt.
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow. The City is considering funding
options for the increasing pension liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
by ensuring that the State Controller’s Financial Transactions Report was filed on a
timely basis and that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for most
recent fiscal year received a clean opinion and was issued within six months of
fiscal year end
The City issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered timely.
The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 16-19
Chapter 16
16.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Pleasant Hill website provides access to the agendas and minutes for the City Council
and its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. The City also
livestreams Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The City therefore adequately
provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Pleasant Hill website provides access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Pleasant Hill website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. The City also uses social media and distributes newsletters to its
residents. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to citizen participation.
16.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
16.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Pleasant Hill extends beyond the municipal boundary to the north and to
the west, with a small extension to the south, as shown in Figure 16.1. The City of Pleasant Hill is
bound by the City of Martinez to the north, the City of Concord to the east, the City of Walnut
Creek to the south, the City of Lafayette to the southwest, and County lands to the south and west.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Pleasant Hill.
Contra Costa LAFCO
16-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Pleasant Hill
16.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF PLEASANT
HILL
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Pleasant Hill MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Pleasant Hill plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including industrial, residential, institutional, commercial,
and open space. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future
growth, maintaining compatibility with open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan
(2003).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Pleasant Hill. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Pleasant Hill appears adequate. The City of
Pleasant Hill anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
Contra Costa LAFCO has identified three islands within the City’s SOI that potentially represent
communities of interest and encourages the City to consider annexing these areas. No additional
specific social or economic communities of interest relevant to the City of Pleasant Hill have been
identified.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Update identified a disadvantaged community within the City’s boundary and SOI (Oak
Park Boulevard and Patterson Boulevard). This area receives sewer, water, and fire protection
services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 16-21
This page intentionally left blank.
C 17
HAPTER
C R
ITY OF ICHMOND
17.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Richmond, incorporated in 1905, covers an area of approximately 52.6 square miles.
With an estimated population of 119,067, the City has a population density of approximately 2,246
persons per square mile.1
The City of Richmond lies in western Contra Costa County and surrounds the City of San Pablo.
The City of Pinole lies to the north, San Pablo Bay lies to the west, the City of El Cerrito and the San
Francisco Bay lie to the south, and County lands lie to the east. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for
the City of Richmond is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the exception of
areas to the east (the unincorporated community of El Sobrante) and to the north (the
unincorporated community of North Richmond), as shown in Figure 17.1. The City adopted the
countywide Urban Limit Line in 2008. A portion of East Richmond Heights (within Wildcat Canyon
Regional Park) and a portion of North Richmond (adjacent to San Pablo Bay) lie outside the
adopted Urban Limit Line.
Land uses in the City include a mix of industrial, residential, research and development,
commercial, agricultural, and open space. Agricultural uses include grazing, crop production,
farming, community gardens, and ancillary residential uses.
17.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Richmond is a charter city operating under a council-manager form of government. The
publicly elected City Council consists of seven members, including the directly elected Mayor.
Council members, including the Mayor, serve four-year terms.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 17-1
Figure 17.1. City of Richmond Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Richmond
17.1.2 CITY STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 722.7 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 17.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 17.1
CITY OF RICHMOND
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police 244.5
Public Works 83.0
Finance and Administrative Services 21.0
Community Development 15.0
Source: City of Richmond
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police service function had the highest staffing
level in the City of Richmond, with 244.5 FTE employees.
17.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Richmond is a member of various joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 17.2.
TABLE 17.2
CITY OF RICHMOND
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
California Association of Counties – Excess Provide commercial insurance coverage
Insurance Authority
California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority Provide commercial insurance coverage
Contra Costa Transit Authority Congestion —
Management Agency
East Bay Regional Communications System —
Authority Operating Agreement
Gilman Sports Field Develop, maintain, and operate sports fields at
Eastbay State Park (Gilman Sports Field) to benefit
youth and adult sports.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 17-3
Chapter 17
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Joint Powers Financing Authority Assist the City, the Community Redevelopment
Agency, and other local public agencies in financing
and refinancing capital improvements and working
capital pursuant to the Marks-Roos Local Bond
Pooling Act of 1985.
Marin Clean Energy Program Procure renewable electric energy on behalf of
electricity customers to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
North Richmond Pump Station (JEPA) Established to set limits of the County’s and City’s
responsibility for maintenance and operation.
Richmond Housing Authority Properties Maintain and increase the long-term supply of
affordable and/or publicly owned housing within
the jurisdictions of the member entities
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Responsible for ensuring compliance with state-
Authority mandated solid waste and recycling laws and
overseeing the region’s post-collection agreement,
include recyclables, processing, composting,
operation of a Household Hazardous Waste facility,
and the transfer, transportation, and disposal of
solid waste.
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Guide transportation project and programs and aim
Committee to improve the transportation system in West
Contra Costa through the development and
coordination of transportation plans, projects,
program, and policies for the West Contra Costa
area.
West County Agency (JEPA) Established for the purpose of providing more
efficient disposal of wastewater produced in the
Richmond Municipal Sewer District and the West
County Wastewater District.
Source: City of Richmond
17.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 17.3 lists the awards the City of Richmond has reported receiving since the first round
Municipal Service Review (MSR).
Contra Costa LAFCO
17-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Richmond
TABLE 17.3
CITY OF RICHMOND
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Excellent IT Practices Award Municipal Information Systems Association of 2018
California
Peak Performance – Gold Award (for National Association of Clean Water Agencies 2018
complete and consistent treatment
plant permit compliance for calendar
year 2017)
Organizational Excellence for the California Association of Sanitation Agencies 2017
Sewer Lateral Grant Program
North Richmond Pump Station American Public Works Association, Northern 2016
Stormwater Diversion Project CA Chapter
State of our Schools Award – Partner West Contra Costa Unified School District 2016
of the Year
Quality IT Practices Award Municipal Information Systems Association of 2014 – 2018
California
Distinguished Budget Presentation Government Finance Officers Association FY2013-15 –
Award FY2018-19
Operating Budget Excellence Award California Society of Municipal Finance Officers FY2013-15 –
FY2018-19
Capital Budget Excellence Award California Society of Municipal Finance Officers FY2013-15 –
FY2018-19
Source: City of Richmond
17.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 17.4, municipal services for the City of Richmond are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 17-5
Chapter 17
TABLE 17.4
CITY OF RICHMOND
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning City of Richmond
Law Enforcement City of Richmond
Library City of Richmond
Lighting City of Richmond
Parks and Recreation City of Richmond
Solid Waste Richmond Sanitary Services
Stormwater City of Richmond
Streets City of Richmond
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: City of Richmond
The City of Richmond reports the following challenges related to its provision of municipal
services:
• Aging capital infrastructure (primarily related to roadway network assets)
• Potential annexation of North Richmond unincorporated island
• Pension obligations
A summary of the available municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided for the City in
Attachment B.
17.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) is the animal control service provider for the City of
Richmond and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were $616,166 in FY 2017, up from
$560,534 in FY 2015.
Contra Costa LAFCO
17-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Richmond
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
17.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Richmond does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and
AT&T Internet are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Richmond did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Richmond received a grade of C, which indicates that internet service providers
meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one provider
advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City is aware that service providers are limited in the Point Richmond area and along the
shoreline. As funding permits, this area can be covered by the Community Wi-Fi. The City of
Richmond did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve the City’s
existing or growing population.
17.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Richmond Department of Building and Planning Services provides building and
planning services. Department expenditures for FY 2017 were approximately $7.8 million, up from
$7.25 million in FY 2015.
The City of Richmond issued 2,783 residential and 1,513 commercial building permits in 2017.
Total building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at $355 million.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan and the Five-year Strategic Plan.
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 17-7
Chapter 17
17.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Richmond Police Department provides law enforcement and dispatch services. FY 2017
expenditures were approximately $62.7 million, reflecting an upward trend from approximately
$59.6 million in FY 2015.
The City of Richmond has 1.49 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, which represents a
decrease from 1.8 FTE in 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per
1,000 population.5 There were 31.81 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime clearance
rate (a measure of crimes solved) was 3.2% in 2017, and the violent crime clearance rate was
17.5%.6
17.2.5 LIBRARY
The City of Richmond provides library services at its Main Branch, Bayview Branch, and West Side
Branch locations. City library expenditures were $43.99 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from
$45.14 per capita in FY 2013.
The Richmond Public Library operates the Literacy for Every Adult Program, which provides one-
on-one, self-directed online, and classroom instruction for basic literacy, GED preparation, high
school diploma, English as a second language, digital literacy, health literacy, and workforce
development. Program operating expenditures for FY 2017 were $1,022,564, or approximately
20% of total library expenditures.
Average circulation per capita was 1.66 in FY 2017, down from 2.69 in FY 2013. The City library
had 2.63 visits per capita in in FY 2013; no data were available for FY 2017. The Richmond library
system had 0.3715 FTE staff per 1,000 population in FY 2017.
The Richmond Public Library participates in a statewide public library E-Rate consortium through
the Corporations for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC), which provides high-
speed broadband services to connect libraries to the California Research and education Network.
The 1-gigabit CENIC broadband connection is available for staff and the public at all three
Richmond library locations.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
17-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Richmond
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017.
17.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of Richmond Engineering and
Capital Improvement Projects Department. City expenditures for light and signal maintenance for
FY 2017 were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update. The City maintains
approximately 9,000 street lights. The numbers for signalized intersections and traffic lights
maintained by the City were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
17.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Richmond Community Services Department manages the City’s parks and recreation
facilities and is the service provider for recreation programs. The Parks and Landscaping Division
maintains the City’s parks, public landscapes and natural open spaces. FY 2017 expenditures for
parks were approximately $4.4 million, reflecting an upward trend from approximately $3.9
million in FY 2015.
The City provides various programs and activities for all ages including summer camps, aquatics,
sports, senior services, community festivals and special events.
The City provides and maintains 7.1 park acres per 1,000 residents, 1.68 recreation centers per
20,000 residents, and 35 miles of recreation trails.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 3 acres per 1,000 residents.
17.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Richmond via contract with Richmond Sanitary
Services. The City of Richmond reports that it has no direct expenditures for solid waste services.
The City reported approximately 0.89 tons of waste disposed per capita for FY 2017. The FY 2017
per resident disposal rate was 3.9 pounds/resident/day.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
17.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Richmond Water Resource Recovery Department provides and maintains the City’s
stormwater drainage system. The City reports that they have 165.4 miles of closed storm drain lines
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 17-9
Chapter 17
and that 4.8% of their 5,215 storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of
Richmond also reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
standards. Stormwater expenditures were $2.3 million in FY 2017, down from $3.3 million in FY
2015.
17.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Richmond Engineering and Capital Improvement Projects Department provides and
maintains 280 street miles and approximately 35.3 Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles. FY 2017
expenditures for streets were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the City of Richmond was 62 (fair) in 2017, down from 63 in 2015, and
remains below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.8 Pavement at the low end of the
60-69 (fair) range is significantly distressed and may require a combination of rehabilitation and
preventive maintenance.
17.2.11 UTILITIES
The City of Richmond is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice
Aggregation program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their
electricity supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide
electricity service to the City, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also
provides gas service to the City of Richmond.
The City of Richmond did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to
serve the City’s existing or growing population.
17.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Richmond’s financial health and assesses the City’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations derives from
audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
8 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
Contra Costa LAFCO
17-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Richmond
17.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget, the City’s General Fund revenue of $168 million is
equal to General Fund expenditures.9 Table 17.5 summarizes prior year changes in General Fund
expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year.
The budget projects an ending FY 2019 General Fund balance of $16.8 million, or about 11
percent of annual expenditures.10 The City's fund balance policy requires the City to maintain a
year-end contingency reserve balance of a minimum of 7% of the next year’s budgeted General
Fund expenditures.11
At the end of FY 2017, the City's cash reserve component represented $11.2 million of the General
Fund's $19.7 million unassigned fund balance.12
TABLE 17.5
CITY OF RICHMOND
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $30,905,000 $33,232,000 $36,970,000
Sales Tax $33,131,000 $40,877,000 $41,620,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $80,494,000 $72,466,000 $85,815,000
Total General Fund Revenues $144,529,612 $146,575,079 $164,405,410
Change from Prior Year n/a 1.4% 12.2%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $21,242,000 $22,372,000 $25,517,000
Administration
Public Safety $83,960,000 $86,860,000 $92,617,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $38,188,000 $36,627,420 $40,251,915
Total Expenditures $143,389,704 $145,859,420 $158,385,915
9 City of Richmond Agenda Report, Proposed Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating Budget and Proposed Fiscal
Years 2018-19 to 2022-23 Capital Improvement Plan, June 26, 2018, pg. 2.
10 City of Richmond FY 202018-19 Operating Budget, Adopted June 26, 2018. FY 202018-19 Adopted
Budget Summary, pg. 42-44.
11 City of Richmond FY 2017 CAFR, Note 9C, Contingency Reserve Policy, pg. 96.
12 ibid, Richmond FY 2017 CAFR, Note 9C.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 17-11
Chapter 17
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
Change from Prior Year n/a 1.7% 8.6%
Expenditures per capita $1,309 $1,316 $1,438
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 0.3 0.4 0.7
Business-type Activities 1.3 0.4 0.9
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
17.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
In FY 2015 through FY 2017 the City's governmental activities' liquidity ratios were less than 1.0
indicating that short-term resources were less than current liabilities (see Attachment C).13 The
City's enterprise funds' liquidity ratios were also less than 1.0 with the exception of FY 2015 (1.3).
Debt totaled $397.5 million, or about $3,600 per capita.
17.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The total net position of governmental activities improved slightly from FY 2015 to FY 2017, but
remained negative at $194.2 million. The governmental activities' unrestricted net position at the
end of FY 2017 declined to a negative ($504.6 million) from FY 2015, largely the result of
significant and worsening net pension and other post-employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities.
17.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
Measure Q, a voter-approved local one-half-cent sales tax was approved by Richmond voters in
November 2004; the measure generates approximately $15 million annually.14 In 2014 Measure U
was approved, providing an additional one-half-cent sales tax for general purposes.
13 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
14 Measure Q revenues are not separately listed in the budget; assuming total General Fund sales tax of $46
million represents 1.5 cent sales tax rate, Measure Q would equal about one-third.
Contra Costa LAFCO
17-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Richmond
An election to approve an increase in the City's transfer tax was defeated in November, 2016;15
Measure H, a tax increase placed on the November 2018 ballot by the City Council, was
subsequently approved by voters.16 On the same November 2018 ballot, a vacant property tax to
fund services to the homeless failed.
17.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The City provides a range of enterprise services, including the Richmond Housing Authority, Port of
Richmond, municipal sanitary and storm sewer, cable television, and marina.
17.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the City may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City's unfunded pension liability totaled $312 million at the end of FY 2017 (see Attachment
C). The City established the Secured Pension Override Special Revenue Fund to which proceeds of
a special incremental property tax levy voted by the citizens of the City of Richmond are credited
for the payment of benefits under the City’s pension plans. The incremental property tax revenue
received for the year ended June 30, 2017 was $8,788,063,17 which partially offset reductions in
the pension plan's net assets due to pension payments.
The City's unfunded other post-employment benefit (OPEB) liability equaled $182.1 million at the
end of FY 2017 (see Attachment C). As part of its effort to address unfunded OPEB liabilities, the
City Council adopted a policy in December 2014 to place into its OPEB trust an amount equal to
half of any one-time, non-operating revenues, and half of any year-end surplus in excess of the
City’s cash reserve policy of 7% toward the unfunded liability for retired employee health costs.18
The City reports that it is working to address its OPEB liability by working with unions and
encouraging union contributions to OPEB.
17.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
FY 2016 through FY 2017 show declines in the net value of governmental assets, generally
indicating that investments in capital assets are not keeping pace with depreciation. Enterprises
from FY 2015 through FY 2017 indicate a similar pattern of declining asset value (see Attachment
C). One of the City's strategic goals and objectives is to "[i]mprove the aged storm drainage,
sanitary sewer, and wastewater treatment systems."19
15 https://ballotpedia.org/Richmond,_California,_Real_Estate_Transfer_Tax,_Measure_M_(November_2016)
16 City of Richmond Resolution Number 71-18, adopted August 7, 2018.
17 ibid, Richmond FY 2017 CAFR, Note 11, pg. 103.
18 ibid, Richmond FY 2017 CAFR, pg. vi.
19 Ibid, Richmond FY 2019 Budget, FY 202018-19 Adopted Budget, pg. 203.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 17-13
Chapter 17
17.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City prepares a long-range financial forecast to assist with budget preparation and to address
future issues such as potential budget deficits. The FY 2019 budget indicates that projected FY 2019
budget shortfalls of at least $4.6 million were eliminated in the adopted budget; however, the
budget does not indicate whether projected future year shortfalls were reduced or eliminated as a
result of the FY 2019 budget and service decisions.20
Preparation of the City's CAFR required more than 6 months following the end of the prior fiscal
year.
17.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Richmond.
17.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Richmond serves
119,067 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
20 ibid, Richmond FY 2019 Budget, FY 2018-19 Adopted Budget Summary, pg. 28.
Contra Costa LAFCO
17-14 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Richmond
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Richmond are depicted in Figure 17.2.
ABAG projects that the City of Richmond will grow at an annual rate of approximately 1.6% to a
population of 164,220 between 2010 and 2040.21 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 2.3% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data22 for 2010, the City of Richmond has 45,638 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data23 for 2010 estimated 30,685 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.67 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of Richmond has 39,328 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.78.
The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-occupied
housing units (Table 17.6), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
21 ABAG. Projections 2017.
22 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
23 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 17-15
City of Richmond
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 17.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Richmond
June 2019
City of Richmond
TABLE 17.6
CITY OF RICHMOND
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 18,659
Renter-occupied housing units 17,434
Vacant housing units 3,235
Total existing housing units 39,328
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 438
Low 305
Moderate 410
Above Moderate 1,282
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 2,435
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.24 The City of Richmond was assigned a RHNA of 2,435 units, as shown in Table 17.6.
The City adopted its General Plan in 2012 and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 2,664 units, which
are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and
exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Richmond 2015–2023 Housing Element has
been found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with
State Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.25
The programs and services provided by the City for adults age 50 and older include the public
library’s literacy program and book van, as well as a variety of educational, social, recreational,
nutritional, and human service programs offered by the City of Richmond Community Services
24 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
25 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 17-17
Chapter 17
Department. These programs include the Senior Community Service Employment Program, daily
exercise programs, art classes, nutritional lunch program, massage therapy, ballroom dancing, tai
chi, country western line dancing, bingo, tap dancing, tango, swing dance, and game room
activities. Other services include Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program, blood
pressure screening, monthly birthday celebrations, and numerous other special events.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City of Richmond reported approximately 15 undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY
2017. Several projects have been identified as part of the projected growth for the City and include
1,678 dwelling units and 616,742 square feet of commercial space. These projects are either
approved or in the approval process.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. Two PDAs have been identified
by the City of Richmond and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.26 The Central Richmond and 23rd
Street Corridor and South Richmond PDAs are anticipated to accommodate approximately 83% of
the projected growth in households and 70% of the projected growth in employment.27 The Central
Richmond and 23rd Street Corridor PDA is characterized as a City Center and Mixed Use Corridor,
and the South Richmond PDA is characterized as a Transit Neighborhood.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Richmond has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas, nor are any included in Plan Bay
Area 2040.28
The City of Richmond does not report that current or projected growth patterns will expand beyond
its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
17.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Richmond’s SOI is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the
exception of areas to the east (the unincorporated community of El Sobrante) and to the north (the
unincorporated community of North Richmond; see Figure 17.1). The existing unincorporated
islands are shown in Figure 17.1.
The unincorporated area of North Richmond is entirely surrounded by the municipal boundaries of
the City of Richmond. The City of Richmond and Contra Costa County commissioned a jointly
funded service plan and fiscal analysis study regarding the possible annexation of unincorporated
North Richmond to the City of Richmond. Annexation of this service island into the City of
Richmond could potentially increase the provision of services to the unincorporated area. The
current City Council has determined that it will not move forward with annexing North Richmond.
26 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
27 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
28 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
17-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Richmond
The City does not request any changes to its SOI at this time and does not provide services to any
areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within the City’s SOI, including the
unincorporated community of North Richmond. The City of Richmond is currently considering the
potential annexation of the North Richmond area. North Richmond receives water services from
the East Bay Municipal Utility District, fire and emergency medical service from Contra Costa
County Fire Protection District, and is mostly served by the West County Wastewater District for
sewer service.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
17.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Richmond reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and
SOI. Based on available information, sufficient data has not been provided by the City of Richmond
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 17-19
Chapter 17
for this MSR Update to make an accurate determination about the City’s ability to adequately serve
all areas within its municipal boundary in the foreseeable future.
The disadvantaged communities within and contiguous to the City’s SOI receive sewer, water, and
fire protection services.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 62, which is below the target of 75 MTC has established and which
indicates a potential future need for pavement rehabilitation funding. The City reports aging capital
infrastructure, primarily related to roadway network assets.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the available information related to its provision of municipal services, the City does not
anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
FY 2016 through FY 2017 show declines in the net value of governmental assets, generally
indicating that investments in capital assets are not keeping pace with depreciation. Enterprises
from FY 2015 through FY 2017 indicate a similar pattern of declining asset value.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
Contra Costa LAFCO
17-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Richmond
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, library, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. 29 Services related to
animal control, broadband, solid waste, stormwater in North Richmond, and utilities are provided
via contract with Contra Costa County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The City of Richmond partially owns the North Richmond Stormwater Pump Station, which is
managed by Contra Costa County. The City does not share other facilities or services. Based on
available information, no areas of overlapping responsibilities or opportunities to share services or
facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities based on the
information available.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
Based on available information, no excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this
review.
17.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The City of Richmond is experiencing some fiscal challenges that may affect its ability to provide
services, particularly in the event of unexpected funding needs. As with other cities in Contra Costa
County, rising pension costs are expected to continue to reduce funding for other priorities.
Overall, and despite these fiscal challenges, the City of Richmond appears to have adequate
financial resources to continue providing services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion,
improvements, or replacement over the next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Richmond has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund.
The City currently exceeds their 20% reserve goal, allowing it to maintain an acceptable level of
service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
29 Although not covered in this MSR, the City also provides fire and sewer service.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 17-21
Chapter 17
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City’s liquidity ratio is 0.7; ratios less than 1.0 indicate that liabilities exceed
short-term resources.
Total debt was approximately $3,600 per capita for FY 2017.
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow significantly; however, the City
has implemented measures to help address increasing pension liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The City issued its CAFR approximately 9 months after fiscal year end, which is not considered
timely. The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
17.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Richmond website provides access to the agendas and minutes for the City Council and
its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. The City also
broadcasts City Council and shares information about other events and meetings on KCRT, the
City’s cable channel, the City’s website, various social media outlets, City’s electronic billboard,
and multiple City email listservs. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Richmond website provides access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. City staff are also active in Neighborhood Councils and participate
in multiple community meeting and events. The City therefore adequately provides accountability
with regard to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Richmond website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with
regard to citizen participation.
Contra Costa LAFCO
17-22 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Richmond
17.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
17.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Richmond is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the
exception of areas where it extends and connects with the municipal boundary, as shown in Figure
17.1. The City of Richmond is bound by the City of Pinole to the north, San Pablo Bay to the west,
the City of El Cerrito and the San Francisco Bay to the south, and County lands to the east.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Richmond.
This report also recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO consider the option of retaining the existing
SOI with the condition that future potential annexation applications from the City require that the
City provide more information30 to demonstrate its capacity, adequacy, and financial ability to
provide services to the area under consideration.
17.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Richmond MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Richmond plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including industrial, residential, research and development,
commercial, agricultural, and open space. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing
residents as well as future growth, maintaining compatibility with agricultural and open space uses,
as demonstrated in the General Plan (2012).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Richmond. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years, as well as with
the potential annexation of North Richmond.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Richmond appears adequate. The City of
Richmond anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years. The
30 To include undeveloped entitled residential acres, expenditures for lighting and streets/roads services,
and additional detail for lighting services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 17-23
Chapter 17
potential annexation of North Richmond is likely to have an effect on the City’s capacity to provide
public facilities and services.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the City of Richmond.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within the City’s SOI, including the
unincorporated community of North Richmond. These areas receive sewer, water, and fire
protection services. In the event the City of Richmond annexes the North Richmond community,
there will be a need for the City to provide structural fire protection and other municipal facilities
and services to this area.
Contra Costa LAFCO
17-24 Municipal Service Review Update
C 18
HAPTER
C S P
ITY OF AN ABLO
18.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of San Pablo, incorporated in 1948, covers an area of approximately 2.5 square miles.
With an estimated population of 31,593, the City has a population density of approximately 10,531
persons per square mile.1
The City of San Pablo lies in western Contra Costa County and is mostly surrounded by the City of
Richmond, with County lands adjacent to the northern and southeastern boundaries. The Sphere of
Influence (SOI) for the City of San Pablo is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with
the exception of small extensions to the north and to the east, as shown in Figure 18.1. The City
adopted the countywide Urban Limit Line in 2006.
Land uses in the City include a mix of residential, residential mixed use, commercial mixed use,
institutional mixed use, Specific Plan Areas (San Pablo Avenue and 23rd Street), and open space.
There are no agricultural land use designations in the City of San Pablo.
18.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of San Pablo is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The publicly elected City Council consists of five members. Council members serve four-year terms
and the Mayor rotates each year.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 18-1
Figure 18.1. City of San Pablo Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of San Pablo
18.1.2 CITY STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 190.3 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 18.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 18.1
CITY OF SAN PABLO
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police 86.0
Community Services 41.3
Public Works 26.0
Administrative Services 12.0
Source: City of San Pablo
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police service function had the highest staffing
level in the City of San Pablo, with 86.0 FTE employees.
18.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of San Pablo is a member of several joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 18.2.
TABLE 18.2
CITY OF SAN PABLO
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
Contra Costa Transit Authority Congestion —
Management Agency
East Bay Regional Communications System —
Authority Operating Agreement
Marin Clean Energy JPA —
San Pablo Joint Powers Financing Authority —
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Solid waste and recycling
Authority
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Regional transportation planning
Committee
Source: City of San Pablo
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 18-3
Chapter 18
18.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
The City of San Pablo has not reported receiving any awards since the first round Municipal Service
Review (MSR).
18.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 18.3, municipal services for the City of San Pablo are provided by City staff and
under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
TABLE 18.3
CITY OF SAN PABLO
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning City of San Pablo
Law Enforcement City of San Pablo
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting Contra Costa County, Pacific Gas and Electric
Parks and Recreation City of San Pablo
Solid Waste Republic Services
Stormwater City of San Pablo
Streets City of San Pablo
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: City of San Pablo
Contra Costa LAFCO
18-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Pablo
The City of San Pablo reports the following opportunities and challenges related to its provision of
municipal services in the next five years:
Opportunities
• Facilitate regular utility coordination meeting for all agencies in the City (as well as
neighboring communities) to discuss upcoming work, changes to requirements or
regulations that may affect the group, pursue joint projects or contracts, and coordinate the
construction activities to optimize efficiency
• Continue to pursue alternative compliance (and associated funding) to meet the stormwater
regulatory requirements
Challenges
• Nonconforming land uses
• Aging and marginal housing stock
• Transportation issues – traffic, parking, and transit
• Increases in stormwater regulations
• Unfunded mandates (e.g., affordable housing, stormwater)
• Unfunded pension liabilities
• Solid waste reduction
• Emergency operations related to catastrophic events
• Flood control and drainage issues from adjacent County properties
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
18.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) is the animal control service provider for the City of
San Pablo and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. City expenditures for animal control services were $216,431 for FY
2017, up from $157,508 in FY 2015.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 18-5
Chapter 18
18.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of San Pablo does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and
AT&T Internet are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The City of San Pablo did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of San Pablo received a grade of C, which indicates that internet service providers
meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one provider
advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of San Pablo did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
18.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of San Pablo Community and Economic Development Department provides building and
planning services. Department expenditures for FY 2017 were $1.1 million, down from $1.5
million in FY 2015.
The City of San Pablo issued 330 residential permits in 2017, reflecting an upward trend from 301
in 2015. The City issued 47 commercial building permits in 2017, up from 37 in 2015. Total
building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at $14.6 million, up from $13.8 million in FY
2015.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan, 23rd Street and San Pablo Avenue
Specific Plans, and the Capital Improvement Plan.
18.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of San Pablo Police Department provides law enforcement and dispatch services. FY 2017
expenditures were approximately $15 million, down from approximately $16.8 million in FY 2015.
The City of San Pablo has 1.52 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, which represents a
slight decrease from 1.58 in 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
18-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Pablo
1,000 population.5 There were 27 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime clearance rate
(a measure of crimes solved) was 6.1% in 2017, and the violent crime clearance rate was 32.8%.6
18.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of San Pablo at its San Pablo Branch
Library location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from
$24.48 per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state averages for expenditure and staffing levels are nearly double the
County’s.
18.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting is provided and maintained by the Contra Costa County (traffic lights) and Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E; street lights) City of San Pablo Department of Public Works. City expenditures for
street light maintenance were $465,729 in FY 2017, down from $536,597 in FY 2015. DC Electric
Group maintains the City’s 29 signalized intersections and traffic lights, and PG&E maintains 1,051
street lights.
18.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of San Pablo Community Services Department is the service provider for parks and
recreation facilities, as well as recreation programs. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were
approximately $3.1 million in FY 2017, up from approximately $2.6 million in FY 2015.
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 18-7
Chapter 18
The City offers various programs and classes for youth and adults, including camps, an art gallery
and multiple programs and activities for seniors.
The City provides and maintains less than 3 park acres per 1,000 residents, 6 recreation centers per
20,000 residents, and 0.55 mile of recreation trails.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 3 acres per 1,000 residents.
18.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of San Pablo via franchise agreement with Republic
Services. The City of San Pablo FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services were unavailable at
the time of this MSR update.
The City reported approximately 0.38 ton of waste disposed per capita for FY 2017. The FY 2017
per resident disposal rate was 3.9 pounds/resident/day.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
18.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of San Pablo Department of Public Works provides and maintains the City’s stormwater
drainage system. The City reports that they have 16.4 miles of closed storm drain lines and that
14% of their 539 storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of San Pablo also
reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards. FY 2017
expenditures for stormwater were $305,303, down from $530,215 in FY 2015.
18.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of San Pablo Department of Public Works provides and maintains 48 street miles and
approximately 4.4 Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles as well as landscaped medians and other public
landscaped areas. FY 2017 expenditures for streets were $631,045, up from $444.299 in FY 2015.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
Contra Costa LAFCO
18-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Pablo
The PCI for streets in the City of San Pablo was 75 (good) in 2017, down from 77 in 2015, but
meets the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.8 Pavement in the good (70-79) range
requires mostly preventive maintenance and shows only low levels of distress.
18.2.11 UTILITIES
The City of San Pablo is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice
Aggregation program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their
electricity supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide
electricity service to the City, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also
provides gas service to the City of San Pablo.
The City of San Pablo did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
18.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City’s financial health and assesses the City’s financial
ability to provide services. Key financial information for City municipal operations derives from
audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current budget
documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
18.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
The City of San Pablo prepares a quadrennial budget. According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget,
the City’s General Fund revenues of $35.2 million are nearly equal to General Fund expenditures
of $35.3 million.9 The budget projects an ending FY 2019 General Fund balance of $21.1 million,
or about 60% of annual expenditures. In addition to the General Fund balance, the City projects an
additional $38 million in its Catastrophic Reserve ($17.8 million), Budget Stabilization Reserve
($1.7 million), and Designated Reserves ($18.6 million).10 Table 18.4 summarizes prior year
changes in General Fund expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios
in each year.
8 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
9 City of San Pablo Quadrennial Operating Budget FY 2018-19, pg. 84.
10 ibid, City of San Pablo FY 2019 Budget, pg. 85.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 18-9
Chapter 18
Approximately 60% of General Fund revenues depend on Casino Business License revenue and
Casino Payment in Lieu of Taxes. The Casino Business License revenue grew an average of 9%
annually over the past 10 years.11
TABLE 18.4
CITY OF SAN PABLO
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $837,000 $720,000 $873,000
Sales Tax $3,199,000 $3,304,000 $3,747,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $34,722,000 $39,504,000 $36,449,000
Total General Fund Revenues $38,757,685 $43,527,828 $41,068,515
Change from Prior Year n/a 12.3% -5.6%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $5,803,000 $9,612,000 $9,418,000
Administration
Public Safety $15,436,000 $13,735,000 $14,928,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $6,696,000 $5,909,000 $13,629,000
Total Expenditures $27,935,000 $29,256,000 $37,975,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 4.7% 29.8%
Expenditures per capita $947 $949 $1,223
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 11.8 12.1 9.2
Business-type Activities n/a n/a n/a
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
18.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
11 ibid, City of San Pablo FY 2019 Budget, pg. 90.
Contra Costa LAFCO
18-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Pablo
In FY 2015 through FY 2017 the City's Governmental Activities' liquidity ratios were 9.2 or greater,
indicating that short-term resources were significantly greater than current liabilities (see
Attachment C).12
Total government activity debt was $25.7 million at the end of FY 2017, or about $830 per capita
(see Attachment C).
18.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The City has maintained a positive net position for governmental activities that improved from FY
2015 to FY 2017; the unrestricted portion was also positive and improved over that period (see
Attachment C).
18.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
Two voter-approved local sales tax measures help to fund services. Measure Q is a one-half-cent
sales tax that declines to one-quarter cent in 2017, then expires in 2022, generating about
$760,000 in FY 2019. Measure K is a one-quarter-cent sales tax authorized solely to provide
emergency medical services out of San Pablo’s Fire Station 70 by the Contra Costa County Fire
Protection District.13
18.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The City of San Pablo has no enterprise activities.
18.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the City may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City's unfunded pension liability totaled $34.9 million at the end of FY 2017 (see Attachment
C). The City's budget forecasts that its payments towards its unfunded liability will nearly double
from $1.7 million in FY 2018 to $3.3 million in FY21. The City's other post-employment benefit
(OPEB) had a net positive asset value of $4.3 million at the start of FY 2017 as a result of the City
Council's funding strategy which includes pay-as-you-go financing plus an additional amount to
12 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
13 City of San Pablo website http://www.sanpabloca.gov/411/Taxes
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 18-11
Chapter 18
pre-fund benefits.14 Approximately 10 years ago, the City made a lump-sum payment for OPEB
liability, essentially eliminating the liability at the time.
18.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
FY 2015 through FY 2017 show annual increases in the net value of governmental assets, generally
indicating that investments in capital assets are keeping pace with depreciation (see Attachment C).
The City is in the process of replacing its Civic Center buildings utilizing a combination of reserve
funds and debt proceeds. A new library building and a community center were recently completed.
The City indicates that it is keeping pace with capital needs and with road resurfacing. A recently
completed road condition assessment provides for funding required maintenance.15
18.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City prepares a Financial Trend Analysis in its four-year quadrennial budget for medium to long
range forecasting.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's
website.
18.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of San Pablo.
14 ibid, City of San Pablo FY 2019 Budget, pg. 25.
15 MTC P-TAP Round 18 Budget Options Report (BOR) for City of San Pablo, California, Fugro Roadware,
Inc., Jan. 24, 2018.
Contra Costa LAFCO
18-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Pablo
18.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of San Pablo serves
31,593 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of San Pablo are depicted in Figure 18.2.
ABAG projects that the City of San Pablo will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.5% to a
population of 34,090 between 2010 and 2040.16 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.7% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s
planning—via the Municipal Code, General Plan, Specific Plans, and Capital Improvement
Program—is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data17 for 2010, the City of San Pablo has 12,250 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data18 for 2010 estimated 7,430 jobs in the City, with
approximately 0.61 job for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of San Pablo has 9,571 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of 0.78.
The number of owner-occupied units in the City is less than the number of renter-occupied housing
units (Table 18.5), indicating that the rental household rate exceeds the rate of homeownership.
16 ABAG. Projections 2017.
17 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
18 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 18-13
City of San Pablo
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 18.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of San Pablo
June 2019
City of San Pablo
TABLE 18.5
CITY OF SAN PABLO
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 4,110
Renter-occupied housing units 4,651
Vacant housing units 810
Total existing housing units 9,571
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 56
Low 53
Moderate 75
Above Moderate 265
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 449
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan
for the San Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.19 The City of San Pablo was assigned a RHNA of 449 units, as shown in Table 18.5.
The City adopted its General Plan in 2011 and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 858 units, which are
appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and exceed
its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of San Pablo 2015–2023 Housing Element has been
found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State
Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of
all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.20
The City of San Pablo provides a variety of programs and services in the areas of health, education,
and recreation to meet the needs of adults age 50 and older, including billiards, strength and
19 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
20 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 18-15
Chapter 18
balance, nutrition, program, movies, social dances, low impact aerobics, bingo, tai chi exercise
class, social games, computer classes, social trips, and transportation services.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The FY 2017 undeveloped entitled residential acres in for the City of San Pablo were not available.
Two projects (residential and mixed-use) have been identified as part of the projected growth for
the City; however, the anticipated number of dwelling units and square feet of commercial space
were not available.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. One PDA has been identified by
the City of San Pablo and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.21 The San Pablo Avenue and 23rd Street
Corridors PDA is anticipated to accommodate approximately 60% of the projected growth in
households and 59% of the projected growth in employment.22 The San Pablo Avenue and 23rd
Street Corridors PDA is characterized as a Mixed Use Corridor.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
San Pablo has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas, nor are any included in Plan Bay Area
2040.23
The City of San Pablo does not anticipate that current or projected growth patterns will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
18.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of San Pablo’s SOI for the City of San Pablo is mostly coterminous with the municipal
boundary, with the exception of small extensions to the north and to the east (see Figure 18.1).
The City has identified two unincorporated islands—the Rollingwood neighborhood (to the north)
and an area to the east bounded by Hillcrest Road and Wildcat Canyon. Additionally, the City of
San Pablo has some boundary irregularities and various split parcels with the City of Richmond.
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
21 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
22 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
23 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
18-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Pablo
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Update identified the City of San Pablo as a disadvantaged community and
disadvantaged communities contiguous with its SOI that are within the municipal boundary and
SOI of Richmond.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
18.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of San Pablo reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and
SOI and anticipates it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
The disadvantaged communities within and contiguous to the City’s SOI receive sewer, water, and
fire protection services.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 75, which indicates the City’s streets are in good condition and primarily
require funding at a level to maintain the current condition.
The City has reported that its SOI northeast of I-80 and San Pablo Dam Road is likely lacking in
necessary public infrastructure.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City does not
anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 18-17
Chapter 18
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City of San Pablo has completed a roadway assessment and overall is keeping pace with capital
needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. Services related to animal control,
broadband, library, lighting, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with Contra Costa
County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The City’s shared Police Dispatch and Records Management System is a shared joint function with
the cities of Pinole and Hercules, and the City has joint use arrangements with the West Contra
Costa Unified School District.
The City of San Pablo does not share and additional facilities or services. No areas of overlapping
responsibilities or opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
Contra Costa LAFCO
18-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Pablo
18.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
As with other cities in Contra Costa County, rising pension costs are expected to continue to reduce
funding for other priorities.
Overall, the City of San Pablo appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the
next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of San Pablo has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund.
The City’s reserve goal is unknown, and therefore it is unknown whether they meet their goal;
however, the City currently projects a $38 million reserve. With this reserve level, the City appears
able to maintain an acceptable level of service provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 9.2, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $830 per capita for FY 2017.
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow; however, the City Council’s
funding strategy includes OPEB pay-as-you-go financing. The City has not identified any other
measures to address the increasing pension liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
by ensuring that the State Controller’s Financial Transactions Report was filed on a
timely basis and that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for most
recent fiscal year received a clean opinion and was issued within six months of
fiscal year end
The City issued its CAFR more than 6 months after fiscal year end, which is not considered timely.
The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 18-19
Chapter 18
18.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of San Pablo website provides access to the agendas and minutes for the City Council and
its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. The City therefore
adequately provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of San Pablo website provides access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with regard
to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of San Pablo website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. Newsletters are also distributed to City residents. The City
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to citizen participation.
18.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
18.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of San Pablo is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with the
exception of small extensions to the north and to the east, as shown in Figure 18.1. The City of San
Pablo is mostly surrounded by the City of Richmond, with County lands adjacent to its northern
and southeastern boundaries.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of San Pablo.
18.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF SAN PABLO
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of San Pablo MSR profile.
Contra Costa LAFCO
18-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Pablo
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of San Pablo plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including residential, commercial, institutional, retail, and
open space. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future
growth, maintaining compatibility with open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan
(2011).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of San Pablo. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of San Pablo appears adequate. The City of San
Pablo anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI. The
Rollingwood community is a community of interest and is a small island which can be annexed via
an expedited process. This report encourages the City of San Pablo to consider annexing the
Rollingwood island. Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified other social or economic communities
of interest relevant to the City of San Pablo.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Update identified the City of San Pablo as a disadvantaged community and
disadvantaged communities contiguous with its SOI that are within the municipal boundary and
SOI of Richmond. These areas receive sewer, water, and fire protection services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 18-21
This page intentionally left blank.
C 19
HAPTER
C S R
ITY OF AN AMON
19.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of San Ramon, incorporated in 1983, covers an area of approximately 18.7 square miles.
With an estimated population of 82,643, the City has a population density of approximately 4,349
persons per square mile.1
The City of San Ramon lies in central Contra Costa County, with the City of Danville to the north,
County lands to the east and west, and the Contra Costa – Alameda County boundary to the south.
The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of San Ramon is mostly coterminous with the municipal
boundary, with extensions to the west and south, as shown in Figure 19.1. The City adopted its
urban growth boundary in 2002, which encompasses the City limits and includes the SOI in
Dougherty Valley.
Land uses in the City include a mix of residential, office, commercial, retail, mixed use, and open
space. Although there are no agricultural land use designations in the City of San Ramon, some
open space areas include land privately owned and used for agricultural purposes. The Tassajara
Valley, which lies outside the City’s SOI but is included in the General Plan planning area, includes
agricultural uses such as spring pasture and livestock grazing, with a few orchards, small horse
ranches, and two to five acre ranchettes.
19.1.1 FORM OF GO ‐ VERNMENT
The City of San Ramon is a charter city operating under a council-manager form of government.
The publicly elected City Council consists of five members, including the directly elected Mayor;
Council members serve four-year overlapping terms and the Mayor serves a two-year term.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 19-1
Figure 19.1. City of San Ramon Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of San Ramon
19.1.2 CITY STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 258.75 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
Table 19.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 19.1
CITY OF SAN RAMON
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Public Works 99.75
Police Services 83.0
Parks and Community Services 33.0
Community Development 17.0
Source: City of San Ramon
Unlike many other cities in Contra Costa County, the public works function had the highest staffing
level in the City of San Ramon, with 99.75 FTE employees.
19.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of San Ramon is a member of various joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 19.2.
TABLE 19.2
CITY OF SAN RAMON
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and
collaboration among local governments to provide
innovative and cost effective solutions to common
problems that they face.
California Communities Statewide Development Allow residents to participate in a Property Assessed
Authority Clean Energy (PACE) program.
California Enterprise Development Authority Allow residents to participate in a PACE program.
California Municipal Finance Authority Allow residents to participate in a PACE program
California State Association of Counties Excess Employee benefits program
Insurance Authority
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Public entity for the handling of wastewater
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority Provides fixed routes and express bus service to
partner organizations
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 19-3
Chapter 19
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Established to appropriate project duties and cost.
Conservation District
Contra Costa Transit Authority Congestion —
Management Agency
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority Formed to provide fire protection services; remains
in effect for the sole purpose of winding up the
affairs of the District and meeting contractual
obligation for retired employees
East Bay Regional Communication System Authority Regional radio system
Golden State Finance Authority Allow residents to participate in a PACE program.
Municipal Pooling Authority To arrange and administer programs of insurance
for the pooling of self-insured losses and to purchase
excess insurance coverage
San Ramon Public Financing Authority and San Facilitate acquisition of improvements and sale of
Ramon Redevelopment Agency Joint Exercise of bonds
Powers Agreement
Southern Contra Costa Fees for Traffic Mitigation Establish traffic mitigation fees for southern Contra
Costa County
TRAFFIX – Measure J Traffic Congestion Relief Provides school bus service to relieve traffic
Agency congestion in the San Ramon valley
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Planning and facilitating implementation of
transportation improvement projects in the Tri-
Valley area.
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees for Establish traffic mitigation development fees in the
Traffic Mitigation Tri-Valley area
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Provide for the joint preparation of a transportation
plan; provide a forum for review and coordination of
planning and implementation of transportation
facilities in the Tri-Valley area.
Western Riverside Council of Governments Allow residents to participate in a PACE program.
Source: City of San Ramon
19.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 19.3 lists the awards the City of San Ramon has reported receiving since the first round
Municipal Service Review (MSR).
Contra Costa LAFCO
19-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Ramon
TABLE 19.3
CITY OF SAN RAMON
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Outstanding Facility – San Ramon Library California Parks and Recreation 2017
Society
Library Journal’s 2017 Top Trends in Library Library Journal Magazine 2017
Architecture
Gold Level Learn to Swim Provider American Red Cross 2017
Top Lifesaving and Drowning Prevention Provider American Red Cross 2017
Marketing / Social Media Award California Parks and Recreation 2017
Society – Aquatics Section
Champion of the Community California Parks and Recreation 2017 and 2016
Society
People Love the San Ramon Olympic Pool and Yelp 2017 and 2016
Aquatic Park on Yelp!
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Government Finance Officers 2003 – 2017
Financial Reporting Association
International Award for Excellence in LERN Learning Resource Network 2016
Management Practices
Beauty in Age Project and Gallery Exhibit California Parks and Recreation 2016
Society – Aging Section
Creating Community through Partnerships and California Parks and Recreation 2015
Collaboration Society – Aging Section
Source: City of San Ramon
19.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 19.4, municipal services for the City of San Ramon are provided by City staff
and under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 19-5
Chapter 19
TABLE 19.4
CITY OF SAN RAMON
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning City of San Ramon
Law Enforcement City of San Ramon
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of San Ramon
Parks and Recreation City of San Ramon
Solid Waste Waste Management
Stormwater City of San Ramon
Streets City of San Ramon
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: City of San Ramon
The City of San Ramon reports the following challenges related to its provision of municipal
services:
• Meeting pension obligations
• Staffing needs related to growth
• Funding capital improvements / deferred maintenance
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
19.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) is the animal control service provider for the City of
San Ramon and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were $284.092 in FY 2017.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
Contra Costa LAFCO
19-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Ramon
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
19.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of San Ramon does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and
AT&T Internet are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The City of San Ramon did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of San Ramon received a grade of C-, which indicates that internet service providers
did not meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one
provider advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of San Ramon did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve
the City’s existing or growing population.
19.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of San Ramon Community Development Department provides building and planning
services. Department expenditures for FY 2017 were $3.7 million.
The City of San Ramon issued 7,567 residential and 843 commercial building permits in 2017.
Total building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at $1.3 billion.
In November 2018, the City Center Bishop Ranch development opened at Bollinger Canyon Road
and Sunset Drive. The development is a one-acre plaza with various shopping, dining, and
entertainment amenities.
Planning city-wide has been captured in the General Plan.
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 19-7
Chapter 19
19.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of San Ramon Police Service Department provides law enforcement and dispatch services.
FY 2017 expenditures were approximately $20.5 million, reflecting an upward trend from
approximately $17.9 million in FY 2015.
The City of San Ramon has 0.84 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, which represents a
slight increase from 0.79 FTE in 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel
per 1,000 population.5 There were 15.71 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The Police Department
does not currently have a mechanism in place to capture property and violent clearance rates (a
measure of crimes solved) as accurately as they would like; however, their best estimate for the
total (violent and property crimes) 2017 clearance rate is 62%.6
19.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of San Ramon at two San Ramon Branch
Library locations. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from
$24.48 per capita in FY 2013. Total City of San Ramon library expenditures were $135,148 in FY
2017, reflecting a downward trend from $202,983 in FY 2015.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state averages for expenditures and staffing are nearly double the County’s.
19.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of San Ramon Public Works
Department. City expenditures for light and signal maintenance were $929,969 in FY 2017, up
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
19-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Ramon
from $835,519 in FY 2015. The City maintains 99 signalized intersections and 7,300 street lights.
The City does not track traffic light maintenance separate from signalized intersections.
19.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of San Ramon Parks and Community Services Department is the service provider for parks
and recreation facilities, as well as recreation programs. The Public Services Division maintains City
park and recreation facilities. Expenditures for parks vary year to year, at $8 million in FY 2017,
down from $8.5 million in FY 2016, and up from $7.8 million in FY 2015.
The City’s Parks and Community Services Department provides a variety of cultural, sporting,
performing arts, educational events, and programs for all segments of the community.
The City provides and maintains 4.7 park acres per 1,000 residents, 1.08 recreation centers per
20,000 residents, and 57.1 miles of recreation trails.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 6.5 acres per 1,000 residents, which is
higher than most cities in Contra Costa County.
19.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of San Ramon via franchise agreement with Valley
Waste Management. The City of San Ramon FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services were
$354,393, representing a substantial increase from $202,804 in FY 2015. The increase resulted
from implementing new commercial business recycling programs in 2016, for which the City
compensates Waste Management directly.
The City reported approximately 0.57 tons of waste disposed per capita for FY 2017. The FY 2017
per resident disposal rate was 3.1 pounds/resident/day.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
19.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of San Ramon Public Works Department provides and maintains the City’s stormwater
drainage system. The City reports that they have 152 miles of closed storm drain lines and that less
than 1% of their 4,400 storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of San Ramon
also reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards. Total FY
2017 expenditures for stormwater were $1,053,070, representing an upward trend from $940,999
in FY 2015.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 19-9
Chapter 19
19.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of San Ramon Public Works Department provides and maintains 498 street miles and
approximately 43 Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles, as well as landscaped medians and other public
landscaped areas. FY 2017 expenditures for streets were $1.6 million, up from 1.4 million in FY
2015.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the City of San Ramon was 80 (very good to excellent) in 2017, which is
unchanged from 2015, and which remains above the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.8
Pavement in this range (80-100) is newly reconstructed or resurfaced with few signs of distress.
19.2.11 UTILITIES
The City of san Ramon is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice
Aggregation program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their
electricity supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide
electricity service to the City, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also
provides gas service to the City of Ramon.
The City of San Ramon did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to
serve the City’s existing or growing population.
19.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of San Ramon’s financial health and assesses the
City’s financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations
derives from audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current
budget documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
19.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget, the City’s General Fund revenues of $51.5 million
slightly exceed General Fund expenditures of $48.5 million.9 The budget projects an ending FY
8 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
9 City of San Ramon Adopted FY 202018-2019 Operating Budget, Budget Message pg. 6.
Contra Costa LAFCO
19-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Ramon
2019 General Reserve balance of $19.4 million, or about 40% of annual expenditures, which
includes General Fund, Dougherty Valley Fund, and Debt Service Fund unrestricted reserves,
consistent with the City Council General Reserve Policy.10 Table 19.5 summarizes prior year
changes in General Fund expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios
in each year. The City indicates that continued growth will affect staffing needs and related budget
costs.
The City tracks its expenditures to the Dougherty Valley area separately from its other services. The
City provides services to the areas of Dougherty Valley that are annexed to the City as development
occurs. The City services and capital projects in the area are largely reimbursed by assessments
collected by the County Service Area (CSA) in Dougherty Valley. Projected FY 2019 expenditures
of $20.2 million will be funded by $20.5 million of total sources including $18.1 million of CSA
revenue, $0.1 million from the City's Infrastructure Maintenance Fund, and the remaining $2.3
million from the General Fund. The City’s Special Revenue Funds indicate Dougherty Valley
accounts receivable growing from $6.5 million in FY 2015 to $8 million in FY 2017.11
TABLE 19.5
CITY OF SAN RAMON
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $16,092,000 $17,241,000 $18,479,000
Sales Tax $9,143,000 $10,485,000 $9,329,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $20,614,000 $23,300,000 $22,516,000
Total General Fund Revenues $45,849,000 $51,026,000 $50,324,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 11.3% -1.4%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $4,807,000 $5,587,000 $5,944,000
Administration
Public Safety $11,381,000 $12,041,000 $12,579,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $30,723,000 $31,187,000 $35,038,000
Total Expenditures $46,911,000 $48,815,000 $53,561,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 4.1% 9.7%
Expenditures per capita $597 $623 $665
10 ibid, San Ramon FY 2019 Budget Message, pg. 8.
11 City of San Ramon CAFRs, Governmental Funds Balance Sheet, pg. 20.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 19-11
Chapter 19
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 5.1 3.9 5.4
Business-type Activities n/a n/a n/a
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
19.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
In FY 2017 the City's governmental activities' liquidity ratio was 5.4, indicating that short-term
resources were greater than current liabilities (see Attachment C).12
Total debt was $25.7 million at the end of FY 2017, or about $319 per capita. Governmental
activities' debt totaled $25.7 million at the end of FY 2017 (see Attachment C).
19.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The City has maintained a positive net position for governmental activities, improving from FY
2015 to FY 2017. The unrestricted portion of the governmental activities net position was a
negative ($11.6 million) in FY 2017, slightly improved compared to FY 2015 as a result of
combined debt and unfunded pension liabilities (see Attachment C).
19.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
The City has no voter-approved local sales tax measures. Various special assessments totaling $6.9
million are restricted to funding specific services to benefitting areas paying the assessments.13
19.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The City of San Ramon operates no enterprises or business type activities.
12 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
13 ibid, San Ramon FY 2019 Budget, pg. 26.
Contra Costa LAFCO
19-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Ramon
19.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the City may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City's unfunded pension liability at FY 2016 totaled $23.4 million (see Attachment C).14 In
2017 the City began participating in a Section 115 Trust; in FY 2019 the City anticipates
contributing $1 million into the trust. The City is in negotiations with employees and is proposing
that employees fund a share of the employer's obligation in addition to the full share of employee
contributions. City employees currently pay the full employee share of pension cost. City
management negotiated with its employee groups to begin contributing towards the employer’s
share of the pension. Effective July 1, 2018, the employees contribute 1%. Effective July 1, 2019,
employees will contribute 2%, which will increase to 3% effective July 1, 2020.
The City established an other post-employment benefit trust several years ago which is currently
100% funded. According to the FY 2019 budget, cumulative contributions and assets more than
covered a total estimated liability of $25.1 million.15
19.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
FY 2015 through FY 2017 show annual increases in the net value of governmental assets, generally
indicating that investments in capital assets are keeping pace with depreciation (see Attachment C).
The City established an infrastructure maintenance fund several years ago to fund improvements to
City-owned buildings. The City maintains an Equipment Replacement Fund that provides adequate
funds for needed replacement of vehicles and equipment; internal service charges fund the
Replacement Fund.16
19.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's
website.
14 Note: City FY 2019 budget reports FY 2016 liability of $28.3 million (Budget Message, pg. 9). The budget
amount is prior to GASB adjustments made in the FY16 CAFR.
15 ibid, San Ramon FY 2019 Budget Message, pg. 9.
16 ibid, San Ramon FY 2019 Budget Message, pg. 9.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 19-13
Chapter 19
The City tracks capital needs and funding through a pavement management program, Capital
Improvement Plan, and Renovation and Replacement Plans for parks, facilities, landscape, and
aquatics.
19.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of San Ramon.
19.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of San Ramon serves
82,643 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region.
Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs;
e.g., infill areas), which is consistent with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth
projections for population, housing, and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of
San Ramon are depicted in Figure 19.2.
ABAG projects that the City of San Ramon will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.6% to a
population of 84,165 between 2010 and 2040.17 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 1.3% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
17 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
19-14 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Ramon
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Jobs Households
Figure 19.2. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of San Ramon
June 2019
Chapter 19
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data18 for 2010, the City of San Ramon has 34,570 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data19 for 2010 estimated 47,950 jobs in the City, with
approximately 1.39 jobs for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of San Ramon has 26,222 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of
1.83. The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-
occupied housing units (Table 19.6), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental
household rate.
TABLE 19.6
CITY OF SAN RAMON
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 18,056
Renter-occupied housing units 7,228
Vacant housing units 938
Total existing housing units 26,222
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 516
Low 279
Moderate 282
Above Moderate 340
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 1,417
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.20 The City of San Ramon was assigned a RHNA of 1,417 units, as shown in Table 19.6.
The City adopted its General Plan and its Housing Element in 2015. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 3,865 units, which
are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and
exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of San Ramon 2015–2023 Housing Element has
been found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with
18 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
19 ABAG. Projections 2017.
20 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
Contra Costa LAFCO
19-16 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Ramon
State Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.21
The City of San Ramon provides a number of classes, trips, and events for adults age 55 and older.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City reported approximately 26 undeveloped entitled residential acres in FY 2017, which
includes Phases 4 and 5 of The Preserve (formerly Faria Preserve) development. The City reports
approximately 1,943 dwelling units and 2.2 million square feet of commercial space as either
approved or in the approval process.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. Two PDAs have been identified
by the City of San Ramon and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.22 The City Center and North
Camino Ramon PDAs are anticipated to accommodate approximately 36% of the projected growth
in households and 82% of the projected growth in employment.23 The City Center PDA is
characterized as a Suburban Center and the North Camino Ramon PDA is characterized as a Transit
Town Center.
Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
San Ramon has identified one PCA—the Big Canyon Preserve—within its SOI. The Big Canyon
Preserve PCA has a natural landscape designation in the PCA program. This PCA is included in
Plan Bay Area 2040.24
The City of San Ramon does not anticipate that current or projected growth patterns will expand
beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
19.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of San Ramon’s SOI is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with extensions
to the west and south (see Figure 19.1).
One unincorporated island has been identified in the City of San Ramon—a 0.13-acre open space
area adjacent to Deerwood Road and an East Bay Municipal Utility District water tank site. The
island is a remnant from the Faria Preserve annexation.
21 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
22 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
23 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
24 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 19-17
Chapter 19
The City anticipates two potential annexations, to include the Chang Residential Development
(66.92 acres) and an area of development within Dougherty Valley. The City also will propose to
modify the City Urban Growth Boundary for the Labor's Property.
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the City of San Ramon
and therefore, no disadvantaged communities are relevant to this analysis.
19.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of San Ramon reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary and
SOI and anticipates it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the City’s SOI.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 80, which indicates the City’s streets are in very good condition and
primarily require funding at a level to maintain the current condition.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City does not
anticipate obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs.
Contra Costa LAFCO
19-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Ramon
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City did not report on the sufficiency of its CIP to maintain and expand facilities and
infrastructure consistent with projected needs.
FY 2015 through FY 2017 show annual increases in the net value of governmental assets, generally
indicating that investments in capital assets are keeping pace with depreciation.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. Services related to animal
control, broadband, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with Contra Costa
County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The San Ramon Police Department participates in the Central County SWAT Team with Martinez,
Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, and Bay Area Rapid Transit Police to safety resolve critical incidents.
The Police Department also uses a joint-use 911 Communications Center for all emergency and
non-emergency calls for service.
The City shares capital facilities with San Ramon Unified School District for school parks, the
aquatic center, and the Dougherty Valley Performing Arts Center. Additionally, the two San Ramon
libraries are shared with the County library system.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 19-19
Chapter 19
The City does not share other facilities or services. No areas of overlapping responsibilities or
opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
19.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
As the City of San Ramon continues to grow and experience General Fund deficits in the future, the
City’s ability to provide services may be affected. As with other cities in Contra Costa County, rising
pension costs are expected to continue to reduce funding for other priorities.
Overall, the City of San Ramon appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the
next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of San Ramon has been operating with a deficit trend in their General Fund.
The City currently meets its 40% reserve goal, allowing it to maintain an acceptable level of service
provision and to enact changes to maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 5.4, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $319 per capita for FY 2017 and has been declining.
The City's unfunded pension liabilities continue to grow; however, its other post-employment
benefit trust is fully funded. The City is considering funding options for the increasing pension
liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The City issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered timely.
The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
Contra Costa LAFCO
19-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of San Ramon
Overall, the CAFRs are clearly presented; however, the City could incorporate changes to improve
the transparency of its financials. For example, certain tables in the CAFR extend over multiple
pages; however, the left-most column does not carry over to multiple pages, affecting the
readability of the tables.
19.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of San Ramon website provides access to the agendas and minutes for the City Council
and its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. The City
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of San Ramon website provides access to the City’s general plan as well as various
development plans and projects. City Council and Planning Commission meetings are videotaped
and posted on the City’s website and are shown on the local cable networks; minutes of these
meetings are also posted on the website. The City therefore adequately provides accountability
with regard to municipal and land use planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of San Ramon website provides access to public notices, including the time and place at
which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public involvement in
the City decision-making process. Newsletters are also distributed to City residents. The City
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to citizen participation.
19.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
19.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of San Ramon is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with
extensions to the west and south, as shown in Figure 19.1. The City of San Ramon is bound by the
City of Danville to the north, County lands to the east and west, and the Contra Costa – Alameda
County boundary to the south.
In conjunction with the first round MSR in 2009, LAFCO deferred action on the City’s SOI due to
concerns between the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon regarding future development
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 19-21
Chapter 19
and competing interests in the Tassajara Valley. Representatives and officials from Danville, San
Ramon, and Contra Costa County subsequently discussed these concerns and agreed that any
future Danville and San Ramon SOI requests would not conflict with or overlap boundaries.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of San Ramon.
19.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF SAN RAMON
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of San Ramon MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of San Ramon plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including residential, office, commercial, retail, mixed use,
and open space. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future
growth, maintaining compatibility with open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan
(2015).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of San Ramon. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years, and in
conjunction with recent annexations (Dougherty Valley, Chang).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of San Ramon appears adequate. The City of San
Ramon anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
All communities of interest within the City’s municipal boundary are included within the SOI.
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the City of San Ramon.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the City of San Ramon
and therefore no present or probable need for the City to provide structural fire protection, sewer,
or water facilities and services to any disadvantaged communities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
19-22 Municipal Service Review Update
C 20
HAPTER
C W C
ITY OF ALNUT REEK
20.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The City of Walnut Creek, incorporated in 1914, covers an area of approximately 19.5 square
miles. With an estimated population of 70,667, the City has a population density of approximately
3,533 persons per square mile.1
The City of Walnut Creek lies in central Contra Costa County, with the cities of Concord and
Pleasant Hill to the north, Lafayette to the west, and County lands to the south and east. The Sphere
of Influence (SOI) for the City of Walnut Creek is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary,
with numerous islands and pockets as shown in Figure 20.1. The City adopted the countywide
Urban Limit Line in 2008.
Land uses in the City include a mix of residential, commercial, community, agricultural, and open
space. Agricultural uses include grazing, equestrian, or agricultural pursuits.
20.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Walnut Creek is a general law city operating under a council-manager form of
government. The publicly elected City Council consists of five members. Council members serve
four-year terms and the Mayor rotates each year.
1 California Department of Finance, January 1, 2018 estimate. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 20-1
Figure 20.1. City of Walnut Creek Municipal Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
City of Walnut Creek
20.1.2 CITY STAFFING
Total City staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 363 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. Table
20.1 shows the four service areas with the highest staffing levels.
TABLE 20.1
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK
HIGHEST STAFFING LEVELS BY SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA FY 2017 FTE
Police 117.0
Public Works 107.0
Arts and Recreation 54.0
Community and Economic Development 37.5
Source: City of Walnut Creek
Similar to other cities in Contra Costa County, the police function had the highest staffing level in
the City of Walnut Creek, with 117.0 FTE employees.
20.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The City of Walnut Creek is a member of various joint powers authorities (JPAs), which are listed in
Table 20.2.
TABLE 20.2
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Association of Bay Area Governments Strengthen cooperation and collaboration among
local governments to provide innovative and cost
effective solutions to common problems that they
face.
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Provides solid waste services for Central Contra
Costa County residents and businesses. Contracts
for solid waste and recycling services, and provides
member agencies economies of scale for solid waste
services. Allows the agency to report its members’
disposal and diversion quantities together in a single
report. Reduce the time and expense of creating
multiple reports. Opportunity to facilitate the
implementation of other shared programs in the
future, and may have additional benefits.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 20-3
Chapter 20
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY SERVICE
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority Provides fixed route and paratransit bus service
throughout central Contra Costa County; manages
the county’s transportation sales tax program and
oversees countywide transportation planning efforts
CSAC – Excess Insurance Authority Provides risk coverage programs and risk
management services
East Bay Regional Communications Systems Provides risk coverage programs and risk
management services
East/Central County Wastewater Management —
Authority
Marin Clean Energy JPA Achieving greater local involvement over the
provision of electric services and promoting
competitive and renewable energy
Municipal Pooling Authority To manage risks and pooling or purchasing coverage
for losses
PACE Program JPA 2014 —
Regional Government Services Provide certain management, administrative,
special, or general services for members and other
public agencies
TRANSPAC Responsible for the development of transportation
plans, projects and programs for the Central County
areas as well as the appointment of two
representatives to the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority who serve alternating two-year terms
Western Riverside Council of Governments To permit the provision of property assessed clean
energy (PACE) program services
Source: City of Walnut Creek
20.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Table 20.3 lists the awards the City of Walnut Creek has reported receiving since the first round
Municipal Service Review (MSR).
Contra Costa LAFCO
20-4 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Walnut Creek
TABLE 20.3
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK
AWARDS
AWARD ISSUER YEAR(S)
RECEIVED
Agency of the Excellence Award Northern California Chapter of the 2018
International Public Management
Association – Human Resources
Agency of the Excellence Award Western Region of the International 2018
Public Management Association –
Human Resources
Award of Merit – Implementation Award, Small American Planning Association – 2018
Jurisdiction – Walnut Creek Shadelands Gateway California Chapter, Northern Section
Specific Plan
Award of Merit – Economic Development California Association of Local 2018
Partnerships – Walnut Creek Development Economic Development
Services Forum
Award of Merit – Economic Development California Association of Local 2018
Programs – Walnut Creek Blueprint for Success Economic Development
Ceramic Workshops at the Oaks Clay Glass and Art Foundation 2018
Ceramic Workshops at YVHS Clay Glass and Art Foundation 2018
Extension Grant (After School) California Arts Council 2018
Professional Development California Arts Council 2018
Art Afternoons at the Trinity Center Walnut Creek Civic Pride Foundation 2018
Best Art Gallery of the East Bay Diablo Magazine 2018
Best Golf Course of the East Bay Diablo Magazine 2018
Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting Government Finance Officers 2013 – 2018
Association
Source: City of Walnut Creek
20.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 20.4, municipal services for the City of Walnut Creek are provided by City staff
and under contract with other service providers. Municipal services considered in this update are
discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have
been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017
information is also included where available.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 20-5
Chapter 20
TABLE 20.4
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast, Wave
Building / Planning City of Walnut Creek
Law Enforcement City of Walnut Creek
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting City of Walnut Creek
Parks and Recreation City of Walnut Creek
Solid Waste Republic Services
Stormwater City of Walnut Creek
Streets City of Walnut Creek
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: City of Walnut Creek
The City of Walnut Creek reports the following challenges related to its provision of municipal
services:
• Managing growth to address the need for housing and economic development while
limiting impact related to growth (e.g., provision of municipal services)
• Funding capital improvements
• CalPERS pension costs
A summary of the City’s municipal service level statistics for FY 2017 is provided in Attachment B.
20.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services is the animal control service provider for the City of Walnut
Creek and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. City expenditures for animal control services were $415,907 for FY
2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
20-6 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Walnut Creek
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
20.2.2 BROADBAND
The City of Walnut Creek does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast,
AT&T Internet, and Wave Broadband are the main internet providers in the City.3 These providers
use a variety of wired technologies including cable and DSL. The City of Walnut Creek did not
indicate concerns about the availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download
and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. The City of Walnut Creek received a grade of B+, which indicates that internet service
providers meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one
provider advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The City of Walnut Creek did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to
serve the City’s existing or growing population.
20.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The City of Walnut Creek Community and Economic Development Department provides building
and planning services. Department expenditures for FY 2017 were $4,037,111, representing an
upward trend from $3,272,633 in FY 2015.
The City of Walnut Creek issued 3,171 residential and 1,585 commercial building permits in 2017,
which is down from 2016. Total building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at $281.4
million, up from $197.3 million in 2015.
Planning city-wide has been captured in numerous plans, which include the following: General
Plan 2025, Master Plan - Public Facilities, Master Services Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, Public Art
Master Plan, 2016-2026 Ten-Year Capital Investment Program, Creeks Restoration and Trails Master
Plan; Specific Plans for Montego Way & La Casa Via, Shadelands Business Park, La Casa Via (2
different areas), Walnut Boulevard and Whitecliff Way, Bridle Lane, South Newell Avenue, Geary
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 20-7
Chapter 20
Road/Hall Lane/First Avenue, Alma Avenue, North Gate, East Mt. Diablo, North Main Street and
Ygnacio Valley Road, Locust Street and Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Shadelands Gateway, Walnut Creek
BART Transit Village, West Downtown, and North Downtown (not final); Redevelopment Plans for
South Broadway and Mt. Diablo Boulevard; and the Geary Road/North Main Street Area Wide
Plan.
20.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The City of Walnut Creek Police Department provides law enforcement and dispatch services. FY
2017 expenditures were approximately $25.3 million, up from approximately $23.2 million in FY
2015.
The City of Walnut Creek has 1.1 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population, which represents no
change from FY 2015. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000
population.5 There were 3.9 crimes per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime and violent crime
clearance rates (a measure of crimes solved) are not tracked by the City.6
20.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the City of Walnut Creek at its Walnut Creek
Branch Library location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up
slightly from $24.48 per capita in FY 2013.
The Walnut Creek Downtown Library and Ygnacio Valley Library are located in the City of Walnut
Creek; Walnut Creek Downtown Library is owned by the City. The City funds 21 extra hours at
both libraries, supports maintenance at the Ygnacio Valley Library, and pays for utilities,
maintenance, capital improvements, and other building related costs at the Walnut Creek
Downtown Library. In FY 2017, the City’s library expenditures were $1,096,800.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
20-8 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Walnut Creek
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditures and staffing per capita are nearly double the
County’s.
20.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the City of Walnut Creek Public Works
Department. City expenditures for light and signal maintenance were $1.5 million in FY 2017. The
City maintains 99 signalized intersections, 99 traffic lights, and 1,650 street lights. Pacific Gas and
Electric maintains approximately 3,000 streetlights within the City of Walnut Creek.
20.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Walnut Creek Public Works Department is the service provider for parks and recreation
facilities, and the Arts and Recreation Department is the service provider for recreation programs.
FY 2017 expenditures for parks were approximately $6.4 million, up from approximately $5.2
million in FY 2015.
The City offers arts and recreation programs and activities for all ages.
The City provides and maintains 44 park acres per 1,000 residents, 2 recreation centers per 20,000
residents, and 52 miles of recreation trails.
The City of Walnut Creek has developed several master plans to guide park planning; these include
plans for the following: Alma Park, Arbolado Park, Civic Park, Diablo Shadows Park, El Divisadero
Neighborhood Park, Heather Farm Park, Howe Homestead Park, Old Oak Park, Rudgear Park, San
Miguel Park, Tice Valley Park, Valle Verde Park, Walden Park, and Creekwalk at Civic Park.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The City’s level of service standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
20.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the City of Walnut Creek by RecycleSmart via franchise
agreement with Republic Services.8 RecycleSmart handles all of the City’s solid waste services and
contracts. The City does not have any direct solid waste expenditures.
The City-specific data for tons of waste disposed per capita and per resident disposal rate was not
available. The City does not report the tons of waste disposed per capita. RecycleSmart reports this
information for the entire JPA service area, and does not break it out by jurisdiction when reporting
8 RecycleSmart is a dba of Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 20-9
Chapter 20
it to CalRecycle. In 2017, the tons of waste disposed per capita and per resident for the
RecycleSmart service area was 3.7 pounds/person/day.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
20.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The City of Walnut Creek Public Works Department provides and maintains the City’s stormwater
drainage system. The City reports that they have 100 miles of closed storm drain lines and that 4%
of their 4,010 storm drain inlets are equipped with trash capture. The City of Walnut Creek also
reports compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards. FY 2017
expenditures for streets were $1.2 million.
20.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The City of Walnut Creek Public Works Department provides and maintains 213 street miles and
approximately 32 Class 1 and 2 bike lane miles, as well as landscaped medians and other public
landscaped areas. FY 2017 expenditures for streets were $10.8 million, representing a downward
trend from $12.8 million in FY 2015.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in the City of Walnut Creek was 73 (good) in 2017, up from 71 in 2015, but
remains below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.9 Pavement in the good (70-79)
range requires mostly preventive maintenance and shows only low levels of distress.
20.2.11 UTILITIES
The City of Walnut Creek is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice
Aggregation program. MCE provides PG&E customers the choice of having 50% to 100% of their
electricity supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and Pacific Gas & Electric provide
electricity service to the City, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also
provides gas service to the City of Walnut Creek.
The City of Walnut Creek did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to
serve the City’s existing or growing population.
9 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
Contra Costa LAFCO
20-10 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Walnut Creek
20.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the City of Walnut Creek’s financial health and assesses the
City’s financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations
derives from audited 2015 through 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), current
budget documents, and City staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are
provided in Attachment C.
20.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
City.
According to the City's FY 2018-19 budget, the City’s General Fund revenues of $88.8 million
slightly exceed General Fund expenditures of $88 million.10 The projected FY 2019 General Fund
budget allocates $300,000 to reserves. The budget projects ending FY 2019 General Fund reserve
balances totaling $42.6 million, or about 48% of annual expenditures. Reserves include, for
example, Catastrophic Emergency reserves ($8.8 million), Fiscal Emergency reserves ($4.6 million),
and Capital Projects - General Fund portion ($16 million).11 The City’s FY 2019 budget indicates
that “the budget ensures the City has adequate funding available during this budget cycle to
maintain services, infrastructure and facilities, and meet all reserve policy requirements.12 Table
20.5 summarizes prior year changes in General Fund expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to
FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year.
The City's 10-year Long-Term Financial Forecast projects General Fund deficits beginning in FY
2019, largely attributable to increasing California Public Employees Retirement System pension
costs.13 The shortfalls are exacerbated by a predicted flattening of sales tax growth and delay in an
anticipated new hotel. The City's FY 2019 budget indicates that service levels and reserves have
been maintained through short-term actions, but does not identify specific longer-term strategies.
10 City of Walnut Creek Adopted Biennial Budget Fiscal Year 2018 - 2020, pg. A-3.
11 ibid, Walnut Creek Budget FY 202018-20, pg. D-15-16.
12 ibid, Walnut Creek Budget FY 202018-20, pg. A-2
13 ibid.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 20-11
Chapter 20
TABLE 20.5
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Sales Tax $22,261,000 $24,923,000 $24,022,000
Property Tax $18,492,000 $19,961,000 $21,596,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $45,387,000 $44,086,000 $42,699,000
Total General Fund Revenues $86,140,000 $88,970,000 $88,317,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 3.3% -0.7%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $4,950,000 $4,733,000 $5,602,000
Administration
Public Safety $23,250,000 $24,385,000 $25,338,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $49,340,000 $52,689,000 $54,136,000
Total Expenditures $77,540,000 $81,807,000 $85,076,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 5.5% 4.0%
Expenditures per capita $1,169 $1,168 $1,199
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 6.8 8.3 6.9
Business-type Activities 7.5 5.2 4.7
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the
degree of liquidity.
20.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
In FY 2017 the City's governmental activities' liquidity ratio was 6.9, indicating that short-term
resources were greater than current liabilities (see Attachment C).14 Enterprise Fund liquidity ratios
declined from FY 2015 through FY 2017 and were 4.7 in FY 2017.
14 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
20-12 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Walnut Creek
The City's total outstanding debt has been declining over time. Total outstanding debt was
approximately $52 per capita in FY 2017, indicating slight reductions compared to the $55 per
capita reported for FY 2015 (see Attachment C).
20.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The City has maintained a positive net position for governmental activities, improving from FY
2015 to FY 2017; the negative unrestricted portion also improved over that period from $19.9
million in FY 2015 to $3.8 million in FY 2017 (see Attachment C).
20.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
The City has no voter-approved local sales tax measures or other voter-approved General Fund
revenue sources.
20.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The City's enterprise operations include the Boundary Oaks public golf course and the Downtown
Parking operation. The golf course revenues appear to be sufficient to cover City golf course
administration and debt service related to recent clubhouse improvements. Revenues from the
parking operation cover the Downtown Parking & Enhancement Fund operations and a portion of
revenues are transferred to the Capital Program.
20.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the City may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The City's unfunded pension liability at FY 2017 totaled $101.8 million (see Attachment C). In
February 2018, the City Council directed staff to create a Section 115 Irrevocable Pension Trust to
assist in smoothing future cost increases; the City Council approved approximately $14 million to
deposit in the trust to pay for future pension costs. The City does not provide post-retirement
benefits and therefore has no other post-employment benefit liability.
20.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
FY 2015 through FY 2017 show annual declines in the net value of governmental assets, generally
indicating that investments in capital assets are not keeping pace with depreciation (see Attachment
C). The City reports that SB-1 gas tax revenues enable the City to keep up with pavement
maintenance; however, it does not have sufficient funds to provide upgrades to modernize facilities
or replace facilities that have reached or exceeded the end of their useful life.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 20-13
Chapter 20
The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes several very large replacement projects
such as replacement of the Clarke Swim Center; however, "there are not adequate funds to replace
facilities or build new ones."15 The City Council has directed staff to complete a facility needs
assessment to identify current and future facility needs and update Master Plans associated with key
community facilities.
20.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The City’s budgets and audited CAFRs are prepared in a timely manner and posted on the agency's
website.
The City prepares a Long-Term Financial Forecast and a Municipal Maintenance Master Plan that is
used for facility management. The Master Plan includes 10-year budget forecasting, asset
management plan and condition assessment by facility.
20.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the City of Walnut Creek.
20.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2018 California Department of Finance estimates, the City of Walnut Creek serves
70,667 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
15 City of Walnut Creek Response to MSR Fiscal Questions.
Contra Costa LAFCO
20-14 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Walnut Creek
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs. Year 2010–2040 ABAG projections for the City of Walnut Creek are depicted in Figure
20.2.
ABAG projects that the City of Walnut Creek will grow at an annual rate of approximately 0.7% to
a population of 81,265 between 2010 and 2040.16 The City is also projected to experience an
approximate 0.4% annual growth rate in jobs between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the City’s planning
is expected to accommodate the growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
According to the Bay Area Census data17 for 2010, the City of Walnut Creek has 30,499 employed
residents. The ABAG Projections data18 for 2010 estimated 50,855 jobs in the City, with
approximately 1.67 jobs for every employed resident. Bay Area Census data for 2010 indicate that
the City of Walnut Creek has 32,681 housing units, which results in a job and housing balance of
1.56. The number of owner-occupied units in the City is greater than the number of renter-
occupied housing units (Table 20.6), indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental
household rate.
16 ABAG. Projections 2017.
17 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
18 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 20-15
City of Walnut Creek
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Jobs Households Population
Figure 2.20. Population, Job, and Household Growth Projections (2010-2040)
City of Walnut Creek
June 2019
City of Walnut Creek
TABLE 20.6
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 20,262
Renter-occupied housing units 10,181
Vacant housing units 2,238
Total existing housing units 32,681
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2014–2022
Very low 604
Low 355
Moderate 381
Above Moderate 985
Total Regional Housing Need Allocation 2,235
Sources: ABAG, Bay Area Census and Regional Housing Need Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.19 The City of Walnut Creek was assigned a RHNA of 2,235 units, as shown in Table 20.6.
The City adopted its General Plan in 2006 and its Housing Element in 2014. The City’s 2015–2023
Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield approximately 3,186 units, which
are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to meet and
exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA. The City of Walnut Creek 2015–2023 Housing Element has
been found by the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with
State Housing Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.20
The City of Walnut Creek’s Winter 2018 “Directory of Aging and Adult Resources” lists the
numerous programs and services in the areas of health, education, and recreation to meet the needs
of adults age 50 and older, as provided by Walnut Creek and other cities and agencies in Contra
19 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
20 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 20-17
Chapter 20
Costa County. This directory is available on the City’s website at: http://www.walnut-
creek.org/departments/arts-and-recreation/recreation-parks/adults-50/directory-of-aging-adult-
resources.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The City of Walnut Creek reports that they are a “built-out” city (only a nominal amount of vacant
residential land), and new development will be in the form of redevelopment. The City reports
approximately 1,843 dwelling units and 534,620 square feet of commercial space as either
approved or in the approval process.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. One PDA has been identified by
the City of Walnut Creek and included in Plan Bay Area 2040.21 The West Downtown (or Core
Area) PDA, characterized as a City Center, is anticipated to accommodate approximately 78% of
the projected growth in households and 25% of the projected growth in employment.22
Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The City of
Walnut Creek has identified Acalanes Ridge Open Space PCA. This PCA is included in Plan Bay
Area 2040.23
The City of Walnut Creek, which is mostly built out, does not anticipate that current or projected
growth patterns will expand beyond its existing municipal boundary and SOI.
20.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The City of Walnut Creek’s SOI is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with multiple
islands and pockets (see Figure 20.1). There are four unincorporated islands in the City of Walnut
Creek, as shown in Figure 20.1. These islands include an approximate 55-acre island bounded by
Pleasant Hill Road to the west and adjacent to Acalanes Open Space to the south; an approximate
104-acre island (Springbrook Road), generally bounded by Highway 24 and Acalanes Open Space;
an approximate 10-acre area bounded by Bancroft Road and Mayhew Way; and an approximate
54-acre area at the intersection of Walnut Blvd and Shady Glen Road. The total population of the
unincorporated islands within the SOI is approximately 16,500, which is nearly a quarter of the
City’s population.
Over the years, residents in these areas have expressed interest in annexing to the City. The City
has indicated that due to deferred maintenance of County roads, drainage, and other infrastructure
in these areas, the City is unable to annex these areas without significant cost to the affected
residents. The City has no plans to annex these areas, but will support annexation requests made by
residents.
21 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2040
22 MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
23 http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/a16ad6d33e8544f79916f236db43715e_0
Contra Costa LAFCO
20-18 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Walnut Creek
The City does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any unincorporated areas outside its municipal boundaries or SOI. The City does, however, provide
service by contract to the City of Lafayette (street sweeping), the City of Concord (open space
management and maintenance of Lime Ridge Open Space), and Contra Costa County (signal
maintenance of intersections at City borders).
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within the City’s SOI.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
20.4.3 CITY SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The City of Walnut Creek reports that it adequately serves all areas within its municipal boundary
and SOI and anticipates it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
The disadvantaged communities within and contiguous to the City’s SOI receive sewer, water, and
fire protection services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 20-19
Chapter 20
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
The PCI for City streets is 73, which indicates the City’s streets are in good condition and primarily
require funding at a level to maintain the current condition.
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the identified challenges related to its provision of municipal services, the City may
experience funding obstacles to maintaining existing service levels or meeting overall infrastructure
needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The City reports that it funds high priority projects that keep the basic functions of its facilities
intact; however, they are not currently able fully fund facility upgrade or replacement.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The City is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the City’s General Plan. The City’s
2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and Community
Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately planning to
meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The City provides an array of municipal services, including those related to building/planning, law
enforcement, lighting, parks and recreation, stormwater, and streets. Services related to animal
control, broadband, library, solid waste, and utilities are provided via contract with Contra Costa
County, public vendors, or private vendors.
Contra Costa LAFCO
20-20 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Walnut Creek
With the exception of the library, the City does not share services. The City owns several facilities
which are leased by other agencies, including:
• Lindsay Wildlife Experience
• Gardens at Heather Farm
• UC Master Gardeners
• Walnut Creek Historical Society
• Assistance League of Diablo Valley
• Heather Farm Equestrian Center
• Walnut Creek Model Railroad Society
• Walnut Creek Downtown
• Walnut Creek Library
No areas of overlapping responsibilities or additional opportunities to share services or facilities
were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
20.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
As with other cities in Contra Costa County, rising pension costs are expected to continue to reduce
funding for other priorities.
Overall, the City of Walnut Creek appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue
providing services; however, it has reported that there are not adequate funds to replace facilities or
build new ones. The City’s ability to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or
replacement over the next five years may be compromised absent the identification of additional
funding opportunities.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The City of Walnut Creek has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund.
The City’s reserve goal is unknown, and therefore it is unknown whether they meet their goal;
however, the City projects a General Fund reserve of 48% for FY 2019. With this reserve level, the
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 20-21
Chapter 20
City appears able to maintain an acceptable level of service provision and to enact changes to
maintain services.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The City reported a liquidity ratio of 6.9, which indicates the City has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $52 per capita for FY 2017 and has been declining.
The City's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow; however, the City has
established a trust to help address the increasing pension liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The City issued its CAFR approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is considered timely.
The CAFR was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
Overall, the CAFRs are clearly presented; however, the City could incorporate changes to improve
the transparency of its financials. For example, certain tables in the CAFR extend over multiple
pages; however, the left-most column does not carry over to multiple pages, affecting the
readability of the tables.
20.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The City of Walnut Creek website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the City
Council and its various boards and commissions; the City’s budgets; and the City’s CAFRs. City
Council meetings are streamed on the City’s website and are broadcast and captioned on cable
television. Access to electronic subscriptions is made available for updates on a variety of topics
concerning the City, including a monthly City Manager’s update. The City therefore adequately
provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CITY PLANNING INFORMATION
The City of Walnut Creek website provides public access to the City’s general plan as well as
various development plans and projects. The City therefore adequately provides accountability with
regard to municipal and land use planning.
Contra Costa LAFCO
20-22 Municipal Service Review Update
City of Walnut Creek
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Walnut Creek website provides public access to public hearing notices, including the
time and place at which City residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public
involvement in the City decision-making process. Public hearing notices are posted near the project
site and the City Hall bulletin board. Newsletters are also distributed to City residents. The City
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to citizen participation.
20.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
20.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the City of Walnut Creek is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, with
several small extensions, as shown in Figure 20.1. The City of Walnut Creek is bound by the cities
of Concord and Pleasant Hill to the north, Lafayette to the west, and County lands to the south and
east.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
City of Walnut Creek.
20.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF WALNUT
CREEK
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this City of Walnut Creek MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
The City of Walnut Creek plans for a variety of urban uses within its boundary, representing a
continuation of the current mix of uses, including residential, business park, commercial, retail,
mixed use, agricultural, and open space. Present and planned land uses are adequate for existing
residents as well as future growth, maintaining compatibility with agricultural and open space uses,
as demonstrated in the General Plan (2006).
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the City of Walnut Creek. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however,
will increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years,
particularly as higher-density development replaces older lower-density development.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 20-23
Chapter 20
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the City of Walnut Creek appears adequate. The City of
Walnut Creek anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
There are several communities of interest within the City’s SOI. Residents in these areas have
Walnut Creek addresses, travel City streets, attend City schools, and are surrounded by the City of
Walnut Creek. This report recommends that the City consider annexing these island and pocket
areas. Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified other social or economic communities of interest
relevant to the City of Walnut Creek.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within the City’s SOI. These areas receive
sewer, water, and fire protection services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
20-24 Municipal Service Review Update
C 21
HAPTER
C C S
ROCKETT OMMUNITY ERVICES
D
ISTRICT
21.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The Crockett Community Services District (CSD), formed in 2006, covers an area of approximately
1.3 square miles and includes the unincorporated towns of Crockett and Port Costa, located in two
separate and distinct areas. With an estimated combined population of 3,331, the CSD has a
population density of approximately 2,562 persons per square mile.1
The Crockett CSD lies in western Contra Costa County with the Carquinez Strait to the north, and
County and East Bay Regional Park lands to the south, east, and west. The Sphere of Influence (SOI)
for the Crockett CSD is coterminous with the service area boundary, with the exception of one
parcel located west of Canyon Lake Drive (Port Costa area), as shown in Figure 21.1.
Land uses in the CSD are almost entirely residential and include parks and recreation, open space,
and some agricultural land uses as designated in the Contra Costa County General Plan for grazing
livestock or dry grain farming.
21.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The publicly elected CSD Board of Directors consists of five members; members serve staggered
four-year terms.
21.1.2 AGENCY STAFFING
The CSD has eight year-round employees with various levels of regular hours. The four staffing
functions with the highest FTE include the General Manager, Sanitary Department Manager,
Recreation Facilities Manager, and Recreation Event Supervisor. In addition, the CSD operates a
summer aquatics center from Memorial Day through Labor Day with 24 to 27 part-time employees.
For FY 2017 seasonal staffing included an additional 6.57 FTE employees.
21.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The Crockett CSD is a not member of any joint powers authorities.
1 American Community Survey, 2016 estimate. Available at: https://censusreporter.org
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 21-1
August
2017
Page
03‐2
Contra
Costa
LAFCO
Directory
of
Local
Agencies
Figure 21.1. Crockett Community Services District Boundary
and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
Crockett CSD
21.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
The Crockett CSD reports that it has not received any awards since the 2009 Municipal Service
Review (MSR).
21.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
The Crockett CSD primarily provides recreation and sewer services within its service area. As
shown in Table 21.1, other municipal services for the Crockett CSD are provided by other service
providers. Municipal services considered in this update are discussed individually below. Fire and
emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have been reviewed as part of recent MSRs.
For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017 information is also included where available.
TABLE 21.1
CROCKETT CSD
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning Contra Costa County
Law Enforcement Contra Costa County
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting Contra Costa County
Parks and Recreation Crockett CSD
Solid Waste Richmond Sanitary
Service dba Crockett
Garbage Company
Stormwater Contra Costa County
Streets Contra Costa County
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice n/a
Source: Crockett CSD
The Crockett CSD reports the following challenges related to its provision of services:
• The community of Port Costa is very small and is required to maintain its own wastewater
collection system and treatment plant. The financial burden to the community is great with
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 21-3
Chapter 21
such a small population supporting the service. The average property owner income
thresholds limit grant opportunities and taking on extra debt burden may be required to
maintain services. Long-term solutions are being investigated to provide alternatives to the
existing method of wastewater treatment.
• Majority of residential lots in older neighborhoods of Crockett and Port Costa are smaller
lots of 5,000 square feet or less, were designed with narrow streets, and have limited off-
street parking options. The state continues to work to address the housing shortages and
recent legislation allowing Accessory Dwelling Units to be added to single-family
residential units will impact the community as more duplexes and in-law apartments are
added. The smaller lot size is below the County minimum standard lot size square feet and
therefore property owners must regularly apply for variances with the County building and
planning departments which causes an undue burden on property owners in Crockett and
Port Costa. Parking solutions will need to be considered by the County, with input from the
community, for some neighborhoods in Crockett and Port Costa as Accessory Dwelling
Units are added. The Crockett CSD no longer collects capacity charge revenue when
Accessory Dwelling Units are added. The fiscal impact to the Crockett CSD is minimal with
the estimated annual loss of revenue at $3,234.
21.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) is the animal control service provider for the Crockett
CSD and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were not reported or were unavailable
at the time of this MSR update.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
21.2.2 BROADBAND
The Crockett CSD does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and AT&T
Internet are the main internet providers for the CSD.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The Crockett CSD did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
Contra Costa LAFCO
21-4 Municipal Service Review Update
Crockett CSD
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. Contra Costa County received a grade of C+, which indicates that internet service providers
meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one provider
advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The Crockett CSD did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve the
CSD’s existing or growing population.
21.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development provides building and
planning services for the County, including the Crockett CSD. Department expenditures for FY
2017 were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
The County issued 121 residential and 6 commercial building permits for the Crockett CSD in
2017. Total building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at approximately $2.4 million.
21.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement and dispatch services for the
County, including the Crockett CSD. FY 2017 expenditures for the Sheriff’s Office were
approximately $229.3 million, up from approximately $217.8 million in FY 2015.
The Sheriff’s Office reported 677 FTE for FY 2017, up from 664 FTE in FY 2016, with an average of
1.02 sworn staff per 1,000 population. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel
per 1,000 population.5 Crime clearance rates are a measure of crimes solved.6 Total property crime
clearances were reported at 125 and total violent crime clearances were reported at 340 for FY
2017.
The CSD is assigned one Resident Deputy who works only in the Town of Crockett. This position is
funded from the Crockett Cogeneration power plant Return-to-Source property tax revenue.
Additionally, one of the Bay Station beats, staffed by one Deputy, covers Crockett. The property
crime closure rate was reported as 59% and the violent crime closure rate was reported as 100%
for FY 2017, up from 47% and 80% respectively in FY 2016.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 21-5
Chapter 21
21.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the Crockett CSD at its Crockett Branch Library
location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48
per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditures and staffing per capita are nearly double the
County’s.
21.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the Contra Costa County Public Works
Department. FY 2017 expenditures for light and signal maintenance were not reported or were
unavailable at the time of this MSR update. The signalized intersections, traffic lights, and street
lights maintained by the County were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR
update.
The Crockett CSD owns 29 decorative streetlamps that are located throughout the downtown area.
As part of an agreement for taking ownership of the decorative streetlamps, funding for the
continuing operation of the streetlamps is considered annually by the Crockett Community
Foundation and ongoing maintenance is managed by a local non-profit group, Crockett Public
Services, at no cost to the Crockett CSD.
21.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The Crockett Recreation Department is the service provider for parks and recreation facilities and
recreation programs for Crockett and Port Costa residents. FY 2017 expenditures for recreation
facilities were approximately $549,292 in FY 2017, up from approximately $488,667 in FY 2015.
These amounts include capital replacement and capital improvement projects which can fluctuate
annually as projects are completed. Actual Operating & Maintenance expenditures were $493,467
in FY 2017, up from $463,504 in FY 2015. Minimum wage increases in recent years have affected
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
21-6 Municipal Service Review Update
Crockett CSD
the seasonal aquatics payroll expense as pay scales for instructor and lifeguard positions have been
increased along with minimum wage increases.
The CSD provides various classes and programs including swim lessons, dance and exercise
classes, bocce, and special events.
The CSD provides and maintains 1.8 park acres per 1,000 residents and 0.33 recreation centers per
20,000 residents. The facilities include the Crockett Community Center, Crockett Aquatics Center,
Alexander Park, and adjacent hillside. The Community Center auditorium is rented out and is
primarily funded through rental fees.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The County’s General Plan identifies the neighborhood park standard as 2.5 acres
per 1,000 population and the community park standard as 1.5 acres per 1,000 population, with the
goal of achieving a level of park and recreational facilities at 4 acres per 1,000 population.
21.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the Crockett CSD via franchise agreement between Contra
Costa County and Richmond Sanitary Service, doing business as Crockett Garbage Service. As such,
there are no expenditures for solid waste.
The CSD-specific data for tons of waste disposed per capita and per resident disposal rate for FY
2017 were not available.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
21.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The Contra Costa County Public Works Department maintains the Crockett CSD stormwater
drainage system. FY 2017 expenditures for streets were not reported or were unavailable at the time
of this MSR update.
21.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The miles of public roads in the Crockett CSD provided and maintained by the Contra Costa
County Public Works Department were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR
update. FY 2017 expenditures for streets were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this
MSR update.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect the pavement condition index, or PCI score. These
include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance funding.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 21-7
Chapter 21
The PCI for streets in Contra Costa County was 70 (good) in 2017, up from 69 in 2015, but remains
below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.8 Pavement in the good (70-79) range
requires mostly preventive maintenance and shows only low levels of distress.
21.2.11 UTILITIES
Pacific Gas & Electric provides electricity and gas service to the Crockett CSD. The Crockett CSD
did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve its existing or
growing population.
21.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the Crockett CSD’s financial health and assesses the CSD’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations derives from
2015 through 2017 Audited Financial Reports, current budget documents, and CSD staff review
and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are provided in Attachment C.
21.3.1 FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Crockett CSD services are funded via several funds, including the Community Services /
Administration,9 Recreation, and Maintenance funds. Funds categorized under Sanitary Department
include the Port Costa Operating Fund, Crockett Operating Fund, and Crockett Construction Fund.
The CSD also maintains a separate Crockett Sanitary Reserve Fund. For purposes of this MSR,
governmental activities include the Community Services/Administration, Recreation, and
Maintenance funds.
The Community Services District/Administration fund is used to receive property tax revenue and
tax adjustments from the County. The funds are allocated and transferred to the respective
operating funds of the Crockett Sanitary Department and Recreation Department based on the
historical tax rate allocation in place prior to the CSD’s formation in 2006.
The CSD prepares an annual budget. According to the CSD's FY 2018-19 budget for governmental
activities including administration, recreation and (non-sanitary fund) maintenance, total revenues
of $1.11 million are less than total expenditures of $1.23 million.10 One primary factor for the
shortfall in the budget is an underfunded expenditure for improvements to the Memorial Hall.11
The Recreation Fund nearly covers its operating expenditures through charges for services, property
taxes, and a recreation tax; its FY 2019 budget shows a shortfall of $34,000. FY 2019 budget
shortfalls also appear in the sanitation funds. Combined reserves for the CSD totaled $3.88 million
8 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
9 The Crockett CSD’s budget and Audited Financial Reports alternately use the terms “Community
Services” and “Administration.”
10 Crockett Community Services District FY 2018/19 Budget, Adopted 6/27/2018.
11 FY 18/19 Maintenance Department Adopted Budget (6/27/2018) - Fund 3242.
Contra Costa LAFCO
21-8 Municipal Service Review Update
Crockett CSD
for all funds, representing an increase over the prior year $3.4 million total; however, Port Costa
reserves appear to be low.12
Governmental activities fund revenues generally exceed expenditures for the combination of
administration, recreation, and (non-sanitary fund) maintenance activities.13 Table 21.2 summarizes
prior year changes in governmental activities expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017,
and liquidity ratios in each year.
TABLE 21.2
CROCKETT CSD
SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES FUNDS AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES FUND REVENUES
Property Tax1 $419,000 $437,000 $461,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers In) $538,000 $586,000 $560,000
Total Revenues $957,000 $1,023,000 $1,002,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 6.9% -0.2%
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES FUND EXPENDITURES
Administration, Recreation, and Maintenance $455,000 $464,000 $521,000
Operations (non-sanitary)
Other (includes Cash Transfers Out) $398,000 $416,000 $487,000
Total Expenditures $853,000 $880,000 $1,008,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 3.2% 14.5%
Expenditures per capita $375 $387 $443
LIQUIDITY RATIO 2
Business-type Activities 7.9 4.7 5.6
Source: Attachment C
1 FY 2016 property taxes partially allocated to Sanitary/Crockett Operating Fund. The total tax for FY16 is shown here
before allocations for comparison purposes.
2 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
12 FY17 Audited Financial Report, Note 2, pg. 10.
13 Crockett CSD FY 2018/19 Budget.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 21-9
Chapter 21
21.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
The CSD's governmental activities current obligations are nominal; therefore, its cash and
investments provide significant liquidity by comparison. The FY 2017 enterprise activity liquidity
ratio was a combined 5.6, indicating adequate cash and investments.14 The Port Costa Operating
Fund, which provides sanitary services, had only $100,000 of cash and investments compared to
$570,000 of liabilities; the liabilities included interdepartmental loans from the Crockett Sanitary
Department.15 The two interdepartmental loans were made to pay off higher interest rate municipal
and county loans related to treatment plant upgrades completed before the Crockett CSD took over
the Port Costa treatment plant. The CSD reported debt obligations totaling $642,000 in FY 2017 for
loans that funded Crockett sewer improvements.
21.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The CSD’s Audited Financial Reports indicate a relatively stable net position for combined
business-type activities for FY 2017 compared to FY 2015.16 The Port Costa Fund component shows
a significant decline from $1.3 million in FY 2015 to about $900,000 in FY 2017, resulting from
the inability of sanitary rates charged to meet Port Costa sanitary expenditures.
The ending balance for the CSD’s governmental activities improved slightly for FY 2017 compared
to FY 2016. Liabilities totaling $1.14 million were reallocated from Community Services to other
departments in FY 2016, resulting in an improved governmental activities balance.17
21.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
A CSD is not authorized to adopt voter-approved local tax measures or other voter-approved
General Fund revenue sources, other than rates and charges for services, and assessment, e.g., for
landscape and lighting maintenance.
The CSD’s financial documents only report income from property taxes, which are assumed to be
generated entirely from the CSD’s share of the Proposition 13-related 1% property taxes. No
assessments for landscape and lighting or other purposes are identified; the taxes are used in the
sanitary funds.
14 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
15 The CSD's Audited Financial Reports do not provide information about the interdepartmental transfers
and loans.
16 Changes in FY 2016 are not clear—a decline in FY16 appears to be the result of a restatement of
beginning net position that is not explained.
17 The nature of the liability and means of elimination is not apparent in the Audited Financial Reports.
Contra Costa LAFCO
21-10 Municipal Service Review Update
Crockett CSD
The FY 2019 budget reports a recreation parcel tax assessment. The recreation assessment of $110
is assessed against every residential parcel in the district annually.
21.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The Crockett Operating Fund, which provides sanitary services, is funded by property tax in
addition to sewer use charges, and revenues equal expenditures (after including the use of capital
reserves for capital expenditures by the Fund). However, Port Costa Operating Fund revenues,
which consist only of sewer service charges, fall short of expenditures by about $33,000 in FY
2019 and also are short in prior years.18 According to the CSD, the Port Costa community "is
unable to support a sizeable increase to their annual sewer use charges which are already one of
the highest (if not the highest) in the greater Bay Area."19 Inadequate rate revenues, in addition to
the lack of property tax revenues, contribute to the ongoing Port Costa Operating Fund shortfalls.
Inadequate operating and capital reserves for the Port Costa system are also a consequence.
According to the CSD, Port Costa paid off its largest interdepartmental loan in 2019 which will
result in $54,000 being available annually to address operational and capital improvements
projects with the collection system and treatment plant. The second interdepartmental loan is
expected to be paid in off by 2025.
The Recreation Fund nearly covers its expenditures, according to the adopted FY 2019 budget. The
Fund receives charges for services, property taxes, and a recreation parcel assessment tax. The
Maintenance Fund relies almost entirely on grants and donations to fund services including
"insurance for downtown decorative street lamps, Crockett’s downtown plaza, landscaping at
Crockett’s bridgehead, and for Crockett’s Memorial Hall renovation."20 The CSD has no plans to
request additional taxes from its residents to cover these expenditures.
21.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When an agency’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the agency may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The CSD's FY 2017 Audited Financial Report reported its unfunded pension liability at $99,000.
No other post-employment benefit obligations were reported. The CSD has been meeting its
required California Public Employees’ Retirement System contributions for FY 2015 through FY
2017.21
18 Crockett CSD FY 2018/19 Budget.
19 Crockett CSD Response to MSR Fiscal Questions.
20 Crockett CSD Response to MSR Fiscal Questions.
21 FY17 Audited Financial Report, Note 6, pg. 22.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 21-11
Chapter 21
21.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The net value of Governmental Fund depreciable capital assets declined over FY 2016 and FY
2017, indicating that capital investments generally were not keeping pace with asset depreciation.
As noted above, the CSD relies on grants, donations, and volunteers for maintenance and
improvement of many of its recreation and community facilities.
21.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The CSD's budgets and Audited Financial Reports are prepared in a timely manner and posted on
the agency's website. The CSD's Audited Financial Reports report payment of debt service;
however, they do not provide any further detail about the debt. The Audited Financial Report
documents were not electronically searchable.
According to the CSD, various reserve reports have been provided to its Board, most commonly in
budget support documentation, but "they have not been converted to PDF or electronically
archived into one centralized location."22 The CSD made the same comment with respect to other
reports such as financial forecasts, asset management plans, and conditions assessments. No other
financial reports were provided for the purposes of this MSR Update.
21.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the Crockett CSD.
21.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2016 American Community Survey data, the Crockett CSD serves 3,331 residents.
22 Crockett CSD Response to MSR Fiscal Questions.
Contra Costa LAFCO
21-12 Municipal Service Review Update
Crockett CSD
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs.
ABAG projects that unincorporated Contra Costa County will grow at an annual rate of
approximately 0.7% to a population of 199,105 between 2010 and 2040.23 Unincorporated Contra
Costa County is also projected to experience an approximate 0.5% annual growth rate in jobs
between 2010 and 2040.
JOBS AND HOUSING
The Bay Area Census does not provide jobs and employment data for the Crockett CSD.24 The
ABAG Projections data25 for 2010 provides jobs and employment estimates for unincorporated
Contra Costa County only. For 2010, ABAG estimated 35,790 jobs and 76,035 employed residents
in unincorporated areas of the County, which equates to approximately 0.47 job for every
employed resident. The jobs/housing ratio is 0.62.
Bay Area Census data26 estimates for 2016 indicate that the Crockett CSD has 1,759 housing units
(Table 21.3). The number of owner-occupied units in the CSD is greater than the number of renter-
occupied housing units, indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
23 ABAG. Projections 2017.
24 A Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area and includes mostly
population and housing characteristics for Census Designated Places.
25 ABAG. Projections 2017.
26 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 21-13
Chapter 21
TABLE 21.3
CROCKETT CSD
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 861
Renter-occupied housing units 684
Vacant housing units 214
Total existing housing units 1,759
Source: ABAG Bay Area Census. Available at:
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cdp/cdp.htm
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.27 The Crockett CSD was not assigned a RHNA; therefore, Contra Costa County data is
provided.
Contra Costa County adopted its General Plan in 2000 and its Housing Element in 2015. The
County’s 2015–2023 Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield over 3,590
units, which are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to
meet and exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA of 1,367 housing units. The West County
Subregion of the County, which includes the Crockett CSD, accounts for 389 of the housing unit
potential. The Contra Costa County 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California
Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State Housing Element law by
adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of
the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.28
The Crockett Sanitary and Port Costa Sanitary departments have an Access and Repair Agreement
program whereby low interest loans are offered to senior citizens if their building sewer lateral is
defective and it would be financial hardship to replace it otherwise.
The Recreation Department contracts with Contra Costa County to provide a senior nutrition
program to seniors in Crockett and greater West Contra Costa County. Aqua Zumba is offered as a
summer pool recreation program and is well attended by those who want a low impact workout.
27 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
28 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
21-14 Municipal Service Review Update
Crockett CSD
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. No PDAs have been identified for
the Crockett CSD in Plan Bay Area or the County General Plan.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The Crockett
CSD has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas in Plan Bay Area or the County’s General
Plan.
The Crockett CSD did not report that current or projected growth patterns will expand beyond its
existing service area boundary and SOI.
21.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The Crockett CSD’s service boundary and SOI are coterminous, with the exception of one parcel
located west of Canyon Lake Drive (Port Costa area; see Figure 21.1).
The CSD does not request any changes to its SOI. The CSD reports that it provides services to one
Port Costa property that is within its SOI but outside its service area boundary.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
This MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within and contiguous to the CSD’s SOI.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates and the
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round), adopted in 2016 and 2014 respectively, and remain
unchanged.
21.4.3 CSD SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 21-15
Chapter 21
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The Crockett CSD reports that it adequately serves all areas within its service area and SOI and is
likely to continue to do so in the foreseeable future based on available information.
The disadvantaged communities within and contiguous to the CSD’s SOI receive sewer, water, and
fire protection services.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the available information related to its provision of services, obstacles to maintaining
existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs are not anticipated for the CSD.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The CSD did not report on the sufficiency of its CIP to maintain and expand facilities and
infrastructure consistent with projected needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The CSD is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the County’s General Plan.
The County’s 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and
Community Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately
planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the
community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
Contra Costa LAFCO
21-16 Municipal Service Review Update
Crockett CSD
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The CSD provides parks and recreation services within its service area. All other services for the
CSD—including those related to animal control, broadband, building/planning, law enforcement,
library, lighting, stormwater, streets, and utilities—are provided through Contra Costa County,
public vendors, or private vendors.
The CSD does not share facilities or services covered under this review. Based on available
information, no areas of overlapping responsibilities or opportunities to share services or facilities
were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities based on the
information available.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
Based on available information, no excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this
review.
21.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The Crockett CSD is experiencing some fiscal challenges that may affect its ability to provide
services, particularly in the event of unexpected funding needs. Overall, and despite these fiscal
challenges, the Crockett CSD is likely to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services. The CSD’s ability to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or
replacement over the next five years may be compromised absent the identification of additional
funding opportunities.
The net value of Governmental Fund depreciable capital assets declined over FY 2016 and FY
2017, indicating that capital investments generally were not keeping pace with asset depreciation.
The Port Costa Operating Fund, which provides sanitary services, had only $100,000 of cash and
investments compared to $570,000 of liabilities; the liabilities included interdepartmental loans
from the Crockett Sanitary Department as reported in the FY 2017 Audited Financial Reports. Port
Costa Operating Fund revenues, which consist only of service charges, fall short of expenditures by
about $60,000 in FY 2019, continuing a shortfall trend in prior years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The Crockett CSD has been operating with a surplus in their Government Activities Fund, and
projects a FY 2019 deficit for the Port Costa Operating Fund.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 21-17
Chapter 21
The CSD’s Port Costa reserve goal is unknown, and therefore it is unknown whether they meet their
goal and whether they are able to maintain an acceptable level of service provision and to enact
changes to maintain services. Combined reserves totaled $3.88 million for all funds for FY 2017;
however, Port Costa reserves appear to be low.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The CSD reported a liquidity ratio of 5.6, which indicates the CSD has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt has been declining and was approximately $283 per capita for FY 2017.
The CSD's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow; however, the CSD has not
identified measures to address the increasing pension liabilities. As with other agencies in Contra
Costa County, rising pension costs are expected to continue to reduce funding for other priorities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The CSD issued its Audited Financial Reports approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which
is considered timely. The Financial Report was audited by an independent CPA and received a
clean opinion.
Overall, the Audited Financial Reports are clearly presented; however, the CSD could incorporate
the following changes to improve the transparency of its financials:
• Add a label or footnote for the debt payments and link them to the detail provided in the
Audited Financial Reports’ notes for reporting payment of debt service.
• Ensure future Audited Financial Reports are electronically searchable.
• Ensure clear documentation and explanation throughout (e.g., see GASB 68 adjustments in
FY 2016 Audited Financial Report, Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net
Position).
• Include greater narrative detail in the budgets and Audited Financial Reports to help the
reader understand the activities of the District and their financial status, beyond the basic
financial reports.
• Separately list debt service payments in the Audited Financial Report statements.
• Explain the purpose of all reported funds and categorize them in the Audited Financial
Reports as “governmental activities” and “business type” or “enterprise” activities, for
example.
• Make the cost allocations (allocation of administrative costs to individual funds) apparent.
• Provide supplemental information in the Audited Financial Reports related to historical
documentation of assessed value, debt, and other expenditures and revenues, for example.
• Clearly present actual budget results and adjustments in the Audited Financial Reports to
reconcile to the financial statements.
• Use common documentation in tables and notes for the source fund and destination fund of
interfund transfers.
• Describe the nature or terms of the loans, including interfund loans.
Contra Costa LAFCO
21-18 Municipal Service Review Update
Crockett CSD
• Ensure that restated beginning of the year net positions match prior year ending position
and that the basis for restated amounts is explained.
21.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CSD GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The Crockett CSD website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the CSD Board
meetings and its various committees and commissions; the CSD’s current budget; and the CSD’s
annual audit report. The CSD therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to
governance and operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CSD PLANNING INFORMATION
The Crockett CSD website provides public access to the CSD’s governance, including meetings,
reports, and policies. Building and planning services are provided by Contra Costa County, whose
website includes information on its general plan as well as various development plans and projects.
The CSD therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Crockett CSD website provides public access to public hearing notices, including the time and
place at which CSD residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public
involvement in the CSD decision-making process. Newsletters are also distributed to residents of
the CSD. The CSD therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to citizen participation.
21.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
21.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the Crockett CSD is coterminous with the service area boundary, with the exception of
one parcel located west of Canyon Lake Drive (Port Costa area), as shown in Figure 21.1.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
Crockett CSD.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 21-19
Chapter 21
21.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CROCKETT CSD
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this Crockett CSD MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
Contra Costa County, of which the Crockett CSD is a part, plans for a variety of urban uses within
its boundary, representing a continuation of the current mix of land uses. Present and planned land
uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth, maintaining compatibility with
agricultural and open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the Crockett CSD. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the Crockett CSD appears adequate. The CSD is likely to
continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the Crockett CSD.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within and contiguous to the CSD’s SOI.
These areas receive sewer, water, and fire protection services.
NATURE, LOCATION, EXTENT, FUNCTIONS, AND CLASSES OF SERVICES TO BE
PROVIDED
The Crockett CSD service boundary encompasses approximately 1.3 square miles. The CSD is
authorized to provide recreation, lighting, landscaping, and sewer services within its boundary.
Crockett CSD provides and maintains 1.8 park acres per 1,000 residents. CSD recreation facilities
include the Crockett Community Center, Crockett Aquatics Center, Alexander Park, and adjacent
hillside.
Contra Costa LAFCO
21-20 Municipal Service Review Update
C 22
HAPTER
D C S D
IABLO OMMUNITY ERVICES ISTRICT
22.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The Diablo Community Services District (CSD), formed in 1969 as a successor to the Diablo Public
Utility District, covers an area of approximately 1.4 square miles. With an estimated population of
807, the CSD has a population density of approximately 594 persons per square mile.1
The Diablo CSD lies in central Contra Costa County between the unincorporated communities of
Alamo and Blackhawk/Tassajara, with the Town of Danville to the southwest. The Sphere of
Influence (SOI) for the Diablo CSD is coterminous with the service area boundary, as shown in
Figure 22.1.
Land uses in the CSD are almost entirely residential and include some agricultural land uses as
designated in the Contra Costa County General Plan for grazing livestock or dry grain farming.
22.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The publicly elected CSD Board of Directors consists of five members; members serve staggered
four-year terms. The CSD Board members also serve on the Diablo Municipal Advisory Council,
which advises the Contra Costa County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in matters
pertaining to planning and zoning in Diablo.
22.1.2 AGENCY STAFFING
Administrative staffing for the CSD is provided by the District General Manager. The Diablo CSD
has no employees; all services are provided by contract.
22.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The Diablo CSD is not a member of any joint powers authorities.
22.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
The Diablo CSD has not reported receiving any awards since the 2009 Municipal Service Review
(MSR).
1 American Community Survey, 2016 estimate. Available at: https://censusreporter.org
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 22-1
Figure 22.1. Diablo Community Services District Boundary
Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of Local Agencies
August 2017 and Sphere of InPaflgeu 0e3n‐4 ce
June 2019
Diablo CSD
22.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
The Diablo CSD primarily provides police/security; road, bridge, and culvert maintenance; and
recreation services within its service area through various service contracts. As shown in Table
22.1, other municipal services for the Diablo community are provided by other service providers.
Municipal services considered in this update are discussed individually below. Fire and emergency
medical, water, and wastewater services have been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For
comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017 information is also included where available.
TABLE 22.1
DIABLO CSD
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning Contra Costa County
Law Enforcement Contra Costa County, Diablo CSD
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting Contra Costa County, Diablo CSD
Parks and Recreation Diablo CSD
Solid Waste Contra Costa County Sanitary District, Republic Services
Stormwater Contra Costa County
Streets Diablo CSD
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: Diablo CSD
The Diablo CSD identified the following challenge related to the provision of services—although
they expect to meet goals related to service provision (roads, law enforcement/security, and parks
and recreation), the cost of defending the CSD against a lawsuit filed at the end of 2017 and
subsequent judicial rulings may affect the CSD’s ability to meet those goals.
22.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) is the animal control service provider for the Diablo
CSD and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via CCAS
contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez and a
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 22-3
Chapter 22
smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were not reported or were unavailable
at the time of this MSR update.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
22.2.2 BROADBAND
The Diablo CSD does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and AT&T
Internet are the main internet providers for the CSD.3 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The Diablo CSD did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services, although there have been informal
complaints from residents with regard to both speed and reliability. The California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps
upload speeds to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. Contra Costa County received a grade of C+, which indicates that internet service providers
meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one provider
advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
At this time, the Diablo CSD is not indicating concerns about the ability of broadband providers to
serve the CSD’s existing or growing population.
22.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development provides building and
planning services for the County, including the Diablo CSD. Department expenditures for FY 2017
were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
The County issued 57 residential and 1 commercial building permits for the Diablo CSD in 2017.
Total building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at approximately $3 million.
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
22-4 Municipal Service Review Update
Diablo CSD
22.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Diablo CSD provides police/security services to the residents of Diablo through a contract with
the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office. The CSD has its own police vehicle and a dedicated
County deputy, plus a contract with the Sheriff’s Office to provide additional hours of patrol. FY
2017 expenditures for the Sheriff’s Office were approximately $229.3 million, up from
approximately $217.8 million in FY 2015.
The Sheriff’s Office reported 677 FTE for FY 2017, up from 664 FTE in FY 2016, with an average of
1.02 sworn staff per 1,000 population. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel
per 1,000 population.5 Crime clearance rates are a measure of crimes solved.6 Total property crime
clearances were reported at 125 and total violent crime clearances were reported at 340 for FY
2017.
Diablo CSD is staffed by 1 Resident Deputy who works 40 hours per week; the area is also covered
by a larger beat that is staffed by 1 Deputy. The property crime closure rate was reported as 63% in
FY 2017, down from 100% in FY 2016. There were no violent crime cases assigned to the Sheriff’s
Department in FY 2017 or FY 2016.
22.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the Diablo CSD at its nearby Danville Branch
Library location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from
$24.48 per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 22-5
Chapter 22
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditures and staffing per capita are nearly double the
County’s.
22.2.6 LIGHTING
The Diablo CSD has the power to provide street lighting. The CSD allows landscape lighting only.
Traffic lights are provided and maintained by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department.
22.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The Diablo CSD provides maintenance services for the equestrian/pedestrian path (Kay’s Trail)
between Alameda Diablo and Mt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard, the road island on Alameda Diablo,
and contributes to maintenance of Diablo’s entrances. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were
$3,500.
The number of park acres per 1,000 residents, recreation centers per 20,000 residents, and miles of
recreation trails for the CSD were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
Major park facilities in the County are owned by the federal and State governments, along with an
extensive system owned and operated by East Bay Regional Park District. The State Department of
Parks and Recreation owns Mt. Diablo State Park, Cowell Ranch State Historic Park, and Franks
Tract State Recreation Area. The East Bay Regional Park District currently maintains numerous parks
with internal trail systems in addition to regional trails within or partially within the County.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The County’s General Plan identifies the neighborhood park standard as 2.5 acres
per 1,000 population and the community park standard as 1.5 acres per 1,000 population, with the
goal of achieving a level of park and recreational facilities at 4 acres per 1,000 population.
22.2.8 SOLID WASTE
The Diablo CSD does not provide solid waste services. Contra Costa County Sanitary District has
responsibility for solid waste services. Republic Services provides waste disposal and trash pick-up.
The FY 2017 waste disposal rates were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR
update.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
22.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The Contra Costa County Public Works Department maintains the Diablo CSD stormwater drainage
system.
Contra Costa LAFCO
22-6 Municipal Service Review Update
Diablo CSD
22.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
According to its formation document, the Diablo CSD maintains “certain roads . . . which are
subject to right-of-way by the public but have not been accepted into the county road system,” as
well as the bridges and culverts in Diablo.8 Routine and emergency maintenance is contracted out
to the MCE Corporation and large projects are contracted out through a bidding process. The
number of street miles were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update. There
are no bike lanes within the CSD. FY 2017 expenditures for roads, bridges, and culverts were
$595,837.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect the pavement condition index, or PCI score. These
include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance funding.
The PCI for streets in Contra Costa County was 70 (good) in 2017, up from 69 in 2015, but remains
below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.9 Pavement in the good (70-79) range
requires mostly preventive maintenance and shows only low levels of distress.
The Diablo CSD is part of the unincorporated area of the County, as are the roadways that run
through the CSD. The County has not accepted the roads within the Diablo CSD into the County
road system. And with the exception of a portion of Caballo Ranchero Drive, the County does not
maintain the roads in Diablo. Thus, pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code, the County is not
liable for failure to maintain these roads.
The roads within the CSD are, on occasion, used by individuals who do not live in the CSD,
including U.S. Postal Service customers, guests of the residents and Diablo Country Club,
individuals providing services to the residents, as well as bicycling enthusiasts and other members
of the general public seeking access to Mt. Diablo State Park.
At the end of 2017, seven residents who live along Calle Arroyo sued the CSD, the Diablo Country
Club and other Calle Arroyo property owners, seeking to prohibit public access to that road.10 The
complaint consisted of three causes of action: one action for quiet title and two causes of action
requesting declaratory relief. In the quiet title action, the plaintiff-property owners sought to
establish that Calle Arroyo is not burdened by an easement for general public use. The complaint
claimed that Calle Arroyo is a private road owned by the homeowners on that road and the Diablo
Country Club, and that there is no express or implied dedication of an easement to the public in the
roadway. A motion for summary adjudication of the quiet title cause of action was heard in the
Contra Costa County Superior Court on February 9, 2018. On November 19, 2018, an order was
filed granting the motion and finding that there is no express or implied easement giving the
general public to the right use Calle Arroyo.
8 Available online at: https://www.diablocsd.org/
9 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
10 Tiernan, et al., v. Diablo Community Services District, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case
No. MSC 17-02529.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 22-7
Chapter 22
As of the date of this report, the remainder of the case, asking the court to declare that a portion of
Calle Arroyo road is private property and determine whether Diablo CSD is obligated to close a
cut-through path from Alameda Diablo to Mt. Diablo Scenic, is still pending. The court has not
been asked to decide whether limited public use of Calle Arroyo by residents, people going to the
Diablo Country Club, utility workers, delivery people, landscapers and other guests is sufficient to
justify the continued expenditure of public funds on that road. The resolution of that issue is
beyond the scope of this report and is left to the judgment of governing body of the Diablo CSD.
There is ongoing discord in the Diablo community regarding public use on Calle Arroyo. It would
be beneficial to the community for the Diablo CSD to seek a legal opinion to resolve this issue.
There is also the issue of ongoing maintenance of Mt. Diablo Scenic Blvd. This road is deteriorating
due to lack of maintenance and other challenges. LAFCO encourages the District, County, and
State Parks to work together to develop a plan for short and long term maintenance of this road.
22.2.11 UTILITIES
Diablo CSD is a member of the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Community Choice Aggregation
program. MCE provides Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) customers the choice of having 50% to
100% of their electricity supplied from renewable sources. Both MCE and PG&E provide electricity
service to the CSD, and customers may choose either service provider. PG&E also provides gas
service to the Diablo CSD. The Diablo CSD did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility
service providers to serve the CSD’s existing or growing population.
22.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the Diablo CSD’s financial health and assesses the CSD’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations derives from
2015 through 2017 Audited Financial Reports, current budget documents, and CSD staff review
and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are provided in Attachment C.
22.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
CSD.
According to the CSD's FY 2018-19 budget, the District’s General Fund revenues of $734,000 are
$116,000 less than recurring General Fund expenditures of $850,800.11 The primary factor for the
shortfall and use of reserves is a budgeted periodic $315,000 expenditure for road maintenance.
The budget projects a FY 2019 ending fund balance of $290,000 which is approximately 43% of
FY 2019 expenditures. The FY 2019 budget allocates $102,000 of its net position to capital
11 Diablo Community Services District (CSD) 2018-2019 Draft Budget, amended August 2018. Note:
budget includes $9,063 depreciation.
Contra Costa LAFCO
22-8 Municipal Service Review Update
Diablo CSD
reserves. Table 22.2 summarizes prior year changes in General Fund expenditures and revenues
from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year.
TABLE 22.2
DIABLO CSD
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $364,000 $395,000 $424,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $230,000 $235,000 $254,000
Total General Fund Revenues $594,000 $630,000 $678,000
Change from Prior Year -10.2% 6.1% 7.6%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $76,000 $84,000 $86,000
Administration
Public Safety $333,000 $357,000 $361,000
Public Works $685,000 $323,000 $599,000
Capital Outlay $43,000
Total Expenditures $1,094,000 $764,000 $1,089,000
Change from Prior Year 51.3% -30.2% 42.5%
Expenditures per capita $1,355 $946 $1,350
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 21.7 17.7 6.8
Business-type Activities n/a n/a n/a
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
22.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity. In FY 2017 the CSD's governmental
activities' liquidity ratio was 6.8, indicating that short-term resources were greater than current
liabilities.12 The ratio declined significantly due to reductions in current assets; the liquidity ratio
was 21.7 in FY 2015 and 17.7 in FY 2016 (see Attachment C).
12 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 22-9
Chapter 22
The CSD's Audited Financial Reports report no outstanding debt obligations.
22.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The CSD’s positive net position declined from $780,000 in FY 2015 to $271,000 in FY 2017; the
unrestricted portion, which accounts for the majority of the net assets, also declined over that
period (see Attachment C).
22.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
Ad valorem taxes represent nearly two-thirds of the CSD's revenues. The balance had been
composed largely of non-tax "Road and Security Fees" charged to residents. Voters approved
Measure B, a special tax replacing Road Security Fees, in 2018. The funds from this tax must be
used to provide security/police protection services, as well as to maintain roads, bridges, culverts,
and trails within the Diablo CSD.
A CSD is not authorized to adopt voter-approved local tax measures or other voter-approved
General Fund revenue sources, other than rates and charges for services, and assessment, e.g., for
landscape and lighting maintenance.
22.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The District has no enterprise activities.
22.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When an agency’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the city may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The CSD does not provide a pension or other post-employment benefits as it has no employees,
and therefore has no related obligations or unfunded liabilities. The CSD’s FY 2019 budget shows
two independent consultants, a General Manager and a General Counsel.
22.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The CSD's primary asset is its patrol vehicle which is replaced periodically using its allocated fund
balance. With the exception of County-owned Caballo Ranchero Drive, the roads, bridges, and
culverts within the CSD are owned by the adjacent property owners and are not listed as Diablo
CSD assets, The CSD maintains most of the privately owned roads. For example, from FY 2015
through FY 2017 the CSD expended about $1.3 million for road, bridge, and culvert maintenance,
which explains the reduction in the CSD's fund balance over that period as noted above.
Contra Costa LAFCO
22-10 Municipal Service Review Update
Diablo CSD
The CSD's seven-year forecast shows annual expenditures for road maintenance ranging from
$126,000 to $401,000 annually, in addition to periodic bridge maintenance. The purchase of a
new vehicle is projected to occur in FY22. The forecast estimates a growing ending fund balance
through FY25.13
22.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) by the users of state and local government financial reports.
According to the GASB, financial report information retains some of its usefulness to municipal
bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at taxpayer associations and citizen groups for
up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The CSD’s budgets and Audited Financial Reports are prepared in a timely manner. The Diablo
CSD prepares a 7-year forecast to assist with financial planning and budgeting. Only the most
recent budget, audit and financial transactions report are posted on the agency's website.
22.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the Diablo CSD.
22.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2016 American Community Survey data, the Diablo CSD serves 807 residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
13 Diablo CSD 2018-2019 Draft Budget, 7 Year Budget, 2019-2025.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 22-11
Chapter 22
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs.
ABAG projects that unincorporated Contra Costa County will grow at an annual rate of
approximately 0.7% to a population of 199,105 between 2010 and 2040.14 Unincorporated Contra
Costa County is also projected to experience an approximate 0.5% annual growth rate in jobs
between 2010 and 2040. Projected growth data specific to the CSD is not included in the ABAG
projections.
JOBS AND HOUSING
The Bay Area Census does not provide jobs and employment data for the Diablo CSD.15 The ABAG
Projections data16 for 2010 provides jobs and employment estimates for unincorporated Contra
Costa County only. For 2010, ABAG estimated 35,790 jobs and 76,035 employed residents in
unincorporated areas of the County, which equates to approximately 0.47 job for every employed
resident. The jobs/housing ratio is 0.62.
Bay Area Census data17 estimates for 2010 indicate that the Diablo CSD has 439 housing units
(Table 22.3). The number of owner-occupied units in the CSD is greater than the number of renter-
occupied housing units, indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental household
rate.
TABLE 22.3
DIABLO CSD
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 380
Renter-occupied housing units 32
Vacant housing units 27
Total existing housing units 439
Source: ABAG Bay Area Census. Available at:
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cdp/cdp.htm
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.18 The Diablo CSD was not assigned a RHNA; therefore, Contra Costa County data is
provided.
14 ABAG. Projections 2017.
15 A Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area and includes mostly
population and housing characteristics for Census Designated Places.
16 ABAG. Projections 2017.
17 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
18 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
Contra Costa LAFCO
22-12 Municipal Service Review Update
Diablo CSD
Contra Costa County adopted its General Plan in 2000 and its Housing Element in 2015. The
County’s 2015–2023 Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield over 3,590
units, which are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to
meet and exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA of 1,367 housing units. The Central County
Subregion of the County, which includes the Diablo CSD, accounts for 1,090 of the housing unit
potential. The Contra Costa County 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California
Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State Housing Element law by
adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of
the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.19
The Diablo CSD does not provide specific programs for adults age 50 and older.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. No PDAs have been identified for
the Diablo CSD in Plan Bay Area or the County General Plan.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The Diablo
CSD has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas in Plan Bay Area or the County’s General
Plan.
The Diablo CSD did not report that current or projected growth patterns will expand beyond its
existing service area boundary and SOI.
22.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The Diablo CSD’s service boundary and SOI are coterminous (see Figure 22.1).
The CSD does not request any changes to its SOI and indicates that it does not provide services to
any areas outside its service area boundary or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
19 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 22-13
Chapter 22
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the Diablo CSD and
therefore, no disadvantaged communities are relevant to this analysis.
22.4.3 CSD SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The Diablo CSD appears to adequately serve all areas within its service area and SOI and is likely
to continue to do so in the foreseeable future based on available information.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the CSD’s SOI.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the available information related to its provision of services, obstacles to maintaining
existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs are not anticipated for the CSD.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The CSD did not report on the sufficiency of its CIP to maintain and expand facilities and
infrastructure consistent with projected needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The CSD is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the County’s General Plan.
The County’s 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and
Community Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately
planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the
community.
Contra Costa LAFCO
22-14 Municipal Service Review Update
Diablo CSD
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The CSD provides police/security, street lighting parks and recreation, and streets services through
various contracts. All other services for the CSD—including those related to animal control,
broadband, building/planning, law enforcement, library, traffic lighting, solid waste, stormwater,
and utilities—are provided through Contra Costa County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The CSD does not share facilities or services. Based on available information, no areas of
overlapping responsibilities or opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a part
of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities based on the
information available.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
Based on available information, no excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this
review.
22.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
Overall, the Diablo CSD appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the
next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The Diablo CSD has been operating with a deficit in their General Fund, and the FY 2019 budget
shows that expenditures exceed revenues.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 22-15
Chapter 22
The CSD’s reserve goal is unknown, and therefore it is unknown whether they meet their goal. The
FY 2019 ending fund balance is projected to be approximately 30% of expenditures.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether an agency has the means available to cover its existing
obligations in the short run. The CSD reported a liquidity ratio of 6.8, which indicates the CSD has
the means available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
The CSD has no outstanding debt obligations.
The CSD does not provide a pension or other post-employment retirement benefits and has no
related liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The CSD issued its Audited Financial Report approximately 6 months after fiscal year end, which is
considered timely. The Financial Report was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean
opinion.
22.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CSD GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The Diablo CSD website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the CSD Board
meetings as well as for the Diablo Municipal Advisory Council meetings; the CSD’s current budget;
and the CSD’s annual audit report. The CSD therefore adequately provides accountability with
regard to governance and operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CSD PLANNING INFORMATION
The Diablo CSD website provides public access to the CSD’s governance, including meetings,
reports, and policies. Building and planning services are provided by Contra Costa County, whose
website includes information on its general plan as well as various development plans and projects.
The CSD therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Diablo CSD website provides public access to public hearing notices, including the time and
place at which CSD residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public
Contra Costa LAFCO
22-16 Municipal Service Review Update
Diablo CSD
involvement in the CSD decision-making process. The CSD therefore adequately provides
accountability with regard to citizen participation.
22.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
22.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the Diablo CSD is coterminous with the service area boundary, as shown in Figure
22.1.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
Diablo CSD.
22.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE DIABLO CSD
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this Diablo CSD MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
Contra Costa County, of which the Diablo CSD is a part, plans for a variety of urban uses within its
boundary, representing a continuation of the current mix of uses. Present and planned land uses are
adequate for existing residents as well as future growth, maintaining compatibility with agricultural
and open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the Diablo CSD. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the Diablo CSD appears adequate. The CSD is likely to
continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the Diablo CSD.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 22-17
Chapter 22
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the Diablo CSD and
therefore no present or probable need for the CSD to provide structural fire protection, sewer, or
water facilities and services to any disadvantaged communities.
NATURE, LOCATION, EXTENT, FUNCTIONS, AND CLASSES OF SERVICES TO BE
PROVIDED
The DCSD service boundary encompasses approximately 1.4+ square miles. The District is
authorized to provide recreation, street lighting, police/security services, road maintenance and
Municipal Advisory Council services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
22-18 Municipal Service Review Update
C 23
HAPTER
D B C S
ISCOVERY AY OMMUNITY ERVICES
D
ISTRICT
23.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The Discovery Bay Community Services District (CSD), formed in 1998, covers an area of
approximately 9 square miles. With an estimated population of 14,765, the CSD has a population
density of approximately 1,641 persons per square mile.1
The Discovery Bay CSD lies in eastern Contra Costa County with the City of Brentwood to the
west, and County lands to the north, south, and east. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the
Discovery Bay CSD extends beyond its service boundary to the north (Learning Lane area), as
shown in Figure 23.1.
Land uses in the CSD include a mix of residential, commercial, recreation, open space, as well as
some agricultural land uses as designated in the Contra Costa County General Plan for grazing
livestock or dry grain farming. The agricultural uses are within the SOI for the CSD, but not in the
service boundary.
23.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The publicly elected CSD Board of Directors consists of five members; members serve staggered
four-year terms.
The Discovery Bay CSD meets twice monthly on the first and third Wednesday of each month at
7:00 p.m. at the Community Center located at 1601 Discovery Bay Boulevard in Discovery Bay.
23.1.2 AGENCY STAFFING
Total CSD staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 included 18 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
The administrative function and parks and landscape function had the highest staffing levels in the
Discovery Bay CSD, with 7.0 FTE employees each.
1 American Community Survey, 2016 estimate. Available at: https://censusreporter.org
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 23-1
Figure 23.1. Discovery Bay Community Services District Boundary
Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of Local Agencies
August 2017 and Sphere of InPaflgeu 0e3‐n6 ce
June 2019
Discovery Bay CSD
23.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The Discovery Bay CSD is a member of one joint powers authority—Discovery Bay Public
Financing Authority.
The Discovery Bay CSD formed a local Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the purpose
of preparing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act. The Discovery Bay GSA has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with
seven local GSAs to work together in the development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
23.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
The awards the Discovery Bay CSD has reported receiving since the 2009 Municipal Service
Review (MSR) include the Gold-Level District of Distinction and the District of Transparency
Certificate of Excellence.
23.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
The Discovery Bay CSD is authorized to provide water, wastewater, flood control/levee services2,
lighting, landscape maintenance, and park and recreation services within its service area. As shown
in Table 23.1, other municipal services for the Discovery Bay CSD are provided by other service
providers. Municipal services considered in this update are discussed individually below. Fire and
emergency medical, water, and wastewater services have been reviewed as part of recent MSRs.
For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY 2017 information is also included where available.
TABLE 23.1
DISCOVERY BAY CSD
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast
Building / Planning Contra Costa County
Law Enforcement Contra Costa County
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting Contra Costa County
Parks and Recreation Discovery Bay CSD
Solid Waste Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery
Stormwater Contra Costa County
2 Specifically to Discovery Bay West Village II, III, and IV.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 23-3
Chapter 23
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Streets Contra Costa County
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice n/a
Source: Discovery Bay CSD
The Discovery Bay CSD did not report specific challenges or opportunities related to its provision
of services.
23.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) is the animal control service provider for the
Discovery Bay CSD and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided
via CCAS contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in
Martinez and a smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were not reported or
were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.3 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
23.2.2 BROADBAND
The Discovery Bay CSD does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast and
AT&T Internet are the main internet providers for the CSD.4 These providers use a variety of wired
technologies including cable and DSL. The Discovery Bay CSD did not indicate concerns about the
availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps upload speeds
to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. Contra Costa County received a grade of C+, which indicates that internet service providers
3 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
4 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
Contra Costa LAFCO
23-4 Municipal Service Review Update
Discovery Bay CSD
did not meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one
provider advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.5
While broadband services are available to the CSD, no specific data exist regarding whether service
providers for the CSD meet the CPUC’s minimum download and upload standards. The Discovery
Bay CSD did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve the CSD’s
existing or growing population.
23.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development provides building and
planning services for the County, including the Discovery Bay CSD. Although the CSD has no land
use or zoning authority, the CSD does advise the County on decisions related to residential and
commercial development.
The County issued 821 residential and 13 commercial building permits for the Discovery Bay CSD
in 2017. Total building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at approximately $52.3 million.
Planning for the CSD has been captured in their mission statement, and five-year master plans, and
other water and wastewater services plans and studies. Discovery Bay CSD reports that it will be
developing a recreation master plan.
Two projects (Newport Pointe and Pantages Bay) have been approved by the County and will
require annexation to the Discovery Bay CSD.
23.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff provides law enforcement and dispatch services for
the County, including the Discovery Bay CSD. Although the CSD has no land use or zoning
authority, a police advisory committee (P-6) does advise the County on decisions related to police
services. FY 2017 expenditures for the Sheriff’s Department were approximately $229.3 million, up
from approximately $217.8 million in FY 2015.
The Sheriff’s Office reported 677 FTE for FY 2017, up from 664 FTE in FY 2016, with an average of
1.02 sworn staff per 1,000 population. The national average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel
per 1,000 population.6 Crime clearance rates are a measure of crimes solved.7 Total property crime
clearances were reported at 125 and total violent crime clearances were reported at 340 for FY
2017.
5 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
6 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
7 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 23-5
Chapter 23
The CSD is staffed by 2 Resident Deputies, each of whom works 40 hours per week. Discovery Bay
CSD is also part of a larger regular beat that is staffed by one Deputy. The property crime closure
rate was reported as 80% in FY 2017, up from 75% in FY 2016; the violent crime closure rate was
reported as 47% for FY 2017, down from 49% in FY 2016.
23.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the Discovery Bay CSD via its Discovery Bay
Library Connection, which is a free library service that gives residents the opportunity to request
items online and pick them up at the Discovery Bay Community Center. The nearby Brentwood
Branch Library location also provides services for the CSD. County library expenditures were
$25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from $24.48 per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.8 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditures and staffing per capita are nearly double the
County’s.
23.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting is provided and maintained by the CSD, Contra Costa County Public Works Department,
and homeowners associations. The CSD owns and maintains eight street poles and lights in the
Cove Lane area. Throughout its boundaries, the CSD owns and maintains 692 light poles; Pacific
Gas and Electric owns and maintains the luminaire, control facilities, and internal pole wiring.
Remaining lighting is owned and maintained by Contra Costa County Public Works (street and
traffic) and by private homeowners associations (street lighting).
23.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The Discovery Bay CSD is the service provider for parks and recreation facilities and programs, as
well as public landscaping. FY 2017 expenditures for parks were approximately $1.3 million in FY
2017, down slightly from approximately $1.4 million in FY 2015.
8 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
23-6 Municipal Service Review Update
Discovery Bay CSD
In 2003, the CSD took on the responsibility of maintaining the “Common” landscape areas/parks
within a portion of the community that is known as the “Discovery Bay Proper Area-Service Area
M-8,” which is now called Discovery Bay Lighting & Landscaping Zone #8. The landscape zone #8
encompasses Cornell Park, Roberta Fuss Tot Lot, all common landscape streetscapes, levees, and
islands on the east side of Discovery Bay. In 2006, the CSD formed the Discovery Bay Lighting &
Landscaping Zone #9 in the Ravenswood Housing Development area, located off of Newport Drive
and Slifer Drive, consisting of common landscape areas and a park.
The Discovery Bay CSD provides contract services through a maintenance agreement with Contra
Costa County to provide maintenance and landscape services to County Zones 35, 57, and 61,
which are located within the geographic boundaries of the CSD. These independently funded
zones are as follows:
• Zone 35: Trail/pathway between Newport Drive and Safeway & the median landscaping on
Bixler Road.
• Zone 57: Common landscape areas, parking areas & Regatta Park in the Discovery Bay
Southwest (Centex) Development. Porthole Drive, Bixler Road – From Regatta Drive South
to Highway 4, Pedestrian Walk
• Zone 61: Common landscape areas & Slifer Park in the area of the Discovery Bay West
housing development from Slifer Park on Newport Drive to the Lakes Home Development
on Bixler Road. Park and Ride – Bixler Road Westside to The Lakes Northern most exit
(Doesn’t include entries or exits). Point of Timber both sides, Preston Drive, Slifer Drive,
Sussex Court, Plymouth Court, Sterling Court, Dorchester Court, Coronado Court,
Cambridge Court, Birmingham Court, Berkshire Lane, Sheffield Court, Amesbury Court, and
Emerson Court.
The CSD provides and maintains 6 park acres per 1,000 residents and 1 recreation center per
20,000 residents.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The County’s General Plan identifies the neighborhood park standard as 2.5 acres
per 1,000 population and the community park standard as 1.5 acres per 1,000 population, with the
goal of achieving a level of park and recreational facilities at 4 acres per 1,000 population.
23.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the Discovery Bay CSD via franchise agreement with Mt.
Diablo Resource Recovery (formerly Discovery Bay Disposal Service). The Discovery Bay CSD FY
2017 expenditures for solid waste services were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this
MSR update.
The CSD waste disposal rates for 2017 were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this
MSR update.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 23-7
Chapter 23
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
23.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The Contra Costa County Public Works Department maintains the Discovery Bay CSD stormwater
drainage system.
23.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The Contra Costa County Public Works Department maintains public roads in the Discovery Bay
CSD.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
The PCI for streets in Contra Costa County was 70 (good) in 2017, up from 69 in 2015, but remains
below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.9 Pavement in the good (70-79) range
requires mostly preventive maintenance and shows only low levels of distress.
23.2.11 UTILITIES
Pacific Gas & Electric provides electricity and gas service to the Discovery Bay CSD. The Discovery
Bay CSD did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve the CSD’s
existing or growing population.
23.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the Discovery Bay CSD’s financial health and assesses the
CSD’s financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations
derives from audited 2015 through 2017 Special District Financial Transaction Reports, current
budget documents, and CSD staff review and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section
are provided in Attachment C.
23.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
CSD.
9 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
Contra Costa LAFCO
23-8 Municipal Service Review Update
Discovery Bay CSD
According to the CSD's FY 2018-19 budget, the total revenues of $11.3 million are equal to total
expenditures which include operations and debt service of $7.5 million, capital improvements of
$3.3 million and funding of infrastructure replacement at $525,000.10 The projected FY 2019
ending operations and contingency reserve balances total $2.9 million or about 39% of total
operations and debt service. The FY 2019 budget does not allocate additional funds to reserves
pending the finalization of actual FY 2018 ending balances, but proposes a $1.7 million allocation
for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects (above the total $11.3 million budget noted
above).11 Table 23.2 summarizes prior year changes in General Fund expenditures and revenues
from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year.
Governmental activities include administration and operation of Lighting and Landscaping Zones,
largely funded by property taxes and assessments. The CSD did not identify any significant
financing issues in light of the "slight" increase in reimbursement revenues from the County's
assessment collections.12
In addition to user charges for enterprise services, the CSD collects connection charges from new
development; these revenues are dedicated to capital improvements.
TABLE 23.2
DISCOVERY BAY CSD
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax1 $0 $0 $0
Other Revenues (excluding Transfers In) $629,000 $473,000 $272,000
Total General Fund Revenues $629,000 $473,000 $272,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 24.8% -42.5%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and Administration $396,000 $349,000 $147,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $93,000 $39,000 $391,000
Total Expenditures $489,000 $388,000 $538,000
Change from Prior Year n/a -20.7% 38.7%
Expenditures per capita $33 $26 $36
10 Discovery Bay Community Services District (CSD) Adopted Operating, Capital Improvement, and
revenue budgets for Fiscal Year 2018-19 (Reso. 2018-08), pg. 17.
11 Note: the FY19 Budget summary table on pg. 17 does not show any "Contributions to Reserves";
"Proposed Financing/Reserves for CIP projects" is listed at $1.7 million but not added into the $11.3
million total.
12 ibid, Discovery Bay CSD FY19 budget, pg. 30.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 23-9
Chapter 23
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 10.5 10.7 11.1
Business-type Activities 7.2 11.4 9.6
Source: Attachment C
1 Property Taxes in the CSD’s financial statements are assessments collected by the County and are deposited to Lighting
and Landscape Zone special revenue funds.
2 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
23.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
The District's Governmental Activities current obligations are nominal; therefore, its cash and
investments provide significant liquidity by comparison. The FY 2017 Enterprise Activity liquidity
ratio was 9.6, indicating adequate cash and investments (see Attachment C).13
The CSD reported $22.3 million total outstanding debt in FY 2017; no outstanding debt was
reported in the prior 2 fiscal years.
23.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
Information about the CSD’s net position was not available at the time of the MSR Update.
23.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
A CSD is not authorized to adopt voter-approved local tax measures or other voter-approved
General Fund revenue sources, other than rates and charges for services, and assessment, e.g., for
landscape and lighting maintenance.
23.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
Enterprise facilities, including water and wastewater, show net increases in value cumulatively from
FY 2015 through FY 2017 (see Attachment C).
13 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
Contra Costa LAFCO
23-10 Municipal Service Review Update
Discovery Bay CSD
23.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When an agency’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the agency may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
The CSD has no pension or other post-employment benefit plans or related liabilities.
23.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The net value of Governmental Fund depreciable capital assets declined over FY 2016 and FY
2017, indicating that capital investments generally were not keeping pace with asset depreciation
(see Attachment C). The FY 2019 budget indicates that pool renovation will be occurring in FY
2019. Other governmental facilities include a community center and tennis courts. Parks and play
structures are funded by the Lighting and Landscaping Zones.
The CSD FY 2019 anticipates ending balances in its Infrastructure Replacement Fund of $3.9
million, and Developer Fee Funds also totaling $3.9 million.
23.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the GASB by the users of
state and local government financial reports. According to the GASB, financial report information
retains some of its usefulness to municipal bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at
taxpayer associations and citizen groups for up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The CSD prepares budgets in a timely manner. Its Special District Financial Transaction Report was
submitted to the State Controller by January 31 as required. The budgets and audits are available on
the Financial Services Division page of the website.
The budget does not provide a summary showing department revenues and expenditures, and
starting and ending balances. A summary table shows proposed allocations to capital reserves, but
apparently these are not added into the totals at the bottom of the table. The sources and uses of
funds from the capital accounts (e.g., developer fees received each year, and fee transfers into other
funds) are not clear.
23.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below. The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the Discovery Bay CSD.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 23-11
Chapter 23
23.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2016 American Community Survey data, the Discovery Bay CSD serves 14,765
residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs.
ABAG projects that unincorporated Contra Costa County will grow at an annual rate of
approximately 0.7% to a population of 199,105 between 2010 and 2040.14 Unincorporated Contra
Costa County is also projected to experience an approximate 0.5% annual growth rate in jobs
between 2010 and 2040. Overall, the CSD is expected to accommodate its share of the County
growth projected by ABAG.
JOBS AND HOUSING
The Bay Area Census does not provide jobs and employment data for the Discovery Bay CSD.15
The ABAG Projections data16 for 2010 provides jobs and employment estimates for unincorporated
Contra Costa County only. For 2010, ABAG estimated 35,790 jobs and 76,035 employed residents
in unincorporated areas of the County, which equates to approximately 0.47 job for every
employed resident. The jobs/housing ratio is 0.62.
Bay Area Census data17 estimates for 2010 indicate that the Discovery Bay CSD has 5,403 housing
units (Table 23.3). The number of owner-occupied units in the CSD is greater than the number of
renter-occupied housing units, indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental
household rate.
14 ABAG. Projections 2017.
15 A Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area and includes mostly
population and housing characteristics for Census Designated Places.
16 ABAG. Projections 2017.
17 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
Contra Costa LAFCO
23-12 Municipal Service Review Update
Discovery Bay CSD
TABLE 23.3
DISCOVERY BAY CSD
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 3,873
Renter-occupied housing units 829
Vacant housing units 701
Total existing housing units 5,403
Source: ABAG Bay Area Census. Available at:
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cdp/cdp.htm
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.18 The Discovery Bay CSD was not assigned a RHNA; therefore, Contra Costa County data is
provided.
Contra Costa County adopted its General Plan in 2000 and its Housing Element in 2015. The
County’s 2015–2023 Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield over 3,590
units, which are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to
meet and exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA of 1,367 housing units. The East County
Subregion of the County, which includes the Discovery Bay CSD, accounts for 2,011 of the
housing unit potential. The Contra Costa County 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by
the California Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State Housing
Element law by adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all
economic segments of the community.
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.19
The Discovery Bay CSD provides some activities and resource information programs for adults age
50 and older, as described in the CSD’s activity guide.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
The future development of the Pantages Bay residential waterfront homes project will be in an area
surrounded by Discovery Bay and the Newport Pointe residential homes project will be in an area
adjoining Discovery Bay. These development projects have been approved by Contra Costa County
and the Discovery Bay CSD anticipates these areas will be brought into the Town’s SOI and service
18 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
19 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 23-13
Chapter 23
boundary. The CSD also recognizes the potential for future residential and commercial
development surrounding the SOI and Town boundary, which may necessitate future expansion
and annexation.
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. No PDAs have been identified for
the Discovery Bay CSD in Plan Bay Area or the County General Plan.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The
Discovery Bay CSD has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas in Plan Bay Area or the
County’s General Plan.
23.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The Discovery Bay CSD’s SOI extends beyond its service boundary to the north (Learning Lane
area; see Figure 23.1).
The CSD does not request any changes to its SOI at this time. Discovery Bay CSD reports that it has
one out of boundary service agreement for sewer services only and one out of boundary service
agreement for water and sewer services.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the Discovery Bay
CSD and therefore, no disadvantaged communities are relevant to this analysis.
Contra Costa LAFCO
23-14 Municipal Service Review Update
Discovery Bay CSD
23.4.3 CSD SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The Discovery Bay CSD reports that it adequately serves all areas within its service area boundary
and SOI and anticipates it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the CSD’s SOI.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the available information related to its provision of services, obstacles to maintaining
existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs are not anticipated for the CSD.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A CIP sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks, sewer/storm drain improvements,
pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements, affordable housing, and community
facilities.
The CSD’s CIP provides a five-year outlook and is anticipated to be sufficient to maintain and
expand facilities and infrastructure consistent with projected needs in conjunction with the
wastewater master plan currently in process.
As noted above in Section 23.3.7, the net value of Governmental Fund depreciable capital assets
declined over FY 2016 and FY 2017, indicating that capital investments generally were not keeping
pace with asset depreciation (see Attachment C).
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The CSD is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the County’s General Plan.
The County’s 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and
Community Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately
planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the
community.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 23-15
Chapter 23
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
Of the services reviewed in this MSR, the CSD is authorized to provide park and recreation
services, landscaping, and lighting. All other services for the CSD—including those related to
animal control, broadband, building/planning, library, lighting, stormwater, streets, and utilities—
are provided through Contra Costa County, public vendors, or private vendors.
The CSD does not share facilities or services. They do lease an old fire house station from East
Contra Costa Fire Protection District for landscaping services (i.e., crew and equipment). No areas
of overlapping responsibilities or opportunities to share services or facilities were identified as a
part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
No excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this review.
23.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
Overall, the Discovery Bay CSD appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the
next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The Discovery Bay CSD has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund until the deficit in
FY 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
23-16 Municipal Service Review Update
Discovery Bay CSD
The CSD’s reserve goal is unknown, and therefore it is unknown whether they meet their goal;
however, the projected FY 2019 reserve balances are 39% of total operations and debt service.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The CSD reported a liquidity ratio of 11.1, which indicates the CSD has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt has been increasing and was approximately $1,514 per capita for FY 2017.
The CSD does not provide a pension or other post-employment retirement benefits and has no
related liabilities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The CSD prepares a Special District Financial Transaction Report which is due on January 31 each
year. The District has always submitted financial transactions data to the State Controller by January
31 as required. There have been delays issuing the financial statements due to the County’s time
requirements, as the County serves as the District’s treasurer.
Overall, the financial reports are clearly presented. The financial statements were audited by an
independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
23.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CSD GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The Discovery Bay CSD website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the CSD
Board and its various committees; the CSD’s budgets; and the CSD’s annual audit. The CSD
therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CSD PLANNING INFORMATION
The Discovery Bay CSD website provides public access to various plans, studies, and projects. The
CSD therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to planning within and for the
district.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 23-17
Chapter 23
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Discovery Bay CSD website provides public access to public hearing notices, including the
time and place at which CSD residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public
involvement in the CSD decision-making process. The CSD sponsors open houses and town halls
and distributes newsletters to its residents. The CSD therefore adequately provides accountability
with regard to citizen participation.
23.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
23.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the Discovery Bay CSD extends beyond its service boundary to the north (Learning
Lane area, as shown in Figure 23.1. The Discovery Bay CSD is surrounded by the City of
Brentwood to the west, and County lands to the north, south, and east.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
Discovery Bay CSD.
23.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE DISCOVERY BAY CSD
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this Discovery Bay CSD MSR profile.
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
Contra Costa County, of which the Discovery Bay CSD is a part, plans for a variety of urban uses
within its boundary, representing a continuation of the current mix of uses. Present and planned
land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth, maintaining compatibility
with agricultural and open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Specific to the services provided by the Discovery Bay CSD, there are no anticipated changes in the
type of public services and facilities required within the SOI. The level of demand for these services
and facilities, however, will increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the
next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Specific to the services provided by the Discovery Bay CSD, the present capacity of public facilities
appears adequate. The Discovery Bay CSD anticipates it will continue to have adequate capacity
during the next five years.
Contra Costa LAFCO
23-18 Municipal Service Review Update
Discovery Bay CSD
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the Discovery Bay CSD.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
The Discovery Bay CSD does not provide structural fire protection facilities and services within its
SOI; it does provide sewer and water facilities and services. There are no disadvantaged
communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the Discovery Bay CSD and therefore no present
or probable need for these facilities and services for disadvantaged communities.
NATURE, LOCATION, EXTENT, FUNCTIONS, AND CLASSES OF SERVICES TO BE
PROVIDED
The DBCSD service boundary encompasses approximately 6.2+ square miles. The District is
authorized to provide water supply; sewage collection, treatment and disposal; levee maintenance;
recreation; lighting; landscaping; and maintenance.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 23-19
This page intentionally left blank.
C 24
HAPTER
K P P
ENSINGTON OLICE ROTECTION AND
C S D
OMMUNITY ERVICES ISTRICT
24.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW
The Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District (CSD), formed in 1946 and
reorganized in 1953, covers an area of approximately 0.9 square mile. With an estimated
combined population of 5,602, the CSD has a population density of approximately 5,913 persons
per square mile.1
The Kensington CSD lies in western Contra Costa County and is bounded by the City of El Cerrito
to the northwest, City of Richmond to the north, the Alameda County cities of Berkeley and Albany
to the south, and unincorporated lands to the east. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the Kensington
CSD is coterminous with the service area boundary, as shown in Figure 24.1.
Land uses in the CSD are almost entirely residential, with some open space and commercial uses.
There are no agricultural land uses in the Kensington CSD.
24.1.1 FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The publicly elected CSD Board of Directors consists of five members; members serve staggered
four-year terms. The CSD district has several committees including finance, park planning and
recreation, and solid waste. These committees are composed of board members and members of
the public. The CSD reports that, in the current draft revision of the Policies and Procedures
manual, the Board is proposing to retain only the Finance Committee.
24.1.2 AGENCY STAFFING
Total CSD staffing for fiscal year (FY) 2017 was 12 employees and included 9 full-time officers, 1
part-time General Manager, 1 part-time District Administrator, and 1 part-time Police Services Aide.
24.1.3 JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
The Kensington CSD is a member of one joint powers authority, the East Bay Regional
Communications System.
1 American Community Survey, 2016 estimate. Available at: https://censusreporter.org
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 24-1
Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of Local Agencies
Figure 24.1. Keninsgton Police Protection and Community Services District
August 2017 Page 03‐10
Boundary and Sphere of Influence
June 2019
Kensington CSD
24.1.4 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
The Kensington CSD reports that it did not receive any awards in 2017.
24.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES OVERVIEW
The Kensington CSD provides police protection, waste management, and parks and recreation
services within its service area. As shown in Table 24.1, other municipal services for the
Kensington community are provided by other service providers. Municipal services considered in
this update are discussed individually below. Fire and emergency medical, water, and wastewater
services have been reviewed as part of recent MSRs. For comparative purposes, FY 2015 and FY
2017 information is also included where available.
TABLE 24.1
KENSINGTON CSD
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
SERVICE SERVICE PROVIDER
Animal Control Contra Costa County
Broadband AT&T, Comcast, Sonic
Building / Planning Contra Costa County
Law Enforcement Kensington CSD
Library Contra Costa County
Lighting Contra Costa County
Parks and Recreation Kensington CSD
Solid Waste Bay Refuse and Recycling, Kensington CSD
Stormwater Contra Costa County
Streets Contra Costa County
Utilities:
Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Community Choice Marin Clean Energy
Source: Kensington CSD
Opportunities or challenges related to the provision of services for the Kensington CSD were not
reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
24.2.1 ANIMAL CONTROL
Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCAS) is the animal control service provider for the
Kensington CSD and most all of Contra Costa County. Animal licensing services are provided via
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 24-3
Chapter 24
CCAS contract with PetData. CCAS operates two shelter locations—the main location is in Martinez
and a smaller facility is in Pinole. Expenditures for animal services were not reported or were
unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
CCAS monthly year-over-year performance reports compare operational performance in various
areas against performance from the prior year.2 The August 2018 report indicates a total live intake
of 4,783 animals from January through August, down from 8,002 for the same period in 2015. The
number of animals adopted from January through August was 1,810, down from a high of 2,283 for
the same period in 2017 and 2,017 adoptions in 2015. The overall live release rate was reported as
87.8% in 2017, up from 78.08% in 2015.
24.2.2 BROADBAND
The Kensington CSD does not provide public broadband service. XFINITY from Comcast, AT&T
Internet, and Sonic are the main internet providers for the CSD.3 These providers use a variety of
wired technologies including cable and DSL. The Kensington CSD did not indicate concerns about
the availability or reliability of high-speed internet services. The California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) currently considers 6 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1.5 Mbps
upload speeds to be the standard for adequate residential broadband service.
The East Bay Broadband Consortium conducted a study to gather information about broadband
availability, infrastructure, and adoption in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano counties, using data
submitted by Internet service providers to the CPUC, and developed a comparative report card for
2013. Contra Costa County received a grade of C+, which indicates that internet service providers
did not meet the CPUC’s minimum 6 Mbps download and 1.5 Mbps upload standard, with one
provider advertising maximum download/upload speeds of at least 10/6 Mbps.4
The Kensington CSD did not indicate concerns about the ability of broadband providers to serve
the CSD’s existing or growing population.
24.2.3 BUILDING/PLANNING
The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development provides building and
planning services for the County, including the Kensington CSD. Department expenditures for FY
2017 were not reported or were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
The County issued 398 residential and 4 commercial building permits for the Kensington CSD in
2017. Total building permit valuation in FY 2017 is estimated at approximately $11.4 million.
2 Accessed via: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6820/Monthly-Year-Over-Year-Performance-Repor
3 Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures Broadband Now. Last modified November 30,
2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
4 East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card. www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
Contra Costa LAFCO
24-4 Municipal Service Review Update
Kensington CSD
24.2.4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Kensington CSD provides law enforcement and dispatch services and has a dispatch agreement
with the City of Albany. FY 2017 expenditures were approximately $2.4 million. The CSD is
currently investigating the potential benefits of contracting with another agency for police services.
The Kensington CSD has 1.6 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population for FY 2017. The national
average in 2012 was 2.39 FTE sworn personnel per 1,000 population.5 There were 462.29 crimes
per sworn FTE in 2017. The property crime clearance rate (a measure of crimes solved) was 4.9%
and the violent crime clearance rate for 2017 was 5%.6
24.2.5 LIBRARY
Contra Costa County provides library services for the Kensington CSD at its Kensington Branch
Library location. County library expenditures were $25.36 per capita for FY 2017, up slightly from
$24.48 per capita in FY 2013.
The County’s average circulation per capita was 5.99 in FY 2017, down from 7.79 in FY 2013.
Contra Costa County libraries had 3.15 visits per capita in FY 2017, reflecting a downward trend
from 4.20 in FY 2013. The Contra Costa County library system had 0.1775 FTE staff per 1,000
population in FY 2017.
The State of California Library provides a compilation of statistical data from public libraries
throughout the state.7 Select state statistical data are provided in this MSR Update for comparative
purposes. The state averaged 5.56 library visits per capita in FY 2017, which represents a slight
downward trend from 6.13 in FY 2013. Average circulation was 7.25 per capita, also reflecting a
downward trend from 8.30 in FY 2013. California public libraries spent an average of $51.21 per
capita in FY 2017, representing an increase of nearly $5 per capita since FY 2013 when operating
expenditures were $46.54 per capita. The state average for FTE staff per 1,000 population was
0.4557 in FY 2017. The state average expenditures and staffing per capita are nearly double the
County’s.
24.2.6 LIGHTING
Lighting (street and traffic) is provided and maintained by the Contra Costa County Public Works
Department.
5 National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
6 Common indicators used as metrics for evaluating law enforcement service provision have limitations.
The information is presented as a reference and can be used for comparative purposes with the caveat
that different jurisdictions can have different characteristics (e.g., a dense urban area and a suburban
residential city), rendering the comparison less meaningful.
7 California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 24-5
Chapter 24
24.2.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
The Kensington CSD is the service provider for parks and recreation facilities, and the Kensington
Community Council is the service provider for recreation programs. FY 2017 expenditures for parks
were $126,930.
The Kensington Community Council provides educational and recreational programs for the
community such as the Kensington After School Enrichment Program, Summer Day Camp, and
adult physical fitness classes.
The CSD provides and maintains 1 park acre per 1,000 residents and 0.25 mile of recreation trails.
Kensington CSD has one community center.
The Quimby Act allows California cities and counties to require from 3 to 5 acres of land for every
1,000 new residents. The Act also authorizes jurisdictions to require the dedication of land or to
impose fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel
subdivision map. The County’s General Plan identifies the neighborhood park standard as 2.5 acres
per 1,000 population and the community park standard as 1.5 acres per 1,000 population, with the
goal of achieving a level of park and recreational facilities at 4 acres per 1,000 population.
24.2.8 SOLID WASTE
Solid waste services are provided to the Kensington CSD via franchise agreement with Bay View
Refuse and Recycling. The Kensington CSD FY 2017 expenditures for solid waste services were
$4,251.
The solid waste disposal rates for FY 2017 were unavailable at the time of this MSR update.
Under Assembly Bill 939, the annual goal for solid waste disposal is 6.3 pounds/person/day, and
the per capita diversion rate is 50% for all California local jurisdictions. Assembly Bill 341
identified a statewide recycling goal of 75% or 2.7 pounds/person/day by 2020.
24.2.9 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
The Contra Costa County Public Works Department maintains the Kensington CSD stormwater
drainage system.
24.2.10 STREETS/ROADS
The Contra Costa County Public Works Department maintains public roads in the Kensington CSD.
MTC tracks street pavement conditions throughout the Bay Area as a measure of how well local
streets are being maintained. Many factors affect a city’s pavement condition index, or PCI score.
These include pavement age, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance
funding.
Contra Costa LAFCO
24-6 Municipal Service Review Update
Kensington CSD
The PCI for streets in Contra Costa County was 70 (good) in 2017, up from 69 in 2015, but remains
below the target PCI of 75 (good) MTC has established.8 Pavement in the good (70-79) range
requires mostly preventive maintenance and shows only low levels of distress.
24.2.11 UTILITIES
Pacific Gas & Electric provides electricity and gas service to the Kensington CSD. The Kensington
CSD did not indicate concerns about the ability of utility service providers to serve its existing or
growing population.
24.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the Kensington CSD’s financial health and assesses the CSD’s
financial ability to provide services. Key financial information for municipal operations derives from
2015 through 2017 Audited Financial Reports, current budget documents, and CSD staff review
and input. The MSR Fiscal Profiles used for this section are provided in Attachment C.
24.3.1 GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Municipal services are funded via the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund for the
CSD.
According to the CSD's FY 2018-19 budget, the total revenues of $3.3 million slightly exceed $3.2
million of total expenditures.9 The FY 2019 projected ending cash balance of $2.5 million
represents about 78% of expenditures. Table 24.2 summarizes prior year changes in General Fund
expenditures and revenues from FY 2015 to FY 2017, and liquidity ratios in each year.
TABLE 24.2
KENSINGTON CSD
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND AND LIQUIDITY, 2015 – 2017
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Property Tax $1,483,000 $1,562,000 $1,673,000
Other Revenues (including Transfers) $1,533,000 $1,593,000 $1,815,000
Total General Fund Revenues $3,016,000 $3,155,000 $3,488,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 4.6% 10.6%
8 MTC Vital Signs: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition
9 Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District, Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, pg.
6.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 24-7
Chapter 24
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2014- FISCAL YEAR 2015- FISCAL YEAR 2016-
2015 2016 2017
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government and $420,000 $442,000 $434,000
Administration
Public Safety $2,317,000 $2,295,000 $2,413,000
Other (includes Transfers Out) $147,000 $171,000 $202,000
Total Expenditures $2,884,000 $2,908,000 $3,049,000
Change from Prior Year n/a 0.8% 4.8%
Expenditures per capita $544 $549 $575
LIQUIDITY RATIO 1
Governmental Activities 9.0 6.6 9.3
Business-type Activities n/a n/a n/a
Source: Attachment C
1 Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current liabilities. The liquidity ratio
indicates the necessary cash the agency has to fund its current liabilities; the higher the number, the greater the degree
of liquidity.
24.3.2 LIQUIDITY AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Standard and Poor’s suggests that high debt levels can overburden a municipality while low debt
levels may indicate underutilized capital investment capacity.
The CSD's governmental activities current obligations are nominal; therefore, its cash and
investments provide significant liquidity by comparison. The FY 2017 enterprise activity liquidity
ratio was 9.3, indicating adequate cash and investments (see Attachment C).10
Governmental activities include administration, police protection, parks and recreation (including a
community center), and solid waste.11 In addition to property tax, revenues include voter-approved
special taxes (special police tax and Measure G Supplemental Tax for general purposes). A
landscape and lighting assessment helps to fund parks and recreation facilities. Franchise fee
revenues are paid to the CSD by the waste disposal company contracted by the CSD.
The CSD's total outstanding debt has been declining over time. Total outstanding debt was
approximately $111 per capita in FY 2017, indicating slight reductions compared to the $160 per
capita reported for FY 2015. Governmental activities' outstanding debt represents about 17% of
total General Fund Revenues (see Attachment C).
10 Liquidity ratio is defined as cash and short-term investments/total current liabilities. A ratio of less than
1.0 indicates insufficient short-term resources to cover short-term liabilities.
11 Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District, Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, pg.
30.
Contra Costa LAFCO
24-8 Municipal Service Review Update
Kensington CSD
24.3.3 NET POSITION
Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position (i.e.,
whether it is improving or deteriorating).
The CSD’s positive net position for governmental activities improved from $2.6 million in FY 2015
to $3.7 million FY 2017; the negative unrestricted portion improved from $1.3 million in FY 2015
to $300,000 in FY 2017 (see Attachment C).
24.3.4 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES
A CSD is not authorized to adopt voter-approved local tax measures or other voter-approved
General Fund revenue sources, other than rates and charges for services, and assessment, e.g., for
landscape and lighting maintenance.
24.3.5 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES
The CSD has no enterprise funds.
24.3.6 PENSION AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES
Pension plans are funded by employee contributions, municipal contributions, and investment
income. These sources are intended to provide enough revenue to fully fund the plan liabilities,
otherwise a plan would be considered underfunded. When a city’s General Fund revenue is
insufficient to cover pension expenses, the city may pass that expense on to taxpayers.
Increasing California Public Employees Retirement System costs “are anticipated to have severe
negative impacts on future budgets.”12 The CSD reports a net unfunded pension liability in FY 17 of
$3.5 million and unfunded other post-employment benefit (OPEB) liability of $3 million (see
Attachment C). These liabilities grew by comparison to an FY 2015 pension liability of $2.6 million
and OPEB liability of $2.6 million. In FY 2019, the District contributed about $247,000 towards an
OPEB trust to help fund future OPEB obligations.
24.3.7 CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION
The net value of Governmental Fund depreciable capital assets declined from FY 2015 through FY
2017, indicating that capital investments generally were not keeping pace with asset depreciation
(see Attachment C). The FY 2019 budget indicates that its Community Center project is scheduled
for construction during FY 2019, which will increase the value of net depreciable assets.
24.3.8 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND REPORTING
The timeliness of financial reporting is a common concern expressed to the GASB by the users of
state and local government financial reports. According to the GASB, financial report information
12 ibid, pg. 3.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 24-9
Chapter 24
retains some of its usefulness to municipal bond analysts, legislative fiscal staff, and researchers at
taxpayer associations and citizen groups for up to 6 months after fiscal year end.
The CSD prepares budgets in a timely manner. Its Audited Financial Report was not completed
within 6 months of the end of the prior fiscal year reviewed in the Audited Financial Report, which
is not considered timely.13
24.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to the key areas discussed below.The following analysis informs the
determinations which have been prepared for the Kensington CSD.
24.4.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for
future needs. Such factors as projected growth in and around the agency’s service
areas and impact of land use plans and growth patterns on service demands may be
reviewed. In making a determination on growth and population projections,
LAFCO may consider an agency’s ability to plan for future need.
According to the 2016 American Community Survey data, the Kensington CSD serves 5,602
residents.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
As required by California law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy that
considers how the San Francisco Bay Area will accommodate projected growth while also reducing
regional generation of greenhouse gases pursuant to state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Plan Bay
Area, is the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area seeks to accommodate
the majority of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs; e.g., infill areas), which is consistent
with the overall goals of LAFCOs, and includes 30-year growth projections for population, housing,
and jobs.
ABAG projects that unincorporated Contra Costa County will grow at an annual rate of
approximately 0.7% to a population of 199,105 between 2010 and 204014 Unincorporated Contra
Costa County is also projected to experience an approximate 0.5% annual growth rate in jobs
between 2010 and 2040.
13 The FY 2017 CPA letter is dated April 1, 2018 for the prior fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
14 ABAG. Projections 2017.
Contra Costa LAFCO
24-10 Municipal Service Review Update
Kensington CSD
JOBS AND HOUSING
The Bay Area Census does not provide jobs and employment data for the Kensington CSD.15 The
ABAG Projections data16 for 2010 provides jobs and employment estimates for unincorporated
Contra Costa County only. For 2010, ABAG estimated 35,790 jobs and 76,035 employed residents
in unincorporated areas of the County, which equates to approximately 0.47 job for every
employed resident. The jobs/housing ratio is 0.62.
Bay Area Census data17 estimates for 2010 indicate that the Kensington CSD has 2,305 housing
units (Table 24.3). The number of owner-occupied units in the CSD is greater than the number of
renter-occupied housing units, indicating that the rate of homeownership exceeds the rental
household rate.
TABLE 24.3
KENSINGTON CSD
HOUSING OVERVIEW
HOUSING STATISTIC NUMBER
Owner-occupied housing units 1,823
Renter-occupied housing units 376
Vacant housing units 106
Total existing housing units 2,385
Source: ABAG Bay Area Census. Available at:
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cdp/cdp.htm
California cities and counties are required to demonstrate in their Housing Element how they will
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as assigned in the Regional Housing Need
Plan.18 The Kensington CSD was not assigned a RHNA; therefore, Contra Costa County data is
provided.
Contra Costa County adopted its General Plan in 2000 and its Housing Element in 2015. The
County’s 2015–2023 Housing Element identifies adequate sites, anticipated to yield over 3,590
units, which are appropriately zoned to address the affordable housing demand and anticipated to
meet and exceed its 2014–2022 assigned RHNA of 1,367 housing units. The West County
Subregion of the County, which includes the Kensington CSD, accounts for 489 of the housing unit
potential. The Contra Costa County 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California
Housing and Community Development Department to comply with State Housing Element law by
adequately planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of
the community.
15 A Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area and includes mostly
population and housing characteristics for Census Designated Places.
16 ABAG. Projections 2017.
17 ABAG. Bay Area Census data are derived from US Census data specific to the Bay Area.
18 ABAG. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2022.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 24-11
Chapter 24
PLANNING FOR AN AGING POPULATION
The number of adults age 50 and older in Contra Costa County is projected to increase
approximately 45% by 2040, growing from 339,438 in 2010 to 493,300, representing 36.9% of
the total population in Contra Costa County, up from 32.3% in 2010.19
The Kensington CSD does not provide programs for adults age 50 and older.
ANTICIPATED GROWTH PATTERNS
PDAs help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. No PDAs have been identified for
the Kensington CSD in Plan Bay Area or the County General Plan.
Priority Conservation Areas, which are areas of regionally significant open space facing
development pressure, also help form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The
Kensington CSD has not identified any Priority Conservation Areas in Plan Bay Area or the County’s
General Plan.
The Kensington CSD did not report that current or projected growth patterns will expand beyond its
existing service area boundary and SOI.
24.4.2 BOUNDARIES, ISLANDS, AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The Kensington CSD’s service boundary and SOI are coterminous (see Figure 24.1).
The CSD did not report whether it requests any changes to its SOI or whether it provides services to
any areas outside its service area boundary or SOI.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows cities and counties to address infrastructure
deficiencies related to municipal services—specifically, water, sewer, and structural fire
protection—that are known to exist in some disadvantaged communities. Although water, sewer,
and structural fire protection are not services considered in this MSR Update, an effort was made to
identify any disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to cities in Contra Costa County.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the Kensington CSD
and therefore, no disadvantaged communities are relevant to this analysis.
19 ABAG. Projections 2013. https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.
Contra Costa LAFCO
24-12 Municipal Service Review Update
Kensington CSD
24.4.3 CSD SERVICES MSR DETERMINATIONS
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICE,
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The present and planned capacity of public facilities and services is linked to an
agency’s ability to plan for future needs, including infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer,
fire, broadband, etc.). The term “infrastructure needs and deficiencies” refers to the
status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality of
levels of service that can or need to be provided. In making a determination on
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, LAFCO may consider ways in which the agency
has the ability and capacity to provide service. LAFCO shall consider service and
infrastructure needs related to sewer, water, and fire protection within a
disadvantaged community as defined by LAFCO.
The Kensington CSD appears to adequately serve all areas within its service area and SOI and is
likely to continue to do so in the foreseeable future based on available information.
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the CSD’s SOI.
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE-LEVEL NEEDS
When accounting for the projected growth and population increases over the next five years, as
well as the available information related to its provision of services, obstacles to maintaining
existing service levels or meeting infrastructure needs are not anticipated for the CSD. The CSD
notes that its population and demand for services have remained relatively stable as the Kensington
area is built-out.
CONSISTENCY WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) sets priorities for building infrastructure such as parks,
sewer/storm drain improvements, pedestrian/bicycle network, traffic/street improvements,
affordable housing, and community facilities.
The CSD has developed a master plan for public facilities and for Kensington Park. Plans to
renovate the Community Center have been presented to the public. The CSD did not report on the
sufficiency of its CIP to maintain and expand facilities and infrastructure consistent with projected
needs.
The net value of Governmental Fund depreciable capital assets declined from FY 2015 through FY
2017, indicating that capital investments generally were not keeping pace with asset depreciation.
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
The CSD is planning for continued growth, which is expected to be accommodated by way of
regional plans such as Plan Bay Area and local plans such as the County’s General Plan.
The County’s 2015–2023 Housing Element has been found by the California Housing and
Community Development Department to comply with State housing element law by adequately
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 24-13
Chapter 24
planning to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the
community.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
If service providers develop strategies for sharing resources, public service costs
may be reduced and service efficiencies increased. In making a determination on
opportunities for shared facilities, LAFCO may consider if an agency’s facilities are
currently being utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies.
The sharing of municipal services and facilities involves centralizing functions and facilities.
Municipalities will collaborate through joint-use and shared services agreements for the joint
provision of public services and joint use of public facilities as a way to save resources.
CURRENT SHARED SERVICES
The CSD provides law enforcement, parks and recreation, and solid waste services. All other
services for the CSD—including those related to animal control, broadband, building/planning,
library, lighting, stormwater, streets, and utilities—are provided through Contra Costa County,
public vendors, or private vendors. The CSD also has a dispatch agreement with the City of Albany
in Alameda County.
Kensington CSD has a lease agreement with the Kensington Fire Protection District to house its
police department and administration. The CSD does not share other facilities or services. Based on
available information, no areas of overlapping responsibilities or opportunities to share services or
facilities were identified as a part of this review.
DUPLICATION OF EXISTING OR PLANNED FACILITIES
This review did not identify any duplication of existing or planned facilities based on the
information available.
AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS CAPACITY
Based on available information, no excess service or facility capacity was identified as part of this
review. The CSD is currently investigating whether contracting with another agency for police
services may be beneficial.
Contra Costa LAFCO
24-14 Municipal Service Review Update
Kensington CSD
24.4.4 FINANCIAL DETERMINATIONS
LAFCOs must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources
available to fund the services. In making a determination on the financial ability of
an agency to provide services, LAFCO may review such factors as an agency’s
potential for shared financing and/or joint funding applications, cost avoidance
opportunities, rate structures, and other fiscal constraints and opportunities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
Overall, the Kensington CSD appears to have sufficient financial resources to continue providing
services and to accommodate infrastructure expansion, improvements, or replacement over the
next five years.
OPERATING GENERAL FUND AND RESERVES TRENDS
The Kensington CSD has been operating with a surplus in their General Fund.
The CSD’s reserve goal is unknown, and therefore it is unknown whether they meet their goal. The
FY 2019 projected ending cash balance of $2.5 million represents about 78% of expenditures.
LIQUIDITY, DEBT, AND PENSION LIABILITIES
The liquidity ratio indicates whether a city has the means available to cover its existing obligations
in the short run. The CSD reported a liquidity ratio of 9.3, which indicates the CSD has the means
available to cover its existing obligations in the short run.
Total debt was approximately $111 per capita for FY 2017 and has been declining.
The CSD's unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow; however, the CSD has not
identified measures to address the increasing pension liabilities. The District does contribute to an
OPEB trust to fund future obligations. As with other agencies in Contra Costa County, rising
pension costs are expected to continue to reduce funding for other priorities.
TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
The CSD did not issue its Audited Financial Report in a timely manner (within 6 months of fiscal
year end). The Financial Report was audited by an independent CPA and received a clean opinion.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 24-15
Chapter 24
24.4.5 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES
The service review may include options to provide more logical service boundaries
to the benefit of customers and regional planning goals and objectives. In making a
determination on government structure, LAFCO may consider possible
consolidations, mergers and/or reorganizations. The service review may also
consider the agency’s management efficiencies in terms of operations and practices
in relation to the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CSD GOVERNANCE INFORMATION
The Kensington CSD website provides public access to the agendas and minutes for the CSD Board
meetings and its various committees and commissions; the CSD’s current budget; and the CSD’s
annual audit report. The CSD therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to
governance and municipal operations.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF CSD PLANNING INFORMATION
The Kensington CSD website provides public access to the CSD’s governance, including meetings,
reports, and policies. Building and planning services are provided by Contra Costa County, whose
website includes information on its general plan as well as various development plans and projects.
The CSD therefore adequately provides accountability with regard to planning.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Kensington CSD website provides public access to public hearing notices, including the time
and place at which CSD residents may provide input, as well as other opportunities for public
involvement in the CSD decision-making process. The CSD therefore adequately provides
accountability with regard to citizen participation.
24.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND DETERMINATIONS
24.5.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION
The SOI for the Kensington CSD is coterminous with the service area boundary, as shown in Figure
24.1.
This report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing SOI for the
Kensington CSD.
24.5.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE KENSINGTON CSD
Government Code §56425(e) requires Contra Costa LAFCO to prepare a written statement of
determination for each of the factors below. These determinations are made as part of the review of
the existing SOI and are based on the information in this Kensington CSD MSR profile.
Contra Costa LAFCO
24-16 Municipal Service Review Update
Kensington CSD
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
LANDS)
Contra Costa County, of which the Kensington CSD is a part, plans for a variety of urban uses
within its boundary, representing a continuation of the current mix of uses. Present and planned
land uses are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth, maintaining compatibility
with open space uses, as demonstrated in the General Plan.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are no anticipated changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the
SOI for the Kensington CSD. The level of demand for these services and facilities, however, will
increase commensurate with anticipated population growth over the next five years.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The present capacity of public facilities in the Kensington CSD appears adequate. The CSD is likely
to continue to have adequate capacity during the next five years.
EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
Contra Costa LAFCO has not identified specific social or economic communities of interest relevant
to the Kensington CSD.
PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SEWER, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER,
OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI for the Kensington CSD
and therefore no present or probable need for the CSD to provide structural fire protection, sewer,
or water facilities and services to any disadvantaged communities.
NATURE, LOCATION, EXTENT, FUNCTIONS, AND CLASSES OF SERVICES TO BE
PROVIDED
The KPPCSD service boundary encompasses approximately 1.2+ square miles. The District is
authorized to provide law enforcement, parks and recreation, and solid waste collection services.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 24-17
This page intentionally left blank.
C 25
HAPTER
A , G ,
CRONYMS LOSSARY AND
B
IBLIOGRAPHY
25.1 ACRONYMS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AOSPP Agricultural and Open Space Policy
CAFR comprehensive annual financial report
CalPERS California Public Employees' Retirement System
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CKH Act Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District
FTE full-time equivalent
FY fiscal year
GASB Governmental Accounting Standards Board
GHG greenhouse gas
JPA Joint Powers Authority
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
Mbps megabits per second
MSR municipal service review
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 25-1
Chapter 25
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OPEB other post-employment benefits
PCA priority conservation area
PCI pavement condition index
PDA priority development area
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
RHNA regional housing need allocation
SOI Sphere of Influence
Contra Costa LAFCO
25-2 Municipal Service Review Update
Acronyms and Terms, Bibliography
25.2 GLOSSARY
Affordable housing: An affordable unit is one which a household at the defined income threshold
can rent without paying more than 30% of its income on housing and utility costs. A unit is
affordable and available if that unit is both affordable and vacant, or is currently occupied by a
household at or below the defined income threshold.
Annexation: The inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or district.
Assigned fund balance: The amounts constrained by the City’s intent to be used for a specific
purpose, but are neither restricted nor committed.
Capital Improvement Plan: A multi-year financial plan containing appropriations for major
construction projects and other fixed assets.
Charter city: Organizational form of certain California cities. Areas in which a charter city has
greater control over its own affairs than a general law city include, for example, the conduct of
municipal elections, procedures for initiatives, referendum and recall, procedures for adopting
ordinances, bidding by public works contracts, making charitable gifts, organizational structure of
city government, and regulations and government of the police force.
Class 1 bike lane: Provides a right-of-way completely separated from streets for the exclusive use of
bicycles and pedestrians with a limited number of cross streets and driveways. These paths are
often called mixed-use paths.
Class 2 bike lane: Provides striped lanes for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
Deficit: An excess of expenditures over revenues.
Direct debt: The total amount of general obligation debt of a municipality or local government.
Disadvantaged community: A disadvantaged community includes Census Tracts, Block Groups,
and Places where the median household income is less than 80% of the statewide median
household income. According to U.S. Census data, the statewide median household income is
$63,783; 80% of that amount is $51,026.
Disposal: Management of solid waste through landfilling, incineration, or other means at permitted
solid waste facilities.
Diversion: The total quantity of solid waste, generated within the jurisdiction (State agency or large
State facility), that is diverted from permitted solid waste transformation and disposal facilities,
through existing source reduction, recycling, and composting programs.
Diversion rate: The amount of materials recycled as a percentage of the solid waste stream.
Expenditure: The use of fund resources.
Fiscal year: The 12-month period of time to which a budget applies.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 25-3
Chapter 25
Fund: A group of related accounts used to manage resources assigned for specific activities or
objectives.
General fund: The main operating fund of the city.
General law city: Standard organizational form for California cities. While a general law city may
make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations
not in conflict with general law, it is subject to constraints imposed by the general law, even those
which are applicable to municipal affairs.
General Plan: A local government’s long-term blueprint for the community’s vision of future
growth.
Infrastructure needs and deficiencies: The term, “infrastructure” is defined as public services and
facilities, such as sewage-disposal systems, water-supply systems, other utility systems, and roads
(General Plan Guidelines). Any area needing or planned for service must have the infrastructure
necessary to support the provision of those services. The term, “infrastructure needs and
deficiencies,” refer to the status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the
quality and levels of service that can or need to be provided.
Intergovernmental tax revenue: Transfers of funds from one level of government to another. This
may be to fund general government operations or for specific purposes.
Joint Powers Authority: A joint powers agency or joint powers authority is a new, separate
government organization created by the member agencies, but is legally independent from them. A
JPA is generally formed by any two or more governmental entities (federal, state, or local) to
provide a common service. Many are financing tools that let government agencies pool their scarce
resources. Some run programs jointly. Councils of government are JPAs.
Liquidity ratio: Calculated by combining cash and short-term investments, then dividing by current
liabilities. This ratio measures the short-term financial strength or liquidity position of the city. The
higher the ratio, the greater the degree of liquidity.
Long-term: Within 15 years or longer.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission: The transportation planning, financing, and
coordinating agency for the nine counties that touch San Francisco Bay.
Municipal services: The full range of services that a public agency provides, or is authorized to
provide, except general county government functions such as courts, special services and tax
collection. Municipal service reviews are triggered by requirements to create or update SOIs for
public agencies. Therefore, a LAFCO will review services that are provided by public agencies that
have, or are required to have, SOIs with review and consideration of the operations of other
providers that service the same region.
Municipal Service Review: A study and evaluation of municipal service(s) by specific area, sub-
region or region culminating in written determinations regarding nine specific evaluation
categories. An MSR study is prepared before a LAFCO revises an SOI for cities and special districts.
Contra Costa LAFCO
25-4 Municipal Service Review Update
Acronyms and Terms, Bibliography
Net position: The excess of all the City’s assets over all its liabilities, regardless of fund.
Open space: Any parcel or area of land or water, which is substantially unimproved and devoted to
an open-space use.
Priority Conservation Area: Open space that provides agricultural, natural resource, scenic,
recreational, and/or ecological values and ecosystem functions. A Priority Conservation Area is
identified through consensus by local jurisdictions and park/open space districts as land in need of
protection due to pressure from urban development or other factors, and is categorized by four
designations: Natural Landscapes, Agricultural Lands, Urban Greening and Regional Recreation.
Priority Development Area: A place, or infill development opportunity area, identified by Bay Area
communities as an area for investment, new homes and job growth. Priority Development Areas
are typically within walking distance of frequent transit service, and can accommodate a variety of
housing options and amenities.
Quimby Act: California law originally proposed by former Assemblyman John P. Quimby
(Government Code §66477) authorizing cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring that new
development set aside park land (from 3 to 5 acres per 1,000 new population), donate conservation
easements, or pay fees in lieu of dedication of park land.
Recycling: Under Assembly Bill 341, recycling includes source reduction, composting, and
recycling.
Reserve: (1) For governmental type funds, an account used to earmark a portion of fund balance,
which is legally or contractually restricted for a specific use or not appropriable for expenditure. (2)
For proprietary type/enterprise funds, the portion of retained earnings set aside for specific
purposes. Unnecessary reserves are those set aside for purposes that are not well defined or
adopted or retained earnings that are not reasonably proportional to annual gross revenues.
Short-term: One year or less.
Sphere of Influence: is a plan that designates an agency’s probable future boundary and service
area. SOIs are intended to encourage efficient provision of organized community services and
prevent duplication of service delivery. Annexation of a territory to a city or district cannot occur
unless the territory is within that agency's SOI.
Unassigned general fund: Represents residual amounts that have not been restricted, committed, or
assigned. The unassigned general fund balance serves as a useful measure of a government’s net
resources available for discretionary use at the end of the fiscal year.
Unqualified opinion: An unqualified opinion is also known as a clean opinion. The auditor reports
an unqualified opinion if the financial statements are presumed to be free from material
misstatements.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 25-5
Chapter 25
25.3 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antioch, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, November 2003.
_________. Housing Element, April 2015.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Bay Area Census 2010. Website accessed at:
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/cities.htm
_________. Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area: 2014–2022. July 2013.
ABAG and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Plan Bay Area Regional Transportation
Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the San Francisco Bay Area 2013–2040. 2013.
_________. Plan Bay Area. Forecast of Jobs, Population, and Housing. 2013.
_________. Plan Bay Area. Housing Growth by Jurisdiction and PDA/Investment Area. 2013.
Brentwood, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, July 2014.
_________. Housing Element, April 2015.
California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State —
January 1, 2018. Website accessed at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
California State Library, Library Statistics. http://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/statistics/
Clayton, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, 1985, as amended February 2007.
_________. Housing Element, November 2014
Concord, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, October 2007, as amended 2012.
_________. Housing Element, November 2014.
Danville, Town of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, March 2013.
_________. Housing Element, April 2015.
East Bay Broadband Consortium, East Bay Broadband Report Card.
www.bit.ly/broadbandreportcard.
East Bay Economic Development Alliance. Regional Intelligence Report, November 2016.
_________. East Bay Economic Outlook: 2016-2017. 2016.
El Cerrito, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, August 1999.
_________. Housing Element, April 2015.
Government Finance Officers Association. Fund Balance Guidelines for the General Fund. Website
accessed at: http://www.gfoa.org/fund-balance-guidelines-general-fund.
Hercules, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, September 1998.
_________. Housing Element, April 2015.
Contra Costa LAFCO
25-6 Municipal Service Review Update
Acronyms and Terms, Bibliography
Lafayette, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, October 2002.
_________. Housing Element, March 2015.
Martinez, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, 2016.
_________. Housing Element, May 2015.
MTC. MTC Vital Signs: Street Pavement Condition. Website accessed at:
http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition.
MTC and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Land Use Modeling Report. July 2017
Moraga, Town of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, June 2002.
_________. Housing Element, January 2015.
National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. April 2016.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
Oakley, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, December 2002, as amended February 2016.
_________. Housing Element, January 2015.
Orinda, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, May 1987.
_________. Housing Element, April 2015.
Pinole, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, October 2010.
_________. Housing Element, May 2015.
Pittsburg, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, November 2001.
_________. Housing Element, May 2015.
Pleasant Hill, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, July 2003.
_________. Housing Element, April 2015.
Reese, Nick. Internet Access in California: Stats & Figures. Broadband Now. Last modified
November 30, 2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://broadbandnow.com/California.
Richmond, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, April 2012.
_________. Housing Element, May 2015.
San Pablo, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, April 2014.
_________. Housing Element, April 2015
San Ramon, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, April 2015.
_________. Housing Element, April 2015.
Contra Costa LAFCO
Municipal Service Review Update 25-7
Chapter 25
Walnut Creek, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017.
_________. General Plan, April 2006.
_________. Housing Element, September 2014.
Contra Costa LAFCO
25-8 Municipal Service Review Update
A A
TTACHMENT
A O S P
GRICULTURE AND PEN PACE OLICIES
This page intentionally left blank.
COMPILATION OF GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES AND
OPEN SPACE FOR CITIES IN CONTRACT COSTA COUNTY
CITY OF BRENTWOOD GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS
Relevant Land Use categories in the General Plan include:
• Public Facility (PF)
• Semi Public Facility (SPF)
• Parks (P)
• Schools (SCH)
• Community College (CC)
• Permanent Open Space (POS)
• Agricultural Conservation (AC)
• Urban Reserve (UR)
General Plan policies related to agriculture and open space are contained in Section 4 of the City’s General
Plan, Conservation and Open Space (COS) element. The opening paragraph of the COS Element reflects the
City’s view that conservation and open space are assets of high value that need to be protected but balanced
against the City’s readiness to accommodate growth:
Natural resources, including open space lands, agricultural lands, waterways, hillsides, scenic
views, wildlife habitat, and historical resources form an important part of Brentwood’s unique
character and represent some of its greatest assets. The Conservation and Open Space
Element provides the framework to protect, maintain, and enhance Brentwood’s natural
resources. The Conservation and Open Space Element balances the overall vision of the
General Plan for preserving Brentwood’s high living standards, agricultural heritage, and
natural resources while simultaneously providing for economic development and balanced
growth.
Examples of Goals and Policies set forth in the COS Element are:
• Goal COS 1: Ensure the provision and preservation of diverse and accessible open spaces throughout
the Brentwood Planning Area
Policy COS 1-1: General Plan land use designations that include agriculture, permanent open
o
space, parks, and similar uses, as well as waterways (i.e., Marsh Creek, Dry Creek, Deer Creek,
and Sand Creek), shall be considered open space.
Policy COS 1-2: Preserve open space for conservation, recreation, and agricultural uses.
o
Policy COS 1-3: Conversion of open space, as defined under Policy COS 1-1, to developed
o
residential, commercial, industrial, or other similar types of uses, shall be strongly discouraged.
Undeveloped land that is designated for urban uses may be developed if needed to support
economic development, and if the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Map.
Goals and Policies specific to agricultural lands are:
• Goal COS 2: Preserve designated agricultural lands in Brentwood’s Planning Area
Policy COS 2-1: Support and encourage the preservation of agricultural lands throughout
o
Brentwood’s Planning Area, particularly in areas to the south and east of the city limits.
Policy COS 2-2: Maintain permanent agricultural lands surrounding the city limits to serve as
o
community separators and continue the agricultural heritage of Brentwood.
Policy COS 2-3: Encourage and support programs that create or establish permanent
o
agricultural areas in Brentwood’s Planning Area.
Policy COS 2-4: Participate in regional planning efforts with agencies and organizations such
o
as Contra Costa County, land trusts, and other regional partners to establish and maintain
permanent agricultural areas to the south and east of Brentwood.
Policy COS 2-5: Work with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on issues of
o
mutual concern including the conservation of agricultural land through consistent use of
LAFCO policies, particularly those related to conversion of agricultural lands and
establishment of adequate buffers between agricultural and non-agricultural uses, and the
designation of a reasonable and logical Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary for the City.
Policy COS 2-6: Minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses.
o
The City’s General Plan also addresses agricultural lands in the Land Use element. Following are
representative Goals and Policies from the Land Use element:
• Goal LU 5: Preserve Brentwood’s agricultural heritage by protecting and maintaining significant
areas of agricultural lands around the city.
Policy LU 5-1: Maintain significant areas of permanent agricultural lands and open space
o
surrounding the city limits.
Policy LU 5-2: Protect agricultural land from urban development except where the General
o
Plan Land Use Map has designated the land for urban uses.
CITY OF CLAYTON GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS
Section VI Conservation/Open Space Element
• Goal: To maintain a system of active open space along stream channels and passive open space
within hillsides as a means to preserve the rural character of the community.
Objective 1: To promote the City’s greenbelts as the basis of its open space system.
o
Objective 2: To develop neighborhood parks within the greenbelt system adjacent to other
o
community facilities.
Objective 3: To establish an open space conservation designations to preserve natural
o
resources, to manage resources, to provide for outdoor recreation, to promote health and
safety and to ensure orderly growth.
General Plan Open Space Designations
The City of Clayton seeks to preserve open space and provide recreational opportunities to Clayton
residents within the City limits. Four designations have been created to fulfill these goals: Private Open
Space, Public Park/Open Space, Quarry and Agriculture.
1. Private Open Space (PR)
2. Public Park/Open Space/Open Space and Recreational (PU)
a. Regional Parks
b. Greenbelts
c. Community Park
d. Neighborhood Park
3. Quarry
4. Agriculture (AG)
Many land owners in the Clayton planning area have entered into the Williamson Act contract with
Contra Costa County. The contracts are self-perpetuating 10-year agreements that preclude non-
agricultural development. Use of these County designations will reinforce the Preserve Designation
used by the County and promote a conservation context to future development analysis on these
sites. Acres to the northeast and east of the City limits include rugged terrain that is primarily used
as rangeland for livestock and other similar open uses. The City supports and encourages the
continuation of agriculture in these areas. Given the low intensity of agricultural activities, the City
encourages large lot zoning of at least 20 to 40 acres to ensure agriculturally viable sized lots.
The purpose of the Agriculture designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of and
generally used for the production of food, fiber and plant materials. The title is intended to be
descriptive of the predominant land extensive agricultural uses that take place in these areas, but
the land use title or description shall not be used to exclude or limit other types of agricultural,
open space or non-urban uses.
CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS
The General Plan includes a land use category for Open Space (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) but no
category specifically related to agriculture or agricultural preservation. A new category – CRP (Concord
Reuse Project) is used to designate the former Concord Naval Weapons Station and the designated land
uses etc. that the City is intending to adopt for that area. A large part of the CRP area is Conservation
Open Space, applied to the south and west-facing slopes of the hills that separate Concord from Pittsburg.
There is no agricultural land or land uses in Concord although the vast amount of Open Space land (mostly
outside of City limits, in the City’s Planning Area - Los Medanos Hills and Mt. Diablo foothills) is available
for low intensity grazing. These open space lands account for about 1/3rd of the land area in the City’s
Planning Area.
Specifically:
the Open Space (OS) land use designation is intended for large areas that are necessary for natural
resource protection, the managed production of natural resources, the provision of natural
resources, outdoor recreation (including trails), scenic value, and the assurance of public health
and safety. This designation includes private recreation facilities and larger privately-owned areas
dedicated as permanent open space within residential subdivisions.
Another land use category - Rural Conservation (RCON) is intended to provide for protection of rural
hillside areas. Single family residential development of up to 1 unit per 20 developable net acres would be
allowed, with clustering encouraged to minimize impacts on views of the area.
The General Plan Parks, Open Space and Conservation (POS) element addresses issues related to open
space:
6.3 OPEN SPACE Concord’s setting—within a valley surrounded by gently sloping foothills and
laced with creeks—includes natural resources that are important, not only for aesthetic value, but
also for environmental quality, habitat protection, and water resources. In addition, preserving the
general configuration of the hills, creeks, and natural topographic features fosters a sense of place
for the community, and this affords current and future residents an understanding of the City’s
natural setting and native topography.
Classification of Open Space
• Open space for the preservation of natural resources including, but not limited to, areas
required for the preservation of plant and animal life, such as: habitat for fish and wildlife
species; areas required for ecologic and other scientific study purposes; rivers, streams, bays
and estuaries; coastal beaches, lakeshores, banks of rivers and streams; and watershed lands.
• Open space for outdoor recreation including, but not limited to, areas of outstanding scenic,
historic and cultural value; areas particularly suited for park and recreation purposes, such as
access to lakeshores, beaches, rivers and streams; and areas that serve as links between major
recreation and open space reservations, including utility easements, banks of rivers and
streams, trails, and scenic highway corridors.
• Open space for public health and safety including, but not limited to, areas that require special
management or regulation due to hazardous or special conditions. This type of open space
might include: earthquake fault zones, unstable soil areas, floodplains, watersheds, areas
presenting high fire risks, areas required for the protection of water quality and water
reservoirs, and areas required for the protection and enhancement of air quality.
• Open space used for the managed production of resources including, but not limited to, forest
lands, rangeland, agricultural lands and areas of economic importance for the production of
food or fiber; areas required for recharge of ground water basins; bays, estuaries, marshes,
rivers and Concord 2030 General Plan 6-12 streams that are important for the management of
commercial fisheries; and areas containing major mineral deposits.
CITY OF MARTINEZ GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS
One of the few areas in Martinez where agriculture and open space issues arise is the Alhambra Valley
located in the southwestern corner of the City. The Alhambra Valley Specific Plan is part of the City’s
General Plan and sets forth land use policies and regulations for that area. Excerpts from the City’s draft
General Plan Update describe the different land use categories that are applied to parts of the AV area:
Alhambra Valley Estate Residential – Very Low Density (AV/ER-VL): The primary land use envisioned
in this designation on is detached single-family homes on lots typically one acre or larger, with the keeping
of a limited number of livestock, consistent with a rural or semi-rural lifestyle.
Alhambra Valley Estate Residential -Low Density (AV/ER-L) The primary land use envisioned in this
designation is detached single-family on lots typically one-half acre or larger.
Alhambra Valley Agricultural Lands (AV/AL) This land use designation applies to privately owned rural
lands, generally in hilly areas that are used for grazing livestock or dry grain farming. The primary purposes
of the Agricultural Lands designation is to:
a) preserve and protect lands capable of and generally used for the production of food, fiber and plant
materials; and
b) provide opportunities for rural residential single family homes.
Open Space Preservation (OS/P).
This designation is for public and private lands preserved as a scenic or environmental resource, either by
public or common interest ownership, or through dedication of scenic open space or other easements or
through conditions of development approval or previous designation and zoning action. While alteration of
such properties for active recreation is typically not envisioned, naturalistic and agricultural plantings, and
trails, may be possible if consistent with the intent of preserving the intended scenic resource and as may
be permitted by any easements.
Alhambra Valley Open Space (AV/OS)
This designation applies to publicly owned open space lands and includes areas of significant ecological
resources or geologic hazards that are unique to the Alhambra Valley community.
The Alhambra Valley Open Space designation also includes privately owned properties for which
development rights have been deeded to a public or private agency or which have been previously
designated as open space. Examples are the steep, unbuildable portions of approved subdivisions which
may be deeded to agencies such as the East Bay Regional Park District but which have not been developed
as park facilities.
Agricultural Lands Land Use Designation - Agricultural Lands (AG)
The Agricultural Lands designation is specific to areas currently used for agricultural production
(specifically the Viano Vineyards). While similar to the Open Space categories in that Agricultural Lands
have scenic value, structures for agricultural production and residential use are permitted and integral to
the desirable preservation of viable agricultural uses.
• Goal LU-G-7: Encourage the preservation of existing agricultural businesses and minimize and
resolve conflicts between agricultural and urban uses within and adjacent to the Alhambra Valley
semi-rural residential community.
Policy LU-P-7.1: Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the semi-rural atmosphere and to
o
retain a balance of land uses in Alhambra Valley.
TOWN OF MORAGA GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS
The Town’s most recent General Plan was adopted June 2002. Provisions relevant to agriculture and open
space are excerpted below.
• Land Use Goal LU 5 Agriculture: Promotion and preservation of Moraga’s remaining agricultural
resources as an important part of the Town’s heritage and character.
Policy LU5.1 Agricultural Uses and Activities: Allow agricultural and horticultural uses and
o
activities on lands within the Town so long as they are low intensity and compatible with
adjacent uses. Examples include small orchards and cattle grazing.
Implementing Programs: IP-B1 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances LU5.2 Preservation of
Agricultural Resources. Strive to preserve the Town’s remaining agricultural resources, such as pear and
walnut orchards.
Section 7 of the General Plan is entitled Open Space and Conservation. Relevant excerpts follow.
• Goal OS-1 Open Space Preservation: Preserve as much open space land as possible,
including protection of all major and minor ridgelines and lands that help meet residents’
recreational needs.
Policy OS 1.1 Open Space Preservation: Preserve open space to the maximum extent
o
possible, using tools such as acquisition, lease, dedication, easements, donations regulation or
tax incentive programs.
Policy OS 1.2 Major Ridgelines.
o
Policy OS 1.3 Development Densities. (Maximum allowed is 1 DU per 20 acres)
o
CITY OF OAKLEY GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS
Oakley’s General Plan includes two categories of agricultural lands:
AL - Agriculture Limited (allowing light intensity agricultural operations - vineyards, orchards, row crops
animal husbandry)
AG – Agriculture - applies to areas historically engaged in more intense ag operations with either active
cultivation of crops or some other type of use that is substantially agricultural in nature.
In both cases residential development is allowed at low densities.
The General Plan reflects how the City values agricultural resources:
[A]griculture is a fundamental component of the community’s character. Historically, agriculture
has been the primary economic activity in and around Oakley. At this time, the community is
transitioning to a more urban setting and large-scale agriculture is becoming a less prevalent use
throughout Oakley. However, the agricultural heritage of Oakley remains strong and is evident in
the numerous remaining orchards and vineyards in town, as well as the strong equestrian interest
of Oakley residents. As new development occurs, the City will seek to protect the varied remaining
agricultural activities of Oakley and to maintain the cultural connection to the community’s
agricultural heritage through design standards, development project reviews, construction of
community entry monuments and the design of public facilities serving Oakley residents.
CITY OF PITTSBURG GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS
Pittsburg’s General Plan includes land use categories for Open Space but not for agriculture; the City’s
zoning ordinance and map includes Open Space (OS) zoning, but no agriculture zoning. The City has
numerous goals and policies related to open space [Chapter 8 of the General Plan (Open Space, Youth &
Recreation) and Chapter 9 (Natural Resources)].
In Chapter 8, the General Plan describes two types of Open Space: Regional Preserves (e.g., Black
Diamond Regional Preserve, managed by East Bay Regional Park District) and Open Space which applies
to “privately owned, undeveloped land . . . typically consisting of steep, unstable hillside areas and large
tracts of open land beyond the proposed limits of urban growth.”
Section 8.3, Trails and Open Space, includes a brief description of the importance of open space:
Vacant, rolling hills in the southern portion of the Planning Area are used intermittently for
livestock grazing. The preservation of local hillsides as open space areas is important for several
reasons: marginal agricultural value resulting from grazing activities; undisturbed grasslands
habitat; preservation of ridgeline views from developed areas within the City; and quality-of-life
value due to open space acreage accessible to local residents.
Relevant Goals and Policies in Section 8 include:
GOALS: TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
• 8-G-3. Promote a local trail and linear park system to provide access to regional open space areas, as
well as connections between neighborhoods.
• 8-G-4. Support and promote the active use of regional open space areas, such as Black Diamond
Mines Regional Preserve, by local residents.
Policies:
8-P-21. Encourage new residential development in hillside areas to develop public trails and/or
o
trailheads providing connections to other regional and local open spaces.
8-P-22. Preserve land under Williamson Act contract in agriculture, consistent with State law,
o
until urban services are available and expansion of development would occur in an orderly and
contiguous fashion.
Section 9 of the General Plan, Natural Resources, begins with a description of Open Space:
The Planning Area contains a significant amount of open space, which is valuable as both a visual
resource and as habitat for oak woodlands, wetlands and riparian wildlife. Intermittent streams and
uninhabited areas also contribute to air and water quality in the hills and tidelands…
Relevant Goals and Policies include:
GOALS: Biological Resources and Habitat
• 9-G-1. Protect conservation areas, particularly habitats that support special status species, including
species that are State or Federally listed as endangered, threatened, or rare.
• 9-G-2. Guide development in such a way that preserves significant ecological resources.
POLICIES:
9-P-1. Ensure that development does not substantially affect special status species, as required
o
by State and federal agencies. Conduct assessments of biological resources as required by
CEQA prior to approval of development within habitat areas of identified special status species.
Section 9 also addresses concerns related to drainage and erosion, water quality, air quality, and historical
and cultural resources.
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS
Walnut Creek has two designations relevant to this issue: Open Space – Agriculture (OS/A) and Open
Space – Recreation (OS/R).
OS/A: The City’s General Plan describes OS/A as: “Open Space/Agriculture, OS/A, 0.1 du/ac.” The
designation is applied to areas currently undeveloped or used for grazing, equestrian, or agricultural
pursuits. The intent is to maintain open space/agricultural character. The allowable density of 0.1 units per
net acre translates to a population of one person per 4 acres. This policy was adopted in 1991 under
Measure P Ordinance 1781.
OS/R: The General Plan description of this category is “Open Space/Recreation (OS/R), not to exceed 0.1
du/ac or an FAR of 0.1, density to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Designates existing publicly
owned open space, parks, and golf courses. Includes some County-owned land designated for open space
use.”
With a few exceptions, these designations apply to all City-owned parks and open space areas.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance includes an O-S-R, Open Space/Recreation Zoning District that applies to
all of the areas designated as OS/R by the General Plan (parks and most of the open space areas), and an
H-P-D, Hillside Planned Development Zoning District which applies to all of the areas designated as
OS/A by the General Plan (these are all City-owned open space areas; the H-P-D name is a bit of a
misnomer that is a relic of a voter initiative that cannot be changed without an election).
This page intentionally left blank.
A B
TTACHMENT
S L S
ERVICE EVEL TATISTICS
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF ANTIOCH MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 43.5
Animals handled at shelter per year 3,632
Calls for service 1,587
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 2,424
Commercial Building Permits Issued 184
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 607
Property crimes 3,838
Violent crime clearance rate 45%
Property crime clearance rate 11%
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 0.9
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 43.16
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 5.31
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 33.6
Residential population per station *1 station serves all of
Antioch
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 87
Maintained traffic lights 3,122
Maintained street lights 5,441
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 2.9
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 0.895
Miles of recreation trails 24.9
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not calculated
Tons of waste disposed per capita 63,482
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 3.1
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 12%
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 283
Miles of open channel storm drain 67.5
Storm drain inlets 7,015
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities 0
Stormwater detention basins 10
Provision for stormwater reclamation not available
Streets
Street Miles 310
FY Pavement condition index 68
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 0
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 2,669
Commercial Building Permits Issued 71
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 597
Property crimes 1,489
Violent crime clearance rate 69%
Property crime clearance rate 16%
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 32.6
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 9.8
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 24.4
Residential population per station 61,055
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 76
Maintained traffic lights 71
Maintained street lights 6,693
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 4.23
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 0.65
Miles of recreation trails 19.52
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate 70%
Tons of waste disposed per capita 39,028
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 3.5
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 1.03%
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 257.56
Miles of open channel storm drain 0.21
Storm drain inlets 2,000
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities 0
Stormwater detention basins 7
Provision for stormwater reclamation No
Streets
Street Miles 192
FY Pavement condition index 83
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) not available
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF CLAYTON MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 115
Commercial Building Permits Issued 4
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 26
Property crimes 113
Violent crime clearance rate 42%
Property crime clearance rate 8%
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 12.63
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 2.36
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 10.27
Residential population per station 11,431
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 12
Maintained traffic lights unknown
Maintained street lights 1,353
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 1.2
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 0.61.75
Miles of recreation trails 19.5227
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not available
Tons of waste disposed per capita 0.55
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 3.0
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 0.04
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 50
Miles of open channel storm drain 25
Storm drain inlets 650
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities 0
Stormwater detention basins 0
Provision for stormwater reclamation 0
Streets
Street Miles 45
FY Pavement condition index 84
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 10
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF CONCORD MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not reported
System average interruption duration index not reported
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 4,178
Commercial Building Permits Issued 458
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 463
Property crimes 4,419
Violent crime clearance rate 47
Property crime clearance rate 12
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.2
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 31.7
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 3.58
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 34.21
Residential population per station not available
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 150
Maintained traffic lights not reported
Maintained street lights 8,233
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population not reported
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents not reported
Miles of recreation trails not reported
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not reported
Tons of waste disposed per capita not reported
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 4.2
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 7.4
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 240
Miles of open channel storm drain 7
Storm drain inlets ~6,000
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not reported
Stormwater recharge facilities not reported
Stormwater detention basins not reported
Provision for stormwater reclamation not reported
Streets
Street Miles 310
FY Pavement condition index 60
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 28
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
TOWN OF DANVILLE MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 626
Commercial Building Permits Issued 68
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 14
Property crimes 363
Violent crime clearance rate not available
Property crime clearance rate 41
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 0.7
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 8.6
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 0.3
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 8.3
Residential population per station 43,691
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 54
Maintained traffic lights unknown
Maintained street lights 3,483
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 6.6
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 2.25
Miles of recreation trails 6.88
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate 60%
Tons of waste disposed per capita 0.52
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 3.7
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 1.5
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 125
Miles of open channel storm drain 4.5
Storm drain inlets 4,700
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities 0
Stormwater detention basins 3
Provision for stormwater reclamation 0
Streets
Street Miles 157.9
FY Pavement condition index 77
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 21.55
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF EL CERRITO MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 1,188
Commercial Building Permits Issued 116
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 164
Property crimes 1,252
Violent crime clearance rate not tracked
Property crime clearance rate not tracked
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.6
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 30.78
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 152.1
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 19.9
Residential population per station 24,939
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 11
Maintained traffic lights 11
Maintained street lights 1,606
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 6
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 10.83
Miles of recreation trails 3.6
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate 55%
Tons of waste disposed per capita 0.74
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 3.8
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 7.6
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 38.75
Miles of open channel storm drain 3.84
Storm drain inlets 1,205
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available variable
Stormwater recharge facilities not available
Stormwater detention basins 3
Provision for stormwater reclamation 1
Streets
Street Miles 68
FY Pavement condition index 84
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 4
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF HERCULES MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 61
Commercial Building Permits Issued 0
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes not reported
Property crimes not reported
Violent crime clearance rate 7
Property crime clearance rate 45
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 0.917
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 20.25
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Property crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Residential population per station not reported
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections not reported
Maintained traffic lights not reported
Maintained street lights 10 (County
maintains)
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 45.9
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 3
Miles of recreation trails 6
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not reported
Tons of waste disposed per capita not reported
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – not reported
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 80% of high trash
trash capture generation areas
Miles of closed storm drain 40
Miles of open channel storm drain not reported
Storm drain inlets 39
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not reported
Stormwater recharge facilities not reported
Stormwater detention basins not reported
Provision for stormwater reclamation not reported
Streets
Street Miles not reported
FY Pavement condition index 69
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) not reported
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF LAFAYETTE MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 22
Commercial Building Permits Issued 71
Law Enforcement (2016 data)
Violent crimes 24
Property crimes 317
Violent crime clearance rate 37.5
Property crime clearance rate 6.94
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 0.7
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 20.1
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 1.0
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 13.3
Residential population per station 23,893
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 26
Maintained traffic lights 240
Maintained street lights 358
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 3.5
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 1
Miles of recreation trails 9
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not reported
Tons of waste disposed per capita not reported
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – not reported
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 35% downtown
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 57
Miles of open channel storm drain 18
Storm drain inlets 1,686
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities not available
Stormwater detention basins 3
Provision for stormwater reclamation not available
Streets
Street Miles 92
FY Pavement condition index 79
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 21.5
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF MARTINEZ MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 1,635
Commercial Building Permits Issued 73
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 57
Property crimes 619
Violent crime clearance rate 0.54
Property crime clearance rate 0.10
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.0
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 18
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 1.5
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 16.3
Residential population per station 38,097
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 27
Maintained traffic lights 331
Maintained street lights 550
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 6.22
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 5
Miles of recreation trails 3
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate 0.48
Tons of waste disposed per capita 20
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 5.8
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 7.85
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 37
Miles of open channel storm drain 5
Storm drain inlets 1,350
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities 0
Stormwater detention basins 1
Provision for stormwater reclamation none
Streets
Street Miles 122
FY Pavement condition index 51
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) not available
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
TOWN OF MORAGA MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 518
Commercial Building Permits Issued 25
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes not reported
Property crimes not reported
Violent crime clearances (County) 340
Property crime clearance rates (County) 125
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.02
(County)
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) not reported
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Property crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Residential population per station not reported
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections not reported
Maintained traffic lights not reported
Maintained street lights not reported
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 20
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents not reported
Miles of recreation trails not reported
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not reported
Tons of waste disposed per capita not reported
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – not reported
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards not reported
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with not reported
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain not reported
Miles of open channel storm drain not reported
Storm drain inlets not reported
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not reported
Stormwater recharge facilities not reported
Stormwater detention basins not reported
Provision for stormwater reclamation not reported
Streets
Street Miles not reported
FY Pavement condition index 68
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) not reported
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF OAKLEY MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 1,426
Commercial Building Permits Issued 11
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 52
Property crimes 489
Violent crime clearance rate 15%
Property crime clearance rate 7%
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 0.76
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 15.02
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 0.052
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 0.489
Residential population per station 43,000
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 21
Maintained traffic lights not reported
Maintained street lights 1,450
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 235
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 1
(under construction)
Miles of recreation trails 6
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not reported
Tons of waste disposed per capita 19,273
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 2.6
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 3%
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain ~110
Miles of open channel storm drain 0.5
Storm drain inlets 2,610
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities 0
Stormwater detention basins 12
Provision for stormwater reclamation C.3
Streets
Street Miles 136
FY Pavement condition index 77
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 27
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF ORINDA MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 889 (combined with
commercial)
Commercial Building Permits Issued —
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes not reported
Property crimes not reported
Violent crime clearance rate 0.5%
Property crime clearance rate 7.8%
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population not reported
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) not reported
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Property crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Residential population per station not reported
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 19
Maintained traffic lights 17
Maintained street lights not reported
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 7.45
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 1
Miles of recreation trails 12
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not reported
Tons of waste disposed per capita not reported
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – not reported
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards not reported
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 0.4%
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 19
Miles of open channel storm drain not reported
Storm drain inlets not reported
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not reported
Stormwater recharge facilities not reported
Stormwater detention basins not reported
Provision for stormwater reclamation not reported
Streets
Street Miles 92.7
FY Pavement condition index 60
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 1
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF PINOLE MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 261
Commercial Building Permits Issued 5
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes not reported
Property crimes not reported
Violent crime clearance rate not reported
Property crime clearance rate not reported
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.45
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 74.2
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 78.7
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 16.8
Residential population per station not reported
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 29
Maintained traffic lights 21
Maintained street lights 523
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 14
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 3
Miles of recreation trails 3.5
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not reported
Tons of waste disposed per capita 0.68
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 3.7
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 10.3
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 34
Miles of open channel storm drain not reported
Storm drain inlets 1,048
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not reported
Stormwater recharge facilities not reported
Stormwater detention basins not reported
Provision for stormwater reclamation not reported
Streets
Street Miles 51.75
FY Pavement condition index 68
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 1.5
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF PITTSBURG MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 96.1 (2015, County)
Animals handled at shelter per year 10,459 (2015, County)
Calls for service 4,350 (2015, County)
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 150
Commercial Building Permits Issued 90
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 341
Property crimes 1,795
Violent crime clearance rate 42.2
Property crime clearance rate 6.5
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.1
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 37
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 4.9
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 25.9
Residential population per station 69,272
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 62
Maintained traffic lights 620
Maintained street lights 4,286
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 258.12
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 1
Miles of recreation trails 26.37
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not available
Tons of waste disposed per capita 0.99
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 5.5
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 3.5
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 1.5
Miles of open channel storm drain 3
Storm drain inlets 3,676
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities not available
Stormwater detention basins 10
Provision for stormwater reclamation not available
Streets
Street Miles 164
FY Pavement condition index 67
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 44
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS,
FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 1,330
Commercial Building Permits Issued 151
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 71
Property crimes 1,580
Violent crime clearance rate 40
Property crime clearance rate 376
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.3
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 37.5
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 2.2
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 47.8
Residential population per station not available
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 46
Maintained traffic lights 39
Maintained street lights 505
(1,614 maintained by
PG&E)
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population not available
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents not available
Miles of recreation trails not available
Solid Waste
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Solid waste diversion rate not available
Tons of waste disposed per capita not available
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – not available
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 8
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 49
Miles of open channel storm drain 23.3
Storm drain inlets 1,363
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities not available
Stormwater detention basins 1
Provision for stormwater reclamation not reported
Streets
Street Miles 110
FY Pavement condition index 66
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 20.7
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF RICHMOND MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 2,783
Commercial Building Permits Issued 1,513
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 1,633
Property crimes 4,126
Violent crime clearance rate 17.5
Property crime clearance rate 3.2
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.49
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 31.81
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 14.8
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 37.4
Residential population per station 110,378
Library
Items circulated per capita 1.66
Visits per capita not available
Lighting
Signalized intersections not reported
Maintained traffic lights not reported
Maintained street lights 9,000
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 7.1
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 1.68
Miles of recreation trails 35
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate 45%
Tons of waste disposed per capita 0.89
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 3.9
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 4.8
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 165.4
Miles of open channel storm drain 21.4
Storm drain inlets 5,215
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities 4
Stormwater detention basins 21
Provision for stormwater reclamation not reported
Streets
Street Miles 280
FY Pavement condition index 62
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 35.3
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF SAN PABLO MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 330
Commercial Building Permits Issued 47
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 180
Property crimes 1,060
Violent crime clearance rate 32.8%
Property crime clearance rate 6.1%
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 659
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 27
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 6.9
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 35
Residential population per station 10,100
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 29
Maintained traffic lights 29
Maintained street lights 1,051
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population < 3.0
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 6
Miles of recreation trails 0.55
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not reported
Tons of waste disposed per capita 0.38
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 3.9
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 14%
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 16.4
Miles of open channel storm drain 0.76
Storm drain inlets 539
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities not available
Stormwater detention basins not available
Provision for stormwater reclamation No
Streets
Street Miles 48
FY Pavement condition index 75
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 4.4
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF SAN RAMON MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 7,567
Commercial Building Permits Issued 843
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 56
Property crimes 981
Violent crime clearance rate not available
Property crime clearance rate not available
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 0.84
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 15.71
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 0.71
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 12.42
Residential population per station 79,000
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 99
Maintained traffic lights not available
Maintained street lights 7,300
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 4.7
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 1.08
Miles of recreation trails 57.1
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate 73%
Tons of waste disposed per capita 0.57
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – 3.1
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with < 1%
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 152
Miles of open channel storm drain 3.5
Storm drain inlets 4,400
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities not available
Stormwater detention basins 10
Provision for stormwater reclamation not available
Streets
Street Miles 498
FY Pavement condition index 80
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 4.3
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS,
FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits 3,171
Commercial Building Permits Issued 1,585
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes 407
Property crimes 2,295
Violent crime clearance rate not tracked
Property crime clearance rate not tracked
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.1
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 3.92
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population 0.59
Property crime rates per 1,000 population 3.33
Residential population per station not available
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Visits per capita 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections 99
Maintained traffic lights 99
Maintained street lights 1,650
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 44
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 2
Miles of recreation trails 52
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not available
Tons of waste disposed per capita not available
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – not available
Population
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards Yes
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with 4%
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain 100
Miles of open channel storm drain 18
Storm drain inlets 4,010
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available not available
Stormwater recharge facilities 0
Stormwater detention basins 0
Provision for stormwater reclamation No
Streets
Street Miles 713
FY Pavement condition index 73
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) 32
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
CROCKETT COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE
LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits (County-issued) 121
Commercial Building Permits (County-issued) 6
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes not reported
Property crimes not reported
Violent crime clearance rate 100%
Property crime clearance rate 59%
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.02
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) not reported
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Property crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Residential population per station not reported
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Public access computers per 1,000 population 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections County
Maintained traffic lights County
Maintained street lights 29 decorative
streetlamps
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 1.8
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 0.33
Miles of recreation trails 0
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not available
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Tons of waste disposed per capita not available
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – not available
Population
Streets
Street Miles County
FY Pavement condition index (County) 70
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) County
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards County
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with County
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain County
Miles of open channel storm drain County
Storm drain inlets County
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available County
Stormwater recharge facilities County
Stormwater detention basins County
Provision for stormwater reclamation County
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
DIABLO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL
STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits (County-issued) 57
Commercial Building Permits (County-issued) 1
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes not reported
Property crimes not reported
Violent crime clearance rate n/a
Property crime clearance rate 63%
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.02
(County)
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) not reported
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Property crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Residential population per station not reported
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Public access computers per 1,000 population 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections County
Maintained traffic lights County
Maintained street lights County
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population not reported
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents not reported
Miles of recreation trails not reported
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not available
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Tons of waste disposed per capita not available
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – not available
Population
Streets
Street Miles County
FY Pavement condition index (County) 70
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) County
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards County
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with County
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain County
Miles of open channel storm drain County
Storm drain inlets County
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available County
Stormwater recharge facilities County
Stormwater detention basins County
Provision for stormwater reclamation County
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits (County-issued) 821
Commercial Building Permits (County-issued) 13
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes not reported
Property crimes not reported
Violent crime clearance rate 47%
Property crime clearance rate 80%
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.02
(County)
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) not reported
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Property crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Residential population per station not reported
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Public access computers per 1,000 population 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections County
Maintained traffic lights County
Maintained street lights 692 light poles
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 6
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 1
Miles of recreation trails not reported
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not available
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Tons of waste disposed per capita not available
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – not available
Population
Streets
Street Miles County
FY Pavement condition index (County) 70
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) County
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards County
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with County
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain County
Miles of open channel storm drain County
Storm drain inlets County
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available County
Stormwater recharge facilities County
Stormwater detention basins County
Provision for stormwater reclamation County
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
KENSINGTON POLICE PROTECTION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE LEVEL STATISTICS, FY2017
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Animal Control
Dog licenses issued per 1,000 County
Animals handled at shelter per year County
Calls for service County
Broadband
System average interruption frequency index not available
System average interruption duration index not available
Building / Planning
Residential Building Permits (County-issued) 398
Commercial Building Permits (County-issued) 4
Law Enforcement
Violent crimes not reported
Property crimes not reported
Violent crime clearance rate 5%
Property crime clearance rate 4.9%
Sworn personnel (FTE) per 1,000 population 1.6
Crimes per sworn FTE (violent and property) 462.29
Violent crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Property crime rates per 1,000 population not reported
Residential population per station not reported
Library (County statistics)
Items circulated per capita 5.99
Public access computers per 1,000 population 3.15
Lighting
Signalized intersections County
Maintained traffic lights County
Maintained street lights County
Parks and Recreation
Park acres per 1,000 population 1
Recreation centers per 20,000 residents 0.25
Miles of recreation trails 1
Solid Waste
Solid waste diversion rate not available
Tons of waste disposed per capita not available
SERVICE MEASURE STATISTIC
Pounds of solid waste per person per day – not available
Population
Streets
Street Miles County
FY Pavement condition index (County) 70
Bike lane miles (Class 1 and Class 2) County
Stormwater
Compliant with NPDES standards County
Percent of storm drainage inlets equipped with County
trash capture
Miles of closed storm drain County
Miles of open channel storm drain County
Storm drain inlets County
Capacity of stormwater drain, if available County
Stormwater recharge facilities County
Stormwater detention basins County
Provision for stormwater reclamation County
Utilities (PG&E system-wide)
System average interruption frequency index 0.958
System average interruption duration index 113.4
A C
TTACHMENT
A F P
GENCY ISCAL ROFILES
This page intentionally left blank.
Antioch
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Antioch
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 28 sq.mi. 28 sq.mi. 28 sq.mi.
Population (2) 111,973 113,495 112,280
Change from Prior Year na 1.4% -1.1%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $7,664.1 mill. $8,323.4 mill. $8,833.8 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 8.6% 6.1%
A.V. per capita $68,400 $73,300 $78,700
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $15,099,000 $16,363,000 $18,196,000
Sales Tax 17,595,000 19,973,000 19,395,000
Other 17,910,000 20,810,000 15,263,000
Total GF Revenues $50,604,000 $57,146,000 $52,854,000
Change from Prior Year na 12.9% -7.5%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $5,198,000 $7,749,000 $928,000
Public Safety 30,312,000 33,597,000 35,460,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) 12,503,000 13,008,000 12,136,000
Total GF Expenditures $48,013,000 $54,354,000 $48,524,000
Change from Prior Year na 13.2% -10.7%
GF Expenditures per capita $429 $479 $432
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $17,179,000 $22,904,000 $31,015,000
Change from Prior Year 36.9% 25.0% 26.2%
as % of GF Expenditures 35.8% 42.1% 63.9%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Water Utility $23,308,000 $22,334,000 $24,457,000
Sewer Utility $5,439,000 $5,528,000 $5,863,000
Marina $1,016,000 $1,108,000 $1,026,000
Prewett Water Park $1,983,000 $2,024,000 $2,167,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $31,746,000 $30,994,000 $33,513,000
Change from Prior Year na -2.4% 8.1%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $174,870,000 $180,116,000 $186,035,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 5.5 5.8 5.6
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 3.7 5.4 7.4
Business-type Activities 17.5 18.7 22.9
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $317,519,000 $311,567,000 $303,346,000
Net Change from Prior Year 2.8% -1.9% -2.6%
Business-type Activities 143,420,000 146,143,000 145,241,000
Net Change from Prior Year -1.3% 1.9% -0.6%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Net Liability $78,450,000 $83,840,000 $101,730,000
City of Antioch 12/31/18
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1
City/CSD MSR Update City of Antioch Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 1 of 138
Antioch
(5) See Table 2. FY17 CAFR shows cost allocations as reductions in charges to servicing dept.
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. Total liability not reported in CAFR.
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Antioch
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property tax (1) $15,099,060 $16,363,367 $18,195,628
Sales tax (2) 17,594,990 19,973,270 19,395,351
Franchise tax 2,824,143 2,969,922 3,109,778
Other Taxes 2,450,812 3,692,150 4,483,178
Intergovernmental revenues (3) 43,626 43,696 50,608
Licenses & Permits 1,178,138 1,149,614 1,243,093
Fines and penalties 55,357 103,552 160,564
Investment income and rentals 552,328 713,341 559,693
Revenue from other agencies 1,565,675 963,184 1,237,450
Current service charges (5) 7,879,340 8,599,259 2,009,228
Other 1,360,936 2,575,326 2,409,693
Total Revenues 50,604,405 57,146,681 52,854,264
Change from Prior Year na 12.9% -7.5%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 3,753,423 2,932,725 3,780,876
Total Other Financing Sources 3,753,423 2,932,725 3,780,876
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $54,357,828 $60,079,406 $56,635,140
Source: City of Antioch CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
(1) Includes Property Tax in lieu of VLF.
(2) Includes Measure C.
(3) Includes transient lodging, business tax, transfer tax.
(4) Includes State Motor Vehicle In-lieu.
(5) Method of accounting for service charges changed in FY17 CAFR.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Antioch Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 2 of 138
Antioch
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Antioch
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General Government (1) $5,197,636 $7,749,109 $928,281
Community development 2,864,734 2,708,845 2,995,742
Public safety 30,312,461 33,596,541 35,460,035
Public works 6,356,503 6,989,183 6,027,009
Capital outlay 1,365,646 1,156,061 471,930
Debt service:
Principal retirement 0 0 0
Interest and fiscal charges 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 46,096,980 52,199,739 45,882,997
Change from Prior Year na 13.2% -12.1%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 1,916,393 2,154,288 2,641,350
Total Other Financing Uses 1,916,393 2,154,288 2,641,350
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $48,013,373 $54,354,027 $48,524,347
Source: City of Antioch CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
(1) FY17 CAFR shows cost allocations as reductions in charges to servicing dept. (see explanation in CAFR pg. 11).
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Antioch
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $10,834,595 $17,179,050 $22,904,429
Net Change 6,344,455 5,725,379 8,110,793
% Change from Prior Year 58.6% 33.3% 35.4%
Ending Balance, General Fund $17,179,050 $22,904,429 $31,015,222
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 37.3% 43.9% 67.6%
Unassigned $11,530,696 $17,590,147 $25,979,579
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $315,675,548 $319,841,198 $317,344,808
Unrestricted ($49,845,837) ($40,948,110) ($34,184,377)
Source: City of Antioch CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, and Balance
Sheet; Statement of Net Position.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Antioch Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 3 of 138
Antioch
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Antioch
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services (1) $30,747,640 $32,788,173 $36,932,294
Operating Grants and Contributions 0 0 0
Capital Grants and Contributions 2,297,929 2,402,956 683,190
Other Non-Operating 450,821 732,399 528,554
Total $33,496,390 $35,923,528 $38,144,038
Change from Prior Year na 7.2% 6.2%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Water Utility $23,308,383 $22,334,168 $24,457,466
Sewer Utility 5,438,916 5,528,283 5,862,714
Marina 1,015,771 1,108,139 1,026,304
Prewett Water Park 1,982,609 2,024,309 2,167,281
Total $31,745,679 $30,994,899 $33,513,765
Change from Prior Year na -2.4% 8.1%
Transfers and Special Items ($797,654) $317,102 $1,288,267
Beginning Net Position (July 1) 173,917,359 $174,870,416 $180,116,147
Change in Net Position 953,057 5,245,731 5,918,540
Ending Net Position $174,870,416 $180,116,147 $186,034,687
% Change from Prior Year 0.5% 3.0% 3.3%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 5.51 5.81 5.55
Source: City of Antioch CAFRs - Statement of Changes in Net position
(1) Water service charges in increased from FY16 to FY17.
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Antioch
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Water $97,206,727 $102,011,194 $107,770,156
Sewer Utility 68,842,822 69,977,820 69,328,871
Marina 4,702,864 4,277,706 3,808,905
Prewett Water Park 6,063,675 5,631,073 6,838,290
Total Net Position 176,816,088 181,897,793 187,746,222
% change from prior year (1) n/a 2.9% 3.2%
Source: City of Antioch CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position Proprietary Funds
(1) Totals do not match Statement of Activities due to reporting of certain internal service funds (CAFR FY15, pg. 35).
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Antioch Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 4 of 138
Antioch
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Antioch
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 3.7 5.4 7.4
Cash and Short-term Investments 45,556,148 48,292,309 56,978,795
Total Current Liabilities 12,162,539 8,889,878 7,685,264
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 17.5 18.7 22.9
Cash and Short-term Investments 47,182,737 50,975,247 54,796,385
Total Current Liabilities (2) 2,701,536 2,719,260 2,395,612
Source: City of Antioch CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Liquidity Ratio equals Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities.
(2) FY17 Statement of Net Position (pg.32) includes long-term due within one year vs. pg. 19.
----------
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Antioch
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $308,934,258 $317,519,407 $311,567,414
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 317,519,407 311,567,414 303,346,242
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 934,258 (5,951,993) (8,221,172)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 0.3% -1.9% -2.6%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $145,319,371 $143,420,496 $146,142,929
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 143,420,496 146,142,929 145,240,774
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (1,898,875) 2,722,433 (902,155)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -1.3% 1.9% -0.6%
Source: City of Antioch CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 8)
(1) Assets being depreciated (excludes land).
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Antioch Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 5 of 138
Antioch
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Antioch
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Net Pension Liability $78,446,363 $83,836,025 $101,728,332
Net OPEB Liability $6,720,816 $9,113,571 $12,471,058
Source: City of Antioch CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(1) CAFR doesn't report total pension liability or % funded for total or separate funds.
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Antioch
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 6,813,000 6,219,000 5,563,000
Business Type Activities 6,875,000 6,458,000 6,262,000
Total Outstanding Debt 13,688,000 12,677,000 11,825,000
Total Debt per Capita $122 $112 $105
Assessed Value $7,664,094,000 $8,323,370,000 $8,833,818,000
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (1) N/A N/A N/A
Source: CAFRs - Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type, and Pledged Revenue Coverage.
(1) No debt service reported for revenue bonds.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Antioch Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 6 of 138
Brentwood
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Brentwood
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 14.8 sq.mi. 14.8 sq.mi. 14.8 sq.mi.
Population (2) 57,072 59,058 61,383
Change from Prior Year na 3.5% 3.9%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $7,051.0 mill. $7,918.1 mill. $8,560.0 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 12.3% 8.1%
A.V. per capita $123,500 $134,100 $139,500
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $9,949,000 $11,106,000 $12,239,000
Sales Tax $6,837,000 $7,319,000 $8,188,000
Other Revenues 22,295,000 23,832,000 24,753,000
Total GF Revenues $39,081,000 $42,257,000 $45,180,000
Change from Prior Year na 8.1% 6.9%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $5,616,000 $5,968,000 $6,633,000
Public Safety $18,089,000 $19,246,000 $21,417,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) 15,215,000 16,006,000 18,138,000
Total GF Expenditures $38,920,000 $41,220,000 $46,188,000
Change from Prior Year na 5.9% 12.1%
GF Expenditures per capita $682 $698 $752
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $18,907,000 $22,547,000 $23,406,000
Change from Prior Year 9.3% 16.1% 3.7%
as % of GF Expenditures 48.6% 54.7% 50.7%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Wastewater $10,001,000 $10,003,000 $10,328,000
Solid Waste $10,373,000 $10,681,000 $11,494,000
Water $19,539,000 $22,129,000 $20,972,000
City Rentals $175,000 $179,000 $197,000
Housing $657,000 $724,000 $797,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $40,745,000 $43,716,000 $43,788,000
Change from Prior Year na 7.3% 0.2%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $247,681,000 $252,520,000 $263,521,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 6.1 5.8 6.0
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 6.5 8.5 9.8
Business-type Activities 10.6 9.8 8.5
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $458,597,000 $454,735,000 $453,103,000
Net Change from Prior Year -0.6% -0.8% -0.4%
Business-type Activities 237,967,000 242,816,000 246,143,000
Net Change from Prior Year 3.9% 2.0% 1.4%
Total Pension Liability (11) n/a
Net Pension Liability $32,430,000 $42,855,000 n/a
City/CSD MSR Update City of Brentwood Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 7 of 138
Brentwood
City of Brentwood MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 12/31/18
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) CAFRs do not provide detail for "taxes", which includes property tax, sales tax, etc.
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Brentwood
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property tax $9,949,104 $11,105,913 $12,238,838
Sales tax 6,836,917 7,319,217 8,188,046
Other taxes 923,950 1,063,828 1,069,606
Permits, licenses, and fees 6,898,003 7,467,505 7,389,264
Use of money and property 427,072 789,168 234,704
Intergovernmental revenues 3,568,544 3,794,652 4,683,506
Franchises 1,400,350 1,473,443 1,487,179
Charges for other services 306,603 287,150 561,815
Charges for other funds 6,705,041 6,811,651 7,538,724
Fees and Other revenues 2,065,406 2,144,717 1,787,913
Total Revenues 39,080,990 42,257,244 45,179,595
Change from Prior Year na 8.1% 6.9%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 6,616,104 9,471,813 9,520,696
Total Other Financing Sources 6,616,104 9,471,813 9,520,696
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $45,697,094 $51,729,057 $54,700,291
Source: City of Brentwood CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Brentwood Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 8 of 138
Brentwood
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Brentwood
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General Government $5,616,074 $5,967,866 $6,633,141
Public safety 18,088,964 19,245,916 21,417,144
Community development 4,049,004 4,071,224 4,368,437
Engineering 2,741,148 2,865,976 3,227,631
Public works 2,814,945 2,999,793 3,213,775
Parks and Rec 5,022,452 5,091,656 5,576,169
Community Services 587,726 619,740 536,357
Debt service:
Principal 0 357,796 1,215,818
Interest and fiscal charges 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 38,920,313 41,219,967 46,188,472
Change from Prior Year na 5.9% 12.1%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 5,008,808 6,869,646 7,652,826
Total Other Financing Uses 5,008,808 6,869,646 7,652,826
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $43,929,121 $48,089,613 $53,841,298
Source: City of Brentwood CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Brentwood
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $17,139,493 $18,907,466 $22,546,910
Net Change 1,767,973 3,639,444 858,993
% Change from Prior Year 10.3% 19.2% 3.8%
Ending Balance, General Fund $18,907,466 $22,546,910 $23,405,903
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 48.6% 54.7% 50.7%
Unassigned $12,318,912 $13,120,085 $15,673,545
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $527,686,968 $537,509,067 $547,764,208
Unrestricted $22,429,161 $28,537,948 $29,172,068
Source: City of Brentwood CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Brentwood Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 9 of 138
Brentwood
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Brentwood
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services $40,448,753 $39,224,107 $41,397,807
Operating Grants and Contributions 0 918,028 1,024,113
Capital Grants and Contributions 4,382,019 7,414,680 11,863,994
Other Non-Operating (1) 719,108 1,759,735 233,539
Total $45,549,880 $49,316,550 $54,519,453
Change from Prior Year na 8.3% 10.6%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Wastewater 10,000,905 10,003,159 10,328,357
Solid Waste 10,373,325 10,680,780 11,493,599
Water 19,538,589 22,129,063 20,972,101
City Rentals 174,597 178,558 196,829
Housing 656,778 723,908 797,400
Total $40,744,194 $43,715,468 $43,788,286
Change from Prior Year na 7.3% 0.2%
Transfers ($702,328) ($762,119) $270,142
Beginning Net Position 243,577,802 $247,681,160 $252,520,123
Change in Net Position 4,103,358 4,838,963 11,001,309
Ending Net Position $247,681,160 $252,520,123 $263,521,432
% Change from Prior Year 1.7% 2.0% 4.4%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 6.08 5.78 6.02
Source: City of Brentwood CAFRs - Statement of Changes in Net position
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Brentwood
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Wastewater $98,508,001 $103,943,662 $108,501,996
Solid Waste 15,168,947 14,780,713 14,789,359
Water 124,944,823 123,589,934 129,485,478
City Rentals 179,693 183,674 178,083
Housing 8,879,696 10,022,140 10,566,516
Total Net Position $247,681,160 $252,520,123 $263,521,432
% change from prior year n/a 2.0% 4.4%
Source: City of Brentwood CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position Proprietary Funds
(1)
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Brentwood Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 10 of 138
Brentwood
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Brentwood
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 6.5 8.5 9.8
Cash and Short-term Investments 61,024,969 71,364,530 91,057,217
Total Current Liabilities 9,413,946 8,364,921 9,259,342
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 10.6 9.8 8.5
Cash and Short-term Investments 74,703,962 76,040,331 73,832,501
Total Current Liabilities 7,061,594 7,786,470 8,733,708
Source: City of Brentwood CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
----------
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Brentwood
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $461,227,152 $458,597,484 $454,735,324
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 458,597,484 $454,735,324 453,102,594
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (2,629,668) (3,862,160) (1,632,730)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -0.6% -0.8% -0.4%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $228,931,078 $237,967,110 $242,815,634
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 237,967,110 $242,815,634 246,143,348
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 9,036,032 4,848,524 3,327,714
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 3.9% 2.0% 1.4%
Source: City of Brentwood CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 5)
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Brentwood Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 11 of 138
Brentwood
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Brentwood
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Total Pension Liability (misc. only) $103,157,066 $112,379,297 n/a
Plan Fiduciary Net Position (misc. only) 81,082,764 83,231,411 n/a
% Funded (misc. only) 78.6% 74.1% n/a
Net Pension Liability (total) $32,430,187 $42,854,631 n/a
Misc. $22,074,302 $29,147,886 n/a
Public Safety $10,355,885 $13,706,745 n/a
Net OPEB Liability $41,843,000 n/a n/a
Source: City of Brentwood CAFRs - Required Supplementary Information
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Brentwood
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities (1) 75,084,744 99,085,447 95,350,040
Business Type Activities (1) 69,625,973 66,076,797 62,426,933
Total Outstanding Debt 144,710,717 165,162,244 157,776,973
Total Debt per Capita $2,536 $2,797 $2,570
Assessed Value (2) $7,051,011,254 $7,918,068,152 $8,560,048,612
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) 1.73 2.05 1.56
Source: CAFRs - Statistical Section
(1) see CAFR FY17, S-14
(2) see CAFR FY17, S-5
City/CSD MSR Update City of Brentwood Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 12 of 138
Clayton
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Clayton
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 4.2 sq.mi. 4.2 sq.mi. 4.2 sq.mi.
Population (2) 11,159 11,262 11,342
Change from Prior Year na 0.9% 0.7%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $1,866.4 mill. $1,990.3 mill. $2,077.2 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 6.6% 4.4%
A.V. per capita $167,300 $176,700 $183,100
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $2,302,000 $2,257,000 $2,339,000
Sales Tax $398,000 $373,000 $455,000
Other Revenues (exc. Transfers in) $1,541,000 $1,757,000 $1,553,000
Total GF Revenues $4,241,000 $4,387,000 $4,347,000
Change from Prior Year na 3.4% -0.9%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $1,019,000 $1,069,000 $1,178,000
Public Safety $1,926,000 $2,138,000 $2,104,000
Other (exc. Transfers Out) $897,000 $802,000 $874,000
Total GF Expenditures $3,842,000 $4,009,000 $4,156,000
Change from Prior Year na 4.3% 3.7%
GF Expenditures per capita $344 $356 $366
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $5,739,000 $5,849,000 $5,917,000
Change from Prior Year 10.3% 7.5% 5.1%
as % of GF Expenditures 149.4% 145.9% 142.4%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Endeavor Hall & Community Gym $67,000 $68,000 $67,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $67,000 $68,000 $67,000
Change from Prior Year na 1.5% -1.5%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $1,206,000 $1,166,000 $1,121,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 18.0 17.1 16.7
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 17.7 27.9 18.4
Business-type Activities - - -
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $26,515,000 $26,769,000 $25,894,000
Net Change from Prior Year -2.7% 1.0% -3.3%
Business-type Activities 1,083,000 1,054,000 1,017,000
Net Change from Prior Year -3.2% -2.7% -3.5%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Net Liability $3,690,000 $3,590,000 $4,410,000
City of Clayton MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 12/31/18
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1
City/CSD MSR Update City of Clayton Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 13 of 138
Clayton
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. Total liability not reported in CAFR.
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Clayton
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property tax (1) $2,302,278 $2,256,780 $2,339,221
Sales and use taxes 397,544 372,705 455,387
Business license taxes 0 0 135,866
Permits, licenses and fees 264,764 283,626 161,443
Fines, forfeitures and penalties 72,635 84,270 92,662
Intergovernmental 107,724 250,025 98,451
Motor vehicle in-lieu fees 4,590 4,554 0
Other in-lieu fees 151,816 154,852 157,949
Franchise fees 501,597 516,607 541,138
Service charges 366,080 342,308 311,796
Use of money and property 39,186 104,016 35,326
Other revenue 32,637 16,523 18,186
Total Revenues 4,240,851 4,386,266 4,347,425
Change from Prior Year na 3.4% -0.9%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 190,867 104,565 107,400
Total Other Financing Sources 190,867 104,565 107,400
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $4,431,718 $4,490,831 $4,454,825
Source: City of Clayton CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
(1) Property tax includes "VLF backfill".
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Clayton Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 14 of 138
Clayton
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Clayton
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General Government $1,018,852 $1,068,970 $1,178,444
Public works 167,282 152,280 249,006
Parks and recreation services 349,862 295,284 325,187
Community and economic development 379,348 354,083 288,962
Public safety 1,926,479 2,138,283 2,104,174
Capital Outlay 0 0 9,830
Debt service:
Principal retirement 0 0 0
Interest and fiscal charges 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 3,841,823 4,008,900 4,155,603
Change from Prior Year na 4.3% 3.7%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 0 46,243 0
Total Other Financing Uses 0 46,243 0
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $3,841,823 $4,055,143 $4,155,603
Source: City of Clayton CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Clayton
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $5,148,737 $5,413,157 $5,618,059
Net Change 589,895 435,688 299,222
% Change from Prior Year 11.5% 8.0% 5.3%
Ending Balance, General Fund $5,738,632 $5,848,845 $5,917,281
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 149.4% 145.9% 142.4%
Unassigned $4,509,255 $5,031,142 $5,429,524
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $35,459,216 $43,741,625 $44,916,424
Unrestricted $4,781,508 $7,028,670 $7,835,030
Source: City of Clayton CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds; Statement of Net Position
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Clayton Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 15 of 138
Clayton
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Clayton
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services $25,818 $27,253 $22,251
Operating Grants and Contributions 0 0 0
Capital Grants and Contributions 0 0 0
Other Non-Operating 4,491 0 0
Total $30,309 $27,253 $22,251
Change from Prior Year na -10.1% -18.4%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Endeavor Hall & Community Gym $66,606 $67,668 $67,393
Total $66,606 $67,668 $67,393
Change from Prior Year na 1.6% -0.4%
Transfers and Special Items (1) $4,696 $0 $0
Beginning Net Position 1,237,710 $1,206,109 $1,165,694
Change in Net Position (31,601) (40,415) (45,142)
Ending Net Position $1,206,109 $1,165,694 $1,120,552
% Change from Prior Year -2.6% -3.4% -3.9%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 18.11 17.23 16.63
Source: City of Clayton CAFRs - Recap of Statement of Activities and Changes in Net position
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Clayton
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Endeavor Hall and Community Gym $1,206,109 $1,165,694 $1,120,552
Total Net Position 1,206,109 1,165,694 1,120,552
% change from prior year n/a -3.4% -3.9%
Source: City of Clayton CAFRs - Statement of Net Position
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Clayton Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 16 of 138
Clayton
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Clayton
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 17.7 27.9 18.4
Cash and Short-term Investments 10,047,587 10,515,485 10,777,647
Total Current Liabilities 566,720 377,491 586,511
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES (2)
Liquidity Ratio (1) - - -
Cash and Short-term Investments 0 0 0
Total Current Liabilities 8,823 6,692 8,634
Source: City of Clayton CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities.
(2) No cash and investments reported for business-type activities.
----------
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Clayton
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $27,256,072 $26,515,029 $26,769,092
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 26,515,029 $26,769,092 $25,893,912
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (741,043) 254,063 (875,180)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -2.7% 1.0% -3.3%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $1,119,010 $1,082,943 $1,054,261
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 1,082,943 $1,054,261 $1,017,004
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (36,067) (28,682) (37,257)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -3.2% -2.6% -3.5%
Source: City of Clayton CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 5)
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Clayton Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 17 of 138
Clayton
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Clayton
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Total Pension Liability (1) n/a n/a n/a
Plan Fiduciary Net Position (1) n/a n/a n/a
% Funded 77.60% 78.40% 74.06%
Net Pension Liability $3,693,394 $3,593,771 $4,413,357
Net OPEB Liability $99,656 $129,544 $142,547
Source: City of Clayton CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (note 11)
(1) Per GASB 68, Clayton is part of a small employer cost sharing plan and CAFR doesn't report total pension liability
or net position.
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Clayton
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 0 0 0
Business Type Activities 0 0 0
Total Outstanding Debt (1) 0 0 0
Total Debt per Capita $0 $0 $0
Assessed Value $1,866,376,581 $1,990,290,592 $2,077,224,159
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues)(1) - - -
Source: CAFRs - Statistical Section, Ratios of Debt Outstanding, and Legal Debt Margin.
(1) No debt reported.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Clayton Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 18 of 138
Concord
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Concord
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 31.13 sq.mi. 31.13 sq.mi. 31.13 sq.mi.
Population (2) 124,977 129,707 128,370
Change from Prior Year na 3.8% -1.0%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $13,721.7 mill. $14,702.1 mill. $15,539.1 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 7.1% 5.7%
A.V. per capita $109,800 $113,300 $121,000
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $13,600,000 $14,300,000 $15,400,000
Sales Tax $41,200,000 $45,900,000 $46,000,000
Other Revenues $38,100,000 $37,700,000 $39,900,000
Total GF Revenues $92,900,000 $97,900,000 $101,300,000
Change from Prior Year na 5.4% 3.5%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $19,000,000 $15,500,000 $15,300,000
Public Safety $45,200,000 $49,900,000 $53,700,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $19,500,000 $30,600,000 $28,600,000
Total GF Expenditures $83,700,000 $96,000,000 $97,600,000
Change from Prior Year na 14.7% 1.7%
GF Expenditures per capita $670 $740 $760
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $33,900,000 $35,800,000 $39,500,000
Change from Prior Year 27.1% 5.3% 9.4%
as % of GF Expenditures 40.5% 37.3% 40.5%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Sewer Utility $25,800,000 $26,700,000 $27,800,000
Golf Course $1,300,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $27,100,000 $28,200,000 $29,300,000
Change from Prior Year na 4.1% 3.9%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $65,800,000 $66,500,000 $68,800,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 2.4 2.4 2.3
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 3.5 2.8 2.7
Business-type Activities 1.4 1.6 1.8
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $620,879,000 $621,266,000 $615,322,000
Net Change from Prior Year -2.7% 0.1% -1.0%
Business-type Activities 73,710,000 69,157,000 64,709,000
Net Change from Prior Year -4.8% -6.2% -6.4%
Total Pension Liability (11) $455,933,359 $466,885,639 $484,038,710
% Pension Funded 68.5% 66.6% 63.4%
Net Pension Liability $143,658,161 $156,165,452 $177,205,341
City/CSD MSR Update City of Concord Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 19 of 138
Concord
City of Concord MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 6/14/18
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) City edits to MSR Fiscal Profile.
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1. Includes Transfers In.
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Concord
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property tax $13,600,000 $14,300,000 $15,400,000
In Lieu Property Taxes - VLF 8,900,000 9,500,000 10,100,000
Sales Taxes 41,200,000 45,900,000 46,000,000
Other Taxes 12,200,000 12,800,000 13,700,000
Licenses and Permits 1,500,000 1,700,000 2,100,000
Intergovernmental 2,100,000 1,400,000 1,400,000
Charges for Services 5,200,000 5,500,000 6,200,000
Investment Earnings 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000
Miscellaneous Revenues 5,300,000 4,600,000 4,200,000
Total Revenues 91,700,000 97,400,000 100,800,000
Change from Prior Year na 6.2% 3.5%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 1,200,000 500,000 500,000
Total Other Financing Sources 1,200,000 500,000 500,000
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $92,900,000 $97,900,000 $101,300,000
Source: City of Concord CAFRs - Changes in General Fund (Table 8)
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Concord Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 20 of 138
Concord
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Concord
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General Government $19,000,000 $15,500,000 $15,300,000
Public Safety 45,200,000 49,900,000 53,700,000
Public Works 6,600,000 7,300,000 8,000,000
Community and Economic Development 5,500,000 7,700,000 8,900,000
Parks and Recreation Services 4,600,000 5,000,000 5,300,000
Interest on Long-Term Debt 200,000 200,000 300,000
Total Expenditures 81,100,000 85,600,000 91,500,000
Change from Prior Year na 5.5% 6.9%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 2,600,000 10,400,000 6,100,000
Total Other Financing Uses 2,600,000 10,400,000 6,100,000
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $83,700,000 $96,000,000 $97,600,000
Source: City of Concord CAFRs - Changes in General Fund (Table 8)
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Concord
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $24,700,000 $33,900,000 $35,800,000
Net Change 9,200,000 1,900,000 3,700,000
% Change from Prior Year 37.2% 5.6% 10.3%
Ending Balance, General Fund $33,900,000 $35,800,000 $39,500,000
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 41.8% 41.8% 43.2%
Unassigned $27,300,000 $23,600,000 $28,200,000
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $570,354,680 $582,293,478 $578,381,415
Unrestricted ($56,475,621) ($47,811,573) ($75,116,464)
Source: City of Concord CAFRs - Changes in General Fund (Table 8); Statement of Net Position.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Concord Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 21 of 138
Concord
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Concord
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services $25,800,000 $28,700,000 $31,300,000
Operating Grants and Contributions 0 0 0
Capital Grants and Contributions 100,000 0 0
Other Non-Operating 100,000 200,000 300,000
Total $26,000,000 $28,900,000 $31,600,000
Change from Prior Year na 11.2% 9.3%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Sewer Utility $25,800,000 $26,700,000 $27,800,000
Golf Course $1,300,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Total $27,100,000 $28,200,000 $29,300,000
Change from Prior Year na 4.1% 3.9%
Transfers $0 $0 $0
Beginning Net Position $66,900,000 $65,800,000 $66,500,000
Change in Net Position (1,100,000) 700,000 2,300,000
Ending Net Position $65,800,000 $66,500,000 $68,800,000
% Change from Prior Year -1.6% 1.1% 3.5%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 2.43 2.36 2.35
Source: City of Concord CAFRs - Citywide Changes in Net position (Table 2).
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Concord
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Sewer Utility $63,800,000 $64,500,000 $66,900,000
Golf Course 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,900,000
Total Net Position 65,800,000 66,500,000 68,800,000
% change from prior year n/a 1.1% 3.5%
Source: City of Concord CAFRs - Proprietary Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net
Position
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Concord Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 22 of 138
Concord
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Concord
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 3.5 2.8 2.7
Cash and Short-term Investments 89,093,141 84,564,296 94,634,149
Total Current Liabilities (2) 25,375,999 29,997,855 34,530,515
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 1.4 1.6 1.8
Cash and Short-term Investments 25,445,032 33,189,158 37,891,313
Total Current Liabilities 17,914,198 21,372,277 20,567,570
Source: City of Concord CAFRs - Governmental Funds Balance Sheet and Proprietary Funds Statement of Net
position
(1) Ratio = Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
(2) Total liabilities (including advances from other funds).
----------
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Concord
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets (1) $638,173,991 $620,879,011 $621,265,734
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets (1) 620,879,011 621,265,734 615,321,945
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (17,294,980) 386,723 (5,943,789)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -2.7% 0.1% -1.0%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets (1) $77,440,693 $73,710,099 $69,156,859
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets (1) 73,710,099 69,156,859 64,709,219
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (3,730,594) (4,553,240) (4,447,640)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -4.8% -6.2% -6.4%
Source: City of Concord CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 6 - CAPITAL ASSETS).
(1) Assets being depreciated (excludes land).
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Concord Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 23 of 138
Concord
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Concord
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Total Pension Liability (1) $455,933,359 $466,885,639 $484,038,710
Plan Fiduciary Net Position (1) 312,275,198 310,720,187 306,833,369
% Funded 68.5% 66.6% 63.4%
Net Pension Liability $143,658,161 $156,165,452 $177,205,341
Net OPEB Asset or (Liability) ($50,277,000) ($37,683,000) na
Source: City of Concord CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Notes 10-12).
(1) Includes Concord Retirement System and CALPERS. Early retirement plan is fully funded.
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Concord
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 35,900,000 32,000,000 28,100,000
Business Type Activities 19,400,000 18,300,000 17,200,000
Total Outstanding Debt 55,300,000 50,300,000 45,300,000
Total Debt per Capita $442 $388 $353
Assessed Value $13,721,683,000 $14,702,051,000 $15,539,072,000
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (1) 4.13 5.98 7.53
Source: CAFRs - Outstanding Debt (Table 10) and Bond Coverage (Table 12)
(1) Sewer revenue bonds.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Concord Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 24 of 138
Danville
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
Town of Danville
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 18.8 sq.mi. 18.8 sq.mi. 18.8 sq.mi.
Population (2) 42,491 44,048 44,048
Change from Prior Year na 3.7% 0.0%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $10,450.2 mill. $11,156.9 mill. $11,825.4 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 6.8% 6.0%
A.V. per capita $245,900 $253,300 $268,500
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $13,593,000 $14,154,000 $13,979,000
Sales Tax $4,080,000 $4,559,000 $5,535,000
Other Revenues $6,268,000 $10,127,000 $6,090,000
Total GF Revenues $23,941,000 $28,840,000 $25,604,000
Change from Prior Year na 20.5% -11.2%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $1,526,000 $1,591,000 $1,623,000
Public Safety $8,061,000 $8,456,000 $8,753,000
Other (before Transfers) $8,865,000 $9,068,000 $9,443,000
Total GF Expenditures $18,452,000 $19,115,000 $19,819,000
Change from Prior Year na 3.6% 3.7%
GF Expenditures per capita $434 $434 $450
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $27,275,000 $29,957,000 $27,800,000
Change from Prior Year -0.5% 9.0% -7.8%
as % of GF Expend. (before transfers) 147.8% 156.7% 140.3%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Total Enterprise Net Position (8)
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 9.4 8.4 9.9
Business-type Activities na na na
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $158,163,000 $162,964,000 $163,427,000
Net Change from Prior Year 2.2% 3.0% 0.3%
Pension Liability (11)
% Pension Funded na na na
Net Pension Liability na na na
Town of Danville MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 12/31/18
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1. Includes one-time special item: Cooperative loan from Successor Agency of former CDA. FY16 one-
time amount = $3,195,604
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See . No enterprises.
(8) See . No enterprises.
City/CSD MSR Update Town of Danville Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 25 of 138
Danville
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) Town of Danville provides a defined contribution 401(a) plan.
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
Town of Danville
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property tax (1) $13,593,483 $14,153,561 $13,978,818
Sales tax 4,080,378 4,558,712 5,535,422
Other taxes 2,138,914 2,224,862 2,348,777
Charges for services 2,081,890 1,985,185 2,139,419
Permits, licenses, and fees 391,856 404,744 371,212
Intergovernmental 93,138 8,433 5,381
Fines and forfeitures 242,325 267,732 163,825
Use of money and property 947,700 1,347,953 774,087
Miscellaneous 372,349 692,541 287,179
Special Items (1) 0 3,195,604 0
Total Revenues 23,942,033 28,839,327 25,604,120
Change from Prior Year na 20.5% -11.2%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 297,553 297,553 306,553
Total Other Financing Sources 297,553 297,553 306,553
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $24,239,586 $29,136,880 $25,910,673
Source: City of Danville CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
(1) Cooperative loan from Successor Agency of former CDA.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Town of Danville Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 26 of 138
Danville
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
Town of Danville
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General Government $1,526,324 $1,591,047 $1,622,521
Police services 8,061,311 8,456,134 8,753,474
Maintenance services 1,792,635 1,837,916 2,005,242
Lighting and landscape 0 0 0
Development services 944,084 831,846 902,452
Administrative services 2,710,169 2,964,182 2,977,230
Recreation, arts, & community services 3,405,099 3,385,848 3,558,015
Capital outlay 12,797 48,445 0
Debt service:
Principal retirement 0 0 0
Interest and fiscal charges 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 18,452,419 19,115,418 19,818,934
Change from Prior Year na 3.6% 3.7%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 5,923,161 7,339,097 8,248,600
Total Other Financing Uses 5,923,161 7,339,097 8,248,600
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $24,375,580 $26,454,515 $28,067,534
Source: City of Danville CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
Town of Danville
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $27,410,585 $27,274,591 $29,956,956
Net Change (135,994) 2,682,365 (2,156,861)
% Change from Prior Year -0.5% 9.8% -7.2%
Ending Balance, General Fund $27,274,591 $29,956,956 $27,800,095
Ending Balance/Total GF Expend. (before transfers) 147.8% 156.7% 140.3%
Unassigned
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $243,321,728 $250,543,966 $252,486,782
Unrestricted $48,182,320 $68,855,495 $72,257,190
Source: City of Danville CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Town of Danville Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 27 of 138
Danville
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
Town of Danville
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Town of Danville reports no enterprises or business type activities
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
Town of Danville
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Town of Danville reports no enterprises or business type activities
----------
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
Town of Danville
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 9.4 8.4 9.9
Cash and Short-term Investments 61,023,117 62,232,934 67,557,502
Total Current Liabilities 6,517,749 7,404,753 6,857,785
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES (2)
Liquidity Ratio (1) na na na
Cash and Short-term Investments 0
Total Current Liabilities 0
Source: City of Danville CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
(2) Town of Danville reports no enterprises or business type activities.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Town of Danville Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 28 of 138
Danville
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
Town of Danville
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets 154,718,983 158,162,964 $162,964,051
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 158,162,964 162,964,051 163,427,439
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 3,443,981 4,801,087 463,388
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 2.2% 3.0% 0.3%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES (1)
Source: City of Danville CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(1) Town of Danville reports no enterprises or business type activities.
----------
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
Town of Danville
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Town of Danville provides a defined contribution 401(a) plan
Source:
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Town of Danville Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 29 of 138
Danville
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
Town of Danville
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 8,860,000 8,055,000 7,635,000
Business Type Activities (1) 0 0 0
Total Outstanding Debt 8,860,000 8,055,000 7,635,000
Total Debt per Capita $209 $183 $173
Assessed Value $10,450,225,417 $11,156,935,072 $11,825,407,073
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (2)
Source: Town of Danville CAFRs - Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type, Assessed Value History, and Pledged Revenue
Coverage
(1) Town of Danville reports no enterprises or business type activities.
(2) No coverage ratio reported for taxable revenue bond.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Town of Danville Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 30 of 138
El Cerrito
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of El Cerrito
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 3.9 sq.mi. 3.9 sq.mi. 3.9 sq.mi.
Population (2) 24,132 24,490 24,674
Change from Prior Year na 1.5% 0.8%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $3,264.2 mill. $3,589.4 mill. $3,830.5 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 10.0% 6.7%
A.V. per capita $135,300 $146,600 $155,200
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $8,800,000 $9,843,000 $9,082,000
Sales Tax $6,455,000 $7,551,000 $7,477,000
Other Revenues $14,752,000 $14,975,000 $17,972,000
Total GF Revenues $30,007,000 $32,369,000 $34,531,000
Change from Prior Year na 7.9% 6.7%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $3,728,000 $4,359,000 $4,927,000
Public Safety $18,461,000 $19,326,000 $20,277,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $7,627,000 $8,252,000 $9,123,000
Total GF Expenditures $29,816,000 $31,937,000 $34,327,000
Change from Prior Year na 7.1% 7.5%
GF Expenditures per capita $1,236 $1,304 $1,391
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $1,462,000 $1,894,000 $5,068,000
Change from Prior Year 13.1% 22.8% -0.1%
as % of GF Expenditures 4.9% 5.9% 14.8%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Integrated waste management $1,788,000 $1,941,000 $2,377,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $1,788,000 $1,941,000 $2,377,000
Change from Prior Year na 8.6% 22.5%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $688,000 $746,000 $865,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 0.4 0.4 0.4
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 0.4 1.2 0.8
Business-type Activities 0.5 0.5 0.5
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $73,405,000 $69,565,000 $74,209,000
Net Change from Prior Year -4.7% -5.2% -5.1%
Business-type Activities 3,790,000 3,566,000 3,504,000
Net Change from Prior Year -5.8% -5.9% -4.8%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Net Liability $39,310,000 $45,990,000 $54,840,000
City of El Cerrito MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 12/31/18
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1
City/CSD MSR Update City of El Cerrito Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 31 of 138
El Cerrito
(5) See Table 2. Public Safety includes police and fire services.
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. Total liability not reported in CAFR.
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of El Cerrito
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Sales Taxes $6,455,436 $7,550,789 $7,477,393
Property taxes 8,799,514 9,843,000 9,082,380
Taxes other than property and sales (1) 4,300,378 4,050,661
Licenses and permits 493,244 607,729 719,843
Fines and forfeitures 276,759 326,544 350,855
Use of money and property 349,916 311,786
Intergovernmental 4,036,613 3,621,780
Charges for services 4,275,245 4,391,219
Other revenues 119,300 768,149 16,845,970
Total Revenues 29,106,405 31,471,657 34,476,441
Change from Prior Year na 8.1% 9.5%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In (1) 900,857 897,484 54,583
Total Other Financing Sources 900,857 897,484 54,583
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $30,007,262 $32,369,141 $34,531,024
107.9% 106.7%
Source: City of El Cerrito CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
(1) CAFR does not show detail for all items; amounts shown are from budgets or supplemental historic data in CAFR.
(2) Includes proceeds from sale of assets.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of El Cerrito Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 32 of 138
El Cerrito
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of El Cerrito
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
City council $89,694 $81,554 $104,158
City manager 819,640 1,041,334 972,422
City attorney 256,771 449,455 393,196
Financial services 1,207,388 1,218,873 1,365,523
City clerk 264,054 254,275 287,395
Information systems 404,493 519,468 595,204
Employee services 686,417 794,079 1,209,586
Public works 642,199 1,116,997 1,443,104
Recreation 4,153,881 4,465,879 4,818,238
Community development 1,687,744 1,769,422 2,157,162
Police 9,861,386 10,348,446 10,758,096
Fire 8,599,206 8,977,541 9,518,949
Capital outlay 135,283 182,594 45,770
Payment of sales tax to City of Richmond 245,599
Principal retirement 90,858 93,373 95,959
Interest and fiscal charges 0 0 106,389
Total Expenditures 29,144,613 31,313,290 33,871,151
Change from Prior Year na 7.4% 8.2%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 671,603 623,733 456,668
Total Other Financing Uses 671,603 623,733 456,668
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $29,816,216 $31,937,023 $34,327,819
Source: City of El Cerrito CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds and General Fund
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of El Cerrito
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance (1) $1,270,466 $1,461,512 $5,072,058
Net Change 191,046 432,118 (3,639)
% Change from Prior Year 15.0% 29.6% -0.1%
Ending Balance, General Fund (1) $1,461,512 $1,893,630 $5,068,419
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 4.9% 5.9% 14.8%
Unassigned (2) $1,323,100 1,893,842 2,097,036
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position (3) 31,579,940 31,034,867
Unrestricted (3) (46,508,497) (45,697,103)
Source: City of El Cerrito CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
City/CSD MSR Update City of El Cerrito Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 33 of 138
El Cerrito
(1) FY17 from CAFR (pg. 32) "as restated"
(2) FY18-19, FY19-20 budget, pg. 5.
(3) FY16 and FY17 from FY17 CAFR (pg. 8, 9)
City/CSD MSR Update City of El Cerrito Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 34 of 138
El Cerrito
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of El Cerrito
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services $2,203,157 $2,318,342 $2,366,205
Operating Grants and Contributions 1,250 37,213 25,683
Capital Grants and Contributions 0
Other Non-Operating 0
Total $2,204,407 $2,355,555 $2,391,888
Change from Prior Year na 6.9% 1.5%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Integrated waste management $1,787,896 $1,940,519 $2,376,867
Total $1,787,896 $1,940,519 $2,376,867
Change from Prior Year na 8.5% 22.5%
Transfers ($346,319) ($356,418) ($9,671)
Beginning Net Position 617,632 $687,824 $746,442
Change in Net Position 70,192 58,618 119,002
Ending Net Position $687,824 $746,442 865,444
% Change from Prior Year 11.4% 8.5% 15.9%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 0.38 0.38 0.36
Source: City of El Cerrito CAFRs - Statement of Changes in Net position
(1) FY16 and FY17 from FY17 CAFR (pg. 8, 9)
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of El Cerrito
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Integrated waste management
Total Net Position 687,824 746,442 865,444
% change from prior year n/a 8.5% 15.9%
Source: City of El Cerrito CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position Proprietary Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of El Cerrito Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 35 of 138
El Cerrito
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of El Cerrito
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 0.4 1.2 0.8
Cash and Short-term Investments (2) 1,626,978 9,704,963 6,839,865
Total Current Liabilities 3,837,617 8,021,995 8,786,072
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 0.5 0.5 0.5
Cash and Short-term Investments 224,725 287,367 434,705
Total Current Liabilities 431,567 553,813 863,982
Source: City of El Cerrito CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities.
(2) FY17 Cash and Investments (inc. w/fiscal agents).
----------
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of El Cerrito
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets (1) $77,016,693 $73,405,129 $78,163,857
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets $73,405,129 $69,565,283 $74,208,670
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (3,611,564) (3,839,846) (3,955,187)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -4.7% -5.2% -5.1%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets (1) $4,021,783 $3,790,317 $3,679,248
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets $3,790,317 $3,565,597 $3,504,108
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (231,466) (224,720) (175,140)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -5.8% -5.9% -4.8%
Source: City of El Cerrito CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 6)
(1) FY17 start of year "as restated" in FY17 CAFR.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of El Cerrito Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 36 of 138
El Cerrito
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of El Cerrito
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY (1)
Total Pension Liability (1)
Plan Fiduciary Net Position
% Funded (1) 78.4% 79.8%
Net Pension Liability $39,314,773 $45,992,107 $54,843,000
% of General Fund Revenues 159%
Net OPEB Liability (2) na na na
Source: City of El Cerrito CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(1) Total CALPERS pension liability not reported.
(2) City does not provide OPEB to retirees (allows continuation at employee cost).
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of El Cerrito
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 22,181,119 21,120,338 18,405,738
Business Type Activities 3,349,648 2,998,657 2,347,900
Total Outstanding Debt 25,530,767 24,118,995 20,753,638
Total Debt per Capita $1,058 $985 $841
Assessed Value $3,264,235,176 $3,589,412,806 $3,830,500,000
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (1) na na na
Source:
(1) City made a final payment on its revenue bond in fiscal year 2013-14.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of El Cerrito Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 37 of 138
Hercules
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Hercules
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 8.1 sq.mi. 8.1 sq.mi. 8.1 sq.mi.
Population (2) 24,578 24,909 26,185
Change from Prior Year na 1.3% 5.1%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) na na $3,254.2 mill.
Change from Prior Year
A.V. per capita $124,300
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $1,173,000 $1,057,000 $1,110,000
Sales Tax $2,518,000 $1,803,000 $1,943,000
Other Revenues (inc. transfers in) $9,999,000 $11,260,000 $11,907,000
Total GF Revenues $13,690,000 $14,120,000 $14,960,000
Change from Prior Year na 3.1% 5.9%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $2,636,000 $3,826,000 $3,974,000
Public Safety $5,152,000 $5,590,000 $6,022,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $3,308,828 $2,734,553 $2,658,808
Total GF Expenditures $11,096,828 $12,150,553 $12,654,808
Change from Prior Year na 9.5% 4.2%
GF Expenditures per capita $451 $488 $483
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $37,139,000 $39,106,000 $41,695,000
Change from Prior Year 7.0% 5.0% 5.5%
as % of GF Expenditures 334.7% 321.8% 329.5%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Wastewater $2,835,000 $3,855,000 $3,092,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $2,835,000 $3,855,000 $3,092,000
Change from Prior Year na 36.0% -19.8%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $32,874,000 $34,280,000 $37,033,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 11.6 8.9 12.0
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 2.7 0.9 1.0
Business-type Activities 32.3 4.4 6.3
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $71,807,000 $73,330,000 $78,918,000
Net Change from Prior Year 3.9% 2.1% 7.6%
Business-type Activities 13,711,000 14,674,000 23,112,000
Net Change from Prior Year 2.2% 7.0% 57.5%
Total Pension Liability (11) $48,082,409 $49,531,155 n/a (1)
% Pension Funded 74.7% 70.6% n/a (1)
Net Pension Liability $12,152,748 $14,541,817 $0
City of Hercules MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/1/19
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
City/CSD MSR Update Hercules Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 38 of 138
Hercules
(4) See Table 1.
(5) See Table 2. General Gov. includes debt service allocations.
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Hercules
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property Tax $1,173,027 $1,057,005 $1,110,268
Sales Tax 2,517,519 1,803,355 1,942,854
Other Taxes 4,698,466 6,172,225 6,149,566
Licenses and Permits 480,645 344,374 496,355
Fines, Forfeits and Penalties 62,069 60,434 47,824
Revenue from Use of Money and Property 247,365 339,973 237,235
Aid from Other Governments 0 0 2,458,474
Charges for Services 2,210,036 1,999,726 2,140,443
Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 276,501
Intergovernmental 1,710,260 1,707,098 0
Other Revenues 474,228 533,922 0
Total Revenues 13,573,615 14,018,112 14,859,520
Change from Prior Year na 3.3% 6.0%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 111,779 100,000 100,000
Total Other Financing Sources 111,779 100,000 100,000
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $13,685,394 $14,118,112 $14,959,520
Source: City of Hercules CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Hercules Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 39 of 138
Hercules
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Hercules
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General Government (1)
City Council 220,652 $230,664 $121,260
City Manager 335,458 268,778 266,050
Legal Services 259,370 552,942 398,516
Management Services 229,195 369,744 258,578
City Clerk 215 244 299
Cable TV 55,144 58,562 57,510
Risk Management 512,328 480,843 667,989
Other 1,023,339 1,863,841 2,203,467
Public Safety 5,152,092 5,589,583 6,021,830
Streets and Public Works 203,145 187,032 213,999
Parks and Recreation 1,827,391 1,961,669 1,883,159
Community Development 394,923 355,309 512,151
Debt service:
Principal retirement 0 0 0
Prior Period Adjustments 6,370
Interest and fiscal charges 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 10,219,622 11,919,211 12,604,808
Change from Prior Year na 16.6% 5.8%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out (1) 877,206 231,342 50,000
Total Other Financing Uses 877,206 231,342 50,000
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $11,096,828 $12,150,553 $12,654,808
Source: City of Hercules CAFRs - Budgetary Comparisons, and Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balances, Governmental Funds
(1) FY16 CAFR pg. 18 Transfers Out are $1.1 mill vs. pg. 74 $200k (due to debt, see pg. 74. reconciliation).
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Hercules
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $34,550,345 $37,138,911 $39,390,220
Net Change (1) 2,588,566 1,967,559 2,304,712
% Change from Prior Year 7.5% 5.3% 5.9%
Ending Balance, General Fund $37,138,911 $39,106,470 $41,694,932
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 363.4% 328.1% 330.8%
Unassigned $7,969,320 8,291,363 9,426,610
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $103,232,574 $109,322,386 $118,672,536
Unrestricted $16,564,422 $34,482,114 $27,146,535
City/CSD MSR Update Hercules Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 40 of 138
Hercules
Source: City of Hercules CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental Funds
(1) CAFR FY16 Gen'l Gov't detail about $200k higher on pg. 73 vs. pg. 18, resulting in lower change shown here.
----------
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Hercules
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services $6,028,122 $5,595,044 $5,797,766
General Revenues 23,484 24,058 47,424
Total $6,051,606 $5,619,102 $5,845,190
Change from Prior Year na -7.1% 4.0%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Wastewater $2,834,835 $3,854,974 $3,092,380
Total $2,834,835 $3,854,974 $3,092,380
Change from Prior Year na 36.0% -19.8%
Transfers $92,736 $10,452 $0
Beginning Net Position 29,564,510 $32,505,864 $34,280,444
Change in Net Position 3,309,507 1,774,580 2,752,810
Ending Net Position $32,874,017 $34,280,444 $37,033,254
% Change from Prior Year 11.2% 5.5% 8.0%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 11.60 8.89 11.98
Source: City of Hercules CAFRs - Statement of Changes in Net position
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Hercules
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Wastewater $32,874,017 $34,280,444 37,033,254
Total Net Position 32,874,017 34,280,444 37,033,254
% change from prior year n/a 4.3% 8.0%
Source: City of Hercules CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position Proprietary Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Hercules Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 41 of 138
Hercules
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Hercules
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 2.7 0.9 1.0
Cash and Short-term Investments $12,324,323 $11,096,828 11,865,406
Total Current Liabilities (2) 4,523,091 11,827,411 11,827,411
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 32.3 4.4 6.3
Cash and Short-term Investments $20,140,233 $12,379,389 $16,164,274
Total Current Liabilities 623,316 2,822,049 2,550,917
Source: City of Hercules CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
(2) Includes amounts due to other funds.
----------
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Hercules
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $69,082,117 $71,806,545 $73,330,454
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 71,806,545 73,330,454 78,918,108
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 2,724,428 1,523,909 5,587,654
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 3.9% 2.1% 7.6%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $13,411,371 $13,710,590 $14,674,260
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 13,710,590 14,674,260 23,112,231
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 299,219 963,670 8,437,971
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 2.2% 7.0% 57.5%
Source: City of Hercules CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 5)
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Hercules Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 42 of 138
Hercules
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Hercules
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Total Pension Liability (1) $48,082,409 $49,531,155 n/a (1)
Plan Fiduciary Net Position (1) $35,929,661 $34,989,338 n/a (1)
% Funded (2) 74.7% 70.6% n/a (1)
Net Pension Liability $12,152,748 $14,541,817
Net OPEB Liability (2) $638,000 n/a (2) n/a (2)
Source: City of Hercules CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(1) Misc. and Safety Plans (calculated from net liability of each). FY17 not reported.
(2) OPEB as of 6/30/14 per FY17 CAFR; subsequent years not reported.
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Hercules
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities $22,439,587 $22,371,605 $21,896,875
Business Type Activities 10,648,206 10,439,224 16,993,613
Total Outstanding Debt 33,087,793 32,810,829 38,890,488
Total Debt per Capita $1,346 $1,317 $1,485
Assessed Value (2) na na $3,254,207,172
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (2)
Source: City of Hercules CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(1) Assessed value not reported in CAFRs; value is from County Roll Rpt 3211.
(2) FY17 CAFR pg.19 reports $15,261,777 revenue bonds, but does not show revenue coverage.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Hercules Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 43 of 138
Lafayette
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Lafayette
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 15.39 sq.mi. 15.39 sq.mi. 15.39 sq.mi.
Population (2) 24,690 24,924 25,199
Change from Prior Year na 0.9% 1.1%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $6,474.8 mill. $6,973.4 mill. $7,478.1 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 7.7% 7.2%
A.V. per capita $262,200 $279,800 $296,800
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $4,005,000 $4,441,000 $4,722,000
Sales Tax $2,877,000 $3,194,000 $3,008,000
Other Revenues (inc. transfers in) $7,915,000 $8,633,000 $9,293,000
Total GF Revenues $14,797,000 $16,268,000 $17,023,000
Change from Prior Year na 9.9% 4.6%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $3,268,000 $3,667,000 $4,136,000
Public Safety $4,551,000 $4,603,000 $4,691,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $5,558,560 $6,632,324 $7,573,380
Total GF Expenditures $13,377,560 $14,902,324 $16,400,380
Change from Prior Year na 11.4% 10.1%
GF Expenditures per capita $542 $598 $651
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $17,495,000 $18,861,000 $19,483,000
Change from Prior Year 8.1% 7.2% 3.2%
as % of GF Expenditures 130.8% 126.6% 118.8%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Recreation $1,224,000 $1,289,000 $1,201,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $1,224,000 $1,289,000 $1,201,000
Change from Prior Year na 5.3% -6.8%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $362,000 $433,000 $478,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 0.3 0.3 0.4
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 4.0 3.7 3.0
Business-type Activities 2.0 0.6 1.5
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $89,354,000 $90,173,000 $88,391,000
Net Change from Prior Year -2.0% 0.9% -2.0%
Total Pension Liability (11) na na na
City of Lafayette MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/1/19
(1) City of Lafayette (revisions to LAFCO directory)
(2) City of Lafayette (revisions to Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 for most recent estimate is used for a given
year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1 (includes transfers in).
(5) See Table 2. Gen'l Gov. includes Council and Admin.
(6) See Table 3
City/CSD MSR Update City of Lafayette Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 44 of 138
Lafayette
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) City provides a 401(a) defined contribution plan (10% plus up to 5% match).
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Lafayette
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property taxes $4,004,653 $4,441,434 $4,721,526
Sales tax 2,876,935 3,193,914 3,008,076
Other taxes 5,231,370 3,245,115 3,334,677
Charges for services 1,192,055 1,178,572 1,562,345
Intergovernmental 24,587 2,554,915 2,792,558
Licenses and permits 269,669 327,362 302,561
Fines, forfeitures and penalties 126,241 108,791 75,819
Use of money and property 165,266 250,034 340,918
Miscellaneous 905,564 943,514 833,854
Total Revenues 14,796,340 16,243,651 16,972,334
Change from Prior Year na 9.8% 4.5%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 0 25,000 50,000
Total Other Financing Sources 0 25,000 50,000
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $14,796,340 $16,268,651 $17,022,334
Source: City of Lafayette CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Lafayette Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 45 of 138
Lafayette
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Lafayette
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Council, commissions, community support $1,198,457 $1,339,477 $1,346,360
Police services 4,550,675 4,602,565 4,691,205
Parking services 0 0 0
Public works 1,440,157 1,849,403 1,601,742
Senior transportation 0 0 0
Library operations 715,880 775,776 825,482
Planning 620,735 670,380 766,303
Engineering 249,096 373,979 306,371
Administration 2,070,041 2,327,342 2,789,757
Capital outlay 0 0 491,541
Total Expenditures 10,845,041 11,938,922 12,818,761
Change from Prior Year na 10.1% 7.4%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 2,532,519 2,963,402 3,581,619
Total Other Financing Uses 2,532,519 2,963,402 3,581,619
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $13,377,560 $14,902,324 $16,400,380
Source: City of Lafayette CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Lafayette
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $16,075,975 $17,494,755 $18,861,082
Net Change 1,418,780 1,366,327 621,954
% Change from Prior Year 8.8% 7.8% 3.3%
Ending Balance, General Fund $17,494,755 $18,861,082 $19,483,036
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 130.8% 126.6% 118.8%
Unassigned $8,267,328 $9,766,041 $9,522,319
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $130,088,610 $131,869,851 $134,474,174
Unrestricted $23,081,608 $24,796,206 $26,382,458
Source: City of Lafayette CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Lafayette Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 46 of 138
Lafayette
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Lafayette
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services $1,300,023 $1,389,294 $1,300,301
Operating Grants and Contributions 0 0 0
Capital Grants and Contributions 0 0 0
Other 466 762 421
Total $1,300,489 $1,390,056 $1,300,722
Change from Prior Year na 6.9% -6.4%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Recreation $1,224,490 $1,288,899 $1,200,758
Total $1,224,490 $1,288,899 $1,200,758
Change from Prior Year na 5.3% -6.8%
Transfers ($30,000) ($30,000) ($55,000)
Beginning Net Position 315,532 $361,531 $432,688
Change in Net Position 45,999 71,157 44,964
Ending Net Position $361,531 $432,688 $477,652
% Change from Prior Year 14.6% 19.7% 10.4%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 0.30 0.34 0.40
Source: City of Lafayette CAFRs - Statement of Changes in Net position
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Lafayette
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Recreation $361,531 $432,688 $477,652
Total Net Position 361,531 432,688 477,652
% change from prior year n/a 19.7% 10.4%
Source: City of Lafayette CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position Proprietary Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Lafayette Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 47 of 138
Lafayette
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Lafayette
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 4.0 3.7 3.0
Cash and Short-term Investments 12,805,416 13,891,920 13,014,497
Total Current Liabilities (2) 3,192,030 3,715,007 4,404,939
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES (3)
Liquidity Ratio (1) 2.0 0.6 1.5
Cash and Short-term Investments 728,896 270,877 641,793
Total Current Liabilities 357,158 427,583 421,458
Source: City of Lafayette CAFRs - Balance Sheet, and Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
(2) Revised by City to include interest payable and other due within 1 yr.
(3) Recreation programs.
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Lafayette
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets 91,150,290 89,353,851 90,172,656
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 89,353,851 90,172,656 88,390,838
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (1,796,439) 818,805 (1,781,818)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -2.0% 0.9% -2.0%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets
Source: City of Lafayette CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 6)
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Lafayette Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 48 of 138
Lafayette
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Lafayette
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY (1)
NA City of Lafayette provides a defined contribution 401(a) plan
Net OPEB Liability or (assets) (2) ($4,899) ($4,899) ($4,899)
Source: City of Lafayette CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Notes 8-9)
(1) City provides a 401(a) defined contribution plan (10% plus up to 5% match).
(2) CAFRs only report net assets in OPEB account.
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Lafayette
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 6,610,000 6,120,000 4,835,000
Business Type Activities 0 0 0
Total Outstanding Debt 6,610,000 6,120,000 4,835,000
Total Debt per Capita $268 $246 $192
Assessed Value $6,474,849,153 $6,973,421,248 $7,478,118,355
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (1)
Source: CAFRs - Ratios of Debt Outstanding, and Assessed Value, over Ten Years
(1) No revenue bonds or pledged revenues reported.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Lafayette Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 49 of 138
Martinez
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Martinez
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 12.5 sq.mi. 12.5 sq.mi. 12.5 sq.mi.
Population (2) 36,931 37,224 37,831
Change from Prior Year na 0.8% 1.6%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $4,802.4 mill. $5,184.3 mill. $5,445.2 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 8.0% 5.0%
A.V. per capita $130,000 $139,300 $143,900
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $7,165,000 $7,755,000 $8,212,000
Sales Tax $3,088,000 $4,018,000 $4,729,000
Other Revenues $10,894,000 $11,123,000 $9,270,000
Total GF Revenues $21,147,000 $22,896,000 $22,211,000
Change from Prior Year na 8.3% -3.0%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $3,359,000 $3,968,000 $4,518,000
Public Safety $9,327,000 $10,396,000 $10,576,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $6,160,000 $6,080,000 $6,328,000
Total GF Expenditures $18,846,000 $20,444,000 $21,422,000
Change from Prior Year na 8.5% 4.8%
GF Expenditures per capita $510 $549 $566
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $10,574,000 $12,962,000 $13,751,000
Change from Prior Year 21.8% 18.9% 5.7%
as % of GF Expenditures 56.1% 63.4% 64.2%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Water System $11,259,000 $10,649,000 $10,456,000
Marina Services $120,000 $138,000 $308,000
Parking Services $200,000 $243,000 $247,000
Other $0 $0 $294,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $11,579,000 $11,030,000 $11,305,000
Change from Prior Year na -4.7% 2.5%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $37,416,000 $38,126,000 $37,817,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 3.2 3.5 3.3
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 6.7 7.1 10.3
Business-type Activities 7.4 4.6 4.6
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $42,905,000 $42,059,000 $45,585,000
Net Change from Prior Year -4.6% -2.0% 8.4%
Business-type Activities 26,147,000 28,820,000 27,278,000
Net Change from Prior Year 1.7% 10.2% -5.3%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Net Liability $27,330,000 $29,460,000 $36,410,000
City of Martinez MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/1/19
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1
City/CSD MSR Update City of Martinez Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 50 of 138
Martinez
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. Total liability not reported in CAFR.
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Martinez
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property Tax (1) $7,165,086 $7,755,254 $8,212,232
Sales Tax (1) 3,088,342 4,017,775 4,728,669
Other Taxes (1) 7,139,293 7,434,262 6,361,279
Licenses, permits, and fees 796,903 840,050 705,510
Intergovernmental 1,181,627 670,768 608,282
Charges for services 1,006,584 1,209,399 859,924
Fines and forfeits 419,100 450,563 345,998
Use of money and property 134,954 243,033 238,577
Miscellaneous 215,647 275,250 150,152
Total Revenues 21,147,536 22,896,354 22,210,623
Change from Prior Year na 8.3% -3.0%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 0 0 0
Total Other Financing Sources 0 0 0
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $21,147,536 $22,896,354 $22,210,623
Source: City of Martinez CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
(1) CAFRs don't detail taxes; amounts derived from "Changes in Net Position Last 10 Yrs".
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Martinez Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 51 of 138
Martinez
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Martinez
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General Government $1,311,797 $1,234,239 $1,367,650
Nondepartmental services 1,151,381 1,389,052 1,857,896
Administrative services 895,776 1,345,127 1,292,152
Public works 3,754,724 3,657,350 3,699,160
Community & economic development 2,359,215 2,161,219 2,316,034
Police 9,326,888 10,395,574 10,576,113
Debt service:
Principal retirement 0 0 0
Interest and fiscal charges 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 18,799,781 20,182,561 21,109,005
Change from Prior Year na 7.4% 4.6%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 46,238 261,054 313,068
Total Other Financing Uses 46,238 261,054 313,068
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $18,846,019 $20,443,615 $21,422,073
Source: City of Martinez CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
(1)
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Martinez
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $8,272,585 $10,509,493 $12,962,232
Net Change 2,301,517 2,452,739 788,550
% Change from Prior Year 27.8% 23.3% 6.1%
Ending Balance, General Fund $10,574,102 $12,962,232 $13,750,782
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 56.2% 64.2% 65.1%
Unassigned $7,736,927 $9,826,549 $8,634,938
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $42,891,994 $46,114,628 $47,608,471
Unrestricted ($13,666,690) ($8,401,847) ($7,757,618)
Source: City of Martinez CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Martinez Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 52 of 138
Martinez
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Martinez
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services $12,041,560 $11,706,158 $11,010,378
Operating Grants and Contributions 0 0 0
Capital Grants and Contributions 1,019,923 0 0
Other Non-Operating 185,215 158,551
Total $13,061,483 $11,891,373 $11,168,929
Change from Prior Year na -9.0% -6.1%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Water System $11,259,352 $10,649,350 $10,455,791
Marina Services 119,657 138,468 307,885
Parking Services 199,791 242,805 247,202
Other Expenses 294,411
Total $11,578,800 $11,030,623 $11,305,289
Change from Prior Year na -4.7% 2.5%
Transfers (net) $21,238 $70,454 $155,218
Beginning Net Position (1) 35,911,925 $37,195,126 $37,798,621
Change in Net Position 1,503,921 931,204 18,858
Ending Net Position (1) $37,415,846 $38,126,330 $37,817,479
% Change from Prior Year 4.2% 2.5% 0.0%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 3.23 3.46 3.35
Source: City of Martinez CAFRs - Statement of Changes in Net position
(1) Note: totals may differ from Statement of Activities due to Internal Fund allocations.
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Martinez
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Water System $38,472,838 $38,765,641 $39,221,184
Marina Services (3,367,692) (3,387,680) (3,325,878)
Parking Services 2,089,980 2,420,660 2,745,604
Total Net Position 37,195,126 37,798,621 38,640,910
% change from prior year n/a 1.6% 2.2%
Source: City of Martinez CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position Proprietary Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Martinez Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 53 of 138
Martinez
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Martinez
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 6.7 7.1 10.3
Cash and Short-term Investments (2) $21,354,153 $22,995,447 $23,525,041
Total Current Liabilities 3,164,913 3,243,181 2,278,243
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 7.4 4.6 4.6
Cash and Short-term Investments (2) $17,414,726 $12,390,464 $12,345,000
Total Current Liabilities 2,346,889 2,682,081 2,688,961
Source: City of Martinez CAFRs - Balance Sheet, and Statement of Net Position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
(2) Available for operations.
----------
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Martinez
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $44,974,957 $42,905,384 $42,058,558
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 42,905,384 42,058,558 45,584,651
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (2,069,573) (846,826) 3,526,093
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -4.6% -2.0% 8.4%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $25,706,096 $26,146,986 $28,819,620
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 26,146,986 28,819,620 27,278,015
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 440,890 2,672,634 (1,541,605)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 1.7% 10.2% -5.3%
Source: City of Martinez CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 6 - CAPITAL ASSETS)
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Martinez Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 54 of 138
Martinez
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Martinez
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Net Pension Liability $27,329,187 $29,458,741 $36,408,168
Net OPEB Asset or (Liability) (1) 4,306,976 4,071,910 4,064,683
Source: City of Martinez CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements Notes 11-12
(1) Total liability not reported in CAFR.
(2) FY17 CAFR indicates net OPEB assets in CERBT.
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Martinez
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 23,055,000 22,945,000 22,820,000
Business Type Activities 13,121,103 12,244,353 11,332,604
Total Outstanding Debt 36,176,103 35,189,353 34,152,604
Total Debt per Capita $980 $945 $903
Assessed Value $4,802,400,460 $5,184,258,980 $5,445,221,010
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) 1.99 2.27 2.49
Source: CAFRs - Ratio of Outstanding Debt, Assessed and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property, Revenue
Bond Coverage.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Martinez Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 55 of 138
Moraga
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Moraga
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 9.5 sq.mi. 9.5 sq.mi. 9.5 sq.mi.
Population (2) 16,434 16,581 16,866
Change from Prior Year na 0.9% 1.7%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $3,380.3 mill. $3,581.3 mill. $3,790.8 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 5.9% 5.8%
A.V. per capita $205,700 $216,000 $224,800
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $1,854,000 $1,983,000 $2,111,000
Sales Tax $2,755,000 $1,069,000 $1,007,000
Other Revenues $4,876,637 $7,274,759 $5,118,817
Total GF Revenues $9,485,637 $10,326,759 $8,236,817
Change from Prior Year na 8.9% -20.2%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $1,439,000 $1,609,000 $1,676,000
Public Safety $2,494,000 $2,537,000 $2,564,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $5,529,465 $4,232,700 $4,306,480
Total GF Expenditures $9,462,465 $8,378,700 $8,546,480
Change from Prior Year na -11.5% 2.0%
GF Expenditures per capita $576 $505 $507
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $5,363,000 $7,311,000 $7,001,000
Change from Prior Year 0.4% 26.6% -4.4%
as % of GF Expenditures 56.7% 87.3% 81.9%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $0 $0 $0
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 8.0 8.9 8.4
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $26,267,000 $29,737,000 $29,861,000
Net Change from Prior Year 14.2% 13.2% 0.4%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Net Liability $3,614,505 $3,840,323 $5,226,347
Town of Moraga MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/1/19
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1. $1.7 mill. of Measure K (gen'l tax) in FY17 shifted to Pavement Management Fund.
(5) See Table 2. $1.7 mill. Measure K shown as transfer out in FY15.
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4. No enterprises.
(8) See Table 4. No enterprises.
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8
City/CSD MSR Update Town of Moraga Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 56 of 138
Moraga
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Moraga
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Other revenues (1) $187,924 $2,396,511 $168,523
Property taxes and assessments $1,853,970 $1,982,959 $2,110,849
Property tax - in lieu 1,448,086 1,533,346 1,622,029
Sales and use tax 2,755,146 1,069,161 1,006,620
Franchise fees 955,183 1,007,135 1,023,530
Real property transfer fees 149,620 157,140 155,746
Motor vehicle license fees 6,772 6,644 7,398
Planning and permits 528,548 535,714 476,409
Interest 12,228 20,164 40,582
Property rentals 41,285 89,867 92,653
Parks and recreation 357,278 387,884 436,950
Police services 72,379 83,766 69,026
Public works services 255,857 253,065 231,808
Total Revenues 8,624,276 9,523,356 7,442,123
Change from Prior Year na 10.4% -21.9%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 861,361 803,403 794,694
Total Other Financing Sources 861,361 803,403 794,694
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $9,485,637 $10,326,759 $8,236,817
Source: City of Moraga CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
(1) $1.7 mill. of Measure K (gen'l tax) in FY17 shifted to Pavement Management Fund.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Town of Moraga Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 57 of 138
Moraga
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Moraga
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General administration $1,438,996 $1,608,798 $1,675,824
Planning 720,128 550,689 686,417
Public safety 2,493,681 2,537,267 2,564,426
Public works 940,691 904,917 1,036,004
Parks and recreation 1,146,108 1,187,465 1,220,187
Debt service:
Principal retirement 11,864 12,221 12,592
Interest and fiscal charges 1,402 1,046 673
Total Expenditures 6,752,870 6,802,403 7,196,123
Change from Prior Year na 0.7% 5.8%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out (1) 2,709,595 1,576,297 1,350,357
Total Other Financing Uses 2,709,595 1,576,297 1,350,357
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $9,462,465 $8,378,700 $8,546,480
Source: City of Moraga CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
(1) $1.7 mill. Measure K shown as "transfer out" in FY15.
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Moraga
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $5,339,788 $5,362,960 $7,311,019
Net Change 23,172 1,948,059 (309,663)
% Change from Prior Year 0.4% 36.3% -4.2%
Ending Balance, General Fund $5,362,960 $7,311,019 $7,001,356
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 79.4% 107.5% 97.3%
Unassigned $3,071,555 $4,116,870 $2,309,276
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $40,429,929 $44,100,956 $47,588,576
Unrestricted $792,542 $1,471,051 $2,260,694
Source: City of Moraga CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Town of Moraga Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 58 of 138
Moraga
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Moraga
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Town of Moraga reports no enterprises or business type activities
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Moraga
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Town of Moraga reports no enterprises or business type activities
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Moraga
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 8.0 8.9 8.4
Cash and Short-term Investments $9,904,178 $12,458,153 $10,271,302
Total Current Liabilities 1,239,288 1,401,884 1,229,032
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES (2)
Source: City of Moraga CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
(2) Town of Moraga reports no enterprises or business type activities.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Town of Moraga Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 59 of 138
Moraga
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Moraga
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $23,005,194 $26,266,609 $29,737,197
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 26,266,609 29,737,197 29,860,866
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 3,261,415 3,470,588 123,669
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 14.2% 13.2% 0.4%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES (1)
Source: City of Moraga CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 5)
(1) Town of Moraga reports no enterprises or business type activities.
----------
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Moraga
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY (1)
Net Pension Liability $3,614,505 $3,840,323 $5,226,347
Net OPEB Liability (2)
Source: City of Moraga CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(1) The CAFRs do not report total pension liability or % funded.
(2) The Town of Moraga does not offer OPEB.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Town of Moraga Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 60 of 138
Moraga
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Moraga
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 8,696,489 8,328,118 7,949,280
Total Outstanding Debt 8,696,489 8,328,118 7,949,280
Total Debt per Capita $529 $502 $471
Assessed Value $3,380,306,397 $3,581,316,597 $3,790,771,853
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (2) na na na
Source: City of Moraga CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(1) Town of Moraga reports no enterprises or business type activities.
(2) No revenue bonds reported.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Town of Moraga Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 61 of 138
Oakley
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Oakley
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 16.08 sq.mi. 16.08 sq.mi. 16.08 sq.mi.
Population (2) 39,609 40,237 41,116
Change from Prior Year na 1.6% 2.2%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $3,161.0 mill. $3,417.0 mill. $3,693.0 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 8.1% 8.1%
A.V. per capita $79,800 $84,900 $89,800
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $4,833,000 $5,324,000 $5,796,000
Sales Tax $1,506,000 $1,753,000 $1,774,000
Other Revenues $4,441,000 $8,683,000 $5,060,000
Total GF Revenues $10,780,000 $15,760,000 $12,630,000
Change from Prior Year na 46.2% -19.9%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $1,737,000 $1,818,000 $2,323,000
Public Safety $4,523,000 $4,499,000 $4,009,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $3,860,000 $4,913,000 $9,178,000
Total GF Expenditures $10,120,000 $11,230,000 $15,510,000
Change from Prior Year na 11.0% 38.1%
GF Expenditures per capita $255 $279 $377
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $13,042,000 $17,570,000 $14,696,000
Change from Prior Year 5.1% 25.8% -19.6%
as % of GF Expenditures 128.9% 156.5% 94.8%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 5.4 6.6 7.1
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $140,316,000 $142,459,000 $154,123,000
Net Change from Prior Year -0.4% 1.5% 8.2%
Total Pension Liability (11) x $6,123,455 $6,945,283
Net Liability $1,100,000 $1,380,000 $1,730,000
City of Oakley MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/1/19
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4. No enterprises.
(8) See Table 4. No enterprises.
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. Total liability not reported in CAFR.
City/CSD MSR Update Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 62 of 138
Oakley
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Oakley
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property taxes $4,832,574 $5,323,685 $5,796,258
Sales tax 1,506,300 1,752,799 1,773,662
Other taxes 1,494,472 1,645,472 1,810,495
Licenses and permits 1,284,503 2,024,190 2,347,562
Charges for services 74,901 108,808 207,009
Fines and forfeits 135,352 138,383 132,602
Motor vehicle in lieu 15,603 15,651 17,983
Other Intergovernmental 527,342 399,284 583,035
Use of money and property 238,815 248,225 210,675
Miscellaneous 935,706 1,115,821 977,509
Assets transferred from Successor Agency (274,305) 2,903,630 (1,293,715)
Total Revenues 10,771,263 15,675,948 12,563,075
Change from Prior Year na 45.5% -19.9%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In (1) 11,852 79,628 67,718
Total Other Financing Sources 11,852 79,628 67,718
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $10,783,115 $15,755,576 $12,630,793
Source: City of Oakley CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
(1) Includes "gain from sale of property held for resale"
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 63 of 138
Oakley
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Oakley
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Legislative $449,349 $482,763 $613,712
Administrative Services 1,287,373 1,335,242 1,709,410
Community Development 1,345,552 1,592,691 1,633,110
Public Works 611,690 618,182 925,202
Housing programs 0 0 0
Law Enforcement 4,523,333 4,498,740 4,008,919
Recreation 433,155 492,798 521,441
Capital outlay 40,000 676,829 793,521
Total Expenditures 8,690,452 9,697,245 10,205,315
Change from Prior Year na 11.6% 5.2%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 1,432,500 1,530,000 5,300,000
Total Other Financing Uses 1,432,500 1,530,000 5,300,000
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $10,122,952 $11,227,245 $15,505,315
Source: City of Oakley CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Oakley
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $12,381,961 $13,042,124 $17,570,455
Net Change 660,163 4,528,331 (2,874,522)
% Change from Prior Year 5.3% 34.7% -16.4%
Ending Balance, General Fund $13,042,124 $17,570,455 $14,695,933
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 150.1% 181.2% 144.0%
Unassigned $7,938,168 $9,067,909 $8,769,443
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $188,234,059 $198,498,356 $222,479,638
Unrestricted $13,897,885 $17,748,114 $20,394,741
Source: City of Oakley CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 64 of 138
Oakley
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Oakley
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Town of Oakley reports no enterprises or business type activities
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Oakley
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Town of Moraga reports no enterprises or business type activities
----------
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Oakley
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 5.4 6.6 7.1
Cash and Short-term Investments (2) 31,396,255 30,753,425 37,823,597
Total Current Liabilities (3) 5,795,429 4,671,844 5,303,799
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES (4)
Source: City of Oakley CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
(2) Available for operations.
(3) Excludes long-term debt.
(4) Town of Oakley reports no enterprises or business type activities.
City/CSD MSR Update Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 65 of 138
Oakley
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Oakley
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets 140,931,286 140,316,250 $142,459,351
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 140,316,250 142,459,351 154,122,670
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (615,036) 2,143,101 11,663,319
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -0.4% 1.5% 8.2%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES (1)
Source: City of Oakley CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(1) Town of Oakley reports no enterprises or business type activities.
----------
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Oakley
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Total Pension Liability (1) 5,847,433 6,123,455 6,945,283
Plan Fiduciary Net Position (1) 4,745,200 4,743,045 5,215,960
% Funded 81.2% 77.5% 75.1%
Net Pension Liability $1,102,233 $1,380,410 $1,729,323
Net OPEB Liability (2)
Source: City of Oakley CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(1) City edits to Fiscal Profile
(2) The City has no OPEB liabilities.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 66 of 138
Oakley
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Oakley
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 6,690,000 6,415,000 9,715,000
Business Type Activities
Total Outstanding Debt 6,690,000 6,415,000 9,715,000
Total Debt per Capita $169 $159 $236
Assessed Value $3,161,000,000 $3,417,000,000 $3,693,000,000
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (1)
Source: CAFRs - Ratio of Outstanding Debt, Assessed and Estimated Value
(1) No revenues bonds reported except former redevelopment agency.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 67 of 138
Orinda
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Orinda
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 12.8 sq.mi. 12.8 sq.mi. 12.8 sq.mi.
Population (2) 18,578 18,838 19,012
Change from Prior Year na 1.4% 0.9%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $5,387.1 mill. $5,835.1 mill. $6,157.6 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 8.3% 5.5%
A.V. per capita $290,000 $309,800 $323,900
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $5,653,000 $6,123,000 $6,543,000
Sales Tax $2,067,000 $2,121,000 $2,107,000
Other Revenues (inc. Transfers In) $5,324,183 $5,581,236 $5,114,653
Total GF Revenues $13,044,183 $13,825,236 $13,764,653
Change from Prior Year na 6.0% -0.4%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $1,834,000 $2,015,000 $1,977,000
Public Safety $3,960,000 $4,034,000 $4,112,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $6,368,067 $6,444,523 $9,791,389
Total GF Expenditures $12,162,067 $12,493,523 $15,880,389
Change from Prior Year na 2.7% 27.1%
GF Expenditures per capita $655 $663 $835
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $7,972,000 $9,304,000 $6,939,000
Change from Prior Year 3.3% 14.3% -38.5%
as % of GF Expenditures 65.5% 74.5% 43.7%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Total Enterprise Net Position (8)
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 5.6 3.6 2.5
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $40,328,000 $40,092,000 $47,860,000
Net Change from Prior Year -1.5% -0.6% 19.4%
Total Pension Liability (11)
City of Orinda MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/1/19
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1, minus debt payments (FY16).
(5) See Table 2, minus debt payments.
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(8) See Table 4. No enterprises.
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) Town of Orinda provides a defined contribution 401(a) plan.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Orinda Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 68 of 138
Orinda
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Orinda
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property tax and assessments $5,653,003 $6,123,408 $6,543,094
Sales tax 2,067,331 2,121,297 2,106,881
Franchise tax 1,034,647 1,082,218 1,118,568
Property transfer tax 316,208 250,992 262,260
Rent and interest 114,210 157,267 138,496
Unrealized loss on investments 0 0 (100,919)
Recreation fees 1,964,749 2,115,214 2,052,855
Service fees 1,228,464 1,565,470 1,267,340
Other agencies 33,721 33,589 33,200
Miscellaneous 407,007 136,028 119,665
Total Revenues 12,819,340 13,585,483 13,541,440
Change from Prior Year na 6.0% -0.3%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 224,843 8,407,754 223,213
Total Other Financing Sources 224,843 8,407,754 223,213
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $13,044,183 $21,993,237 $13,764,653
Source: City of Orinda CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
(1) Includes bonds for 2015-16 (excluded in summary).
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Orinda Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 69 of 138
Orinda
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Orinda
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
City management $445,054 $517,396 $573,468
City attorney 529,400 390,800 440,664
City clerk 217,899 245,716 234,249
Administrative services 641,474 860,805 728,704
Parks and recreation 2,386,392 2,557,929 2,761,601
Public works and engineering 2,155,688 2,503,302 3,548,211
Police services 3,959,757 4,033,935 4,112,216
Planning 903,543 1,007,036 921,671
Debt service:
Principal retirement 369,660 8,030,000 295,000
Interest and fiscal charges 250,000 138,001 262,044
Total Expenditures 11,858,867 20,284,920 13,877,828
Change from Prior Year na 71.1% -31.6%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 922,860 376,604 2,559,605
Total Other Financing Uses 922,860 376,604 2,559,605
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $12,781,727 $20,661,524 $16,437,433
Source: City of Orinda CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
(1) FY16 includes $7,945,000 + $223,001 transfers in for debt service (excluded from summary table).
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Orinda
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $7,709,599 $7,972,055 $9,611,395
Net Change 262,456 1,331,713 (2,672,780)
% Change from Prior Year 3.4% 16.7% -27.8%
Ending Balance, General Fund $7,972,055 $9,303,768 $6,938,615
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 67.2% 45.9% 50.0%
Unassigned $7,972,055 $9,204,680 $612,210
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $58,288,650 $60,696,792 $66,161,081
Unrestricted $9,622,488 $10,916,822 $7,248,745
Source: City of Orinda CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
City/CSD MSR Update City of Orinda Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 70 of 138
Orinda
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Orinda
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Town of Orinda reports no enterprises or business type activities
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Orinda
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Town of Orinda reports no enterprises or business type activities
----------
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Orinda
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 5.6 3.6 2.5
Cash and Short-term Investments (2) 13,816,336 17,722,097 14,250,418
Total Current Liabilities 2,449,555 4,920,650 5,675,441
Source: City of Orinda CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
(2) Excludes "restricted cash".
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Orinda Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 71 of 138
Orinda
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Orinda
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $40,930,024 $40,328,390 $40,091,524
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 40,328,390 40,091,524 47,860,216
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (601,634) (236,866) 7,768,692
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -1.5% -0.6% 19.4%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES (1)
Source: City of Orinda CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (lNote 3c)
(1) Town of Orinda reports no enterprises or business type activities.
----------
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Orinda
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Town of Orinda provides a defined contribution 401(a) plan
Net OPEB Liability
Source: City of Orinda CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Orinda
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities $18,280,000 $17,630,000 $51,270,000
Total Outstanding Debt 18,280,000 17,630,000 51,270,000
Total Debt per Capita $984 $936 $2,697
Assessed Value $5,387,051,165 $5,835,129,469 $6,157,578,113
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (1) na na na
Source: City of Orinda CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(1) Certificates of Participation and debt secured by voter approved non-General Fund revenue.
(2) CAFRs report no revenue bonds.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Orinda Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 72 of 138
Pinole
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 11.61 sq.mi. 11.61 sq.mi. 11.61 sq.mi.
Population (2) 18,660 18,827 19,101
Change from Prior Year na 0.9% 1.5%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $1,974.5 mill. $2,112.8 mill. $2,232.0 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 7.0% 5.6%
A.V. per capita $105,800 $112,200 $116,900
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $5,132,000 $3,413,000 $3,491,000
Sales Tax $6,120,000 $7,859,000 $7,597,000
Other Revenues $6,066,000 $6,120,000 $6,065,000
Total GF Revenues $17,317,575 $17,391,787 $17,152,904
Change from Prior Year na 0.4% -1.4%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $2,136,000 $2,685,000 $2,708,000
Public Safety $8,336,000 $9,025,000 $9,459,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $1,550,000 $2,808,000 $2,348,000
Total GF Expenditures $12,022,000 $14,518,000 $14,515,000
Change from Prior Year na 20.8% 0.0%
GF Expenditures per capita $644 $771 $760
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $5,292,000 $9,070,000 $11,707,000
Change from Prior Year 100.1% 31.7% 22.5%
as % of GF Expenditures 44.0% 62.5% 80.7%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Wastewater Utility $4,883,000 $5,316,000 $4,597,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $4,883,000 $5,316,000 $4,597,000
Change from Prior Year na 8.9% -13.5%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $16,207,000 $18,454,000 $20,014,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 3.3 3.5 4.4
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 4.9 6.0 6.6
Business-type Activities 7.0 30.9 4.6
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $35,100,000 $27,460,000 $26,200,000
Net Change from Prior Year 18.6% -2.6% -4.7%
Business-type Activities 16,900,000 16,100,000 15,800,000
Net Change from Prior Year -3.4% -4.7% -1.9%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Net Liability $18,570,000 $21,150,000 $27,120,000
City of Pinole MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/2/18
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pinole Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 73 of 138
Pinole
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. Total liability and net position not reported in CAFR.
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property Taxes $5,132,285 $3,412,893 $3,491,463
Sales Taxes 6,120,157 7,859,195 7,596,645
Other Taxes $2,891,347 $3,023,447 $3,411,313
Intergovernmental revenues 1,515,953 1,785,007 83,902
Loan repayments 0 0 0
Contributions 125 1,125 924
Investment earnings 1,045 85,311 (17,854)
Rents and ground leases 95,901 52,285 117,721
Charges for services 999,977 887,723 2,233,571
Fines, forfeitures and penalties 58,863 41,564 43,051
Other revenues 81,988 241,328 192,168
Total Revenues 16,897,641 17,389,878 17,152,904
Change from Prior Year na 2.9% -1.4%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In (1) 419,934 1,909 0
Total Other Financing Sources 419,934 1,909 0
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $17,317,575 $17,391,787 $17,152,904
Source: City of Pinole CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
(1) Includes proceeds from sale of property.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pinole Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 74 of 138
Pinole
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General administration $2,135,828 $2,684,966 $2,708,417
Public safety 8,335,562 9,024,926 9,458,536
Public works 724,765 1,303,324 813,107
Recreation 0 2,964 12,784
Community development 0 4,785 7,959
Capital outlay 117,519 376,350 141,640
Debt service:
Principal retirement 373,007 369,177 363,151
Interest and fiscal charges 290,860 305,569 338,507
Total Expenditures 11,977,541 14,072,061 13,844,101
Change from Prior Year na 17.5% -1.6%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 44,375 446,000 671,364
Total Other Financing Uses 44,375 446,000 671,364
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $12,021,916 $14,518,061 $14,515,465
Source: City of Pinole CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
Funds
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance ($3,664) $6,195,836 $9,069,562
Net Change 5,295,659 2,873,726 2,637,439
% Change from Prior Year na 46.4% 29.1%
Ending Balance, General Fund $5,291,995 $9,069,562 $11,707,001
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 44.2% 64.5% 84.6%
Unassigned $4,261,995 $9,062,287 $11,700,289
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $15,735,207 $19,340,737 $19,307,804
Unrestricted ($21,819,095) ($17,014,950) ($31,148,654)
Source: City of Pinole CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pinole Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 75 of 138
Pinole
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services $6,912,213 $7,541,964 $6,315,563
Operating Grants and Contributions 0 0 0
Capital Grants and Contributions 0 0 0
Investment Earnings 8,266 20,137 3,570
Total $6,920,479 $7,562,101 $6,319,133
Change from Prior Year na 9.3% -16.4%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Wastewater utility $4,883,256 $5,316,022 $4,597,454
Total $4,883,256 $5,316,022 $4,597,454
Change from Prior Year na 8.9% -13.5%
Transfers
Beginning Net Position 14,170,227 $16,207,450 $18,292,291
Change in Net Position 2,037,223 2,246,079 1,721,679
Ending Net Position $16,207,450 $18,453,529 $20,013,970
% Change from Prior Year 14.4% 13.9% 9.4%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 3.32 3.47 4.35
Source: City of Pinole CAFRs - Statement of Changes in Net position
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Wastewater utility $16,200,000 $18,500,000 $20,000,000
Total Net Position 16,200,000 18,500,000 20,000,000
% change from prior year n/a 14.2% 8.1%
Source: City of Pinole CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position Proprietary Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pinole Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 76 of 138
Pinole
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 4.9 6.0 6.6
Cash and Short-term Investments (2) 16,191,657 21,383,988 24,513,896
Total Current Liabilities (3) 3,330,733 3,568,849 3,698,343
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 7.0 30.9 4.6
Cash and Short-term Investments 6,833,339 5,579,861 10,241,196
Total Current Liabilities 977,980 180,542 2,216,136
Source: City of Pinole CAFRs - Balance Sheet, Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
(2) Includes funds held by fiscal agents.
(3) Includes advances from trust fund.
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets 29,600,000 28,200,000 $27,500,000
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 35,100,000 27,460,000 26,200,000
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 5,500,000 (740,000) (1,300,000)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 18.6% -2.6% -4.7%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets 17,500,000 16,900,000 $16,100,000
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 16,900,000 16,100,000 15,800,000
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (600,000) (800,000) (300,000)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -3.4% -4.7% -1.9%
Source: City of Pinole CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pinole Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 77 of 138
Pinole
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Net Pension Liability $18,565,336 $21,152,561 $27,123,752
Net OPEB Liability $16,056,989 $19,477,288 $19,477,288
Source: City of Pinole CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(1) The CAFRs do not report total pension liability or % funded.
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 4,713,668 4,344,491 3,981,339
Business Type Activities 8,775,000 8,251,000 7,866,000
Total Outstanding Debt 13,488,668 12,595,491 11,847,339
Total Debt per Capita $723 $669 $620
Assessed Value $1,974,488,120 $2,112,755,713 $2,231,990,406
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (1)
Source: CAFRs - Ratios of Outstanding Debt.
(1) Wastewater revenue bond coverage not reported.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pinole Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 78 of 138
Pittsburg
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Pittsburg
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 19.75 sq.mi. 19.75 sq.mi. 19.75 sq.mi.
Population (2) 67,119 68,133 71,342
Change from Prior Year na 1.5% 4.7%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $2,138.4 mill. $2,238.3 mill. $2,271.4 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 4.7% 1.5%
A.V. per capita $31,900 $32,900 $31,800
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $3,205,000 $3,301,000 $3,574,000
Sales Tax $11,746,000 $13,113,000 $13,372,000
Other Revenues 21,828,757 24,207,941 25,467,362
Total GF Revenues $36,779,757 $40,621,941 $42,413,362
Change from Prior Year na 10.4% 4.4%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $8,752,000 $7,411,000 $8,104,000
Public Safety $21,485,000 $22,848,000 $24,110,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $9,100,172 $9,152,934 $9,582,867
Total GF Expenditures $39,337,172 $39,411,934 $41,796,867
Change from Prior Year na 0.2% 6.1%
GF Expenditures per capita $586 $578 $586
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $18,056,000 $19,266,000 $19,883,000
Change from Prior Year -14.2% 6.3% 3.1%
as % of GF Expenditures 45.9% 48.9% 47.6%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Water Utility $17,478,000 $18,553,000 $25,930,000
Sewer Utility $2,264,000 $2,583,000 $3,176,000
Marina $2,352,000 $2,424,000 $2,471,000
Pittsburg Power $6,670,000 $6,597,000 $6,570,000
Waterfront Operations $751,000 $972,000 $1,512,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $29,515,000 $31,129,000 $39,659,000
Change from Prior Year na 5.5% 27.4%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $125,195,000 $129,754,000 $130,302,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 4.2 4.2 3.3
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 3.8 4.1 3.3
Business-type Activities 4.0 4.4 5.3
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $218,899,000 $212,522,000 $202,984,000
Net Change from Prior Year 0.9% -2.9% -4.5%
Business-type Activities 120,485,000 119,606,000 118,182,000
Net Change from Prior Year 11.7% -0.7% -1.2%
Total Pension Liability (11) $153,173,389 $167,532,521 $175,801,634
% Pension Funded 73.7% 74.2% 71.3%
Net Pension Liability $40,285,022 $43,257,523 $50,402,455
City of Pittsburg MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/2/19
(1) Email from Brad Farmer, City of Pittsburg, Aug. 6, 2018. Includes 3 sq.mi. of water.
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pittsburg Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 79 of 138
Pittsburg
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1
(5) See Table 2. Public safety includes police and fire.
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Pittsburg
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property tax $3,204,965 $3,300,776 $3,573,822
Sales tax 11,745,524 13,112,880 13,372,246
Franchise tax 4,171,756 4,476,832 4,545,452
Other taxes 5,662,960 6,104,751 1,712,450
Intergovernmental revenues 1,344,024 2,046,540 7,494,882
Permits, licenses, and fees 981,810 1,093,626 1,056,906
Fines and forfeitures 172,374 307,427 292,235
Special assessments 0 0 0
Service fees 3,426,535 3,859,696 3,685,279
Use of money and property 257,699 366,048 142,904
Other revenues 1,829,070 1,969,896 2,103,960
Service Charges
Total Revenues 32,796,717 36,638,472 37,980,136
Change from Prior Year na 11.7% 3.7%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 3,983,040 3,983,469 4,433,226
Total Other Financing Sources 3,983,040 3,983,469 4,433,226
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $36,779,757 $40,621,941 $42,413,362
Source: City of Pittsburg CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pittsburg Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 80 of 138
Pittsburg
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Pittsburg
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General Government $4,364,158 $2,732,149 $3,143,562
City Council 80,833 70,516 83,145
City Manager and City Clerk 524,063 696,190 687,648
City Attorney 543,898 321,834 459,513
Human resources 815,515 870,737 880,116
Finance and services 2,423,502 2,719,441 2,850,111
Community development and services 5,627,635 5,662,666 5,829,914
Public safety 21,484,994 22,848,398 24,110,402
Public works - administration 85,968 66,518 92,639
Public works - streets 2,036,911 2,013,465 2,243,733
Public works - parks 100,214 120,266 131,094
Capital outlay and improvements
Debt service:
Principal retirement 0 0 0
Interest and fiscal charges 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 38,087,691 38,122,180 40,511,877
Change from Prior Year na 0.1% 6.3%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 1,249,481 1,289,754 1,284,990
Total Other Financing Uses 1,249,481 1,289,754 1,284,990
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $39,337,172 $39,411,934 $41,796,867
Source: City of Pittsburg CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Pittsburg
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $20,613,670 $18,056,255 $19,266,262
Net Change (2,557,415) 1,210,007 616,495
% Change from Prior Year -12.4% 6.7% 3.2%
Ending Balance, General Fund $18,056,255 $19,266,262 $19,882,757
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 47.4% 50.5% 49.1%
Unassigned $14,613,983 $15,957,212 $17,037,283
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $258,489,784 $244,865,938 $244,926,583
Unrestricted ($37,752,882) ($39,107,180) ($33,347,842)
Source: City of Pittsburg CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds; Statement of Net Position.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pittsburg Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 81 of 138
Pittsburg
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Pittsburg
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services $33,956,795 $35,597,165 $36,333,258
Operating Grants and Contributions 2,145,271 1,780,581 200,127
Capital Grants and Contributions 0 0 6,026,102
Other Non-Operating (1) 504,216 665,412 421,910
Total $36,606,282 $38,043,158 $42,981,397
Change from Prior Year na 3.9% 13.0%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Water Utility $17,477,524 $18,552,726 $25,929,659
Sewer Utility 2,264,022 2,583,101 3,176,015
Marina 2,352,274 2,424,083 2,471,440
Pittsburg Power 6,670,282 6,597,065 6,569,528
Waterfront Operations 750,765 972,469 1,512,250
Total $29,514,867 $31,129,444 $39,658,892
Change from Prior Year na 5.5% 27.4%
Transfers ($2,677,386) ($2,354,972) ($2,774,890)
Beginning Net Position (w/GASB adj.) 124,646,855 $125,195,471 $129,754,213
Change in Net Position (2) 548,616 4,558,742 547,615
Ending Net Position $125,195,471 $129,754,213 $130,301,828
% Change from Prior Year 0.4% 3.6% 0.4%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 4.24 4.17 3.29
Source: City of Pittsburg CAFRs - Statement of Changes in Net position
(1) Investment earnings and sale of assets.
(2) Change includes GASB adjustment -$3,865,413 FY2015.
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Pittsburg
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Water Utility $64,807,943 $67,157,022 $66,725,655
Sewer Utility 32,771,882 34,908,741 36,032,110
Marina 13,975,992 13,478,812 13,007,826
Pittsburg Power 13,757,093 13,871,833 14,251,615
Waterfront Operations (117,439) 337,805 284,622
Total Net Position 125,195,471 129,754,213 130,301,828
% change from prior year 0.4% 3.6% 0.4%
Source: City of Pittsburg CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position Proprietary Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pittsburg Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 82 of 138
Pittsburg
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Pittsburg
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 3.8 4.1 3.3
Cash and Short-term Investments 44,182,634 43,387,480 38,847,021
Total Current Liabilities 11,670,778 10,606,118 11,773,638
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 4.0 4.4 5.3
Cash and Short-term Investments 31,524,241 35,002,430 41,742,841
Total Current Liabilities 7,970,852 8,012,332 7,867,897
Source: City of Pittsburg CAFRs - Statement of Net position
----------
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Pittsburg
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $217,010,706 $218,899,376 $212,521,792
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 218,899,376 212,521,792 202,983,986
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 1,888,670 (6,377,584) (9,537,806)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -2.9% -4.5%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $107,874,608 $120,485,056 $119,606,042
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 120,485,056 119,606,042 118,181,560
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 12,610,448 (879,014) (1,424,482)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -0.7% -1.2%
Source: City of Pittsburg CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pittsburg Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 83 of 138
Pittsburg
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Pittsburg
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Total Pension Liability $153,173,389 $167,532,521 $175,801,634
Plan Fiduciary Net Position 112,888,367 124,274,998 125,399,179
% Funded 73.7% 74.2% 71.3%
Net Pension Liability $40,285,022 $43,257,523 $50,402,455
Net OPEB Liability $22,111,508 $24,674,996 $27,226,475
Source: City of Pittsburg CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 11 - DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS)
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Pittsburg
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities $34,365,661 $34,683,232 $34,608,747
Business Type Activities 47,563,398 45,516,171 43,655,216
Total Outstanding Debt 81,929,059 80,199,403 78,263,963
Total Debt per Capita $1,221 $1,177 $1,097
Assessed Value $2,138,417,124 $2,238,252,364 $2,271,410,220
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) 3.72 3.07 3.40
Source: CAFRs - Direct and Overlapping Debt, Ratio of Outstanding Debt, Revenue Bond Coverage
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pittsburg Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 84 of 138
Pleasant Hill
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 8.1 sq.mi. 8.1 sq.mi. 8.1 sq.mi.
Population (2) 33,918 34,232 34,944
Change from Prior Year na 0.9% 2.1%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $4,982.1 mill. $5,317.9 mill. $5,581.9 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 6.7% 5.0%
A.V. per capita $146,900 $155,300 $159,700
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $5,518,000 $5,760,000 $6,111,000
Sales Tax $7,737,000 $8,598,000 $8,437,000
Other Revenues $7,939,000 $8,583,000 $9,596,000
Total GF Revenues $21,194,000 $22,941,000 $24,144,000
Change from Prior Year na 8.2% 5.2%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $4,283,000 $4,323,000 $5,099,000
Public Safety $8,758,000 $9,499,000 $10,190,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $8,160,000 $8,870,000 $9,808,000
Total GF Expenditures $21,201,000 $22,692,000 $25,097,000
Change from Prior Year na 7.0% 10.6%
GF Expenditures per capita $625 $663 $718
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $14,060,000 $14,310,000 $13,357,000
Change from Prior Year 0.0% 1.7% -7.1%
as % of GF Expenditures 66.3% 63.1% 53.2%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Water Utility $253,000 $218,000 $244,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $253,000 $218,000 $244,000
Change from Prior Year na -13.8% 11.9%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $1,063,000 $1,166,000 $1,261,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 4.2 5.3 5.2
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 3.9 7.9 2.9
Business-type Activities 46.7 14.8 13.4
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $66,700,000 $67,100,000 $66,600,000
Net Change from Prior Year -2.3% 0.6% -0.7%
Business-type Activities 533,000 524,000 508,000
Net Change from Prior Year 27.5% -1.6% -3.1%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Net Liability $24,410,000 $26,950,000 $34,710,000
City of Pleasant Hill MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/4/19
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. Total liability and % funded not reported.
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pleasant Hill Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 85 of 138
Pleasant Hill
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property taxes $5,517,709 $5,760,391 $6,111,248
Sales taxes 7,736,714 8,598,230 8,437,462
Measure K transactions & use tax 0 0 794,882
special assessments 6,509,744 6,830,248 7,130,833
Licenses and permits 532,040 713,527 672,519
Intergovernmental 236,878 138,457 50,657
Charges for services 437,359 541,702 468,557
Fines and forfeitures 53,895 59,158 88,328
Use of money and property 45,595 61,080 14,645
Other 24,548 17,578 274,902
Total Revenues 21,094,482 22,720,371 24,044,033
Change from Prior Year na 7.7% 5.8%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 100,000 221,023 100,069
Total Other Financing Sources 100,000 221,023 100,069
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $21,194,482 $22,941,394 $24,144,102
Source: City of Pleasant Hill CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pleasant Hill Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 86 of 138
Pleasant Hill
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General Government $4,283,009 $4,322,865 $5,099,075
Public safety 8,758,244 9,499,370 10,190,049
Transportation 2,835,800 3,084,479 3,631,821
Community development 2,041,476 2,346,799 2,449,110
Debt service:
Principal retirement 789,000 815,000 843,000
Interest and fiscal charges 101,262 74,554 46,875
Total Expenditures 18,808,791 20,143,067 22,259,930
Change from Prior Year na 7.1% 10.5%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 2,391,777 2,548,576 2,837,440
Total Other Financing Uses 2,391,777 2,548,576 2,837,440
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $21,200,568 $22,691,643 $25,097,370
Source: City of Pleasant Hill CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $14,066,351 $14,060,265 $14,310,016
Net Change (6,086) 249,751 (953,268)
% Change from Prior Year 0.0% 1.8% -6.7%
Ending Balance, General Fund $14,060,265 $14,310,016 $13,356,748
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 74.8% 71.0% 60.0%
Unassigned $5,031,285 $5,175,170 $3,386,999
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $56,656,048 $59,882,828 $55,473,031
Unrestricted ($19,918,513) ($18,511,367) ($20,106,826)
Source: City of Pleasant Hill CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds; Statement of Net Position
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pleasant Hill Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 87 of 138
Pleasant Hill
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services $134,520 $134,235 $134,235
Other Non-Operating 169,628 186,664 204,854
Total $304,148 $320,899 $339,089
Change from Prior Year na 5.5% 5.7%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Diablo Vista Water System $253,159 $217,928 $244,104
Total $253,159 $217,928 $244,104
Change from Prior Year na -13.9% 12.0%
Beginning Net Position 1,011,895 $1,062,884 $1,165,855
Change in Net Position (1) 50,989 102,971 94,985
Ending Net Position $1,062,884 $1,165,855 $1,260,840
% Change from Prior Year 5.0% 9.7% 8.1%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 4.20 5.35 5.17
Source: City of Pleasant Hill CAFRs - Statement of Changes in Net position
(1) Note: change in position in CAFR FY17 does not match revenue and expenditure changes
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Diablo Vista Water System $1,062,884 $1,165,855 $1,260,840
Total Net Position 1,062,884 1,165,855 1,260,840
% change from prior year n/a 9.7% 8.1%
Source: City of Pleasant Hill CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position Proprietary
----------
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 3.9 7.9 2.9
Cash and Short-term Investments 20,742,673 18,387,306 17,451,674
Total Current Liabilities (2) 5,298,555 2,333,867 5,934,104
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 46.7 14.8 13.4
Cash and Short-term Investments 553,731 687,062 811,565
Total Current Liabilities 11,863 46,431 60,748
Source: City of Pleasant Hill CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities.
(2) Includes compensated absences due within one year.
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pleasant Hill Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 88 of 138
Pleasant Hill
----------
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $68,300,000 $66,700,000 $67,100,000
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 66,700,000 67,100,000 66,600,000
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (1,600,000) 400,000 (500,000)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -2.3% 0.6% -0.7%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $418,115 $532,590 $524,375
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 532,590 524,375 508,158
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 114,475 (8,215) (16,217)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 27.4% -1.5% -3.1%
Source: City of Pleasant Hill CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
----------
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Net Pension Liabiliy $24,412,267 $26,950,066 $34,709,774
Net OPEB Liability (2) na na na
Source: City of Pleasant Hill CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(1) The CAFRs do not report total pension liability or % funded.
(2) No OPEB obligations.
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 4,090,000 2,540,000 872,000
Total Outstanding Debt 4,090,000 2,540,000 872,000
Total Debt per Capita $121 $74 $25
Assessed Value $4,982,119,158 $5,317,935,076 $5,581,884,642
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) na na na
Source: CAFRs - Ratio of Outstanding Debt, Assessed and Actual Assessed Value
(1) No revenue bonds reported in CAFR.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Pleasant Hill Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 89 of 138
Richmond
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Richmond
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 52.6 sq.mi. 52.6 sq.mi. 52.6 sq.mi.
Population (2) 109,568 110,866 110,114
Change from Prior Year na 1.2% -0.7%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $12,429.6 mill. $13,539.6 mill. $14,322.8 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 8.9% 5.8%
A.V. per capita $113,400 $122,100 $130,100
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $30,905,000 $33,232,000 $36,970,000
Sales Tax $33,131,000 $40,877,000 $41,620,000
Other Revenues $80,494,000 $72,466,000 $85,815,000
Total GF Revenues $144,529,612 $146,575,079 $164,405,410
Change from Prior Year na 1.4% 12.2%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government $21,242,000 $22,372,000 $25,517,000
Public Safety $83,960,000 $86,860,000 $92,617,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $38,188,000 $36,627,420 $40,251,915
Total GF Expenditures $143,389,704 $145,859,420 $158,385,915
Change from Prior Year na 1.7% 8.6%
GF Expenditures per capita $1,309 $1,316 $1,438
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $28,682,000 $29,397,000 $35,417,000
Change from Prior Year 4.0% 2.4% 17.0%
as % of GF Expenditures 20.0% 20.2% 22.4%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Richmond Housing Authority $28,049,000 $26,385,000 $26,242,000
Port of Richmond $9,923,000 $8,265,000 $10,102,000
Richmond Marina $235,000 $0 $231,000
Municipal Sewer $15,966,000 $11,752,000 $17,721,000
Storm Sewer $3,282,000 $4,618,000 $2,321,000
Cable TV $948,000 $0 $1,028,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $58,403,000 $51,020,000 $57,645,000
Change from Prior Year na -12.6% 13.0%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $65,898,000 $49,032,000 $56,345,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 1.1 1.0 1.0
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 0.3 0.4 0.7
Business-type Activities 1.3 0.4 0.9
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $237,534,000 $216,807,000 $213,949,000
Net Change from Prior Year 2.7% -8.7% -1.3%
Business-type Activities 152,994,000 143,679,000 136,919,000
Net Change from Prior Year -4.3% -6.1% -4.7%
Total Pension Liability (11) $989,701,420 $1,026,410,696 n/a
% Pension Funded 77.7% 75.5% n/a
Net Pension Liability $220,268,195 $251,364,766 $311,999,225
City of Richmond MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/4/19
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
City/CSD MSR Update City of Richmond Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 90 of 138
Richmond
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Richmond
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property taxes $30,904,650 $33,232,037 $36,970,269
Sales taxes 33,131,486 40,877,125 41,620,189
Utility user taxes 48,299,958 43,365,249 44,966,489
Other taxes 9,918,447 11,628,519 12,566,579
Licenses, permits and fees 2,439,359 2,542,704 5,038,585
Fines, forfeitures and penalties 482,567 398,098 1,048,582
Use of money and property 77,228 35,493 73,408
Intergovernmental 4,097,963 1,954,943 4,056,470
Charges for services 9,141,441 8,284,694 7,264,336
Rent 809,113 765,753 836,221
Other 768,619 353,991 440,174
Total Revenues 140,070,831 143,438,606 154,881,302
Change from Prior Year na 2.4% 8.0%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 4,458,781 3,136,473 9,524,108
Total Other Financing Sources 4,458,781 3,136,473 9,524,108
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $144,529,612 $146,575,079 $164,405,410
Source: City of Richmond CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Richmond Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 91 of 138
Richmond
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Richmond
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General government $21,241,969 $22,371,710 $25,516,856
Public safety 83,960,461 86,859,602 92,616,949
Public works 18,686,952 17,899,366 21,827,896
Community development 0 0 0
Cultural and recreational 9,658,457 9,952,449 10,091,329
Housing and redevelopment 0 0 0
Capital outlay 256,353 404,053 100,891
Debt service:
Principal retirement 1,320,695 1,079,062 790,346
Interest and fiscal charges 610,575 318,574 282,512
Total Expenditures 135,735,462 138,884,816 151,226,779
Change from Prior Year na 2.3% 8.9%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 7,654,242 6,974,604 7,159,136
Total Other Financing Uses 7,654,242 6,974,604 7,159,136
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $143,389,704 $145,859,420 $158,385,915
Source: City of Richmond CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Richmond
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $27,541,828 $28,681,736 $29,397,395
Net Change 1,139,908 715,659 6,019,495
% Change from Prior Year 4.1% 2.5% 20.5%
Ending Balance, General Fund $28,681,736 $29,397,395 $35,416,890
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 21.1% 21.2% 23.4%
Unassigned $9,949,120 $10,988,266 $19,709,197
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position ($207,237,330) ($210,366,203) ($194,173,097)
Unrestricted ($479,961,080) ($508,981,299) ($504,602,583)
Source: City of Richmond CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
(1) calculated
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Richmond Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 92 of 138
Richmond
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Richmond
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Operating Revenues $34,141,000 $35,494,000 $37,890,000
Grants 22,112,000 21,951,000 22,637,000
Other Non-Operating (grants, settlements) 2,190,000 2,657,000 970,000
Interest (net) (563,000) (10,838,000) 3,549,000
Total $57,880,000 $49,264,000 $65,046,000
Change from Prior Year na -14.9% 32.0%
ENTERPRISE OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Richmond Housing Authority $28,049,000 $26,385,000 $26,242,000
Port of Richmond 9,923,000 8,265,000 10,102,000
Richmond Marina 235,000 231,000
Municipal Sewer 15,966,000 11,752,000 17,721,000
Other 3,282,000 4,618,000 2,321,000
Cable TV 948,000 1,028,000
Total $58,403,000 $51,020,000 $57,645,000
Change from Prior Year na -12.6% 13.0%
Transfers and Special Items ($179,000) ($15,110,000) ($87,000)
Beginning Net Position (1) 66,600,000 $65,898,000 $49,031,000
Change in Net Position (1) (702,000) (16,866,000) 7,314,000
Ending Net Position (1) $65,898,000 $49,032,000 $56,345,000
% Change from Prior Year -1.1% -25.6% 14.9%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 1.13 0.96 0.98
Source: City of Richmond CAFRs - Statement of Changes in Net position
(1) Note: totals may differ slightly from CAFRs due to rounding.
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Richmond
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Richmond Housing Authority $38,890,311 $23,152,215 $22,773,813
Port of Richmond 7,678,574 7,139,943 7,231,960
Municipal Sewer 19,876,011 20,883,832 28,248,897
Other Enterprises (546,946) (2,145,383) (1,909,316)
Total Net Position 65,897,950 49,030,607 56,345,354
% change from prior year n/a -25.6% 14.9%
Source: City of Richmond CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position Proprietary Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Richmond Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 93 of 138
Richmond
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Richmond
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 0.3 0.4 0.7
Cash and Short-term Investments 22,387,954 33,542,030 55,633,622
Total Current Liabilities 88,538,000 92,803,000 81,909,000
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 1.3 0.4 0.9
Cash and Short-term Investments 27,034,707 25,066,043 18,230,691
Total Current Liabilities 20,581,000 57,409,000 20,917,000
Source: City of Richmond CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
----------
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Richmond
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets 231,286,772 237,534,283 216,806,867
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 237,534,283 216,806,867 $213,949,181
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 6,247,511 (20,727,416) (2,857,686)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 2.7% -8.7% -1.3%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets 159,789,090 152,994,468 143,678,600
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 152,994,468 143,678,600 $136,918,776
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (6,794,622) (9,315,868) (6,759,824)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -4.3% -6.1% -4.7%
Source: City of Richmond CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 6 - CAPITAL ASSETS)
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Richmond Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 94 of 138
Richmond
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Richmond
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Total Pension Liability (1) $989,701,420 $1,026,410,696 n/a
Plan Fiduciary Net Position n/a
% Funded 77.7% 75.5% n/a
Net Pension Liability (2) $220,268,195 $251,364,766 $311,999,225
Net OPEB Liability (3) not reported not reported 182,135,389
Source: City of Richmond CAFRs - Statement of Net Position and Notes 10-12
(1) Total liability for Misc. and Safety Plans.
(2) Statement of Net Position, Gov'l and Enterprises.
(3) Net OPEB liability not reported until GASB 74 req'ment FY17.
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Richmond
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 265,879,160 280,377,609 275,199,962
Business Type Activities 131,713,319 126,775,985 122,303,791
Total Outstanding Debt 397,592,479 407,153,594 397,503,753
Total Debt per Capita $3,629 $3,672 $3,610
Assessed Value $12,429,550,000 $13,539,643,000 $14,322,848,000
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) 1.44 1.50 1.51
Source: CAFRs - Ratio of Oustanding Debt by Type, Assessed and Actual Value, Revenue Bond Coverage
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Richmond Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 95 of 138
San Pablo
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of San Pablo
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 2.5 sq.mi. 2.5 sq.mi. 2.5 sq.mi.
Population (2) 29,499 30,829 31,053
Change from Prior Year na 4.5% 0.7%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $1,464.2 mill. $1,727.7 mill. $1,840.1 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 18.0% 6.5%
A.V. per capita $49,600 $56,000 $59,300
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $837,000 $720,000 $873,000
Sales Tax $3,199,000 $3,304,000 $3,747,000
Other Revenues $34,722,000 $39,504,000 $36,449,000
Total GF Revenues $38,757,685 $43,527,828 $41,068,515
Change from Prior Year na 12.3% -5.6%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $5,803,000 $9,612,000 $9,418,000
Public Safety $15,436,000 $13,735,000 $14,928,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $6,696,000 $5,909,000 $13,629,000
Total GF Expenditures $27,935,000 $29,256,000 $37,975,000
Change from Prior Year na 4.7% 29.8%
GF Expenditures per capita $947 $949 $1,223
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $43,144,000 $57,416,000 $60,509,000
Change from Prior Year 25.1% 24.9% 5.1%
as % of GF Expenditures 154.4% 196.3% 159.3%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Total Enterprise Net Position (8)
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 11.8 12.1 9.2
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $58,539,000 $65,241,000 $67,231,000
Net Change from Prior Year 10.3% 11.4% 3.1%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Net Pension Liability $22,070,000 $27,190,000 $34,870,000
City of San Pablo MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/4/19
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) City of San Pablo Comments on MSR Fiscal Profile.
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4. No enterprises.
(8) See Table 4. No enterprises.
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. CAFR does not report total liability or % funded.
City/CSD MSR Update City of San Pablo Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 96 of 138
San Pablo
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of San Pablo
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Intergovernmental 6,125,560 2,749,495
Property taxes $836,806 $719,960 $872,985
Sales tax 3,199,425 3,304,334 3,746,816
In-lieu sales tax 490,239 406,799
Utility users tax 2,467,509 2,572,145 2,686,980
Business license tax 19,390,922 22,665,705 23,876,317
Other taxes 3,304,319 3,334,876 3,474,030
Fines and forfeitures 250,670 253,290 242,120
Motor vehicle in lieu 1,961,310 0 0
Other 2,518,713 0 0
Charges for services 691,632 629,254 599,671
Use of money and property 642,072 1,063,595 1,094,542
Miscellaneous 167,020 211,478 294,696
Total Revenues 35,920,637 41,286,996 39,637,652
Change from Prior Year na 14.9% -4.0%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 2,837,048 2,240,832 1,430,863
Total Other Financing Sources 2,837,048 2,240,832 1,430,863
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $38,757,685 $43,527,828 $41,068,515
Source: City of San Pablo CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of San Pablo Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 97 of 138
San Pablo
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of San Pablo
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General government $5,803,306 $9,612,295 $9,418,355
Recreation 1,321,969 1,490,995 73,015
Development 0 0 2,496,976
Public Works & Engineering 283,809 275,565 275,878
Police 15,435,567 13,735,117 14,927,935
Capital outlay 529,202 308,912 182,901
Debt service:
Principal retirement 85,000 144,982 160,234
Interest and fiscal charges 0 25,882 10,630
Total Expenditures 23,458,853 25,593,748 27,545,924
Change from Prior Year na 9.1% 7.6%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out (1) 4,475,960 3,662,125 10,429,280
Total Other Financing Uses 4,475,960 3,662,125 10,429,280
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $27,934,813 $29,255,873 $37,975,204
Source: City of San Pablo CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
(1) See CAFR Note 4A re: transfers (primarily to fund capital).
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of San Pablo
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $32,321,326 $43,144,198 $57,416,153
Net Change 10,822,872 14,271,955 3,093,311
% Change from Prior Year 33.5% 33.1% 5.4%
Ending Balance, General Fund $43,144,198 $57,416,153 $60,509,464
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 183.9% 224.3% 219.7%
Unassigned $37,596,248 $50,715,535 $54,246,048
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $115,023,046 $126,830,398 $130,642,337
Unrestricted $30,508,198 $41,969,726 $39,526,263
Source: City of San Pablo CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of San Pablo Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 98 of 138
San Pablo
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of San Pablo
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Town of San Pablo reports no enterprises or business type activities
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of San Pablo
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Town of San Pablo reports no enterprises or business type activities
----------
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of San Pablo
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 11.8 12.1 9.2
Cash and Short-term Investments (2) $44,977,565 $58,384,405 $65,933,925
Total Current Liabilities 3,810,827 4,806,767 7,161,607
Source: City of San Pablo CAFRs - Governmental Funds Balance Sheet
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
(2) Available for operations.
(3) CAFR reports no enterprises.
City/CSD MSR Update City of San Pablo Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 99 of 138
San Pablo
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of San Pablo
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $53,094,772 $58,538,540 $65,240,811
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 58,538,540 65,240,811 67,231,310
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 5,443,768 6,702,271 1,990,499
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 10.3% 11.4% 3.1%
Source: City of San Pablo CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 6A - CAPITAL ASSETS)
----------
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of San Pablo
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Total Pension Liability $123,017,040 $125,692,251 132,030,081
Plan Fiduciary Net Position $100,949,542 $98,501,954 97,157,344
% Funded 82% 78% 74%
Net Pension Liability $22,067,498 $27,190,297 $34,872,747
Net OPEB Liability (Asset) ($4,271,510) ($4,409,069) ($4,291,233)
Source: City of San Pablo CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 9-10 PENSION PLANS)
(1) CAFR does not report total liability or % funded.
(2) Irrevocable trust.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of San Pablo Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 100 of 138
San Pablo
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of San Pablo
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 25,922,750 25,865,708 25,700,486
Total Outstanding Debt 25,922,750 25,865,708 25,700,486
Total Debt per Capita $879 $839 $828
Assessed Value $1,464,234,968 $1,727,734,829 $1,840,113,313
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues)
Source: CAFRs - Ratio of Outstanding Debt, Assessed and Actual Value
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of San Pablo Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 101 of 138
San Ramon
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of San Ramon
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 18.66 sq.mi. 18.66 sq.mi. 18.66 sq.mi.
Population (2) 78,561 78,363 80,550
Change from Prior Year na -0.3% 2.8%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $16,984.0 mill. $18,513.0 mill. $19,411.5 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 9.0% 4.9%
A.V. per capita $216,200 $236,200 $241,000
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $16,092,000 $17,241,000 $18,479,000
Sales Tax $9,143,000 $10,485,000 $9,329,000
Other Revenues $20,614,000 $23,300,000 $22,516,000
Total GF Revenues $45,849,000 $51,026,000 $50,324,000
Change from Prior Year na 11.3% -1.4%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $4,807,000 $5,587,000 $5,944,000
Public Safety $11,381,000 $12,041,000 $12,579,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $30,723,000 $31,187,000 $35,038,000
Total GF Expenditures $46,911,000 $48,815,000 $53,561,000
Change from Prior Year na 4.1% 9.7%
GF Expenditures per capita $597 $623 $665
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $10,679,000 $13,147,000 $9,910,000
Change from Prior Year -9.9% 16.8% -32.7%
as % of GF Expenditures 22.8% 26.9% 18.5%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Total Enterprise Net Position (8)
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 5.1 3.9 5.4
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $369,697,000 $384,770,000 $393,419,000
Net Change from Prior Year 1.2% 4.1% 2.2%
Total Pension Liability (11) $220,642,000 $229,975,000
Net Liability (all plans) $14,490,000 $23,390,000 n/a
City of San Ramon MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 2/22/19
(1) City of San Ramon edits to MSR Profile.
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1. CAFRs do not distinguish General Fund property or sales tax.
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4. No enterprises.
(8) See Table 4. No enterprises.
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. (Safety Plan Total Liability and % Funded not reported in CAFR).
City/CSD MSR Update City of San Ramon Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 102 of 138
San Ramon
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of San Ramon
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property Tax (1) $16,091,598 $17,240,799 $18,478,700
Sales Tax (1) 9,142,892 10,484,639 9,328,801
Licenses and permits 1,371,771 1,712,228 2,005,548
Intergovernmental 450,788 353,783 346,197
Charges for services 6,157,283 7,703,805 6,537,626
Fines and forfeitures 336,050 415,083 341,487
Investment income 425,939 167,411 59,969
Miscellaneous 2,137,781 2,435,622 2,558,531
Other Taxes (1) 7,467,297 8,144,757 8,389,545
Total Revenues 43,581,399 48,658,127 48,046,404
Change from Prior Year na 11.6% -1.3%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 2,267,507 2,368,194 2,278,004
Total Other Financing Sources 2,267,507 2,368,194 2,278,004
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $45,848,906 $51,026,321 $50,324,408
Source: City of San Ramon CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
(1) See CAFR17 pg. 157 for "Tax" detail.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of San Ramon Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 103 of 138
San Ramon
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of San Ramon
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General Government $4,807,260 $5,587,406 $5,943,627
Community development 3,410,224 3,559,111 3,051,027
Police services 11,380,748 12,041,075 12,579,008
Public works 11,864,097 12,498,880 14,054,064
Parks and community services 7,894,989 8,464,188 8,052,418
Debt service:
Principal retirement 35,822 37,208 38,648
Interest and fiscal charges 7,489 6,103 4,663
Total Expenditures 39,400,629 42,193,971 43,723,455
Change from Prior Year na 7.1% 3.6%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out (1) 7,510,449 6,620,897 9,837,779
Total Other Financing Uses 7,510,449 6,620,897 9,837,779
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $46,911,078 $48,814,868 $53,561,234
Source: City of San Ramon CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
(1) See CAFR Note 4c for transfers.
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of San Ramon
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $11,741,501 $10,935,176 $13,146,629
Net Change (1,062,172) 2,211,453 (3,236,826)
% Change from Prior Year -9.0% 20.2% -24.6%
Ending Balance, General Fund $10,679,329 $13,146,629 $9,909,803
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 27.1% 31.2% 22.7%
Unassigned $5,975,668 $6,890,959 $9,399,666
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $476,302,181 $486,530,043 $504,277,905
Unrestricted ($16,685,507) ($11,892,459) ($11,565,936)
Source: City of San Ramon CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of San Ramon Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 104 of 138
San Ramon
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of San Ramon
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA City of San Ramon reports no enterprises or business type activities
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of San Ramon
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA City of San Ramon reports no enterprises or business type activities
----------
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of San Ramon
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 5.1 3.9 5.4
Cash and Short-term Investments (2) $67,509,686 $68,146,337 $70,661,339
Total Current Liabilities (3) 13,287,576 17,570,122 13,095,151
Source: City of San Ramon CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
(2) Unrestricted.
(3) Total liabilities (includes advances from other funds).
City/CSD MSR Update City of San Ramon Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 105 of 138
San Ramon
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of San Ramon
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $365,379,762 $369,696,685 $384,770,194
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 369,696,685 384,770,194 393,419,227
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 4,316,923 15,073,509 8,649,033
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 1.2% 4.1% 2.2%
Source: City of San Ramon CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 7 - CAPITAL ASSETS)
----------
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of San Ramon
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY (1)
Total Pension Liability (Misc. Plan) $115,635,997 $124,159,270 n/a
Plan Fiduciary Net Position (Misc. Plan) 105,006,502 105,815,832 n/a
% Funded (Misc. Plan) 90.8% 85.2% n/a
Net Liability (Misc. Plan) $10,629,495 $18,343,438 n/a
Net Liability (Public Safety) $3,861,735 $5,049,024 n/a
Net OPEB Liability (Asset) $1,865 ($1,885,781) ($235,125)
Source: City of San Ramon CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Notes 10-12)
(1) Balances valued end of prior FY and rolled forward to end of FY shown.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of San Ramon Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 106 of 138
San Ramon
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of San Ramon
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 29,703,399 27,750,915 25,672,456
Business Type Activities na na na
Total Outstanding Debt 29,703,399 27,750,915 25,672,456
Total Debt per Capita $378 $354 $319
Assessed Value $16,983,981,965 $18,512,979,526 $19,411,536,727
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (1)
Source: CAFRs - Ratios of Debt Outstanding, Assessed Value and Actual Value
(1) No bonds requiring pledged revenues reported in CAFR.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of San Ramon Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 107 of 138
Walnut Creek
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
City of Walnut Creek
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 19.5 sq.mi. 19.5 sq.mi. 19.5 sq.mi.
Population (2) 66,319 70,018 70,974
Change from Prior Year na 5.6% 1.4%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $14,204.4 mill. $15,304.8 mill. $16,470.3 mill.
Change from Prior Year na 7.7% 7.6%
A.V. per capita $214,200 $218,600 $232,100
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $22,261,000 $24,923,000 $24,022,000
Sales Tax $18,492,000 $19,961,000 $21,596,000
Other Revenues $45,387,000 $44,086,000 $42,699,000
Total GF Revenues $86,140,000 $88,970,000 $88,317,000
Change from Prior Year na 3.3% -0.7%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $4,950,000 $4,733,000 $5,602,000
Public Safety $23,250,000 $24,385,000 $25,338,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $49,340,000 $52,689,000 $54,136,000
Total GF Expenditures $77,540,000 $81,807,000 $85,076,000
Change from Prior Year na 5.5% 4.0%
GF Expenditures per capita $1,169 $1,168 $1,199
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $44,337,000 $51,499,000 $54,740,000
Change from Prior Year 19.4% 13.9% 5.9%
as % of GF Expenditures 57.2% 63.0% 64.3%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Golf Course Administration $299,000 $309,000 $468,000
Boundary Oak Golf Course Operations $4,248,000 $4,411,000 $4,917,000
Downtown Parking $5,340,000 $5,353,000 $6,016,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $9,887,000 $10,073,000 $11,401,000
Change from Prior Year na 1.9% 13.2%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $15,982,000 $16,823,000 $16,797,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 1.6 1.7 1.5
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 6.8 8.3 6.9
Business-type Activities 7.5 5.2 4.7
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $173,578,000 $167,902,000 $159,683,000
Net Change from Prior Year -5.5% -3.3% -4.9%
Business-type Activities 9,386,000 8,762,000 8,206,000
Net Change from Prior Year 2.4% -6.7% -6.3%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Net Pension Liability (12) $73,370,000 $83,000,000 $101,820,000
City of Walnut Creek MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/4/18
(2) Dept of Finance E-1_2018, 2017, 2016 (most recent estimate is used for a given year)
(3) See Table 9
(4) See Table 1
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
City/CSD MSR Update City of Walnut Creek Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 108 of 138
Walnut Creek
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. CAFRs don't report total liability and % funded for each plan.
(12) Net of Plan assets.
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
City of Walnut Creek
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Sales and use $22,260,634 $24,923,015 $24,021,800
Property 18,491,518 19,961,446 21,595,755
Business license 2,223,848 2,395,129 2,429,669
Franchise 3,425,481 3,580,225 3,648,456
Transient occupancy tax 1,941,665 2,077,190 2,093,907
Other 743,599 794,802 942,015
Intergovernmental 692,903 188,509 156,197
Investment and rental income 1,021,718 1,542,157 634,493
Charges for services 18,677,168 18,131,003 18,506,019
Licenses, permits and fees 2,251,823 3,262,566 3,118,723
Fines, forfeitures and penalties 10,828,777 11,064,958 10,323,924
Total Revenues 82,559,134 87,921,000 87,470,958
Change from Prior Year na 6.5% -0.5%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 3,580,729 1,048,951 845,895
Total Other Financing Sources 3,580,729 1,048,951 845,895
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $86,139,863 $88,969,951 $88,316,853
Source: City of Walnut Creek CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Walnut Creek Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 109 of 138
Walnut Creek
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CAFR Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
City of Walnut Creek
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Public protection $23,250,156 $24,384,748 $25,337,630
Public works 17,353,746 19,125,449 20,908,147
Community and economic development 6,487,100 6,552,593 7,343,575
Arts, recreation and community services 14,648,772 15,316,110 15,993,376
Administrative services 4,259,920 4,388,092 4,901,030
Human resources 1,270,976 1,262,404 1,176,187
General government 4,949,928 4,732,811 5,601,705
Capital outlay 49,404 0 0
Debt service:
Principal retirement 39,498 53,793 61,199
Interest and fiscal charges 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 72,309,500 75,816,000 81,322,849
Change from Prior Year na 4.8% 7.3%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 5,230,149 5,991,230 3,753,050
Total Other Financing Uses 5,230,149 5,991,230 3,753,050
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $77,539,649 $81,807,230 $85,075,899
Source: City of Walnut Creek CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
City of Walnut Creek
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $35,736,436 $44,336,650 $51,499,371
Net Change 8,600,214 7,162,721 3,240,954
% Change from Prior Year 24.1% 16.2% 6.3%
Ending Balance, General Fund $44,336,650 $51,499,371 $54,740,325
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 61.3% 67.9% 67.3%
Unassigned $14,082,798 $17,940,395 $3,593,630
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $255,062,521 $275,406,440 $277,447,465
Unrestricted ($19,886,556) ($10,686,182) ($3,856,154)
Source: City of Walnut Creek CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds, Balance Sheet
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Walnut Creek Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 110 of 138
Walnut Creek
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
City of Walnut Creek
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services $9,695,139 $9,210,709 $9,904,325
Fines, forfeitures and penalities 2,032,418 1,503,512 1,534,138
Other revenue 40,512 10,321 11,394
Other Non-Operating 162,934 129,075 222,739
Total $11,931,003 $10,853,617 $11,672,596
Change from Prior Year na -9.0% 7.5%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Golf Course Administration $298,507 $308,777 $467,764
Boundary Oak 4,248,470 4,410,625 4,916,930
Downtown Parking 5,340,004 5,353,404 6,016,385
Total $9,886,981 $10,072,806 $11,401,079
Change from Prior Year na 1.9% 13.2%
Transfers $421,845 $60,857 ($297,555)
Beginning Net Position 13,515,688 $15,981,555 $16,823,223
Change in Net Position 2,465,867 841,668 (26,038)
Ending Net Position $15,981,555 $16,823,223 $16,797,185
% Change from Prior Year 18.2% 5.3% -0.2%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 1.62 1.67 1.47
Source: City of Walnut Creek CAFRs - Statement of Changes in Net position
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
City of Walnut Creek
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Golf Course Administration $4,101,846 $4,981,144 $5,235,350
Boundary Oak Golf Course Operations (15,198) (419,441) (545,982)
Downtown Parking 11,894,907 12,261,520 12,107,817
Total Net Position 15,981,555 16,823,223 16,797,185
% change from prior year n/a 5.3% -0.2%
Source: City of Walnut Creek CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position Proprietary
(1)
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Walnut Creek Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 111 of 138
Walnut Creek
LIQUIDITY (CAFR)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
City of Walnut Creek
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 6.8 8.3 6.9
Cash and Short-term Investments 92,764,286 107,476,243 111,949,248
Total Current Liabilities 13,627,463 12,945,021 16,220,737
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 7.5 5.2 4.7
Cash and Short-term Investments 8,688,089 7,296,712 7,966,742
Total Current Liabilities 1,151,539 1,405,889 1,708,788
Source: City of Walnut Creek CAFRs - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
----------
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
City of Walnut Creek
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $183,707,113 $173,578,114 $167,901,515
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 173,578,114 167,901,515 159,682,996
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (10,128,999) (5,676,599) (8,218,519)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -5.5% -3.3% -4.9%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $9,165,687 $9,386,490 $8,762,412
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 9,386,490 8,762,312 8,205,731
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 220,803 (624,178) (556,681)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 2.4% -6.6% -6.4%
Source: City of Walnut Creek CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements (Note 6 - CAPITAL ASSETS)
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Walnut Creek Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 112 of 138
Walnut Creek
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
City of Walnut Creek
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Net Pension Liability (1, 2) $73,369,867 $82,998,021 $101,822,611
Net OPEB Liability (3)
Source: City of Walnut Creek CAFRs - Notes to Basic Financial Statements
(Note 11 - DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS)
(1) CAFRs don't report total liability and % funded for each plan.
(2) Includes Misc. Plan and Public Safety Plan
(3) The City does not provide OPEB and therefore have no OPEB obligations.
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
City of Walnut Creek
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities 308,845 444,045 463,227
Business Type Activities 3,323,164 3,345,355 3,244,682
Total Outstanding Debt 3,632,009 3,789,400 3,707,909
Total Debt per Capita $55 $54 $52
Assessed Value $14,204,356,497 $15,304,825,412 $16,470,347,145
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) 0.0% 744.0% 134.0%
Source: CAFRs - Ratios of Debt Outstanding, Estimated and Actual Values, Pledged Revenue Coverage
----------
City/CSD MSR Update City of Walnut Creek Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 113 of 138
Crockett CSD
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
Crockett CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 1.07 sq.mi. 1.07 sq.mi. 1.07 sq.mi.
Population (2) 2,273 2,273 2,273
Change from Prior Year na 0.0% 0.0%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $446,490,898
Change from Prior Year
A.V. per capita $196,432
Government Activity Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $419,000 $177,000 $461,000
Other (Fees and Charges for Service) $539,000 $846,000 $560,000
Total GF Revenues $958,000 $1,023,000 $1,021,000
Change from Prior Year na 6.8% -0.2%
Government Activity Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $455,000 $464,000 $521,000
Public Safety 0 0 0
Other (inc. Cash Transfers Out) $397,907 $416,088 $487,214
Total Expenditures $853,000 $880,000 $1,008,000
Change from Prior Year na 3.2% 14.5%
GF Expenditures per capita $375 $387 $443
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $789,000 $1,960,000 $1,974,000
Change from Prior Year -129.6% 1.6% 0.6%
as % of GF Expenditures 92.5% 222.7% 195.8%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Port Costa $98,000 $143,000 $134,000
Crockett Operating $1,132,000 $935,000 $1,173,000
Crockett Construction Fund $0 $0 $0
Crockett Reserve Fund $0 $0 $0
Total Enterprise Expenditures $1,230,000 $1,078,000 $1,307,000
Change from Prior Year na -12.4% 21.2%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $7,767,000 $7,281,000 $7,809,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 6.3 6.8 6.0
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 147.7 na 216.9
Business-type Activities 7.9 4.7 5.6
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $1,484,000 $1,391,000 $1,336,000
Net Change from Prior Year -6.3% -3.9%
Business-type Activities 5,350,000 5,328,000
Net Change from Prior Year 0.4% -1.3%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Net Pension Liability (12) $99,485
Crockett CSD MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 6/14/19
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
City/CSD MSR Update Crockett Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 114 of 138
Crockett CSD
(3) See Table 9. A.V. not reported in Financial Statements.
(4) See Table 1
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. Total liability and plan assets not reported.
(12) Net of Plan assets.
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of Governmental Activities Fund Revenues
Crockett CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Operating Revenue (1) 378,542 360,520 394,622
Property Taxes (2) 419,398 177,485 460,677
Other Non-Operating Revenues (3) 61,339 93,571 111,205
Total Revenues 859,279 631,576 966,504
Change from Prior Year na -26.5% 53.0%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 127,658 349,573 35,326
GASB Adjustments (29,431) 42,328 19,380
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $957,506 $1,023,477 $1,021,210
106.9% 99.8%
Source: Crockett Community Services District CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balances, Governmental Funds
(1) Community Services, Recreation & Maintenance Funds.
(2) FY16 property taxes appear in Sanitary/Crockett Operating Fund. Property taxes transferred to Sanitary/Crockett
Operating Fund; balance of property taxes primarily allocated to Recreation Fund. Transfers In vs. (Out) not
separately shown for each fund; transfers shown as "capital contributions".
(3) Grants, cost recovery, and interest.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Crockett Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 115 of 138
Crockett CSD
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 2
Summary of Governmental Activities Fund Expenditures
Crockett CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Operating Expenditures (1) $454,506 $463,976 $521,495
Non-Operating Expenditures (2) 131,201 108,260 167,214
Total Expenditures 585,707 572,236 688,709
Change from Prior Year na -2.3% 20.4%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers (Out) Cash (266,706) (307,828) (320,000)
Net Capital Asset Transfers (Out) (1,127,647) (110,908) 0
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $1,980,060 $990,972 $1,008,709
Source: Crockett Community Services District CAFRs - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balances, Governmental Funds
(1) Community Services, Recreation & Maintenance Fund.
(2) Includes depreciation.
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Governmental Activities Net Position
Crockett CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance (1) $1,811,548 $1,927,675 $1,961,339
Net Change (1,022,554) 32,505 (375,589)
% Change from Prior Year 1.7% -19.1%
Ending Balance, Governmental $789,002 $1,960,180 $1,973,840
Ending Balance/Total Gov'l Operating Expenditures 134.7% 342.5% 286.6%
Unrestricted (2) ($1,035,863) $117,893 $1,798,027
Source: Crockett CSD Financial Statements - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
(1) Note: Beginning Balances may not match prior year due to GASB 68 "restatement".
(2) Community Services FY15 long-term liability of $1,138,673 does not appear in FY16, nor any repayment.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Crockett Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 116 of 138
Crockett CSD
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
Crockett CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Port Costa $220,909 $227,261 $227,776
Crockett Operating 1,422,269 1,434,095 1,469,060
Crockett Construction 0 0 4,850
Crockett Reserve 0 0 0
Total $1,643,178 $1,661,356 $1,701,686
Change from Prior Year na 1.1% 2.4%
Non-Operating Revenues $87,040 $342,949 $124,834
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Port Costa $98,276 $142,779 $134,234
Crockett Operating 1,132,216 935,061 1,172,826
Crockett Construction Fund 0 0 39
Crockett Reserve Fund (4) 4 4
Total $1,230,488 $1,077,844 $1,307,103
Change from Prior Year na -12.4% 21.3%
Non-Operating Expenditures $280,598 $309,293 $296,393
Transfers in $223,726 $242,620 $284,674
Transfers in or (out) Capital Assets $1,043,118 ($207,326) $0
GASB 68 Adjustment ($67,031)
Beginning Net Position (restated) $6,280,965 $6,628,103 $7,300,936
Change in Net Position 1,485,976 652,462 507,698
Ending Net Position $7,766,941 $7,280,565 $7,808,634
% Change from Prior Year (1) 23.7% na 7.0%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 6.31 6.75 5.97
Source: Crockett CSD Financial Statements - Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net position
(1) FY16 Audited Financial Statements does not show re-statement of beginning position, therefore % change from
prior year is not shown here.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Crockett Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 117 of 138
Crockett CSD
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Sanitary Fund (Total Net Assets)
Crockett CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Port Costa $1,296,538 $1,039,888 $895,505
Crockett Operating 5,627,003 5,422,704 6,012,251
Crockett Construction 776,759 809,849 833,740
Crockett Reserve 66,476 66,710 67,138
Total Net Position 7,766,776 7,339,151 7,808,634
% change from prior year n/a -5.5% 6.4%
Source: Crockett CSD Financial Statements - Statement of Net Assets
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Crockett Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 118 of 138
Crockett CSD
LIQUIDITY (Audited Financial Statements)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
Crockett CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES (1)
Liquidity Ratio (2) 147.7 na 216.9
Cash and Short-term Investments 476,192 620,809 711,284
Total Current Liabilities (3) 3,225 (177) 3,280
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (2) 7.9 4.7 5.6
Cash and Short-term Investments (4) 2,600,661 2,779,118 3,171,818
Total Current Liabilities 328,269 592,068 569,181
Source: Crockett CSD Financial Statements - Statement of Fund Net position
(1) See Audited Financial Statements Note 2. Community Services, Recreation & Maintenance Fund.
(2) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities.
(3) Excludes pension liability.
(4) See Audited Financial Statements Note 2 (includes reserves).
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
Crockett CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets 1,497,555 1,483,870 1,390,919
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 1,483,870 1,390,919 $1,336,150
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (13,685) (92,951) (54,769)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -0.9% -6.3% -3.9%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets 5,357,159 5,349,559 5,328,162
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 5,349,559 5,328,162 5,398,547
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (7,600) (21,397) 70,385
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -0.1% -0.4% 1.3%
Source: Crockett CSD Financial Statements - Notes to Financial Statements
(1) Community Services & Recreation
(2) Sanitary (Financial Statements do not organize by "Enterprise")
City/CSD MSR Update Crockett Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 119 of 138
Crockett CSD
PENSIONS (Audited Financial Statements)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
Crockett CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSION LIABILITY
Net Pension Liability (2) na na $99,485
Net OPEB Liability (3) na na na
Source: Crockett CSD Financial Statements - Notes to Financial Statements
(1) Financial statements don't report total liability and % funded for each plan.
(2) Note: pg. 21 of FY17 Statement says $99,584 vs. $99,485 on pg. 15. Prior years not reported in Financial
Statements.
(3) Financial statements report no OPEB liabilities.
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Crockett CSD
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities na na na
Business Type Activities (2) $1,071,418 $648,920 $642,412
Enterprise Debt as % of Enterprise Revenues 65% 39% 38%
Total Debt per Capita $471 $285 $283
Assessed Value (1) $446,490,898
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (3)
Source: Crockett CSD Financial Statements - Notes to Financial Statements
(1) Assessed value not reported in Audited Financial Statements; value is from County Roll Rpt 3211 (Dist. 3240)
(2) Debt associated with Crockett sewer improvements.
(3) No pledged revenues or coverage reported in Financial Statements.
City/CSD MSR Update Crockett Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 120 of 138
Diablo CSD
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
Diablo CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 1.16 sq.mi. 1.16 sq.mi. 1.16 sq.mi.
Population (2) 807 807 807
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $648,611,577
A.V. per capita $0 $0 $803,700
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $364,371 $394,698 $424,275
Sales Tax
Other Revenues $229,193 $235,593 $253,705
Total GF Revenues $593,564 $630,291 $677,980
Change from Prior Year -10.2 6.2% 7.6%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $75,526 $83,776 $86,219
Public Safety $332,554 $356,547 $361,421
Other $685,487 $323,288 $641,855
Total GF Expenditures $1,093,567 $763,611 $1,089,495
Change from Prior Year 51.4% -30.2% 42.7%
GF Expenditures per capita $1,355 $946 $1,350
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $776,958 $643,638 $232,123
Change from Prior Year -39.2% -17.2% -63.9%
as % of GF Expenditures 71.0% 84.3% 21.3%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Total Enterprise Net Position (8)
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 21.7 17.7 6.8
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $2,763 $3,309 $38,733
Net Change from Prior Year -36.4% 19.8% 1070.5%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Diablo CSD MSR Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 6/14/19
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(3) See Table 9. A.V. not reported in Financial Statements.
(4) See Table 1
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) No enterprises reported.
(8) No enterprises reported.
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) No pension or OPEB obligations reported.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Diablo CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 121 of 138
Diablo CSD
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
Diablo CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property taxes $364,371 $394,698 $424,275
Road and security fees 225,733 232,159 239,579
Traffic fines 3,319 3,355 4,478
Interest income 141 79 69
Other income 0 0 9,579
Total Revenues 593,564 630,291 677,980
Change from Prior Year -10.2 6.2% 7.6%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 0 0 0
Total Other Financing Sources 0 0 0
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $593,564 $630,291 $677,980
Source: Diablo CSD Financial Statements- Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Diablo CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 122 of 138
Diablo CSD
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
Diablo CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
General government $75,526 $83,776 $86,219
Public safety 332,554 356,547 361,421
Public works 685,487 323,288 599,038
Capital Outlay 0 0 42,817
Total Expenditures 1,093,567 763,611 1,089,495
Change from Prior Year 51.4% -30.2% 42.7%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 0 0 0
Total Other Financing Uses 0 0 0
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $1,093,567 $763,611 $1,089,495
Source: Diablo CSD Financial Statements- Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
Diablo CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $1,276,961 $776,958 $643,638
Net Change (500,003) (133,320) (411,515)
% Change from Prior Year -39.2% -17.2% -63.9%
Ending Balance, General Fund $776,958 $643,638 $232,123
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 71.0% 84.3% 21.3%
Unassigned $776,958 $643,638 $232,123
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $779,721 $646,947 $270,856
Unrestricted $776,958 $643,638 $232,123
Source: Diablo CSD Financial Statements- Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances;
Statement of Net Position
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Diablo CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 123 of 138
Diablo CSD
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
Diablo CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Diablo CSD reports no enterprises or business type activities
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
Diablo CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NA Diablo CSD reports no enterprises or business type activities
----------
LIQUIDITY (Audited Financial Statements)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
Diablo CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
LIQUIDITY (Audited Financial Statements)
Liquidity Ratio (1) 21.7 17.7 6.8
Cash and Short-term Investments 814,134 640,090 269,650
Total Current Liabilities 37,546 36,140 39,943
Source: Diablo CSD Financial Statements - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Diablo CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 124 of 138
Diablo CSD
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
Diablo CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
$2,763
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets (1) $4,342 $2,763 $3,309
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets $2,763 $3,309 38,733
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (1,579) 546 35,424
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -36.4% 19.8% 1070.5%
Source: Diablo CSD Financial Statements
----------
PENSIONS (CAFR)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
Diablo CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSIONS (Audited Financial Statements)
Total Pension Liability
Plan Fiduciary Net Position
% Funded
Net OPEB Liability (2)
Source: Diablo CSD Financial Statements
(1) No pension obligations reported in Financial Statements.
(2) No OPEB obligations reported in Financial Statements.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Diablo CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 125 of 138
Diablo CSD
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
Diablo CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT (1)
Governmental Activities
Assessed Value $648,611,577
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (1)
Source:
(1) No debt reported in Financial Statements.
(2) Assessed value not reported in Audited Financial Statements; value is from County Roll Rpt 3211 (Dist. 3260)
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Diablo CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 126 of 138
Discovery Bay CSD
SUMMARY PROFILE
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
Discovery Bay CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 9 sq.mi. 9 sq.mi. 9 sq.mi.
Population (2) 14,765 14,765 14,765
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $2,662,217,186
Change from Prior Year
A.V. per capita $180,306
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $0 $0 $0
Other Revenues (exc. Transfers In) $629,000 $473,000 $272,000
Total GF Revenues $629,000 $473,000 $272,000
Change from Prior Year na -24.8% -42.5%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $396,000 $349,000 $147,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $93,000 $39,000 $391,000
Total GF Expenditures $489,000 $388,000 $538,000
Change from Prior Year na -20.7% 38.7%
GF Expenditures per capita $33 $26 $36
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $115,000 $527,000 $267,000
Change from Prior Year 121.4% 78.1% -97.5%
as % of GF Expenditures 23.5% 135.8% 49.6%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Water $2,341,000 $2,312,000 $2,884,000
Sewer $4,312,000 $4,224,000 $4,572,000
Financing authority $516,000 $508,000 $750,000
Total Enterprise Expenditures $7,169,000 $7,044,000 $8,206,000
Change from Prior Year na -1.7% 16.5%
Total Enterprise Net Position (8) $40,296,000 $41,872,000 $42,647,000
Position/Enterprise Expenditures 5.6 5.9 5.2
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 10.5 10.7 11.1
Business-type Activities 7.2 11.4 9.6
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $2,053,000 $1,919,000 $1,851,000
Net Change from Prior Year 0.8% -6.5% -3.6%
Business-type Activities 30,386,000 35,472,000 43,215,000
Net Change from Prior Year -14.3% -17.9% 4.7%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Discovery Bay CSD Fiscal Profile (Audited Financial Statements) 6/14/19
(1) CSD Comments on Public Review Draft
(2) Public Review Draft
(3) See Table 9. A.V. not reported in Audited Financial Statements.
(4) See Table 1. Includes transfers from the Lighting and Landscaping Zones.
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
City/CSD MSR Update Discovery Bay CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 127 of 138
Discovery Bay CSD
(7) See Table 4
(8) See Table 4
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. No pension obligations reported.
----------
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
Discovery Bay CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property taxes (1) $0 0 $0
Reimbursements (2) 622,750 467,215 269,395
Other 6,097 5,600 2,650
Total Revenues 628,847 472,815 272,045
Change from Prior Year na -24.8% -42.5%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 0 327,109 5,912
Total Other Financing Sources 0 327,109 5,912
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $628,847 $799,924 $277,957
Source: Discovery Bay Financial Statements - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
(1) "Property Taxes" in the Financial Statements are assessments collected by the County and are deposited to
Lighting and Landscape Zones special revenue funds.
(2) Reimbursements not detailed in financial statements.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Discovery Bay CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 128 of 138
Discovery Bay CSD
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
Discovery Bay CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Payroll $176,403 113,546 $114,537
Repairs and maintenance 0 235,883 32,247
Utilities 0 0 0
Other 219,938 0 0
Insurance 0 0 0
Professional fees 0 0 0
Capital outlay 0 0 0
Debt service:
Principal retirement 0 0 0
Interest and fiscal charges 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 396,341 349,429 146,784
Change from Prior Year na -11.8% -58.0%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 92,434 38,751 391,490
Total Other Financing Uses 92,434 38,751 391,490
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $488,775 $388,180 $538,274
Source: Discovery Bay Financial Statements - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances,
Governmental Funds
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
Discovery Bay CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance ($24,577) $115,495 $527,239
Net Change 140,072 411,744 (260,317)
% Change from Prior Year -569.9% 356.5% -49.4%
Ending Balance, General Fund $115,495 $527,239 $266,922
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 29.1% 150.9% 181.8%
Unassigned $115,495 $527,239 $266,922
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $3,643,326 $4,008,263 $3,686,397
Unrestricted $1,174,013 $1,672,956 $1,419,801
Source: Discovery Bay Audited Financial Statements - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balances, Balance Sheet
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Discovery Bay CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 129 of 138
Discovery Bay CSD
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
Discovery Bay CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
ENTERPRISE REVENUES
Charges for Services $7,501,141 $8,333,833 $8,729,817
Operating Grants and Contributions 0 0 0
Investment income 214 97 2,671
Other 262,608 587,143 78,284
Total $7,763,963 $8,921,073 $8,810,772
Change from Prior Year na 14.9% -1.2%
ENTERPRISE EXPENDITURES
Water $2,340,562 $2,312,379 $2,884,204
Sewer 4,312,170 4,223,813 4,571,601
Financing authority 515,707 508,210 750,025
Total $7,168,439 $7,044,402 $8,205,830
Change from Prior Year na -1.7% 16.5%
Transfers ($21,634) ($301,341) $170,387
Beginning Net Position 39,722,385 $40,296,275 $41,871,605
Change in Net Position 573,890 1,575,330 775,329
Ending Net Position $40,296,275 $41,871,605 $42,646,934
% Change from Prior Year 1.4% 3.9% 1.9%
Ending Net Position/Total Expenditures 5.62 5.94 5.20
Source: Discovery Bay Audited Financial Statements - Statement of Changes in Net position
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
Discovery Bay CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Water $9,915,784 $11,029,362 $11,749,669
Sewer 30,143,872 30,636,658 31,072,928
Financing authority 236,619 205,585 (175,663)
Total Net Position 40,296,275 41,871,605 42,646,934
% change from prior year n/a 3.9% 1.9%
Source: Discovery Bay Audited Financial Statements - Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net
Position Proprietary Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Discovery Bay CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 130 of 138
Discovery Bay CSD
LIQUIDITY (Audited Financial Statements)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
Discovery Bay CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
LIQUIDITY (Audited Financial Statements)
Liquidity Ratio (1) 10.5 10.7 11.1
Cash and Short-term Investments $1,190,542 $1,731,599 $1,515,365
Total Current Liabilities 113,921 161,141 136,422
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Liquidity Ratio (1) 7.2 11.4 9.6
Cash and Short-term Investments $10,715,818 $12,192,885 $16,835,785
Total Current Liabilities 1,490,716 1,069,660 1,749,319
Source: Discovery Bay Audited Financial Statements - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
----------
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
Discovery Bay CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $2,037,095 $2,053,383 $1,919,377
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 2,053,383 1,919,377 1,850,666
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 16,288 (134,006) (68,711)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 0.8% -6.5% -3.6%
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets $30,385,531 $35,471,576 $43,214,850
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets 35,471,576 43,214,850 41,257,210
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 5,086,045 7,743,274 (1,957,640)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets 14.3% 17.9% -4.7%
Source: Discovery Bay Audited Financial Statements - Note E
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Discovery Bay CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 131 of 138
Discovery Bay CSD
PENSIONS (Audited Financial Statements)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
Discovery Bay CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSIONS (Audited Financial Statements)
Total Pension Liability
Plan Fiduciary Net Position
% Funded
Net Pension Liability (1)
Net OPEB Liability (2)
Source: Discovery Bay Audited Financial Statements
(1) No pension obligations shown in financial statements.
(2) No OPEB obligations shown in financial statements.
----------
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
Discovery Bay CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities $0 $0 $0
Business Type Activities $22,349,090
Total Outstanding Debt $0 $0 $22,349,090
Total Debt per Capita $0 $0 $1,514
Assessed Value (1) $2,662,217,186
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (2) 164%
Source: Discovery Bay Audited Financial Statements - Note F
(1) Assessed value not reported in Audited Financial Statements; value is from County Roll Rpt 3211 (Dist. 3428)
(2) Financial statements do not report revenue bond coverage ratio. Estimate shown is based on debt service
compared to net enterprise revenues before deducting financing authority (debt service).
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Discovery Bay CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 132 of 138
Kensington CSD
Table S
Summary of Financial Conditions
Kensington CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Land Area (1) 1.2 sq.mi. 1.2 sq.mi. 1.2 sq.mi.
Population (2) 5,300 5,300 5,300
Change from Prior Year na 0.0% 0.0%
Assessed Value (A.V.) (3) $1,159,592,584
Change from Prior Year
A.V. per capita
General Fund Revenues (4)
Property Tax $1,483,000 $1,562,000 $1,673,000
Other Revenues $1,533,000 $1,593,000 $1,815,000
Total GF Revenues $3,016,000 $3,155,000 $3,488,000
Change from Prior Year na 4.6% 10.6%
General Fund Expenditures (5)
General Government & Admin. $420,000 $442,000 $434,000
Public Safety $2,317,000 $2,295,000 $2,413,000
Other (inc. Transfers Out) $147,000 $171,000 $202,000
Total GF Expenditures $2,884,000 $2,908,000 $3,049,000
Change from Prior Year na 0.8% 4.8%
GF Expenditures per capita $544 $549 $575
Ending Balance, General Fund (6) $1,426,000 $1,673,000 $2,112,000
Change from Prior Year 9.3% 14.8% 20.8%
as % of GF Expenditures 49.4% 57.5% 69.3%
Enterprise Expenditures (7)
Total Enterprise Net Position (8)
Liquidity Ratio (9)
Governmental Activities 9.0 6.6 9.3
Net Capital Assets (end of year) (10)
Governmental Funds & Activities $3,873,000 $3,858,000 $3,852,000
Net Change from Prior Year -0.5% -0.4% -0.2%
Total Pension Liability (11)
Net Pension Liability (12) $2,560,000 $2,880,000 $3,550,000
Kensington CSD Fiscal Profile (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) 1/4/19
(1) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(2) Contra Costa LAFCO Directory of County and Cities, 2017
(3) See Table 9. Not reported in Financial Statements.
(4) See Table 1
(5) See Table 2
(6) See Table 3
(7) See Table 4. No enterprises reported.
(8) See Table 4. No enterprises reported.
(9) See Table 6
(10) See Table 7. Net depreciable assets only.
(11) See Table 8. CAFRs don't report total liability and % funded for each plan.
(12) Net of Plan assets.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Kensington CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 133 of 138
Kensington CSD
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Table 1
Summary of General Fund Revenues
Kensington CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Property Taxes $1,482,672 $1,561,530 $1,673,283
Special assessments 681,690 681,690 681,630
Measure G supplemental tax revenue 501,950 514,176 527,989
Assets seizure forfeit 138,380 18,526 143,777
Grants-COPS & Other 1,443 100,000 158,951
Charges for services 9,450 3,370 3,369
Kensington Hilltop service reimb. 20,732 28,475 19,468
West County crossing guard reimb. 10,515 12,237 11,151
POST reimb. 25,791 10,515 1,054
Rents and fees 34,473 5,762 31,393
Investment income 1,263 37,520 7,456
Contribution 1,230 4,056 11,000
Franchise fees 35,636 59,559 55,819
Other tax income 25,443 47,227 48,137
Supplemental workers' comp reimb. 44,465 29,354 94,252
Other income 1,001 14,299 19,411
Gain on asset sale 5,779 0
Total Revenues 3,016,134 3,134,075 3,488,140
Change from Prior Year na 3.9% 11.3%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Transfers In 239 21,076 65
Total Other Financing Sources 239 21,076 65
TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN $3,016,373 $3,155,151 $3,488,205
Source: Kensington District Financial Statements - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balances, Governmental Funds
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Kensington CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 134 of 138
Kensington CSD
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances)
Summary of General Fund Expenditures
Kensington CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Police Salary $2,033,310 $2,044,406 $2,167,008
Police Expenses 283,563 250,700 246,146
Recreation Salary Benefits 28,517 29,365 30,059
Recreation Expenses 59,882 71,642 86,773
District Expenses 420,315 441,816 434,460
Capital Outlay 47,549 59,358 74,153
Total Expenditures 2,873,136 2,897,287 3,038,599
Change from Prior Year na 0.8% 4.9%
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers Out 10,595 10,495 10,380
Total Other Financing Uses 10,595 10,495 10,380
TOTAL USES AND TRANSFERS OUT $2,883,731 $2,907,782 $3,048,979
Source: Kensington District Financial Statements - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balances, Governmental Funds
----------
FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
Table 3
Fund Balance, General Fund
Kensington CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Beginning Balance $1,293,322 $1,425,964 $1,673,247
Net Change 132,642 247,369 439,226
% Change from Prior Year 10.3% 17.3% 26.2%
Ending Balance, General Fund $1,425,964 $1,673,333 $2,112,473
Ending Balance/Total GF Operating Expenditures 49.6% 57.8% 69.5%
Unassigned $1,141,234 $1,249,067 $1,311,306
Total Governmental Activities Ending Net Position $2,590,442 $3,097,405 $3,672,077
Unrestricted ($1,258,418) ($927,983) ($305,320)
Source: Kensington District Financial Statements - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balances, Governmental Funds; Statement of Net Position
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Kensington CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 135 of 138
Kensington CSD
ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUE BY FUND
Table 4
Summary of Enterprise Changes in Net Position
Kensington CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NO ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES REPORTED
----------
FUND BALANCES, PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Table 5
Ending Net Position by Enterprise Fund
Kensington CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
NO ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES REPORTED
----------
LIQUIDITY (Audited Financial Statements)
Table 6
Liquidity Measures
Kensington CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
LIQUIDITY (Audited Financial Statements)
Liquidity Ratio (1) 9.0 6.6 9.3
Cash and Short-term Investments (2) $1,582,897 $1,878,266 $2,147,580
Total Current Liabilities $176,352 $286,197 $229,793
Source: Kensington District Financial Statements - Statement of Net position
(1) Cash and Short-term Investments/Total Current Liabilities
(2) Note: amounts differ from those shown in Financial Statements Note 2.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Kensington CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 136 of 138
Kensington CSD
CAPITAL ASSETS
Table 7
Capital Assets Being Depreciated
Kensington CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES
Beginning Net Value of Capital Assets (1) $3,894,279 $3,872,547 $3,858,056
Ending Net Value of Capital Assets (2) 3,872,547 3,858,056 3,851,927
Change in Net Value of Capital Assets (21,732) (14,491) (6,129)
% Change in Net Value of Capital Assets -0.6% -0.4% -0.2%
Source: Kensington District Financial Statements Note 3 - Capital Assets
(1) Note: Statements include land in "Total Depreciable Assets".
(2) Capital Assets Net of Depreciation.
PENSIONS (Audited Financial Statements)
Table 8
Pension and OPEB Liabilities
Kensington CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
PENSIONS (Audited Financial Statements)
Total Pension Liability (1)
Plan Fiduciary Net Position (1)
% Funded 78.4% 78.4% 74.1%
Net Pension Liability $2,559,571 $2,878,245 $3,551,469
Net OPEB Liability $2,608,132 $2,679,856 $3,046,797
Source: Kensington District - Financial Statements Supplementary Information - Pensions, and Note 9 (OPEB)
(Note 11 - DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS)
(1) Total liability and Net Position not reported in Financial Statements.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Kensington CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 137 of 138
Kensington CSD
DEBT AND VALUE
Table 9
Debt and Assessed Value
Kensington CSD
Fiscal Year
Item FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT
Governmental Activities $846,685 $720,967 $587,766
Total Debt per Capita $160 $136 $111
Assessed Value (1) $1,159,592,584
Coverage Ratio (pledged revenues) (2) na na na
Source: Financial Statement Note 4
(1) Assessed value not reported in Audited Financial Statements; value is from County Roll Rpt 3211 (Dist. 3255)
(2) No pledged revenue debt shown in financial statements.
----------
City/CSD MSR Update Kensington CSD Fiscal Data May 7, 2019 pg. 138 of 138
A D
TTACHMENT
R P C
ESPONSE TO UBLIC OMMENTS
The Contra Costa LAFCO Municipal Service Review Update was published on March 27, 2019, initiating a 30-day public review and comment
period that ended April 25, 2019. A public hearing was held on April 17, 2019, from 1:30 – 3:30 PM at the Board of Supervisors Chambers, 651
Pine Street, Martinez, California. A summary of the MSR was presented to the Commissioners and the public at this meeting, where the
Commissioners and the public had the opportunity to ask questions and provide comments.
Responses to comments are provided in the tables below. Table D.1 contains response to comments received during the public comment period
and Table D.2 contains responses to comments received at the public hearing. The Final MSR includes the revisions noted in these tables and
was publicly posted on the Contra Costa LAFCO website.
Page 1 of 49
TABLE D.1
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
1. 3.27.2019 Alan Kalin Comment: Revision made on page 22-7 in the
COL, USA (Ret.) “Ref: Diablo CSD, 22.2.10, page 22-7 Diablo CSD chapter.
(925-640-7055) LAFCO has the wrong date in the paragraph
below. Should say Diablo CSD in 1969.
In conjunction with formation of the Diablo
CSD in 1996, the stated purpose of the
formation was to provide the territory with
lighting services, police protection, and to
maintain roads which are subject to right-of-
way by the public but have not been accepted
into the County road system, and to
implement needed safety measures on said
roads, as well as to construct and improve
bridges, culverts, curbs, gutters, etc.”
2. 3.27.2019 Kathy Torru, Diablo CSD Comment: Revisions made on pp. 22-7 and 22-
“On page 485 of the MSR released this month, 11 in the Diablo CSD chapter.
the third paragraph from the bottom, first
sentence incorrectly reads “1996”. The correct
date should be 1969.”
Commenter also provided a number of
clarifying edits.
3. 3.28.2019 Greg Fuz, City of Pleasant Hill Comment: Revisions made on page 16-7 of the
“Attached is the additional information that City of Pleasant Hill chapter.
you requested for the MSR. Below is additional
information pertaining to street lights/signals
that was also requested:
Page 2 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
‘Lighting (street and traffic) is provided by and
maintained by the City of Pleasant Hill
Maintenance Division, Contra Costa County,
and Pacific Gas & Electric. City expenditures
for light and signal maintenance were $178,000
in FY 2017, up from $151,000 in FY 2015. Contra
Costa County maintains the City’s 40
signalized intersections. The number of street
lights maintained by the City is 505. PG&E
maintains 1,614 street lights in the City.’”
4. 3.29.2019 Roger Chelemedos Commenter provided a letter from 40 Reliez Recommendations for updating the
Valley residents requesting a review and SOI for the cities of Lafayette and
ultimate removal from the Pleasant Hill Parks Pleasant Hill are included in the
and Recreation District. MSR. This MSR does not cover the
Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park
District. LAFCO has indicated it
will undertake MSR/SOI Updates
for Parks and Recreation districts
in FY 2020.
The comment is noted and hereby
made part of the public record.
The City of Pleasant Hill has
indicated it will not be taking a
positon on the SOI request.
5. 4.2.2019 Mike Davies, Town of Discovery Bay CSD Comment contained revisions of an editorial Revisions made to pp. 23-1, 23-3, 23-
nature for the Town of Discovery Bay CSD. 9, and 23-10 in the Town of
Data corrections were also provided. Discovery Bay CSD chapter, and a
clarification added regarding the
authorization to provide flood
control/levee services.
Page 3 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
The CSD provided calculations
showing change over the current
year, not prior year as noted in
their comments. Accordingly, we
did not make this change.
6. 4.2.2019 Suzie Martinez, City of Walnut Creek Comment: Revisions made to page 1-18 in the
“After a review, we found some minor Introduction Chapter and page 20-
corrections related to Walnut Creek in the 21 in the City of Walnut Creek
LAFCO Report. chapter.
· Section 1.3.5, Page 1-18, 4th bullet: This bullet Overall, this MSR Update relied on
mentions City owned property that is leased to data provided by individual
other agencies. It incorrectly lists "Heather jurisdictions, which may account
Farm, " instead of the "Gardens at Heather for minor inconsistencies in the
Farm," and "The Walnut Creek Model Railroad information reported and noted by
Center" instead of the "Walnut Creek Model the commenter.
Railroad Society."
· Page 20-20: Again, the Walnut Creek Model
Railroad Society as the "Walnut Creek Model
Railroad Center."
Also in looking at what was reported for Solid
Waste Services from other JPA jurisdictions,
wondering why the same language for each of
city that participates in the JPA (Danville,
Orinda, Lafayette, Moraga & Walnut Creek)
was not listed the same. Walnut Creek was the
only jurisdiction that reported RecycleSmart's
waste disposal per capita, for the entire service
area. The other jurisdictions just say, " The FY
2017 solid waste disposal rates were not
reported or were unavailable at the time of
Page 4 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
this MSR." Also worth noting that Danville is
the only city that listed expenditures, while
other cities reported that expenditure
information was not available. We said we
don't have any direct solid waste expenditures.
Lafayette & Moraga have the wrong provider
(Allied Services) listed - Republic Services
currently provides services.”
7. 4.3.2019 Kristen Altbaum Commenter provided a letter and related Recommendations for updating the
photo regarding a potential SOI change. SOI for the cities of Lafayette and
Pleasant Hill are included in the
MSR. This MSR does not cover the
Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park
District. LAFCO has indicated it
will undertake MSR/SOI Updates
for Parks and Recreation districts
in FY 2020.
The comment is noted and hereby
made part of the public record.
The City of Pleasant Hill has
indicated it will not be taking a
positon on the SOI request.
8. 4.3.2019 Kristen Altbaum Commenter provided a petition regarding a Recommendations for updating the
potential SOI change. SOI for the cities of Lafayette and
Pleasant Hill are included in the
MSR. This MSR does not cover the
Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park
District. LAFCO has indicated it
will undertake MSR/SOI Updates
for Parks and Recreation districts
Page 5 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
in FY 2020.
The comment is noted and hereby
made part of the public record.
The City of Pleasant Hill has
indicated it will not be taking a
positon on the SOI request.
9. 4.9.2019 Commissioner Charles R. Lewis, IV Comment contained requests for additional Clarifying information provided in
clarifying information, including with regard Chapter 1 of the MSR (page 1-14)
to SOI recommendations, city-provided and on page 15-12 in the City of
animal control services, library services, and Pittsburg Chapter.
OPEB liabilities. Additional information on City of
Antioch-provided animal control
services included on page 2-5 in the
City of Antioch chapter.
Library services are provided by
Contra Costa County for all cities
except for the City of Richmond
and thus the information in those
sections is the same. City-specific
library service data was available
and reported for the Richmond
library services.
Footnotes were added to the City of
Concord chapter (p. 5-23), Town of
Moraga chapter (p. 11-22), and City
of Richmond chapter (p. 17-23)
summarizing the missing
information.
Page 6 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
10. 4.12.2019 David Biggs, City Manager, City of Comment contained additional data to include Revisions made to pp. 8-6, 8-7, 8-8,
Hercules in the City’s MSR chapter. In several areas, the 8-9, 8-11, 8-12, and 8-19 in the City
City provided data for Fiscal Year 2018. of Hercules chapter.
The FY 2018 data was not included
in the MSR revisions as it extended
beyond the scope of this MSR
Update.
11. 4.17.2019 – Aaron Beardsley, Alex Oei, Andrew Judd, Comment: The MSR contains information
4.25.2019 Andy Hollingsworth, Andy May, Angelo “I am unable to attend your public hearing on regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
Colaci, Arleen Sakamoto, Ben Etling, Ben April 17th but want to express my concerns however, the resolution of the Calle
Rohrs, Berit Gamsky, Beth Tirapelli- that public money is being spent to maintain Arroyo use issue is beyond the
Morlelan, Bill Gonsalves, Bill Powning, private roads in Diablo. I am happy to have scope of this MSR Update. The
Bob Davenport, Brad Crow, Brian Diablo residents use public roads elsewhere in comment is noted and hereby
McAndrews, Bridget Moar, Bruce Ohlson, the County, which some of my taxes are used made part of the public record.
Bruce Young, carol@carolclick.net, Clive to maintain, but in return I expect to be able
Harrison, Dan Leonard, Dan Schaefer, to use other roads maintained with public
Daniel Kanaan, Daryl Liggins, Dave funds.
Dalton, David Block, David Brown, David
I heard that a judge has decided that Calle
Douglas, David Fisch, David Sussman,
Arroyo in Diablo is private and not subject to
David Otten, David Rossiter, David
public access. This is of concern to me because
Simpson, David Weiner, David Willhoite,
I (frequently/occasionally) ride my bike from
Deb Donovan, Deepinder Singh, Derek
Danville to and from Mt Diablo State Park,
Ching, Diana Lowe, Dianne Glynn,
and traveling on the roads of the Diablo
Domenick Treccase, Donald Palmer, Mark
Community Services District (DCSD)
Koenen, Elizabeth Hillis, Ellen Booth, Eric
represents the only safe route for me. I ride
Grove, Erika Rowen, Gary Booth, Gary
through Diablo because Diablo Road (1.5miles)
Goldhawk, Gary Johnson, Gayle Lightfoot,
is too dangerous for bicycles and the only safe
Geoffrey Sylvester, Gerald Coil, Gerald
route is through Diablo. I am concerned that
Smith, Gina Matrone, Gisselle Rullier,
the DCSD, as a public entity, takes tax money
Glenda Smith, Gregory Kennedy, J.A.
but doesn’t believe that it needs to provide a
Zaitlin, Jake Michenfelder, Jamey Jacobs,
Page 7 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
Jamuel Starkey, Jaynette Rossiter, Jeff public benefit in return. I also don't think it is
Mock, Jeffrey Brenner, Jennifer Schulze, right that I must commit a misdemeanor (by
Jennifer Tryon, Jim Cooper, Jum Van Dyke, violating the Ordinances of the DCSD) in
Joe Allen, Joe Ungerer, Jon Usvathongkul, order to use a road maintained with tax money
Kathleen Koos, Kathryn Woodford, Kevin by a public agency in order to protect my own
Comerford, Kevin Dielssen, Kevin safety.
Metcalfe, Kim Chan, Kit Johnson, Larry I support the conclusions in the LAFCO MSR
Feigenbaum, Laurie Anderson, Lenny that the DCSD should no longer be using
Lesser, Linda Curtis, Linda Kwong, Lynda public funds to maintain Calle Arroyo.
and John Hansen, Mac Rogers, Margie Additionally, I believe that DCSD should be
Kirk, Mark Dedon, Mary Hernandez, Matt prevented from using public funds to maintain
Beck, Matt Evans, Michael Kinney, any road that the public lacks the right to use.
Michael Gill, Michael Koved, Mike Chung, Alternatively, I hope this problem can be
Nathan Martin, Nathan Parks, Neil worked out sensibly, allowing taxpayer money
Rapmund, Nikki Grimes, Nora Crans, to maintain roads that should allow public
Morman Lisy, Olin Timoth Jones, Parry access.
Andvik, Pat O’Neil, Patricia Frantz,
Thank you for your time and consideration of
Patricia Sampson, Patti Davis, Paul
my comment.”
Cardinet, Peter Culshaw, Philippa Erlank,
Rachel McQueen, Richard Angelis,
Richard Reed, Rick Edmondson, Rob
Williams, Robert Gray, Rod Hooper,
Rodrigo Prudencio, Russ Frisk, Rusty
Stapp, Ruth Ann Pearsons, Ryan Schmidt,
Sara Rowe, Sarah Cyper, Sarah Liron, Scott
Bartelebaugh, Sean McCreary, Sean Perry,
Shawn Richardson, Shelly Sack, Sheri
Bjornson, Sherri O’Neill,
Sppshop@mac.com, Stacey Murphy,
Stephanie and Tom DiPalma, Stephen
Wienker, Steve Whelan, Steven Payne, Ted
Selbach, tjipto@sugijoto.com, Tom Magill,
Page 8 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
Van Sutton, Vic DeOrnelas, William
Monsen, William Stubbs, Adele Madelo,
Amanda Rewcastle, Barbara Hailey, Ben
Foroodian, Charles Donovan, Chris Pham,
Garrett Lew, Gary Hong, Heath Maddox,
John Harvey, Karen Martin, Lauren
Heumann, Rebecca Woods, Tony Flushce,
Tracey Loftus, William Liss, Anthony
Ertassi, Betty Simpson, Byron Pogir, Chuck
Roncancio, Elizabeth Brathwaite, Jackie
Dahlgard, Karin Poe, Roz Duncan, Scott
LaPerle
12. 4.17.2019 Brad Crow Comment: The MSR contains information
“What a crazy world we live in that I help pay regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
taxes for that road, but can’t ride on it.” however, the resolution of the Calle
Arroyo use issue is beyond the
scope of this MSR Update. The
comment is noted and hereby
made part of the public record.
13. 4.17.2019 Brad Williams Comment: The MSR contains information
“I am unable to attend your public hearing on regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
April 17th but want to express my concerns however, the resolution of the Calle
that public money is being spent to maintain Arroyo use issue is beyond the
private roads in Diablo. This is absolutely scope of this MSR Update. The
absurd that the wealthy landowners of this comment is noted and hereby
community would not allow pedestrians and made part of the public record.
cyclists of the area to use the streets but
expect public money to fund their community.
The fact there is even a hearing on the use of
public funds for a private Uber wealthy
Page 9 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
community is infuriating.”
14. 4.17.2019 Britt Harvey Comment: The MSR contains information
“I have lived in the East Bay for over 30 years. I regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
bike up Mount Diablo several times a year. however, the resolution of the Calle
Access from the south is much safer and more Arroyo use issue is beyond the
pleasant on Calle Arroyo than Diablo Road. I scope of this MSR Update. The
am not surprised that owners of a private road comment is noted and hereby
would try to limit access. I am surprised to made part of the public record.
learn that taxpayers are funding maintenance
of a private road. Any road receiving taxpayer
funding should, I would say obviously, be open
to the public. It is particularly important in
this case, due to the popularity of the bike ride
up Mount Diablo and the dangerous
alternative to the private road. Please improve
bicyclist safety and end public subsidies to
private individuals.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
15. 4.17.2019 Carl Nielson Comment: The MSR contains information
“I am a concerned cyclist, taxpayer, and regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
resident of Contra Costa County. On my way however, the resolution of the Calle
to Mount Diablo State Park (eastbound), I Arroyo use issue is beyond the
cycle on Calle Arroyo. There’s been an effort to scope of this MSR Update. The
close this road to public use. However, county comment is noted and hereby
funds contribute to the maintenance of this made part of the public record.
road. If the residents succeed in closing this
road to public use, NO PUBLIC FUNDS
SHOULD BE ALLOTTED FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF CALLE ARROYO!”
Page 10 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
16. 4.17.2019 Dan Kappes Comment: The MSR contains information
“No public money should be spent regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
maintaining private roads in Diablo. This is an however, the resolution of the Calle
easy decision.” Arroyo use issue is beyond the
scope of this MSR Update. The
comment is noted and hereby
made part of the public record.
17. 4.17.2019 David Glazer Comment: The MSR contains information
“I am unable to attend your public hearing on regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
April 17th but wish to provide this comment, however, the resolution of the Calle
in the hope that it will be given consideration. Arroyo use issue is beyond the
scope of this MSR Update. The
I understand that a lower court ruling has held
comment is noted and hereby
that one road within the Diablo Country Club
made part of the public record.
property is private and may be closed to public
use. If that is the case, I do not see how public
moneys (to which my tax dollars contribute)
can be used to maintain that road. There
seems to be no legal basis for allowing the
residents of Diablo Country Club to have it
both ways – barring public use while taking
advantage of public money.
I therefore strongly support a decision that no
further public funds will be spent to maintain
this supposedly private road.
Thank you for your attention.”
18. 4.17.2019 Gail Fugere Comment: The MSR contains information
“I am unable to attend your public hearing on regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
April 17th but want to express my concerns however, the resolution of the Calle
that public money is being spent to maintain Arroyo use issue is beyond the
Page 11 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
private roads in Diablo. I am happy to have scope of this MSR Update. The
Diablo residents use public roads elsewhere in comment is noted and hereby
the County, which some of my taxes are used made part of the public record.
to maintain, but in return I expect to be able
to use other roads maintained with public
funds.
I heard that a judge has decided that Calle
Arroyo in Diablo is private and not subject to
public access. This is of concern to me because
I frequently ride my bike from Danville to and
from Mt Diablo State Park, and traveling on
the roads of the Diablo Community Services
District (DCSD) represents the only safe route
for me. I ride through Diablo because Diablo
Road (1.5miles) is too dangerous for bicycles
and the only safe route is through Diablo. I am
concerned that the DCSD, as a public entity,
takes tax money but doesn’t believe that it
needs to provide a public benefit in return. I
also don't think it is right that I must commit a
misdemeanor (by violating the Ordinances of
the DCSD) in order to use a road maintained
with tax money by a public agency in order to
protect my own safety.
I support the conclusions in the LAFCO MSR
that the DCSD should no longer be using
public funds to maintain Calle Arroyo.
Additionally, I believe that DCSD should be
prevented from using public funds to maintain
any road that the public lacks the right to use.
Alternatively, I hope this problem can be
Page 12 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
worked out sensibly, allowing taxpayer money
to maintain roads that should allow public
access.
Furthermore, I live at the east end of Green
Valley Road in Alamo, very close to Macedo
staging area. Almost daily the Monte Vista
High School cycling team rides up Green
Valley, past my house. It brings a smile to my
face to see these young people cycling on our
public roads. There is no hate in my heart. If
you only knew how many times an angry
driver has threatened us with an angry horn
honk, driving too close, even yelling at us,
perhaps you would have a better idea why we
choose to ride on Mt. Diablo. If there were a
safe route to the mountain, we would take it.
Diablo Road is not that route. And, my tax
dollars are as equal as the one or two haters
that live in Diablo on Calle Arroyo.
Thank you for your time and consideration of
my comment.”
19. 4.17.2019 Glenn Woodson Comment: The MSR contains information
“I was unable the public hearing tonight, April regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
17, but want to express my concerns about the however, the resolution of the Calle
continued use of public funds spent for Arroyo use issue is beyond the
maintenance of private roads. As both a scope of this MSR Update. The
landowner and taxpayer, I am fully aware my comment is noted and hereby
tax money is used to fund the roads in front of made part of the public record.
my property and elsewhere in the county. As a
community planner, it is unconscionable that
Page 13 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
local residents would, after filing a lawsuit to
make their road private, want to continue
using county funds to maintain their roads in
Diablo.
As a father of a young cyclist, I find their
actions over the past months self-centered and
at times abusive to fellow residents who are
not privileged enough to live in Diablo. Of
specific concern is that traffic entering Mt
Diablo State Park is NOT always safe and
aware of cyclists. We have ridden Calle Arroyo
multiple time because, quite frankly it is quiet
and safe. As a public road, Calle Arroyo is a
road that provides us access without my
having to worry that a slight mistake can cost
my son his life.
If the local residents on the street are offended
and put out by our being there that is their
right in this state. If they then take this
further, which they have now, and made the
road a private road for the entire width
(homes on one half and golf course on other
half), then they have additional rights to
restrict our access since the land and access do
not fall under purvey of the California Coastal
Commission or similar jurisdictional
regulation.
BUT they cannot make this private AND then
ask us, as fellow taxpayers to provide
maintenance to their roads. Where is our
community return on investment?
Page 14 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
Most importantly, how can the local residents
demand continued maintenance when this is
in direct conflict with California Code Section
845, which provides that when a private
roadway exists for the benefit of multiple
owners, the cost of maintaining the road is
proportional to the use made by the easement.
If the public is no longer an owner of the
easement, we, as taxpayers who do not live
along Calle Arroyo, have ZERO obligation to
pay for their requirements.
DCSD must not use public funds to maintain
any road the public does not have access. With
that in mind, this argument is really about
quality of life. Local residents want to
maintain a level of solitude and security and
local cyclists and hikers desire similar. As
such. I would hope that all sides here can work
out their differences and not let a minority of
residents turn this into a both restrictive area
and a costly nightmare.
Thank you for taking time to read and
consider my comments.”
20. 4.17.2019 Jody and Steve Archer Comment: The MSR contains information
“I am not able to attend public hearing to regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
express concerns over public monies being however, the resolution of the Calle
used to maintain private roads in Diablo Arroyo use issue is beyond the
Country club. I expect to be able to have scope of this MSR Update. The
public access to roads which my taxes are comment is noted and hereby
used. made part of the public record.
Page 15 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
I heard a judge decided that Calle Arroyo in
Diablo Country Club is private and not subject
to public access. I ride my bike from Alamo to
Mtdiablo state park. Traveling through DCSD
is the only safe route. Many of my fiends have
been run off the road or hit on Diablo rd. With
no shoulder it is not safe for ridding with the
kids to enjoy the stage park. I am concerned
that the DCSD takes public money to maintain
a private road and does not believe they need
to provide a public benefit in return. I should
not have to be threatened by homeowners for
prosecution in order to use a road that is paid
for with public money for our personal safety.
I support the conclusions in the LAFCO MSR
that the DCSD should no longer be able to use
public funds to maintain their roads.
Additionally I feel that DCSD should be
prevented from receiving any public funds to
maintain roads that do not have public
access.”
21. 4.17.2019 Joe Allen Comment: The MSR contains information
“I heard about this hearing and I can’t make regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
this date. However, Ms. Sibley, I am a resident however, the resolution of the Calle
of CC County and wish that you would pass Arroyo use issue is beyond the
along my strong objection to using general scope of this MSR Update. The
public taxpayer dollars to support a private, comment is noted and hereby
exclusive club. made part of the public record.
Thank you for registering my view.”
Page 16 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
22. 4.17.2019 Mark Nienberg Comment: The MSR contains information
“As a Contra Costa County resident and regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
property owner, I wish to comment on the however, the resolution of the Calle
draft MSR that you will discuss at your Arroyo use issue is beyond the
meeting on April 17th. Specifically, I am scope of this MSR Update. The
interested in the section related to the Diablo comment is noted and hereby
Community Services District. I would like to made part of the public record.
see the concluding paragraph of Section
22.2.10 strengthened to clarify that public
taxpayer money may not be spent to maintain
any street in the district unless that street is
open to public access, including pedestrians
and bicycles.
As I'm sure you know, a few residents on Calle
Arroyo Road in Diablo have waged a legal
battle to declare their street private and
prevent public use. They seem particularly
hostile to bicyclists, who often use the street to
access the public facilities at Mount Diablo
State Park. The reason bicyclists use Calle
Arroyo is simply that there is no safe
alternative. Diablo Road is far too dangerous.
But the reasons aren't really important to your
decision. If the residents succeed in excluding
the public from the road, then clearly they
cannot expect the public to pay for
maintenance.
Please note that in my suggested re-wording of
the concluding paragraph I referred to any
road that is not open to public access rather
than specifying Calle Arroyo. That is because
Page 17 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
some residents of other roads in the district
have said they may try to replicate the Calle
Arroyo restrictions on "their roads".
Ultimately, I hope common sense will prevail
and DCSD will allow full public access to
district roads and public funding will be
available to maintain the roads. In the
meantime, a clear statement from LAFCO in
the MSR will have a positive effect on moving
toward that resolution.
Thank you for your time and consideration of
my comment.”
23. 4.17.2019 Mark Skrivanich Comment: The MSR contains information
“Since I am unable to attend the public regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
hearing tonight, April 17th, I'll echo the however, the resolution of the Calle
sentiments expressed by Bike East Bay and no Arroyo use issue is beyond the
doubt, many, many others (cyclist included!) scope of this MSR Update. The
comment is noted and hereby
Simply, no one, no community, no association
made part of the public record.
or organization, etc. can or should have a
monopoly on SAFE access for all to Southgate
Road, Mt. Diablo STATE Park or any public
area.
In the horribly inexcusable event of denied
access, then not only will public funding of the
Diablo Community Services District need to
cease, the DCSD must payback all funds used
to determine the Diablo Community roads to
be private. There is no defensible rationale for
using public funds to declare roadways to be
private. Nor is there one for taking public
Page 18 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
funds yet not providing for public safety at a
minimum in return.
There is no inherent nuisance in allowing
human powered through-traffic. There is no
exhaust pollution, no excessive noise, no litter
and no visual blight, even taking in to
consideration some of poorly designed cyclist
jerseys.)
I appreciate your time and understanding on
this.”
24. 4.17.2019 Matt Jacoby Comment: The MSR contains information
“I'm writing you in regard to the question of regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
public access vs public funding on Calle however, the resolution of the Calle
Arroyo. Though I have never taken this route, Arroyo use issue is beyond the
I ride my bike to Diablo frequently, so this is a scope of this MSR Update. The
matter that concerns me. comment is noted and hereby
made part of the public record.
I was very disappointed that cyclists would be
prevented from using this much safer route to
access Mt. Diablo State park. It seems like this
is really a very unfortunate case of overblown
reactions and lack of mutual respect between
some cyclists and some property owners. It's a
shame, but if this is where it's gotten then here
we are.
However, it violates my sense of civic fairness
that, being denied access to this route, tax-
paying cyclists would still have to fund its
maintenance. I expect there are many cases
where public funds are used for private benefit
- but it seems like we should be minimizing
Page 19 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
those. And, certainly, it seems unfair and
unwise to reward the reactionary behavior that
caused the road to be fully privatized.
I would ask that the staff and commissioners
do what is within their power to deny public
funds for this road if it is to remain private, or
else help in revisiting the question of shared
access and mutual respect.”
25. 4.17.2019 Rick Rickard Comment: The MSR contains information
“As you know from our PAC interactions, I am regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
a regular road bicyclist. Although I live in however, the resolution of the Calle
Oakland, I do occasionally ride up Mt Diablo, Arroyo use issue is beyond the
usually climbing up Southgate Drive, accessed scope of this MSR Update. The
through the community of Diablo. Needless to comment is noted and hereby
say as a Board Member of Bike East Bay, I have made part of the public record.
closely followed the saga of public access to
Calle Arroyo.
I’m not able to attend tonight’s public hearing,
but I do want to share my concerns with you.
As you have no doubt heard from many
bicyclists, this stretch of Diablo Road is a
dangerous and unpleasant place to ride a
bicycle, with high-speed traffic and minimal
shoulders. The roads through Diablo are a
much safer alternative for bicyclists.
I have been disappointed to learn that the
Diablo Community Services District is using
public funds to maintain these private
roadways while seeking to restrict public
access to the roadways. Thus, I am supportive
Page 20 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
of the conclusions of the LAFCO MSR that
DCSD should be prevented from using public
funds to maintain any road that the public
lacks the right to use. Ideally, of course, I
would hope this problem can be worked out
sensibly, allowing taxpayer money to maintain
the roads while also allowing public access.
Thanks for hearing me out. Hope you are
well.”
26. 4.17.2019 Will Leben Comment: The MSR contains information
“As a bicyclist whose only safe option for regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
getting to Mt. Diablo State Park is Calle however, the resolution of the Calle
Arroyo (because Diablo Road is too dangerous Arroyo use issue is beyond the
for cycling), I think that the Diablo scope of this MSR Update. The
Community Services District as a public entity comment is noted and hereby
should not be allowed to take tax money, as it made part of the public record.
is currently doing, without providing a public
benefit in return.
Public funds should not be used to maintain
Calle Arroyo or any road not fully open to the
public.”
27. 4.19.2019 Richard Nicoll Comment: The MSR contains information
“I understand that the Local Agency regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
Formation Commission (LAFCO) is reviewing however, the resolution of the Calle
whether or not the Diablo Community Service Arroyo use issue is beyond the
District, the agency charged with maintaining scope of this MSR Update. The
roads in Diablo, should continue funding comment is noted and hereby
maintenance of private roads. Apparently, made part of the public record.
public funds are used to finance private roads
in Diablo. Clearly, such actions constitute a
Page 21 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
gift of public funds, which I understand to be
prohibited in California. If not, where do the
rest of us sign up for public assistance for our
private driveway repairs, kitchen remodels or
house painting?”
28. 4.20.2019 Craig Hagelin Comment: The MSR contains information
“I live in Walnut Creek and frequently ride a regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
loop of up North Gate to the junction and then however, the resolution of the Calle
down to South Gate. Being able to cut through Arroyo use issue is beyond the
Calle Arroyo in Diablo is a much safer route scope of this MSR Update. The
for me to get back to Walnut Creek. Cars on comment is noted and hereby
Diablo Road travel very fast and cyclists get hit made part of the public record.
there. I am 72 and have been doing the route
for years, and if I get hit on Diablo Road I will
not heal fast if at all. Please consider the lives
at skate here, and do not revoke access that
has been in place for long time and does not
cause any harm.
I support the conclusions in the LAFCO MSR
that the DCSD should no longer be using
public funds to maintain Calle Arroyo.
Additionally, I believe that DCSD should be
prevented from using public funds to maintain
any road that the public lacks the right to use.
Alternatively, I hope this problem can be
worked out sensibly, allowing taxpayer money
to maintain roads that should allow public
access.
Thank you for your consideration on this
matter.”
Page 22 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
29. 4.23.2019 Bryan Montgomery, City Manager, City of Comment: Revisions made to pp. 12-17, 12-19,
Oakley “In two locations (pages 12-17 and 12-21), there and 12-21 in the City of Oakley
is a reference to "18th St" - which is a street chapter.
located in the City of Antioch. I believe the
correct reference in both locations should be
"Main Street."
On page 12-19 under "Liquidity, Debt, ..." there
is a reference to OPEB liabilities - the City of
Oakley has none (as is previously stated in the
MSR).
On page 12-21 under the paragraph "Existence
of Any Social or Economic Communities of
Interest" the verbiage could be re-worded to
make clear that the City did proceed with the
large annexation of territory in 2006 and only
a small portion, now within the existing SOI,
that we chose not to annex.”
30. 4.25.2019 Dale McDonald, General Manager, Comments: Revisions made to pp. 21-3, 21-16,
Crockett CSD 21.4.3 CSD Services MSR. Determinations - and 21-17 in the Crockett CSD
Current Shared Sen/ices - pa. 21-16: The CSD chapter.
provides park and recreation services. It does The information provided about
not provide solid waste services. As mentioned the probable need for future sewer
in section 21.2.8 solid waste services are services was not included in the
provided to the Crockett CSD via franchise MSR revisions as sewer services
agreement between the County and Richmond were not reviewed as part of this
Sanitary Service, doing business as Crockett MSR Update.
Garbage Company. For correction we
recommend removing the reference to solid
waste services from 21.4.3.
21.4.4 Financial Determinations - Operating
Page 23 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
General Fund and Reserve Trends - do. 21-17:
The second paragraph states that "The CSD's
reserve goal is unknown,". To clarify it should
state that "The CSD's Port Costa Department
reserve goal is unknown," as the remaining
departments of the CSD have established
reserve funds. This section was specifically
discussing Port Costa and it could be
misleading if left unchanged.
21.5.2 Sphere of Influence Determination for
the Crockett CSD - Present and Probable Need
for Public Facilities and Services - oa. 21-20:
Within the SOI there are approximately twelve
properties at the far west of town off Vista Del
Rio that are on septic tank. Currently there is
no plan to expand public sewer service to this
area but it may be probable if development
were to occur on the west end of Vista Del Rio.
It is suggested that the following be added to
this section: "Public sewers may be extended
to properties that are currently on septic tank
if future development on Vista Del Rio occurs
and it is required by the County."
31. 4.25.2019 Christopher Deppe, Kensington Police Comment contained revisions of an editorial Revisions made to page 24-1 in the
Protection and CSD nature for the Kensington Police Protection Kensington Police Protection and
and CSD. CSD chapter.
32. 4.25.2019 Bernadette Fatehi Comment: Recommendations for updating the
“It is my understanding that Kristen Altbaum SOI for the cities of Lafayette and
and Roger Chelemedos are spearheading Pleasant Hill are included in the
efforts to get a sphere of influence change for MSR. This MSR does not cover the
Page 24 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
our area. They are the first “leaders” to Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park
represent our neighborhood for as long as I’ve District. LAFCO has indicated it
lived here. Our commute patterns take us in will undertake MSR/SOI Updates
and through Lafayette daily - we are for Parks and Recreation districts
entrenched in Lafayette, not Pleasant Hill. in FY 2020.
Please consider this request.” The comment is noted and hereby
made part of the public record.
The City of Pleasant Hill has
indicated it will not be taking a
positon on the SOI request.
33. 4.25.2019 Nathan Mahlik Comment: Recommendations for updating the
“Please include this message in the MSR public SOI for the cities of Lafayette and
review period….I am writing to support an SOI Pleasant Hill are included in the
change request by Kristen Altbaum for our MSR. This MSR does not cover the
area in north Reliez Valley. We should have Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park
been in Lafayette’s SOI years ago, it seems. District. LAFCO has indicated it
Our daily shopping, schools to be, commute, will undertake MSR/SOI Updates
and entertainment is associated with for Parks and Recreation districts
Lafayette, not Pleasant Hill. Thank you for in FY 2020.
your help in designing logical boundaries.” The comment is noted and hereby
made part of the public record.
The City of Pleasant Hill has
indicated it will not be taking a
positon on the SOI request.
34. 4.25.2019 Kathy Hemmenway Comment: Recommendations for updating the
“I am writing to voice support for an SOI SOI for the cities of Lafayette and
change for neighborhoods between Withers Pleasant Hill are included in the
and Grayson in Lafayette. MSR. This MSR does not cover the
Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park
Our family & our neighbors do not identity
District. LAFCO has indicated it
Page 25 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
ourselves as Pleasant Hill residents. will undertake MSR/SOI Updates
We would be grateful for your support.” for Parks and Recreation districts
in FY 2020.
The comment is noted and hereby
made part of the public record.
The City of Pleasant Hill has
indicated it will not be taking a
positon on the SOI request.
35. 4.25.2019 Valerie Barone, City Manager, City of Comment contained revisions of an editorial Revisions made to pp. 5-5, 5-6, 5-7,
Concord nature for the City of Concord. Data 5-8, 5-9, 5-11, and 5-23 in the City of
corrections were also provided. In several Concord chapter.
areas, the City provided data for Fiscal Year The FY 2018 data was not included
2018. in the MSR revisions as it extends
beyond the scope of this MSR
Update.
36. 4.25.2019 Lara Mahlik Comment: Recommendations for updating the
“Hi, please include this message in the MSR SOI for the cities of Lafayette and
public review period….I am writing to support Pleasant Hill are included in the
an SOI change request by Kristen Altbaum for MSR. This MSR does not cover the
our area in north Reliez Valley. We should Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park
have been in Lafayette’s SOI years ago, it District. LAFCO has indicated it
seems. Thank you for your help in designing will undertake MSR/SOI Updates
logical boundaries.” for Parks and Recreation districts
in FY 2020.
The comment is noted and hereby
made part of the public record.
The City of Pleasant Hill has
indicated it will not be taking a
positon on the SOI request.
Page 26 of 49
COMMENT DATE
NUMBER COMMENT NAME & ORGANIZATION COMMENTS RESPONSE
RECEIVED
37. 4.25.2019 Frank Hanny Comment: The MSR contains information
“It appears self evident to me that public tax regarding the Calle Arroyo issue;
dollars should not be spent to maintain a however, the resolution of the Calle
private road that excludes the public that pays Arroyo use issue is beyond the
the taxes.” scope of this MSR Update. The
comment is noted and hereby
made part of the public record.
38. 4.26.2019 LaShonda White, Administrative Chief, Comment contained revisions of an editorial Revisions made to pp. 17-3, 17-4, 17-
City of Richmond nature for the City of Richmond. Data 7, 17-8, 17-13, 17-19, and 17-21 in the
corrections were also provided. City of Richmond chapter.
Note: Some suggested revisions were not made where they would result in inconsistencies in the information presented. Several agencies provided additional or updated data
specific to the current fiscal year; these changes were not made because FY 2017 was identified as the common point of comparison, or the “snapshot in time” for the MSR.
Page 27 of 49
TABLE D.2
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
APRIL 17, 2019
COMMENT NAME &
COMMENTS RESPONSE
NUMBER ORGANIZATION
1. Commissioner Commissioner Schroder asked about the additional The cities for which additional study was recommended did
Rob Schroder studies recommended. not provide the full range of information that was requested
for the MSR; the exception in this short list is El Cerrito,
which provided adequate information but the information
was such that it warrants further review in the event of any
annexation applications.
Footnotes were added to the City of Concord chapter (p. 5-
23), Town of Moraga chapter (p. 11-22), and City of Richmond
chapter (p. 17-23) summarizing the missing information.
2. Commissioner Commissioner Schroder asked about cities’ islands, and One of the MSR focus areas is infill development/sprawl
Rob Schroder whether the consultants have taken these into account, prevention/islands. And while the MSR was more focused on
given this Commission’s push to annex islands and the service and financial information provided by the
concern about out of area service applications. reviewed agencies, there is a discussion in each chapter for
those cities that do have islands, especially of those islands
that are 150 acres or less and can be annexed through an
expedited process. These discussions encourage those
particular cities to annex the islands.
3. Commissioner Commissioner Blubaugh asked if LAFCO should pursue Since the Public Review Draft MSR was published, some of
Donald Blubaugh these agencies for further information now, or simply put the agencies reviewed have provided additional information
them on notice that if they come forward with annexation which has been included in their respective chapters. The
applications, they should be prepared to provide City of Hercules and the Crockett CSD have been removed
supplemental material. from the initial list of agencies requiring further study. And
while the cities of Concord and Richmond did provide some
missing information, enough critical information is missing to
warrant them remaining on the list of agencies requiring
further study should they come before LAFCO with an
annexation application.
Page 28 of 49
COMMENT NAME &
COMMENTS RESPONSE
NUMBER ORGANIZATION
4. Chair Tom Butt Chair Butt asked if the comments received will be All comments received between initial publication of the
submitted to the Commission. Public Review Draft MSR and the Final Draft MSR will be
included in a comment log and incorporated or responded to
appropriately.
5. Chair Tom Butt Chair Butt, referring to the Richmond chapter, noted that While a goal of the data gathering and reporting in the MSR
there were a number of years referenced in that chapter, is to maintain consistency (e.g., establishing FY 2017 as the
and that there would be value in picking a date with “snapshot in time” for review), adequate 2017 data was not
consistency. available for all the data points. Census and ABAG data
provided a better opportunity for “apples-to-apples”
comparisons, specifically with regard to demographic data. In
the financial sections, budgets were reviewed to provide a
future look at agency finances.
6. Commissioner Commissioner Blubaugh noted that there are people in the This MSR culminates in the updating of SOIs of each city and
Donald Blubaugh audience and communications the Commission has CSD covered in the report; it’s possible that this could result
received regarding a change in the SOIs of the cities of in changes in Pleasant Hill’s and Lafayette’s SOIs. PHRPD is
Pleasant Hill and Lafayette, as well as removal from not part of this review, however, so there can be no SOI
Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District (PHRPD). How do adjustments until either there is an MSR for Recreation and
the Commissioners respond to this? Is this something they Park Districts or a special study for that district. Removing
can deal with or is it a separate process? Reliez Valley from the PHRPD would have an effect. LAFCO
has indicated it will undertake MSR/SOI Updates for Park
and Recreation districts in FY 2020.
Recommendations for updating the SOIs for the cities of
Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included in the MSR.
Further, the City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will not be
taking a positon on the SOI request.
7. Commissioner Commissioner Blubaugh then asked if the cities of The cities of Pleasant Hill and Lafayette were sent the
Donald Blubaugh Pleasant Hill and Lafayette would have an opportunity to residents’ letter when LAFCO received it and were provided
weigh in on this sphere request so that Commissioners an opportunity to respond. The City of Pleasant Hill has
hear not only from the residents but also from the indicated it will not be taking a position on the SOI request.
agencies. The cities will have another opportunity to comment in
Page 29 of 49
COMMENT NAME &
COMMENTS RESPONSE
NUMBER ORGANIZATION
response to the Final Draft MSR.
Recommendations for updating the SOIs for the cities of
Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included in the MSR.
8. Alan Kalin, Alan Kalin, Danville resident, spoke regarding the issue of The MSR contains information regarding the Calle Arroyo
Danville resident private roads, public funds, and public safety in Diablo issue; however, the resolution of the Calle Arroyo use issue is
Community Services District (DCSD), where residents beyond the scope of this MSR Update. The comment is noted
have secured a court ruling on public use of Calle Arroyo, and hereby made part of the public record.
indicating that the road is private; the judge also reminded
the district that if the road is private then district funds
should not be used for upkeep on the road. His concern,
and that of fellow bicyclists, is that closing this road to the
public is forcing bicyclists onto a very dangerous road.
Diablo residents are trying to intimidate non-residents
who come into the district. Mr. Kalin has been threatened
and harassed since submitting a complaint to LAFCO.
9. Nicola Place, Nicola Place, resident on Mt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard, Resolution of the Mt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard maintenance
resident on Mt. spoke regarding this mile-long stretch of road, which is issue is complex and beyond the scope of this MSR/SOI
Diablo Scenic privately owned, but on which Diablo State Park has an Update. LAFCO staff is aware of the history and is willing to
Boulevard easement (since 1931). According to State law, if you hold help the interested parties. The comment is noted and hereby
an easement you’re required to participate in the made part of the public record.
maintenance and upkeep of that property. In all the years
since acquiring that easement, the Park has not come to
the table to work on an agreement, complaining that there
are too many parties involved and they can’t work with
that many. In 2011, the remaining eight of about 25
properties were annexed into DCSD in order to more
logically address maintenance of this road. Nothing has
happened since. She has provided some edits to the DCSD
chapter, including that DCSD cannot and will not
maintain that stretch of road. What they need from DCSD
is assistance in working with Diablo State Park and the
Page 30 of 49
COMMENT NAME &
COMMENTS RESPONSE
NUMBER ORGANIZATION
County to figure out what can be done to maintain this
road. She has highlighted eight items in the report that are
inaccurate about what DCSD is doing—which they are not
doing. The residents on Mt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard need
help in coming up with an evaluation and a long-term plan
on addressing this issue.
10. Kristen Altbaum, Kristen Altbaum, Reliez Valley resident, drew Recommendations for updating the SOI for the cities of
Reliez Valley Commissioners’ attention to the letter regarding Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included in the MSR. This
resident unincorporated territory between Pleasant Hill and MSR does not cover the Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park
Lafayette (between Withers Avenue and Grayson Road). District. LAFCO has indicated it will undertake MSR/SOI
That territory is in Pleasant Hill’s SOI, but it is divided Updates for Parks and Recreation districts in FY 2020.
topographically, by school district, and by neighborhood The comment is noted and hereby made part of the public
unity. She would like to see the area that she is in moved record.
into Lafayette’s SOI.
The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will not be taking a
positon on the SOI request.
Page 31 of 49
Subsequent to the public hearing and publication of the Final MSR, LAFCO solicited comments on proposed SOI changes. Several comments
were received regarding an SOI change for the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill specific to the Reliez Valley area. No revisions were made to
the SOI recommendations as a result of the public comments. The additional comments received are provided in Table D.3.
TABLE D.3
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
1. 5.30.19 Andrew Reed Comment: The recommendation for updating the SOI for
“Kensington is facing financial and services challenges like the Kensington Police Protection and
Community Service District is included in the
never before. We desperately need to combine our two public
MSR.
services districts in order to meet said challenges and set up a
governance structure for future success. One governing This MSR also found that the Kensington Police
Protection and Community Service District
entity would combine all district funds for the betterment of
“appears to have sufficient financial resources to
the community. It would allow for the hire of professional
continue providing services and to
management staff that we so desperately need. Our boards
accommodate infrastructure expansion,
act like super volunteers instead of policy/governance boards
improvements, or replacement over the next
and this continues to cause serious problems.
five years.”
What precipitated this email is the Fire District’s need to
Although this MSR does not cover the
make the Public Safety Building seismically compliant. And
Kensington Fire Protection District, it was
that means if both Fire and Police are in the same new
covered in the 2016 EMS/Fire Services MSR,
building, it needs to be relocated. One of the few and maybe which did not find specific financial or service
the only option is to locate this new building in the park challenges for the Fire Protection District.
owned by the Police Service District. If they are not co-
The comment is noted and hereby made part of
located in a new space, the fire district says they will remodel
the public record.
their existing building with only room for their functions,
which leaves the police location in limbo.
Combining the two districts because of this large capital
project - that requires the cooperation of both - makes lots of
sense at this time.”
Page 32 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
2. 6.5.19 Rahima and Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Mashuri “We are unincorporated County residents with a Lafayette cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
Warren 94549 address between Withers and Grayson, and within the in the MSR.
Lafayette/Acalanes school districts. I strongly support an SOI The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
change to Lafayette for my neighborhood. I feel that we not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
deserve the effort and cooperation to get this done. I also its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
support a future annexation of our neighborhood and would of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
appreciate it very much if Supervisor Glover could negotiate a request.
tax transfer agreement with Lafayette that is fair and The comment is noted and hereby made part of
desirable.” the public record.
3. 6.5.19 Jackie and Jeff Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Mann “I am a Lafayette city resident, and I strongly support the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
unincorporated area of Lafayette neighbors between Withers in the MSR.
and Grayson in getting an up to date SOI change for their The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
neighborhood. These neighbors are an integral part not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
Lafayette. They are coaches, school volunteers and help make its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
our community great. They deserve the effort and of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
cooperation to get this done. Looking ahead, I also support a request.
future annexation of these Lafayette residents and our city The comment is noted and hereby made part of
manager negotiating a tax transfer agreement with County to the public record.
make this a win-win for unincorporated residents and city
residents.”
4. 6.5.19 Darlene T Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Sears “I am a Lafayette city resident, and I strongly support the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
unincorporated area of Lafayette neighbors between Withers in the MSR.
and Grayson in getting an up to date SOI change for their The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
neighborhood. These neighbors are an integral part not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
Lafayette. They are coaches, school volunteers and help make its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
our community great. They deserve the effort and of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
Page 33 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
cooperation to get this done. Looking ahead, I also support a request.
future annexation of these Lafayette residents and our city The comment is noted and hereby made part of
manager negotiating a tax transfer agreement with County to the public record.
make this a win-win for unincorporated residents and city
residents alike.”
5. 6.5.19 Pam Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Chapman “I am a Lafayette city resident, and I strongly support the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
unincorporated area of Lafayette neighbors between Withers in the MSR.
and Grayson in getting an up to date SOI change for our The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
neighborhood. These neighbors are an integral part not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
Lafayette. They are coaches, school volunteers and help make its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
our community great. They deserve the effort and of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
cooperation to get this done. Looking ahead, I also support a request.
future annexation of these Lafayette residents and our city The comment is noted and hereby made part of
manager negotiating a tax transfer agreement with County to the public record.
make this a win-win for unincorporated residents and city
residents alike.”
6. 6.6.19 Kim and Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Harry Stewart “I am a Lafayette resident and have lived on Black Hawk cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
Road, off Pleasant Hill Road for 19 years. My children in the MSR.
attended Acalanes High School. The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
I strongly support updating the SOI change for the not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
unincorporated area of Lafayette neighbors between Withers its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
and Grayson. This neighborhood is an integral part of of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
Lafayette. The residents are coaches, school volunteers, local request.
students who are contributors and participants in our The comment is noted and hereby made part of
Lafayette community. the public record.
Looking ahead, I also support a future annexation of this
unincorporated area of Lafayette between Withers and
Grayson and urge our city manager to negotiate a tax transfer
Page 34 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
agreement with CC County to make this a win-win for the
unincorporated residents and the city residents.”
7. 6.6.19 Carl Di Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Giorgio “Please let the LAFCO commissioners know that I support a cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
change in the SOI promulgated by Kristen Altbaum, et al. I in the MSR.
feel a strengthened connection with our neighbors to the The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
north would be moving in the right direction. Their kids go not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
to our schools, they drive and shop in downtown Lafayette .... its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
While I respect that our Lafayette City Council feels we are of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
resource-constrained and this isn't an issue that needs to be request.
addressed right now, I disagree with their position. SOI The comment is noted and hereby made part of
changes could be rolled into our General Plan update starting the public record.
later this year. Any annexation process could be pushed off
to some future time and costs would be borne by residents
wanting to be annexed to Lafayette.”
8. 6.6.19 Marjorie Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Briner “I am writing to you as a resident of the the unincorporated cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
area of Lafayette, between Withers and Grayson Road. in the MSR.
My husband and I have lived in the same home on Lomas The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
Verdes Place for 40 years this May. Our mailing address has not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
always been Lafayette, 94549. The school district was its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
originally Mount Diablo when my daughter first started of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
school. By the time my two sons were old enough to start request.
school, it had changed to Lafayette School District. The The comment is noted and hereby made part of
biggest reason for the change was that Pleasant Hill High, the the public record.
closest high school, was closed, College Park High School was
impacted, and high school students from our area would
have to be taken all the way to Ygnacio Valley High—from
Lafayette across Pleasant Hill through Walnut Creek into
Concord, completely unreasonable. It also made sense to
Page 35 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
match the school district with the ZIP Code.
My children have attended Lafayette School (Originally
Springhill, our neighborhood school, was impacted and we
were asked to go to Lafayette School), Spring Hill School,
Burton Valley School, Stanley Middle School, and Acalanes
High School. I have been a room parent, classroom volunteer,
carnival organizer/cochair, PTA officer, Girl Scout leader, all
in Lafayette schools. My husband coached Lafayette Little
League for eleven years. My children played Lafayette soccer,
basketball, and baseball. My children were integrated into
the Lafayette community in all of their relationships. Today
they are in their 30s and have lifelong friendships made in
Lafayette schools.
Even though all of our orientation was towards Lafayette, we
always felt like second-class citizens. We did not vote in the
City of Lafayette elections, even though most of the issues
affected us. We attended classes through Lafayette Parks and
Recreation. We also attended classes through Orinda Parks
and Rec and Pleasant Hill Parks and Recreation—and were
asked to pay premium non-resident fees.
I once signed up for classes at Pleasant Hill Rec and told
them that my property taxes contained a line item fee for
Pleasant Hill Parks and Recreation. We pay this tax along
with our property taxes each year, yet I was asked to pay
additional fees as a non-district resident because my mailing
address was in Lafayette—even though I informed them that
I was actually a Pleasant Hill Park District resident. I gave up
arguing and just wanted to enroll in the class.
There is too much confusion around this issue. We do not
vote in elections that affect us. We are seemingly not really
recognized by Pleasant Hill Parks and Rec even though we
Page 36 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
pay their fees. Boundaries for playing youth sports have been
questioned. We are not “really” Lafayette to many and not
Pleasant Hill either.
I’m sending this email because I was informed that change of
sphere of influence from Pleasant Hill to Lafayette would be
the first step towards annexation to the City of Lafayette. We
are tired of being second class citizens here. Please change
our sphere of influence to Lafayette and help promote the
annexation of this unincorporated area to the City of
Lafayette. Residents of Lafayette 94549 ZIP Code will never
want to be annexed to Pleasant Hill. It simply is not the
community in which we live.”
9. 6.7.19 Meagan Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Hagglund “I am a Lafayette city resident, and I strongly support the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
unincorporated area of Lafayette neighbors between Withers in the MSR.
and Grayson in getting an up to date SOI change for their The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
neighborhood. These neighbors are an integral part of not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
Lafayette. They are coaches, school volunteers, and great its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
families who make our community solid!! They deserve the of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
effort and cooperation to get this done. Looking ahead, I also request.
support a future annexation of these Lafayette residents and The comment is noted and hereby made part of
our city manager negotiating a tax transfer agreement with the public record.
County to make this a win-win for unincorporated resident
and city residents.”
10. 6.7.19 Tricia and Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Brian Napper “We are Lafayette city residents and strongly support the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
unincorporated area of Lafayette neighborhoods between in the MSR.
Withers and Grayson in getting an up to date SOI change. The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
These neighbors are an integral part of Lafayette. They are not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
coaches, school volunteers and students that help make our its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
Page 37 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
community great. They deserve the effort and cooperation to of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
get this done. Looking ahead, we also support a future request.
annexation of these Lafayette residents and our city manager The comment is noted and hereby made part of
negotiation a tax transfer with the County to make this a win- the public record.
win for unincorporated residents and city residents.”
11. 6.8.19 Jocelyn Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Werner “I'm writing on behalf of my fellow North Lafayette neighbors cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
asking that you support our request for a sphere of influence in the MSR.
change from Pleasant Hill to Lafayette. The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
My family has lived in North Lafayette for the past 9 years. not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
We currently have one child at Stanley and one at Springhill its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
Elementary and we are extremely involved in the Lafayette of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
community. My husband has coached BOTH of our sons request.
throughout their years in Lafayette Little League. In fact The comment is noted and hereby made part of
today he spent his morning in Alameda coaching our younger the public record.
sons' team in a district championship game - after winning
the Lafayette LL Majors Championship last weekend. He is
also one of the coaches of the 10 year old All Star team, so will
spend much of the next 2 months volunteering his time at
Buckeye Fields. I am quite involved myself at Springhill
Elementary, Stanley MS and with LPIE. I volunteer regularly
in the classroom and I run the Springhill Science Fair
(sponsored by LPIE). I host several fundraising parties for
LPIE each year.
A sphere of influence change to Lafayette simply makes
sense for North Lafayette residents whose children attend
Lafayette schools and play on Lafayette sports teams. I would
also support a future annexation of our neighborhood to
Lafayette and would appreciate any efforts Supervisor Glover
could make in negotiating a reasonable and fair tax transfer
Page 38 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
agreement with Lafayette."
12. 6.9.19 Barry and Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Barbara “My name is Barry Silberman. I live at 3279 Gloria Terrace, cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
Silberman Lafayette, CA 94549. My wife Barbara and I purchased our in the MSR.
house in 1970 from a realtor located in downtown Lafayette. The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
For the past 49 years we have lived in "Lafayette". Our not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
children went to school in Lafayette. Our activities and focus its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
have been in Lafayette. Early on we discovered that we could of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
not vote on Lafayette city issues because we were not in city request.
boundaries. And, just recently we discovered that the The comment is noted and hereby made part of
Lafayette home that we have been living in for the past 49 the public record.
years is actually in the so called Pleasant Hill "Sphere of
Influence". We believe that this anomaly should be
corrected. Therefore we strongly support an SOI change to
Lafayette that better aligns with our identity and history.”
13. 6.9.19 Laura & Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Emmett cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
“We are Lafayette city residents, and we have friends and
Bergman neighbors (including Springhill parents and teachers, in the MSR.
Acalanes parents and staff, etc.) in the unincorporated area of The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
Lafayette between Withers and Grayson. We believe it’s past not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
time to get an up to date SOI change for their neighborhood. its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
I’m sure you would agree that these neighbors deserve the of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
effort and cooperation to get this done. It would also make request.
sense to annex this area at some point so that we could all The comment is noted and hereby made part of
benefit from additional tax revenues.” the public record.
14. 6.10.19 Marty Martin Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
“Please take the time and effort to move the residents of the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
unincorporated Reliez Valley area into Lafayette's SOL rather in the MSR.
than the existing PH SOL. these are active residents of our The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
Page 39 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
community and we consider them Lafayette residents .” not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
request.
The comment is noted and hereby made part of
the public record.
15. 6.10.19 Arthur Ungar Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
“I am a Lafayette city resident, and I do not support the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
unincorporated area of Lafayette neighbors, within the in the MSR.
Lafayette and Acalanes school districts, between Withers and The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
Grayson in changing their SOI from Pleasant Hill to not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
Lafayette. Since properties in this area do not pay property its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
tax to the City of Lafayette, they should not be included in of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
the sphere of influence.” request.
The comment is noted and hereby made part of
the public record.
16. 6.10.19 Sean Burke Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
“I am a Lafayette city resident writing to support the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
unincorporated area of Lafayette neighbors between Withers in the MSR.
and Grayson for an updated SOI for this neighborhood. I The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
also a future annexation for my fellow residents and the city not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
manager to aligning the interests of the unincorporated and its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
incorporated residents of Lafayette in negotiation a tax of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
transfer agreement with the County.” request.
The comment is noted and hereby made part of
the public record.
17. 6.10.19 Bill Shurtleff Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
“Since 1988, children of residents in an unincorporated cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
neighborhood within the 94549 zip code (off Reliez Valley in the MSR.
Page 40 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
Road between Withers and Grayson) have been included in The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
the Acalanes High School and Lafayette School Districts. Isn’t not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
it about time for this neighborhood to have its Sphere of its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
Influence (SOI) changed from the city of Pleasant Hill to of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
Lafayette as well? request.
Save Lafayette feels that these residents deserve our support. The comment is noted and hereby made part of
Over the years they have proven to be wonderful, engaged the public record.
neighbors: school volunteers, coaches and community
activists. They are overwhelmingly engaged in helping to
protect students’ access to schools, and share a slow,
sustainable development mindset.”
18. 6.10.19 Lindy and Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Chris Evans “We are Lafayette city residents, and we strongly support the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
unincorporated area of Lafayette neighbors, within the in the MSR.
Lafayette and Acalanes school districts, between Withers and The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
Grayson in changing their SOI from Pleasant Hill to not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
Lafayette. We are an integral part of the quality of life in its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
Lafayette. Personally, we have been LMYA coaches, of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
Springhill/Stanley/AHS school volunteers, LAFSD substitute request.
teacher, all helping to make our community a better place to The comment is noted and hereby made part of
live. We deserve the effort and cooperation to get this done. the public record.
Looking ahead, we also support a future annexation of these
Lafayette residents. We would appreciate and encourage our
next city manager to negotiate a tax transfer agreement with
County to make this a win-win for unincorporated residents
and city residents.”
19. 6.10.19 Vonis Moore Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
“I am a Lafayette city resident, and I strongly support the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
unincorporated area of Lafayette neighbors, within the in the MSR.
Lafayette and Acalanes school districts, between Withers and The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
Page 41 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
Grayson in changing their SOI from Pleasant Hill to not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
Lafayette. These neighbors are an integral part of the quality its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
of life in Lafayette. They are coaches, school volunteers and of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
help make our community great. They deserve the effort and request.
cooperation to get this done. Looking ahead, I also support a The comment is noted and hereby made part of
future annexation of these Lafayette residents. I would the public record.
appreciate and encourage our next city manager to negotiate
a tax transfer agreement with County to make this a win-win
for unincorporated residents and city residents.”
20. 6.10.19 Ken & Heidi Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Madderra’s “Please read below and pass on our thoughts to all the other cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
family LAFCO commissioners that you support our area's request to in the MSR.
become Lafayette (SOI) citizens. We would appreciate being The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
included and fought for by our friends and neighbors in the not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
City. its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
We strongly support the entire unincorporated area of NE of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
Lafayette neighbors getting an up to date SOI change for request.
their neighborhood. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) should be The comment is noted and hereby made part of
changed for the entire contiguous island of land from a SOI the public record.
of Pleasant Hill to a SOI of Lafayette as recommended in the
past by state guidelines for local (county) LAFCO's.
Based on the maps displayed at prior meetings it appears to
include the entire large NE Lafayette Island, not part of
Walnut Creek's sphere of Influence, as you come over the hill
at the Pleasant Hill Rd./Taylor Blvd. split (after Rancho View
Rd.) going towards Martinez/WC.
And though incorporation into the City of Lafayette, PH Park
District issues, and school boundary alignments may also be
important for many other petitioners, we believe this
decision should stand alone and not be dependant on those
Page 42 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
potential future issues, as several of those are not controlled
by LAFCO process directly. Also, some of the current city
staff reports and policies don’t appear to be accurately
following the original spirit and intent of the law by
overstating costs/requirements.
These neighbors are an integral part Lafayette. They are
coaches, school and library volunteers that help make our
community great. They deserve the effort and cooperation to
get this done. Looking ahead, we also support a future
annexation of these Lafayette residents and our city manager
negotiating a tax transfer agreement with County to make
this a win-win for unincorporated residents and city residents
alike.”
21. 6.10.19 Elisabeth Azar Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
“I am a Lafayette city resident, and I strongly support the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
unincorporated area of Lafayette neighbors, within the in the MSR.
Lafayette and Acalanes school districts, between Withers and The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
Grayson in changing their SOI from Pleasant Hill to not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
Lafayette. These neighbors are an integral part of the quality its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
of life in Lafayette. of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
They are coaches, school volunteers and help make our request.
community great. They deserve the effort and cooperation to The comment is noted and hereby made part of
get this done. Looking ahead, I also support a future the public record.
annexation of these Lafayette residents. I would appreciate
and encourage our next city manager to negotiate a tax
transfer agreement with County to make this a win-win for
unincorporated residents and city residents.”
22. 6.11.19 Tom Barber Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
“My name is Tom Barber and I am a resident of the cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
unincorporated area of Lafayette off of Reliez Valley Road in the MSR.
Page 43 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
north of Withers. My wife and I and our four children have The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
been residents of this area for seven years and we strongly not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
request that our sphere of influence (SOI) be changed from its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
Pleasant Hill to Lafayette and that our area be considered for of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
annexation into the city limits of Lafayette. My children all request.
attend Lafayette schools, they attend Lafayette camps during The comment is noted and hereby made part of
the summers, they play in Lafayette sports leagues, all of our the public record.
friends live in Lafayette, we shop at Lafayette businesses and
we volunteer in Lafayette. We also help support the
Lafayette Police Department with a license plate reader on
our street (recently resulted in the arrest of a mail thief who
had been operating all across Lafayette). Our entire lives are
wrapped up in engaging in and supporting the City of
Lafayette and, as a result, we feel it is only natural that our
SOI should be changed to Lafayette. We have no interaction
with Pleasant Hill of any sort. Furthermore, we believe the
experience of our neighbors on our immediate street, Reliez
Valley Road, Gloria Terrace and Baywood is very similar. Our
home values are also more similar to Lafayette homes than to
Pleasant Hill homes. Thank you for your consideration of
this resolution to what is clearly an outdated and illogical
SOI assignment of our area.”
23. 6.11.19 Norm and Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Janet Haukaas “We have been residents at 18 Attri Court, Lafayette for 45 cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
in the MSR.
years. We strongly support the unincorporated area between
Withers and Grayson Avenues getting an up to date SOI The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
change for our neighborhood. Since we moved here from San not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
Francisco in 1974 we have been an integral part of Lafayette.
of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
We drive up from Downtown Lafayette daily to arrive home,
request.
our mail box is on Reliez Valley Road across the street from
The comment is noted and hereby made part of
Page 44 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
the City of Lafayette’s boundary, and we identify with the the public record.
City of Lafayette. My wife taught elementary school in
Lafayette, our children have received their education in
Lafayette, we have been Lafayette School District volunteers,
we actively worship in Lafayette, we shop in Lafayette stores
as well as volunteer helping with the yearly Lafayette Art &
Wine Festival. We support the City of Lafayette. Most of our
neighbors continue to do the same. We do not identify with
Pleasant Hill.
We support a future annexation of our neighborhood to the
City of Lafayette. We support the Lafayette City Manager
negotiating a tax transfer with the County to make this a win-
win for our unincorporated residents and the city alike. We
are already supporting Lafayette’s schools, shopping, and
community.”
24. 6.11.19 Kent and Comment: Recommendations for updating the SOI for the
Kathleen cities of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill are included
“My husband and I are residents of the unincorporated area
Davis in the MSR.
between Lafayette and Pleasant Hill, (the Baywood
subdivision), just off of Reliez Valley Road. We have lived The City of Pleasant Hill has indicated it will
here for 27 years, raised our children here, sent them to the not be taking a positon on the SOI request. At
its May 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the City
Lafayette schools, volunteered in all the schools, coached
of Lafayette expressed its opposition to the SOI
their sports teams, frequented the businesses in Lafayette,
request.
and not surprisingly, we consider ourselves Lafayette
The comment is noted and hereby made part of
residents. That said, we love being close to Pleasant Hill,
the public record.
their businesses have much to offer as well. HOWEVER, we
have never been able to participate in an election having
anything to do with Lafayette! We cannot vote on school
issues, road issues, bond issues, whatever the issue might be.
This is just wrong, and not fair to say the least. Not only do
Page 45 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
we not get any of the benefits of being Lafayette residents,
like the Police Department, but we also do not get any of the
Pleasant Hill benefits either!! We cannot vote on Pleasant
Hill matters, and we don’t get their Police services either.
We get the Sheriff’s Department, which is fine, and they have
been great, but we are out of their way too. I guess you could
just say that we live in limbo!
We think it is about time for the county and the city of
Lafayette to get it together and add our little section of the
map from Withers to Grayson, between Pleasant Hill Road
and Reliez Valley Road to the Lafayette map, the Lafayette
Sphere of Influence. It is clearly way past the time to realize
that this unincorporated area needs and deserves to become
a part of Lafayette!
Thank you so much for your help in getting this approved by
the appropriate group. We look forward to the day when we
can vote in the Lafayette elections!!”
25. 6.11.19 KPPCSD Comment: This comment addresses potential revisions
Director “My name is Cyrus Modavi. I am one of five Directors that made to the Kensington Police Protection and
Cyrus Modavi Community Service District Chapter. The prior
over see the Kensington Police Protection and CSD
Table D.1 erroneously included pp. 24-16 and
(KPPCSD).
24-17 in the revisions. Only one revision was
It recently came to my attention that you received an email
made, on p. 24-1 to include additional
from KPPCSD Director Christopher Deppe (the Director
information under “Form of Governance.” See
assigned as the Board's LAFCO Liaison) that "...contained also Comment #31 in Table D.1.
revisions of an editorial nature for the Kensington Police
The comment is noted and hereby made part of
Protection and CSD." and had led to "[r]evisions made to pp.
the public record.
24-1, 24-16, and 24-17 in the Kensington Police Protection and
CSD chapter", as indicated by your June 12th meeting agenda
Page 46 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
packet (item 9, pg 23 of 29, comment 31).
I am emailing, in an individual capacity, to inform you of the
following:
• That the Board of Directors never authorized by majority
vote (i.e., in a required Brown Act compliant setting -- as
will be evidenced by our agendas over the last few months
<link>) for any Directors to make supplemental edits to
the MSR.
• That Director Deppe gave no indication to the full Board of
Directors regarding such action with LAFCO.
• Finally, my communications with staff tasked with
submitting information to your agency, indicate that they
were neither aware of Director Deppe's activities nor
conferred with regarding the nature of the edits sent to
you.
I ask that you forward this email to the LAFCO Board of
Directors or other necessary parties so that they may
consider this information before accepting any such edits.”
26. 6.11.19 Mark Comment: This comment addresses potential revisions
Costantini made to the Kensington Police Protection and
“It has come to my attention that Kensington District Board
Community Service District Chapter. Only one
Director Christoper Deppe has submitted edits to the
revision was made, on p. 24-1 to include
Kensington portion of the MSR for consideration at the June
additional information under “Form of
12, 2019 LAFCO meeting. I wish I could attend this meeting
Governance.” See also Comment #31 in Table
but am unable to due to a family medical matter.
D.1.
There was never a meeting or meeting agenda item at any
The comment is noted and hereby made part of
KPPCSD Board meeting regarding the authorization of a
the public record.
Board Director to be allowed to make edits to the MSR. As I
understand it, the absence of any public meeting-based
Page 47 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
authorization that allows Director Deppe to make edits to the
MSR may be a violation of the Brown Act and/or other
government codes and therefore should not be considered.
Furthermore, Director Deppe was investigated by the District
Attorney for public corruption and while not ultimately
charged with a crime, he was reprimanded by the DA
investigators for his conduct. Please see the attached letter
(via a link from the KPPCSD website due to its size) from the
CC County DA.
Also, addressed in Director Deppe's proposed edits to the
MSR are various statements regarding Kensington possibly
contracting out its police services. One would submit that
this is a very divisive and unpopular concept in Kensington.
Director Deppe has been on record as a staunch supporter of
contracting out Kensington's police services in addition to his
legally dubious actions outlined in the DA's letter.
Also, what Director Deppe did not include, despite being in
full knowledge of, is that there is a duly adopted voting rights
ordinance, adopted in 2009, that requires voter approval via
an election should the Board decide that it wants to
outsource Kensington's police protection services.
The Board is governed by this ordinance so it is my belief that
its existence should be acknowledged in any changes to the
MSR. This is especially important, in my view because of the
divisive nature that Director Deppe himself describes in his
proposed MSR edits.
Please see the attached copy of the ordinance, which is
published on the KPPCSD website.
Page 48 of 49
COMMENT DATE
COMMENTER
NUMBER COMMENT COMMENTS RESPONSE
NAME
RECEIVED
If you could please please forward this email to the full
LAFCO Board as well as any other relevant party so that the
existence of the Kensington voting rights ordinance can be
considered for inclusion in and revisions to the MSR I would
greatly appreciate it.
Thank you in advance for your help and time.”
Page 49 of 49