Full Document

Municipal Service Review: Resource Conservation & Mosquito and Vector AAbbaatteemmeenntt SSeerrvviicceess Final Adopted April 21, 2010 Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission Burr Consulting TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................................. IV 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. LAFCO AND MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS ............................................................................................. 3 LAFCO OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 3 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW ORIGINS ..................................................................................................................... 4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................. 6 SPHERES OF INFLUENCE ............................................................................................................................................. 7 MSR AND SOI UPDATE PROCESS .............................................................................................................................. 9 3. RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES ..................................................................................................... 10 PROVIDER OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 10 SERVICE OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 13 SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH ............................................................................................................................ 17 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES ............................................................................................................ 21 SERVICE ADEQUACY ............................................................................................................................................... 22 FINANCING .............................................................................................................................................................. 24 GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................. 27 MSR DETERMINATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 28 SOI RECOMMENDATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................................... 30 4. MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES ..................................................................................... 33 SERVICE OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 33 SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH ............................................................................................................................ 39 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES ............................................................................................................ 45 SERVICE ADEQUACY ............................................................................................................................................... 47 FINANCING .............................................................................................................................................................. 50 GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................. 52 MSR DETERMINATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 53 SOI RECOMMENDATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................................... 55 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 57 DATA SOURCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 57 BY BURR CONSULTING i CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1: COMMISSION MEMBERS, 2010 ........................................................................................................... 4 TABLE 3-1: CCRCD WATERSHED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 15 TABLE 3-2: CCRCD GOVERNING BODY ............................................................................................................ 24 TABLE 3-3: CCRCD REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES 2005-09 .................................................................... 25 TABLE 3-5: CCRCD SOI ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 31 TABLE 4-1: INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 33 TABLE 4-2: OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS .......................................................................................................... 38 TABLE 4-3: DISEASES OF CONCERN IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ............................................................... 41 TABLE 4-4: WEST NILE VIRUS CASES IN CALIFORNIA, 2009 ......................................................................... 41 TABLE 4-5: ENCEPHALITIS IN CALIFORNIA, 1964 TO 2008 ............................................................................. 42 TABLE 4-6: SERVICE REQUESTS TO CCMVCD, 2008 ....................................................................................... 44 TABLE 4-7: CCMVCD GOVERNING BODY ....................................................................................................... 49 TABLE 4-8: CCMVCD REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES 2007-09 ................................................................ 51 TABLE 4-9: CCMVCD SOI ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 55 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 3-1: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FARMLAND, 1987-2007....................................................................... 19 FIGURE 3-2: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PRIME FARMLAND, 2000-6 ................................................................ 20 FIGURE 3-3: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WILLIAMSON ACT LAND, 1991-2007 ............................................... 21 FIGURE 3-4: RCD REVENUE COMPARISON, 2006 - 09 ....................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 4-1: MONTHLY REQUESTS FOR MOSQUITO SERVICE, 2006-09 ......................................................... 44 FIGURE 4-2: RODENT AND YELLOWJACKET REQUESTS, 1995-2008 ............................................................... 45 FIGURE 4-3: SKUNK-RELATED SERVICE REQUESTS, 1995-2008 ...................................................................... 45 FIGURE 4-4: OPERATING EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA, FY 06-07 .................................................................. 52 LIST OF MAPS MAP 3-1: CONTRA COSTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND WATERSHED MAP ................. 11 MAP 4-1: MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL MAP, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY .................................... 35 ii PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO ACRONYMS CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act CY: Calendar year DFG: California Department of Fish and Game DWR: California Department of Water Resources EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERAF: Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund FY: Fiscal year GIS: Geographic Information Systems IRWMP: Integrated Regional Water Management Plan JPA: Joint Powers Authority LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission MSR: Municipal Service Review NA: Not applicable NP: Not provided RCD: Resource conservation district SOI: Sphere of influence SWP: State Water Project SWRCB: State Water Resources Control Board WWTP: Wastewater treatment plant BY BURR CONSULTING iii CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR P R E FA C E Prepared for the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), this report is a municipal service review—a state-required comprehensive study of services within a designated geographic area. This MSR focuses on local agencies and other municipal service providers providing resource conservation and vector control services in Contra Costa County. CONTEXT Contra Costa LAFCO is required to prepare this MSR by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000, et seq.), which took effect on January 1, 2001. The MSR reviews services provided by public agencies—cities and special districts—whose boundaries and governance are subject to LAFCO. In order to provide comprehensive information on service provision, other service providers—private companies and public agencies which are not subject to LAFCO—are included in this MSR, recognizing that LAFCO has no authority over these types of agencies.. CREDITS The authors extend their appreciation to those individuals at many agencies that provided interviews, planning and financial information and documents used in this report. In particular, the general managers of Contra Costa Resource Conservation District and Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District—Carol Arnold and Craig Downs—provided timely responses for information requests and access to extensive knowledge during interviews. Contra Costa LAFCO Executive Officer, Lou Ann Texeira, provided project direction and review. Credit for archival review and organization undertaking belongs to Lou Ann Texeira and her team, including LAFCO clerk Kate Sibley and consultant Alexander Hebert-Brown. Heather Kennedy of the Contra Costa County Information Technology Department prepared maps and conducted GIS analysis. This report was prepared by Burr Consulting. Jennifer Stephenson served as principal author. Alexander Hebert-Brown coordinated mapping and assisted with research and drafting of the report. iv PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY This report is a countywide Municipal Service Review (MSR) of resource conservation and vector control services, prepared for the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). An MSR is a State-required comprehensive study of services within a designated geographic area, in this case, Contra Costa County. The MSR requirement is codified in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.). Once MSR findings are adopted, the Commission will update the spheres of influence (SOIs) of resource conservation and vector control districts in Contra Costa County. This report identifies and analyzes SOI options for the Commission’s consideration. SERVICE PROVIDERS This report focuses on the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District (CCRCD) and the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District (CCMVCD). Both districts provide services throughout the County—with boundaries and SOIs coterminous with the Contra Costa County line—and are the primary provider of their respective services within the County under LAFCO jurisdiction. This report is the sole MSR in this cycle for these two districts; LAFCO will update these agencies’ spheres of influence (SOIs) at the completion of this review. FINDINGS Both CCRCD and CCMVCD are professionally managed and follow best management practices. Each agency demonstrated accountability and transparency; however, accountability to the voters is somewhat constrained as the board members of both districts are appointed and not elected. CCRCD and CCMVCD facilities have sufficient capacity to provide adequate service levels given existing demand. CCMVCD anticipates the need for an additional substation in the eastern portion of the County in the future; timing will be dependent upon growth in service demand and emergence and prevalence of any new vector-borne diseases. There were no major needs or deficiencies identified for the existing facilities of either district. CCRCD faces financial constraints due to limited property tax revenues, State property tax withholding, and a decline in available grant funding. The District has recently experienced a dramatic reduction in grant funding, from $0.5 million in 2007 to $70,000 in 2009. While CCRCD has made budget cutbacks such as reducing staffing levels, and maintains sufficient reserves to finance funding shortfalls in the near future, the District will need to find other revenue sources to return to previous service levels by initiating new projects and programs. The most significant service challenge for CCMVCD is the unpredictability of service demand from year to year, due to a combination of factors, including natural fluctuation in vector populations, introduction of new diseases, and unforeseen impact of outreach programs. In order to overcome this challenge, CCMVCD maintains adequate reserves to compensate for any unforeseen significant increases in service demand. BY BURR CONSULTING 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR SOI UPDATES While governance structure options for both entities include consolidation with a similar provider in Alameda County, both agencies question the benefit of such a consolidation and are not amenable to a governance change at this time. CCMVCD has completed a study of the possibility of consolidating with Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District, which found that there would be minimal financial gains combined with a number of reorganization challenges. CCRCD has not completed a review of consolidation, but reported that due to a difference in programming focus between itself and Alameda County Resource Conservation District, that consolidation may not be efficient, feasible or beneficial to Contra Costa County taxpayers. Consequently, it is recommended that the Commission retain the districts’ existing coterminous SOIs at this time. The Commission may wish to recommend that CCRCD investigate potential cost savings and benefits of grant sharing through consolidation if fiscal constraints continue to affect the District. . 2 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO LAFCO AND MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS 2. L A F C O A N D M U N I C I PA L S E RV I C E R E V I E W S This report is prepared pursuant to legislation enacted in 2000 that requires LAFCO to conduct a comprehensive review of municipal service delivery and update the spheres of influence (SOIs) of all agencies under LAFCO’s jurisdiction. This chapter provides an overview of LAFCO’s history, powers and responsibilities. It discusses the origins and legal requirements for preparation of the municipal service review (MSR). Finally, the chapter reviews the process for MSR review, MSR approval and SOI updates. LAFCO OVERVIEW After World War II, California experienced dramatic growth in population and economic development. With this boom came a demand for housing, jobs and public services. To accommodate this demand, many new local government agencies were formed, often with little forethought as to the ultimate governance structures in a given region, and existing agencies often competed for expansion areas. The lack of coordination and adequate planning led to a multitude of overlapping, inefficient jurisdictional and service boundaries, and the premature conversion of California’s agricultural and open-space lands. Recognizing this problem, in 1959, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr. appointed the Commission on Metropolitan Area Problems. The Commission's charge was to study and make recommendations on the “misuse of land resources” and the growing complexity of local governmental jurisdictions. The Commission's recommendations on local governmental reorganization were introduced in the Legislature in 1963, resulting in the creation of a Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO. The Contra Costa LAFCO was formed as a countywide agency to discourage urban sprawl and encourage the orderly formation and development of local government agencies. LAFCO is responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, including annexations and detachments of territory, incorporations of cities, formations of special districts, and consolidations, mergers and dissolutions of districts, as well as reviewing ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure. The Commission's efforts are focused on ensuring that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected. To better inform itself and the community as it seeks to exercise its charge, LAFCO conducts service reviews to evaluate the provision of municipal services within the County. LAFCO regulates, through approval, denial, conditions and modification, boundary changes proposed by public agencies or individuals. It also regulates the extension of public services by cities and special districts outside their boundaries. LAFCO is empowered to initiate updates to the SOIs and proposals involving the dissolution or consolidation of special districts, mergers, establishment of subsidiary districts, formation of a new district or districts, and any reorganization including such actions. Otherwise, LAFCO actions must originate as petitions or resolutions from affected voters, landowners, cities or districts. BY BURR CONSULTING 3 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR Contra Costa LAFCO consists of seven regular members: two members from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, two city council members, two independent special district members, and one public member who is appointed by the other members of the Commission. There is an alternate in each category. All Commissioners are appointed to four-year terms. The Commission members are shown in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Commission Members, 2010 Appointing Agency Members Alternate Members Two members from the Board of Supervisors Federal Glover Mary N. Piepho appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Gayle Uilkema Two members representing the cities in the Helen Allen, City of Concord Don Tatzin County. Must be a city officer and appointed by Rob Schroder, City of Martinez City of Lafayette the City Selection Committee. Two members representing the independent Dwight Meadows, Contra Costa George H. Schmidt, special districts in the County. Must be a district Resource Conservation Dist. West County Wastewater governing body member and appointed by the David A. Piepho, Discovery Bay Dist. independent special district selection committee. Community Services Dist. One member from the general public appointed Martin McNair Sharon Burke by the other six Commissioners. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW ORIGINS The MSR requirement was enacted by the Legislature months after the release of two studies recommending that LAFCOs conduct reviews of local agencies. The “Little Hoover Commission” focused on the need for oversight and consolidation of special districts, whereas the “Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century” focused on the need for regional planning to ensure adequate and efficient local governmental services as the California population continues to grow. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION In May 2000, the Little Hoover Commission released a report entitled Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future? This report focused on governance and financial challenges among independent special districts, and the barriers to LAFCO’s pursuit of district consolidation and dissolution. The report raised the concern that “the underlying patchwork of special district governments has become unnecessarily redundant, inefficient and unaccountable.”1 In particular, the report raised concern about a lack of visibility and accountability among some independent special districts. The report indicated that many special districts hold excessive reserve funds and some receive questionable property tax revenue. The report expressed concern about the lack of financial oversight of the districts. It asserted that financial reporting by special districts is inadequate, that districts are not required to submit financial information to local elected officials, and concluded that district financial information is “largely meaningless as a tool to evaluate the 1 Little Hoover Commission, 2000, p. 12. 4 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO LAFCO AND MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS effectiveness and efficiency of services provided by districts, or to make comparisons with neighboring districts or services provided through a city or county.”2 The report questioned the accountability and relevance of certain special districts with uncontested elections and without adequate notice of public meetings. In addition to concerns about the accountability and visibility of special districts, the report raised concerns about special districts with outdated boundaries and outdated missions. The report questioned the public benefit provided by health care districts that have sold, leased or closed their hospitals, and asserted that LAFCOs consistently fail to examine whether they should be eliminated. The report pointed to service improvements and cost reductions associated with special district consolidations, but asserted that LAFCOs have generally failed to pursue special district reorganizations. The report called on the Legislature to increase the oversight of special districts by mandating that LAFCOs identify service duplications and study reorganization alternatives when service duplications are identified, when a district appears insolvent, when district reserves are excessive, when rate inequities surface, when a district’s mission changes, when a new city incorporates and when service levels are unsatisfactory. To accomplish this, the report recommended that the State strengthen the independence and funding of LAFCOs, require districts to report to their respective LAFCO, and require LAFCOs to study service duplications. COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNANCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY The Legislature formed the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century (“21st Century Commission”) in 1997 to review statutes on the policies, criteria, procedures and precedents for city, county and special district boundary changes. After conducting extensive research and holding 25 days of public hearings throughout the State at which it heard from over 160 organizations and individuals, the 21st Century Commission released its final report, Growth Within Bounds: Planning California Governance for the 21st Century, in January 2000.3 The report examines the way that government is organized and operates and establishes a vision of how the State will grow by “making better use of the often invisible LAFCOs in each county.” The report points to the expectation that California’s population will double over the first four decades of the 21st Century, and raises concern that our government institutions were designed when our population was much smaller and our society was less complex. The report warns that without a strategy open spaces will be swallowed up, expensive freeway extensions will be needed, job centers will become farther removed from housing, and this will lead to longer commutes, increased pollution and more stressful lives. Growth Within Bounds acknowledges that local governments face unprecedented challenges in their ability to finance service delivery since voters cut property tax revenues in 1978 and the Legislature shifted property tax revenues from local government to schools in 1993. The report asserts that these financial strains have created governmental entrepreneurism in which agencies compete for sales tax revenue and market share. 2 Little Hoover Commission, 2000, p. 24. 3 The Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century ceased to exist on July 1, 2000, pursuant to a statutory sunset provision. BY BURR CONSULTING 5 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR The 21st Century Commission recommended that effective, efficient and easily understandable government be encouraged. In accomplishing this, the 21st Century Commission recommended consolidation of small, inefficient or overlapping providers, transparency of municipal service delivery to the people, and accountability of municipal service providers. The sheer number of special districts, the report asserts, “has provoked controversy, including several legislative attempts to initiate district consolidations,”4 but cautions LAFCOs that decisions to consolidate districts should focus on the adequacy of services, not on the number of districts. Growth Within Bounds stated that LAFCOs cannot achieve their fundamental purposes without a comprehensive knowledge of the services available within its county, the current efficiency of providing service within various areas of the county, future needs for each service, and expansion capacity of each service provider. Comprehensive knowledge of water and sanitary providers, the report argued, would promote consolidations of water and sanitary districts, reduce water costs and promote a more comprehensive approach to the use of water resources. Further, the report asserted that many LAFCOs lack such knowledge and should be required to conduct such a review to ensure that municipal services are logically extended to meet California’s future growth and development. MSRs would require LAFCO to look broadly at all agencies within a geographic region that provide a particular municipal service and to examine consolidation or reorganization of service providers. The 21st Century Commission recommended that the review include water, wastewater, and other municipal services that LAFCO judges to be important to future growth. The Commission recommended that the service review be followed by consolidation studies and be performed in conjunction with updates of SOIs. The recommendation was that service reviews be designed to make nine determinations, each of which was incorporated verbatim in the subsequently adopted legislation. The legislature since consolidated the determinations into six required findings. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW LEGISLATION The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires LAFCO review and update SOIs not less than every five years and to review municipal services before updating SOIs. The requirement for service reviews arises from the identified need for a more coordinated and efficient public service structure to support California’s anticipated growth. The service review provides LAFCO with a tool to study existing and future public service conditions comprehensively and to evaluate organizational options for accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring that critical services are provided efficiently. Effective January 1, 2008, Government Code §56430 requires LAFCO to conduct a review of municipal services provided in the county by region, sub-region or other designated geographic area, as appropriate, for the service or services to be reviewed, and prepare a written statement of determination with respect to each of the following topics: 1) Growth and population projections for the affected area; 4 Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, 2000, p. 70. 6 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO LAFCO AND MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS 2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies; 3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services; 4) Status of, and opportunities for shared facilities; 5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies; and 6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. SPHERES OF INFLUENCE An SOI is a LAFCO-approved plan that designates an agency’s probable future boundary and service area. Spheres are planning tools used to provide guidance for individual boundary change proposals and are intended to encourage efficient provision of organized community services, discourage urban sprawl and premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands, and prevent overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services. Every determination made by a commission must be consistent with the SOIs of local agencies affected by that determination;5 for example, territory may not be annexed to a city or district unless it is within that agency's sphere. SOIs should discourage duplication of services by local governmental agencies, guide the Commission’s consideration of individual proposals for changes of organization, and identify the need for specific reorganization studies, and provide the basis for recommendations to particular agencies for government reorganizations. Contra Costa LAFCO policies are that LAFCO discourages inclusion of land in an agency’s SOI if a need for services provided by that agency within a 5-10 year period cannot be demonstrated. SOIs generally will not be amended concurrently with an action on the related change of organization or reorganization. A change of organization or reorganization will not be approved solely because an area falls within the SOI of any agency. In other words, the SOI essentially defines where and what types of government reorganizations (e.g., annexation, detachment, dissolution and consolidation) may be initiated. If and when a government reorganization is initiated, there are a number of procedural steps that must be conducted for a reorganization to be approved. Such steps include more in-depth analysis, LAFCO consideration at a noticed public hearing, and processes by which affected agencies and/or residents may voice their approval or disapproval. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act requires LAFCO to develop and determine the SOI of each local governmental agency within the county and to review and update the SOI every five years. LAFCOs are empowered to adopt, update and amend the SOI. They may do so with or without an application and any interested person may submit an application proposing an SOI amendment. LAFCO may recommend government reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the SOIs as the basis for those recommendations. Based on review of the guidelines and practices 5 Government Code §56375.5. BY BURR CONSULTING 7 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR of Contra Costa LAFCO as well as other LAFCOs in the State, various conceptual approaches have been identified from which to choose in designating an SOI: 1) Coterminous Sphere: The sphere for a city or special district that is the same as its existing boundaries. 2) Annexable Sphere: A sphere larger than the agency’s boundaries identifies areas the agency is expected to annex. The annexable area is outside its boundaries and inside the sphere. 3) Detachable Sphere: A sphere that is smaller than the agency’s boundaries identifies areas the agency is expected to detach. The detachable area is the area within the agency bounds but not within its sphere. 4) Zero Sphere: A zero sphere indicates the affected agency’s public service functions should be reassigned to another agency and the agency should be dissolved or combined with one or more other agencies. 5) Consolidated Sphere: A consolidated sphere includes two or more local agencies and indicates the agencies should be consolidated into one agency. 6) Limited Service Sphere: A limited service sphere is the territory included within the SOI of a multi-service provider agency that is also within the boundary of a limited purpose district which provides the same service (e.g., fire protection), but not all needed services. 7) Sphere Planning Area: LAFCO may choose to designate a sphere planning area to signal that it anticipates expanding an agency’s SOI in the future to include territory not yet within its official SOI. 8) Provisional Sphere: LAFCO may designate a provisional sphere that automatically sunsets if certain conditions occur. LAFCO is required to establish SOIs for all local agencies and enact policies to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within the SOIs. Furthermore, LAFCO must update those SOIs every five years. In updating the SOI, LAFCO is required to conduct a municipal service review (MSR) and adopt related determinations. In addition, in adopting or amending an SOI, LAFCO must make the following determinations: • Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands; • Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; • Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public service that the agency provides or is authorized to provide; and • Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines these are relevant to the agency. 8 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO LAFCO AND MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS MSR AND SOI UPDATE PROCESS The MSR process does not require LAFCO to initiate changes of organization based on service review findings, only that LAFCO identify potential government structure options. However, LAFCO, other local agencies, and the public may subsequently use the determinations to analyze prospective changes of organization or reorganization or to establish or amend SOIs. LAFCO may act with respect to a recommended change of organization or reorganization on its own initiative, at the request of any agency, or in response to a petition. MSRs are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to §15262 (feasibility or planning studies) or §15306 (information collection) of the CEQA Guidelines. LAFCO’s actions to adopt MSR determinations are not considered “projects” subject to CEQA. Once LAFCO has adopted the MSR determinations, it must update the SOIs for Contra Costa Resource Conservation District and Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District. This report identifies preliminary SOI policy alternatives and recommends SOI options for each agency. Development of actual SOI updates will involve additional steps, including development of recommendations by LAFCO staff, opportunity for public input at a LAFCO public hearing, and consideration and changes made by Commissioners. A CEQA determination will then be made on a case-by-case basis once the proposed project characteristics are clearly identified. The CKH Act stipulates several procedural requirements in updating SOIs. It requires that special districts file written statements on the class of services provided and that LAFCO clearly establish the location, nature and extent of services provided by special districts. Accordingly, each local agency’s class of services provided is documented in this 2009 MSR. The MSR described the nature, location, and extent of functions or classes of services provided by existing districts, which is a procedural requirement for LAFCO to complete when updating SOIs. LAFCO must notify affected agencies 21 days before holding a public hearing to consider the SOI and may not update the SOI until after that hearing. The LAFCO Executive Officer must issue a report including recommendations on the SOI amendments and updates under consideration at least five days before the public hearing. BY BURR CONSULTING 9 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR 3. R E S O U RC E C O N S E RVAT I O N S E RV I C E S This chapter provides a detailed look at resource conservation services in Contra Costa County, including how these services are provided, as well as growth and population projections, current and future service needs, infrastructure needs, service adequacy, and financing. While the focus of the chapter is the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District, as it is the sole provider of resource conservation services in the County under LAFCO jurisdiction, other providers are addressed as well. Government structure options are identified only for local agencies under LAFCO jurisdiction. PROVIDER OVERVIEW This section provides an overview of resource conservation services in Contra Costa County, including how these services are provided by the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District and other providers not under LAFCO jurisdiction. CONTRA COSTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Contra Costa Resource Conservation District (CCRCD) was formed in 1941 as an independent special district. The District was originally named the Contra Costa Soil Conservation District, but in 1971, a state law changed the name of all Soil Conservation Districts to Resource Conservation Districts. CCRCD was originally formed to conduct and lead conservation efforts on agricultural lands. The principal act that governs the District is Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code.6 The principal act empowers resource conservation districts to control runoff, prevent and control soil erosion, protect water quality, develop and distribute water, improve land capabilities, and facilitate coordinated resource management efforts for watershed restoration and enhancement.7 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000.8 The District’s boundary is coterminous with the Contra Costa County line and includes all areas within the County. The boundaries encompass a land area of approximately 720 square miles.9 Contra Costa is the principal county and Contra Costa LAFCO has jurisdiction. 6 Public Resources Code §9151-9491. 7 Public Resources Code §9001. 8 Government Code §56824.10. 9 Contra Costa LAFCO, Directory of Local Agencies, 2009, p. 66. 10 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO Countywide Resource Conservation District, Coterminous SOI, and Watersheds }þ 29 }þ 160 §¨¦ 80 CarquinezStraitsDrainages HHeerrccuulleess PPiinnoollee PeytonSlough WillowCreekandCoastalDrainages RodeoCreek PPiittttssbbuurrgg RefugioCreek GarrityCreek MMaarrttiinneezz RheemCreek PinoleCreek AlhambraCreek }þ 242 Concord KirkerCreek EastAntiochCreek OOaakklleeyy WestAntiochCreek SSaannPPaabblloo CCoonnccoorrdd Mt.DiabloCreek AAnnttiioocchh WildcatCreek PPlleeaassaanntt HHiillll EastCountyDeltaDrainages GraysonCreek/MurderersCreek CCllaayyttoonn LowerMarshCreek Baxter/CerritoRichmondDrainages BBrreennttwwoooodd RRiicchhmmoonndd EEllCCeerrrriittoo SanPabloCreek WW Pi aa n l e lnn C uu re tt e C k Cr / re G ee a e l kk indoCreek §¨¦ }þ 80 24 LLaaffaayyeettttee OOrriinnddaa LasTrampasCreek UpperMarshCreek 567 MMoorraaggaa J4 SanLeandroCreek/MoragaCreek KelloggCreek BrushyCreek }þ SanRamonCreek ByLAFCOactionon4/21/10, 13 ContraCostaResourceConservation DDaannvviillllee £¤ DistrictboundaryandSOIapproved. 101 AlamoCreek/TassajaraCreek ResourceConservationDistrict GarrityCreek RheemCreek CayetanoCreek CityBoundaries GraysonCreek/MurderersCreek RodeoCreek SSaannRRaammoonn AlamoCreek/TassajaraCreek KelloggCreek SanLeandroCreek/MoragaCreek SouthSanRamonCreek AlhambraCreek KirkerCreek SanPabloCreek Baxter/CerritoRichmondDrainages LasTrampasCreek SanRamonCreek BrushyCreek LowerMarshCreek SouthSanRamonCreek CarquinezStraitsDrainages Mt.DiabloCreek UpperMarshCreek CayetanoCreek PeytonSlough WestAntiochCreek Concord PineCreek/GalindoCreek WildcatCreek }þ E Ea a s s t tA C n o t u io n c ty h D C e re lt e a k Drainages P R i e n f o u l g e io C C re r e e k ek WillowCreekandCoastalDrainages 65by1CPoinnetrSatCreoest,t 3 a47tC :h5 o 9F Mu :l4 no a 8 to py .r4 cCN5 roe o5 ma rNt t h emd 1Wu 2 1ni2 /int1 : yg0 0 ,6 D/2 M: e 3 0 av 5 1er. 0 3tlion8 pe4 mzW,eCnAt,G94IS55G3r-o0u0p95 abrTea hasD isse i e t .ms vdW ea ca l u t p o ha r p i r , c C l e e m o p onn re o ut i t mn b n as Tt l t a t ii h n ya g Dr i st ia s oe elytc f pm e io C fC a d a pt ri oh t p t t y yo m ner w t i Lug e rsa a i hs n o m s et t uC e i8wc t r t o d s c h ri, s e e 4t ii h s t n i a s aifs td do e d d a arc d e i m t t si a a t r b ce i a v y l t f da t er hi o .o i t de m hm Un e fC es r a ot re o Ch n m ro u eo dsf n n tC om l t t h i y a r f oe a a bt a n yh C i C s t lii r s sn t Aao y uo s m C mS t f t o a ab ote r a pe sC st g te aa oa e n gl u B o ot C er n g o e r o r t r ea e y ea u sr d p nd C t p.oh to o yo i Irc m nf te G sE m ia m n I ib d qS a f u o iulya nP i r at mn y i b rt lioy de z a fo ga tar i r rt o ec aioi n pc t m sn re. o '. p as d S t ct uc o t a hcu mx eerra e d aci tyn e. 0 0.5 1 2 Miles ® CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR Prior to the formation of LAFCO, CCRCD has records showing five annexations to the District—Marsh Creek (1944), Pittsburg/Antioch (1946), Kellogg/Marsh Creek watersheds (1952), Mount Diablo State Park (1953), and Briones/Garcia (1953).10 Since the formation of LAFCO, the District has made four changes to its boundaries. In 1971, the communities of Orinda, Moraga and North Richmond were annexed in the western portion of the County.11 In 1973, the Eastern Contra Costa RCD was consolidated with CCRCD.12 In 1980, the remaining territory in the western portion of the County—including the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Pinole and Hercules—was annexed into the District, making CCRCD countywide.13 Most recently, the 1992 Villanova reorganization detached approximately two acres from the County and the District and one acre was annexed.14 LAFCO affirmed the existing SOI for the District as coterminous with the District’s boundaries in 2003, following an inaugural municipal service review.15 No changes to the SOI have been made since that time. NON-LAFCO PROVIDERS Other resource conservation service providers in Contra Costa County include the following: • The Contra Costa County Agricultural Commissioner seeks to protect the environment, the public and agricultural crops from the potential harmful effects of pesticides, invasive species and significant pests. • Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development provides services and assistance related to climate protection, land use planning, solid waste and recycling programs, transportation planning, and water and habitat conservation policy. • Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is a dependent special district of Contra Costa County. Its mission is to provide flood protection facilities while protecting environmental resources. The District designs, builds and maintains flood protection facilities, and works to protect, restore and enhance the creeks within the County. The District provides flood risk reduction and planning, reviews land development plans and studies, provides hydrology information and services, and oversees the Contra Costa Clean Water Program staff. For more information on this district, refer to the Municipal Service Review on Reclamation 10 Correspondence with Carol Arnold, CCRCD Executive Director, December 15, 2009. The California Board of Equalization does not have records of specific pre-1972 boundary actions, although it does have a 1972 boundary map on file. 11 LAFCO resolution action date 1/6/71. 12 LAFCO resolution action date 5/2/73 13 LAFCO resolution action date 3/12/80. 14 LAFCO resolution 92-10. 15 Contra Costa LAFCO, Minutes, November 12, 2003. 12 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES Services. CCRCD reported that it provides services for the Flood Control District on special projects when funding is available. • The Contra Costa Watershed Forum (CCWF) is an open committee comprised of about 50 organizations, including state and local agencies, local non-profit environmental and education organizations, community volunteer groups, and private citizens. CCWF coordinates a variety of programs including Volunteer Creek Monitoring and Regional Symposia. • The California Department of Fish and Game manages California's fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend. • The California Department of Conservation provides services and information that promote environmental health and sound management of the State’s natural resources. • The California Environmental Protection Agency is charged with oversight of the State’s environmental protection laws. • The State Water Resources Control Board works to protect, enhance and restore water resources, through watershed management programs. • The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) directs and implements conservation initiatives and programs as guided by local RCD priorities and NRCS state and national policy. NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to private land owners for a broad range of conservation activities for soil, water and other natural resources. Many of the conservation agencies work closely together to promote communication, coordination and greater leveraging of resources. CCRCD operates under Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of California. The latter agreement recognizes a commitment from the State in aiding administration, coordination, financing and delivery of the conservation programs through local conservation districts. Through another cooperative work agreement, CCRCD, NRCS, the California Association of RCDs, and the California Department of Conservation agree to share information and resources, when available, to capitalize on synergies in program effectiveness and reduce duplication of efforts and contradictory mandates. Locally, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has initiated a JPA and interagency agreements to contract with the CCRCD to work with private land owners on watershed planning and conservation programs. SERVICE OVERVIEW CCRCD is a non-regulatory agency with the mission of providing an organized means for land managers and community members to play a prominent role in carrying out voluntary and cooperative conservation programs that promote the sustainable and productive use of natural resources. After formation, the District originally focused on soil and water conservation projects targeted at farmlands and farming practices, including renting farming and grading equipment to farmers, BY BURR CONSULTING 13 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR draining wetlands to be converted to pasture, leveling land to improve irrigation efficiency, range seeding, grazing management, and orchard cover crops and crop grazing management.16 However, as the County has urbanized, the focus of the District’s services has expanded to natural resources management of entire watersheds which includes both urban and agricultural conservation programs. Presently, the District provides watershed education and stewardship services, coordination of watershed restoration projects, watershed assessment studies, support for agriculture, educational workshops on resource management, and programs for children and teens. CCRCD provides education, stewardship, restoration and assessment programs for specific watersheds, as well as countywide watershed services. Projects the District has sponsored, directly provided, or partnered with another organization to provide are shown for each watershed in Table 3-1. Watersheds for which the District had active programs in 2009 included Alhambra Creek, Rodeo Creek, Marsh Creek and Pinole Creek watersheds. In addition to staffing community watershed groups to conduct outreach and educational programs, watershed projects completed by CCRCD in partnership with these groups in 2008 and 2009 were creek cleanups in Rodeo and Marsh Creek watersheds, native plant restoration in Alhambra and Marsh Creek watersheds, arundo assessment and removal in Alhambra Creek watershed, development of a community based Rodeo Creek Watershed Vision Plan, and steelhead mapping in Pinole Creek Watershed.17 Although district projects for individual farmers and ranchers have taken less of a spotlight in recent years, CCRCD continues to support land owners and farmers through educational workshops and outreach for projects in collaboration with its partner organization, NRCS. These projects include conversion from furrow to drip irrigation for row crops, promoting planting of native plants to encourage growth in the declining honeybee population and the sponsorship of solar powered water pumps for ranchers. In addition to these agriculture projects, CCRCD owns and maintains a weather station in Brentwood to aid farmers, golf courses and landscape maintenance professionals to fine-tune irrigation. The weather station is part of the California Department of Water Resources’ California Irrigation Management Information System network. The network provides access to local weather data, which can be used as a tool to determine the quantity and timing of irrigation and when to spray for pests. CCRCD hosts educational workshops on varying topics and develops instructive DVDs and publications available to the public. Since 2006, the District has held workshops on the Maintenance of Ranch Roads and Fire Trails, Identification and Management of Rangeland Weeds, and led an agricultural tour for the Washington D.C. Fellowship Program. Programs that involve youth in resource conservation are an integral part of the District’s education services. The District participates in the Agriculture in the Classroom programs and annually sponsors two high school students to attend the Range and Natural Resources Camp where students spend a week learning about watershed ecology and land management skills. As part of a statewide competition, the District holds an annual speech contest with cash prizes for high school students. The District has included youth in its native plant restoration projects as well. In 2009, the District worked with students to create a butterfly garden as part of a native plant restoration at Strentzel Meadow in Martinez, and CCRCD funded a native plant coloring book. 16 CCRCD, CCRCD 60th Anniversary, 2001, p. 3. 17 CCRCD, Currents Annual Report FY 2008-09, 2009, p. 6. 14 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES Table 3-1: CCRCD Watershed Programs Year Watershed Description Initiated Status East County Delta Drainages and the Kellogg and Brushy Provided assistance and cost sharing to farmers to implement beneficial management practices to reduce Creek Watersheds polluted runoff from agricultural lands by converting from furrow to drip irrigation on 335 acres. 2004 Completed 1) The RCD and NRCS partnered with The San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) to produce The Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Analysis and Baseline Water Quality Study. 2) SFEI worked with CCRCD, NRCS, and EBMUD during the 05-06 wet season to assess the Pavon Creeks subbasin to determine the causes and rates of erosion. Pinole Creek Watershed 3) Conducted a steelhead habitat and mapping project of Pinole Creek in partnership with East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) to document the viability of restoring a sustainable steelhead population in Pinole Creek. 4) Presently designing and looking for funding for a steelhead passage improvement project. 2003 Ongoing 1) CCRCD and NRCS partnered with the Natural Heritage Institute to conduct a biological resource inventory. Mount Diablo Creek Watershed 2) CCRCD facilitated the Mount Diablo Creek Watershed Planning Group which has developed a watershed management plan. 2004 Completed 1) CCRCD and NRCS partnered with the Restoration Design Group to assess the bankfull channel geometry within the watershed, which contributed to the restoration design for the Fernandez Ranch portion of Rodeo Rodeo Creek Watershed Creek and also provided a watershed overview. 2) CCRCD coordinated the Rodeo Creek Watershed Vision Planning Process and continues to support the community watershed group in organizing outreach, education and restoration projects. 2006 Ongoing 1) CCRCD sponsored the Alhambra Creek Watershed Management Planning Group, which published a watershed plan in April of 2001. Alhambra Watershed 2) Since 2003, CCRCD has secured more than $350,000 for Alhambra Watershed Council project implementation and RCD coordinator staffing. 1996 Ongoing support 1) CCRCD facilitated the Kirker Creek Watershed Management Planning Group from 2001-2004, and assisted in the development and publication of a watershed plan in January 2004. Kirker Creek Watershed 2) CCRCD sponsored the Partners for the Watershed from 2005 to 2007, which carries out stewardship and environmental education projects. 2001 Completed 1) CCRCD facilitated the Marsh Creek Watershed Management Planning process and developed a watershed inventory and issues catalog. Marsh Creek Watershed 2) CCRCD partnered with the Natural Heritage Institute in sponsoring Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed which identifies activities, issues and projects to protect and restore the lower Marsh Creek Watershed 2001 Ongoing CCRCD implemented a countywide watershed signage program in 2004-2005 to build awareness of creeks Countywide and watersheds. 2004 Completed Walnut Creek Watershed Presently looking for funding for projects in this watershed. BY BURR CONSULTING 15 15 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR A majority of the District’s watershed planning efforts are accomplished through the community organized planning group within each watershed for which CCRCD provides direction and support. The planning groups are comprised of stakeholders throughout the watershed, including landowners, farmers, ranchers, residents, public agencies, such as the County, cities, and special districts, conservation groups, local businesses, schools, and special interest associations. For example, the planning group for the Mount Diablo Creek Watershed Plan consisted of the California Native Plant Society, Cemex (Clayton Quarry), City of Clayton, City of Concord, Clayton Community Library, Community of Clyde, Concord-Mount Diablo Trail Ride Association, Concord Naval Weapons Station Neighborhood Alliance, Contra Costa County Farm Bureau, Diablo View Middle School, East Bay Regional Park District, Friends of Mount Diablo Creek, Landowners, Mount Diablo State Park, Ranchers, Save Mount Diablo, and the Tesoro Refinery. Although quite a few agencies do similar work on the watersheds, the RCD provides a specific watershed stewardship service that is aimed at helping communities focus their efforts on creating a watershed plan and implementing that plan. The Contra Costa Watershed Forum does provide a similar service through cooperation with several agencies (including the RCD), but the Forum’s projects are focused on creating countywide watershed resources such as a watershed atlas, creek mapping, monitoring of vegetation and wildlife, and an annual countywide stakeholders meeting. REGIONAL COLLABORATION Regional collaboration efforts are a central part of the services CCRCD provides. In 2008 and 2009, the District participated in the following regional natural resource planning community groups or projects: • Mount Diablo Mercury Mine stakeholder meetings, • Concord Naval Weapons Station Open Space Technical Advisory Committee meetings and provided comments for the Draft EIR for the Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse plan, • Lower Kellogg Creek Bio-filter/Retention Pond Technical Advisory Committee meetings and reviewed design documents, • The Diablo FireSafe Council meetings and reviewed Diablo FireSafe Council’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Contra Costa County and Best Management Practices Guidebook for Hazardous Fuel Treatments in Contra Costa County, • The Alameda/Contra Costa Weed Management Area and State Weed Management Areas conference, • The Contra Costa Watershed Forum Executive Committee, • The East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan, • The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, • The Bay Area Open Space Council, 16 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES • Bay Area Watershed Network, • The Integrated Regional Watershed Management Planning process, and • The Bay-Delta Resource Conservation and Development Council. LOCATION CCRCD reported that all programs and services are conducted within district bounds. A few watersheds include territory in both Contra Costa and Alameda RCD boundaries. For projects in these watersheds, the District reported that it works in cooperation with Alameda RCD and heads any programs and planning for the portions of the watershed within its bounds. The District provides watershed related services in both incorporated and unincorporated areas, as these activities benefit urban as well as rural areas. While agricultural programs provided by CCRCD are more applicable to the rural areas of the District, they can have beneficial effects on the urban areas which are often downstream in the lower watershed. SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH This section discusses the factors affecting service demand, such as land uses, population growth, and the prevalence of farmland and watersheds. RESIDENTS The District considers its customer base to be the constituents within its boundaries. The estimated residential population in the district bounds was almost 949,000 at the time of the 2000 Census. The District’s population density was approximately 1,318 per square mile in 2000. By 2009, there were almost 1.1 million residents in Contra Costa County, according to the California Department of Finance. Of the total county population, 84 percent live within incorporated city limits. Population density varies throughout the County with a countywide average of 1,461 residents per square mile of land area (excluding submerged areas) in 2009. The average density in the cities was 3,135. Since 2000, the number of residents grew by 11 percent. Among the nine Bay Area counties, Contra Costa experienced the fastest residential growth since 2000. Growth was greatest in the eastern portion of the County. Population in the County is projected to grow by 21 percent over the next 25 years, according to the 2009 projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Population growth is expected to be most rapid over the next 25 years in Pittsburg (44%), San Ramon (43%), Hercules (38%), Pinole (33%), Richmond (33%), Brentwood (30%), and Oakley (26%), according to ABAG projections. Moderate population growth is projected in Concord, Danville, Pleasant Hill, San Pablo, and Walnut Creek. Slower population growth is projected BY BURR CONSULTING 17 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR elsewhere in the County.18 The future demand for resource conservation education and creek restoration programs may relate to population growth. BUSINESSES There were approximately 394,000 jobs in the County, and the District, in 2008. Some communities have higher concentrations of jobs than others. There was on average one job per housing unit in 2008. The job-housing ratio is highest in San Ramon and Walnut Creek, and is above-average in Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill and Lafayette. The job base is projected to grow by 7,000-8,000 jobs annually over the next 20 years, according to ABAG. Job creation is projected to outpace residential growth in the County in the next 20 years, and result in 1.2 jobs per housing unit by 2030. The pace of job creation over the next 20 years is projected to be most rapid in Oakley, Brentwood, Pittsburg, Hercules and Antioch. Job creation at a moderate pace is projected in San Pablo, El Cerrito, San Ramon, and Martinez, with a slower pace anticipated elsewhere. LAND USE CCRCD’s bounds encompass a wide variety of land uses as its bounds include the entirety of Contra Costa County, which has a land area of approximately 720 square miles. Incorporated areas comprise 35 percent of the County’s total land area. Urban and high density areas are concentrated in the 19 incorporated cities along the western coast of the County around Interstate 80, through the center of the County along Highway 24 and Interstate 680, and along the northern county line the length of Highway 4. The eastern portion of the County is largely rural and mountainous with extensive farmland and the Mount Diablo State Park. Due to the plentiful water provided by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, agricultural land made up 56 percent of the District’s land area in 2008. Urban and built-up lands and other land uses comprised 33 percent and 11 percent of land area respectively.19 Although the District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies, CCRCD receives County planning documents and subdivision applications and reviews them when there is available staffing—prioritizing the projects that are located in watershed where the District has active programs. Watersheds A watershed is all the land in a region from which rain collects and drains into a common creek, river, lake or bay. Watersheds are bounded by the ridges of hills and mountains that direct the drainage.20 18 Oakley contends that the ABAG population projections understate growth significantly, and that the City’s residential population will be near 60,000 by 2030 rather than 43,000 as ABAG projected. If the City is correct, the District’s growth and future needs will outpace the ABAG projections. 19 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2009. 18 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES Contra Costa County has 31 major watersheds and subwatersheds, eight of which extend across the County’s boundaries. Thirty-five percent of the total watershed area is located within the boundaries of incorporated cities and 43 percent is within the county-designated urban limit line. The size of the watersheds vary from small community sized watersheds, such as Alhambra and Pinole Creek watersheds, to large watersheds that span multiple cities, such as the Walnut Creek Watershed (Concord, Pine Creek, Greyson Creek, and Las Trampas Creek subwatersheds), which is 93,336 acres.21 Refer to Map 3-1 for the location and size of the various watersheds in the County. The needs of each watershed depend largely on the type of land use within the watershed territory. Predominantly rural watersheds may suffer from agricultural runoff with high concentrations of pesticides. Urban watersheds may be compromised by urban runoff, litter and declining native vegetation. Other watershed needs can include planning for public use, flood management, ensuring creek bank stability, preventing erosion and sedimentation, and protecting or reviving the fish and wildlife habitat supported by the watershed. The needs of every watershed in the County have not yet been identified. CCRCD has assisted five watershed community groups in creating watershed management plans, which inventory the needs or concerns of the particular watershed and outline steps to address those needs. Watersheds that presently have watershed management plans are the Alhambra, Rodeo, Kirker, Mount Diablo, and Pinole creek watersheds. Farmland Figure 3-1: Contra Costa County Farmland, 1987-2007 Farming activities are an indicator 250,000 of the demand for resource conservation services. As the amount 200,000 of farming activity increases so does the demand for resource conservation 150,000 services, to insure that sustainable farming practices are being used. 100,000 Approximately 56 percent of Contra Costa County land area is farmland.22 50,000 Pasture and range land comprises over 0 75 percent of all farm land countywide. 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 Over the last two decades, farming and farm acreage has generally been on the decline until recently. From 1987 to 2007, the total acreage of Contra Costa land in farms fell by 27 percent. In California as a whole, total land in farms fell by 17 percent from 1987 to 2007. 23 Recently in Contra Costa County, there was a 16 percent increase in the acreage of farms between 2002 and 2007 due to increased pasture land. 20 Contra Costa Watershed Forum, Communities Protecting Watersheds, 2003. 21 Contra Costa Watershed Forum, Watershed Atlas, 2003, p. 14. 22 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 2000-2008. 23 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture 1992, 1997, 2002, and 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING 19 sercA Total Farm Land Pasture Land Crop Land CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR Figure 3-2: Contra Costa County Prime Farmland, 2000-6 A key measure of farming 40,000 sustainability in a region is the degree to which prime farmland is being converted 35,000 to other uses. Prime farmland is land 30,000 that is most suitable for general intensive agricultural uses, due to its ability to 25,000 sustain long term production of 20,000 agricultural crops. An important aim of a resource conservation district is to limit 15,000 the loss of prime farmland over time, as 10,000 the conversion of prime farmland limits the productivity and sustainability of 5,000 farming in the area. The total acreage of - prime farmland in Contra Costa County 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 has decreased by nearly 28 percent from 2000 to 2008, as shown in Figure 3-2. 24 By comparison, in California as a whole, the amount of prime farmland experienced a net increase by nearly two percent between 2000 and 2006.25 The conversion of prime farmland to other uses is a significant demand driver for resource conservation services. The decline in the County’s prime farmland between 1992 and 2008 has been primarily (62 percent) due to conversion of the land to other farmland categories such as farmland of State or local importance.26 Approximately 26 percent of the prime farmland lost during that same period was converted to urban uses. By comparison, 62 percent of important farmland lost during that period was converted into urban uses and 11 percent into other farmland categories. In addition to these regulations, the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) protects agricultural land by lowering property tax liability for landowners who contract with counties and cities to restrict their land to agricultural and open space uses. The California Department of Conservation reports that as of 2007 almost 16.6 million acres (or 55 percent) of the State’s approximately 30 million agricultural acres were protected by the Williamson Act.27 Within Contra Costa County, the total area with Williamson Act contracts has been declining over the last two decades, as shown in Figure 3-3. As of 2007, Williamson Act Land comprised 47,308 acres or 18 percent of the County’s total agricultural area. 24 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 2000-2008. 25 Statewide data for 2008 from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program was not available as of the drafting of this report. 26 Farmland of statewide importance is similar to prime farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes. Unique farmland has lesser quality soils and is used for the State’s leading agricultural crops. Farmland of local importance is determined by each County’s Board of Supervisors according to the local agricultural economy. Grazing land is land on which there is vegetation suitable for the grazing of livestock. 27 California Department of Conservation, Land Conservation Act Status Report, 2008, p. 2. 20 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO sercA RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES Figure 3-3: Contra Costa County Williamson Act Land, 1991-2007 In July 2009, the 80,000 Governor vetoed State 70,000 subvention funding, which 60,000 reimbursed counties for a portion of the lost property 50,000 tax on Williamson Act land. 40,000 Contra Costa County lost 30,000 approximately $61,000 in FY 09-10. The County plans to 20,000 continue renewing 10,000 Williamson Act contracts 0 regardless of the loss of the State subvention funding. 28 Projected Demand As the County develops, less land will be available for agricultural purposes and thus demand for the District’s agricultural services will decline. However, as areas urbanize and urban runoff, litter and manmade structures affect water quality and wild life, there will be a greater need for watershed programs. In addition, the recent trend to be more environmentally conscious combined with CCRCD outreach activities has increased public awareness of ecological needs in the area. Most likely this rise in awareness will result in increased demand for CCRCD services. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES FACILITIES As the District subleases office space from NRCS, district-owned facilities are limited to a weather station in Brentwood. The station provides weather data for farmers to inform irrigation practices such as quantity and timing, and when to spray for pests. The weather station was originally funded by the California Department of Water Resources in 1984, and CCRCD purchased the equipment. The weather station is located on private property free-of-charge. CCRCD performs regular maintenance on the station and updated the station September 2009. The District reported that it is in good condition. CCRCD does not own or maintain any additional equipment or vehicles. 28 Twa, David, Contra Costa County Administrator, Memo to the Board of Supervisors, August 12, 2009. BY BURR CONSULTING 21 sercA dellornE latoT 1991 2991 3991 4991 5991 6991 7991 8991 9991 0002 1002 2002 3002 4002 5002 6002 7002 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR ADEQUACY While the subleased office provides adequate space for the needs and purposes of CCRCD, the District reported that the location was not ideal. The District would prefer to be in an area easier for constituents to access, as well as closer to the County offices, as the District works closely with County departments on special projects. The District did not indicate an intention to move in the near future. The weather station is reportedly operating sufficiently to provide the intended services to local farmers. There were no needs or deficiencies identified for the weather station. No further infrastructure needs or deficiencies were identified. The District does not presently have plans for additional facilities. SHARED FACILITIES The District shares its office space with the Local Partnership Office (LPO) of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This arrangement provides synergies, efficiency and access to NRCS staff expertise. No further opportunities for facility sharing were identified. SERVICE ADEQUACY MANAGEMENT The District employs five staff—a full-time executive director, two part-time watershed coordinators, a part-time office administrator and an intern. The staff report to the executive director who reports to the Board. The CCRCD also hires contractors, as necessary, and the contractors are overseen by the executive director. The District relies heavily on volunteers in many capacities to accomplish its mission. The District works with communities to develop watershed plans, which requires volunteers for strategic planning and workshops, volunteers for data collection around the watershed, and volunteers to implement the watershed plans through community organized activities, such as watershed clean ups and native plant restoration. The District completes employee evaluations on an annual basis and conducts informal workload monitoring consisting of tracking hours through timesheets and progress on assigned projects. The executive director also reported regularly reviewing the watershed coordinators’ progress against grant goals. District performance and productivity is evaluated annually in the annual report entitled Currents. While the District does not perform formal benchmarking, the District reported that it compares it performance with other RCDs through its membership in the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts (CARCD). CCRCD is a member of the CARCD listserv that addresses issues related to California RCDs, and the District participates in an annual statewide CARCD conference where all California RCDs and partners can share ideas and success stories. The District reported that it annually prepares audited financial statements. The most recent audited financial 22 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES statement provided to LAFCO by the District was for FY 08-09. The District has hired a new firm to complete the annual audits, since it is a recommended practice to rotate auditors every five years. District planning efforts include a mission statement, a five-year strategic plan, and an annually adopted budget. CCRCD has adopted a strategic long range plan (2005-2010), which outlines goals and annual action items to achieve those goals. The District does not prepare a capital improvement plan, because it does not own significant capital. CCRCD has received several honors and awards for its projects in the last five years (2004- 2009). Most recently, in 2007, the Mount Diablo Creek Watershed Management Plan, sponsored and coordinated by CCRCD, was awarded the Public Involvement Project of 2007 by CCWF. In 2005, CCRCD was honored by CCWF as the Participant of the Year. Finally, in 2004, CCRCD was named the Outstanding District of the Year by the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts for exceptional watershed-based planning, public outreach efforts, district staff development, partnership building and dramatic expansion of conservation projects throughout the County. While public sector management standards do vary depending on the size and scope of the organization, there are minimum standards. Well-managed organizations evaluate employees annually, periodically review agency performance, prepare a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year, conduct periodic financial audits to safeguard the public trust, maintain relatively current financial records, conduct advanced planning for future service needs, and plan and budget for capital needs. According to these standards, CCRCD is a well-managed agency that conducts annual employee and agency performance evaluations, maintains up-to-date financials and budgets, and conducts limited five-year planning for future service needs. This MSR recommends that CCRCD continue to conduct in-depth strategic planning, like the plan previously adopted by the District in 2000. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The District is governed by a five-member board. Board members are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. Board members are required to be registered voters in the State and 1) reside within the District and either own real property within the District or have provided assistance to the Board for two years, or 2) be a designated agent of a resident landowner within the District.29 The CCRCD does not have any other formal criteria, but press releases advertising a director vacancy describe the District’s mission and encourage candidates with a demonstrated interest in soil and water conservation to apply. Board members are not compensated for their services, but may be reimbursed for any approved travel and conference expenses related to RCD business. 29 California Public Resources Code, §9352. BY BURR CONSULTING 23 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR Table 3-2: CCRCD Governing Body Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Governing Body Name Position Began Serving Term Expires Tom Bloomfield Director 2001 2010 Thomas D. Brumleve Director 1997 2012 Members Dwight Meadows Director 2001 2012 Igor Skaredoff Director 2006 2012 Bethallyn Black Director 2009 2010 Manner of Selection Appointed by County Board of Supervisors Length of Term 4 years Date: 3rd Tuesday at Location: District office Meetings 3:00 PM Agenda Distribution Posted at RCD office and available upon request Minutes Distribution Mailed to Board members and available upon request Contact Contact Executive Director Mailing Address 5552 Clayton Rd., Concord, CA 94521 Email/Website http://www.ccrcd.org With regard to customer service, complaints may be filed with the Board via email, mail, phone or in person; however, the District reported that no such complaints have ever been received. Accountability of a governing body is signified by a combination of several indicators. The indicators chosen here are limited to 1) agency efforts to engage and educate constituents through outreach activities, in addition to legally required activities such as agenda posting and public meetings, and 2) transparency of the agency as indicated by cooperation with the MSR process and information disclosure. The District conducts significant constituent outreach activities as part of its conservation services. Activities to educate and inform the public include, but are not limited to, local work group meetings, educational workshops, presentations to other organizations, mailing annual reports, and distributing brochures on programs. The District also maintains a website where constituents can find board meeting, program, and contact information. The District demonstrated full accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO inquiries and document requests. FINANCING The financial ability of agencies to provide services is affected by available financing sources and financing constraints. This section discusses the major financing constraints faced by CCRCD and identifies the revenue sources currently available to the District. Finally, it assesses the financial ability of CCRCD to provide services. 24 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES REVENUES The District received $294,574 in revenues in FY 08-09. CCRCD presently relies primarily on property taxes to fund services. Revenue sources for the District include property taxes (72 percent), grants (24 percent), and interest (four percent). The District receives property tax revenue from a majority of the territory in the County, with the exception of the cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Martinez, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo, and the unincorporated areas of Crockett, Port Costa, and El Sobrante, which were annexed in 1980, post Proposition 13.30 The District is also not receiving property taxes from two additional tax rate areas—a single vacant parcel in the City of San Ramon and ten parcels with single family residences in the City of Antioch.31 The County reported that although these two areas were annexed to CCRCD prior to Proposition 13 (and LAFCO formation), the District has historically (at least since 1977) not received a share of the property tax from these two areas, and the reason is unknown.32 The District was unaware that it was not receiving property taxes from these areas. CCRCD services are provided throughout the County regardless of whether the District receives property tax revenue from the area. CCRCD does not currently have any "fee for services" programs. The District reported that other California RCDs have “fee for services” programs (usually contracts with the county), and CCRCD Directors agreed to pursue a similar program at the December 2009 board meeting. The program would include assisting municipalities and the county to meet the new NPDES requirements for a set fee. The District reported that other RCDs have been successful in “fee for services” programs because it is less expensive to pay RCD staff than to hire consultants or a county employee33. Table 3-3: CCRCD Revenues and Expenditures 2005-09 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Revenues Operating Grants $ 470,521 74% $ 501,543 70% $ 134,278 38% $ 69,352 24% Property taxes 166,717 26% 206,930 29% 212,988 61% 212,090 72% Other 789 0% 3,575 1% 3,847 1% 13,132 4% Total Revenues 638,027 712,048 351,113 294,574 Expenses Total Expenses 601,163 651,694 368,632 302,836 Net Assets Unrestricted 312,721 373,075 355,557 347,295 30 Proposition 13, which California voters approved in 1978, limits the ad valorem property tax rate, limits growth of the assessed value of property, and requires voter approval of certain local taxes. Generally, this measure fixes the ad valorem tax at one percent of value, except for taxes to repay certain voter approved bonded indebtedness. In response to Proposition 13, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 8 (A.B. 8) in 1979 to establish property tax allocation formulas. Generally, A.B. 8 allocates property tax revenue to the local agencies within each tax rate area (TRA) based on the proportion each agency received relative to other agencies in the TRA during the three fiscal years preceding adoption of Proposition 13. This allocation formula benefits local agencies that had relatively high tax rates at the time Proposition 13 was enacted. 31 Tax rate areas 01008 and 17100. 32 Interview with Bobby Romero, County Auditor-Controller’s Office, December 15, 2009. 33 Correspondence with Carol Arnold, CCRCD Executive Director, January 28, 2010. BY BURR CONSULTING 25 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR In previous years, CCRCD has received significant grant funding for district projects. However, due to State and Federal budget cutbacks, district grant revenues have declined since FY 06-07. In December 2008, the State froze payment of bond funded grants, which included one of CCRCD’s grants used to fund Marsh Creek Watershed projects that totaled $10,240. The freeze was lifted in fall 2009. Figure 3-4: RCD Revenue Comparison, 2006 - 09 By comparison with $9 Alameda, San Mateo, $8 Solano, and Suisun (also in $7 Solano) RCDs, CCRCD has $6 consistently had a lower rate $5 of revenue per acre than the other RCDs. The median $4 revenue earned per acre $3 served by the comparison $2 districts was approximately $1 $3.00 in FY 08-09.34 By $0 comparison, CCRCD had FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 $0.64 in revenues per acre within the District. Revenues for a all of the comparison RCDs declined from FY 07-08 to FY 08-09, similar to CCRCD. Similar to CCRCD, other RCDs reported challenges in getting grant funding since 2007 and significant budget cuts as a result of the State grant freeze. San Mateo County RCD reported that it was forced to take a furlough for six months to wait for anticipated grant funds.35 Suisun RCD in Solano County reported having significant grant income in 2006 of approximately $0.3 million, but has been unable to receive grant funding since then.36 Also due to the State budget crisis, in July 2009, the State legislature voted to suspend Proposition 1A, which ensures local property tax and sales tax revenues remain with the counties, cities and special districts.37 Consequently, all local agencies will be required to loan eight percent of apportioned property tax revenues to the State with repayment plus interest by June 30, 2013. To mitigate the impact of the loss of revenues on the local agencies, the Proposition 1A Securitization Program enables local agencies to sell their Proposition 1A Receivables for cash proceeds to be paid in two installments in January and May 2010. CCRCD passed a resolution to participate in the 34 Alameda RCD did not provide total revenues for FY 08-09, and is therefore not included in the median revenue calculation for FY 08-09, or shown in Figure 3-4 for FY 08-09. 35 Correspondence with Renee Moldovan, San Mateo RCD Fiscal Manager, February 4, 2010. 36 Correspondence with Kelli Perez, Suisun RCD, Office Manager, February 4, 2010. 37 Proposition 1A was passed by voters in 2004. It prohibits the State from reducing local government property and sales tax proceeds. The proposition may be suspended if the Governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the State legislature approve the suspension. 26 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO ercA rep seuneveR ACRCD CCRCD SMRCD SRCD SuRCD RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES securitization program. The bond sales were successful, and CCRCD will receive eight percent of apportioned property tax revenues loaned to the State in FY 09-10. EXPENDITURES Total operating and capital expenditures for FY 08-09 were $302,836, 58 percent of which was for salaries and benefits, 24 percent for program specific expenses, and eight percent for rent. The remaining 10 percent of expenditures was primarily district supplies and administration such as memberships, office expenses, transportation, and professional services. As the District only owns the weather station, capital expenditures are limited. CCRCD had no long-term debt at the end of FY 08-09. The District had $347,295 in unrestricted net assets at the end of the same fiscal year. In other words, CCRCD maintained just over one year of working reserves. The District does not have an adopted policy regarding target level of reserves, but reported that it has not had problems maintaining adequate reserves in the past. In FY 07-08, the District’s expenditures exceeded its revenues and the District used reserve funds to bridge the financing gap. The District has made cut backs in successive budgets to ensure that annual expenditures remain within total annual revenues. FINANCIAL ABILITY CCRCD’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by limited property tax revenues, the State property tax withholding, and a decline in available grant funding. The District reported that until FY 08 it had sufficient funds to provide an adequate service level; however, due to State and Federal budget cutbacks, the District has not received as much state grant and congressional funding as it has received in past years. The District presently relies on grants from the County, the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and property tax income. As a result of declining revenues, the District has made efforts to limit costs, such as not giving raises, maintaining minimal staffing levels, and reducing budgeted operating costs by seven percent in FY 09-10. While the District maintains sufficient reserves to compensate for funding shortfalls in the near future,. CCRCD is in the process of searching for additional government grants and other sources of funding, such as foundation grants and fee for services programs, which will allow the District to continue operating at its previous level of service. As of the drafting of this report, CCRCD was awaiting a response to a grant proposal to the Department of Fish and Game. GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES This section discusses possible governance alternatives to the current government structure with respect to resource conservation services in Contra Costa County, including the potential for consolidation with similar service providers. Consolidation with a neighboring RCD may allow for better leveraging of limited funding and greater regional collaboration and planning with regard to watersheds that cross the county line. Of the eight watersheds that cross the Contra Costa County line, all cross into Alameda County; BY BURR CONSULTING 27 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR consequently, Alameda County Resource Conservation District (ACRCD) may be the most likely candidate for such a consolidation. ACRCD serves the undeveloped areas in the southern and eastern portions of Alameda and most of the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore and undeveloped hill and marsh areas in four cities. ACRCD provides significantly more services directed at agricultural and rural areas within its boundaries than CCRCD. Services provides by ACRCD include 1) creek restoration, 2) habitat restoration, 3) rural watershed services, 4) permit coordination, 5) education, 6) technical and grant administration services. Both RCDs receive some portion of their revenue from property taxes, although CCRCD relies more heavily on that revenue source than ACRCD. In addition, ACRCD also receives additional funding from Alameda County. ACRCD revenues in FY 07-08 totaled $0.7 million, of which 24 percent was from property taxes, 24 percent from grants, 23 percent from the County, and 29 percent from other sources. This difference in revenue sources may be a significant challenge to consolidation. Possible benefits of an RCD consolidation may be capitalizing on each other’s existing programming, economies of scale, greater regional collaboration and planning on regional issues and concerns, and provide efficiency for funding projects at a regional level. Given CCRCD’s present financial challenges, improved efficiencies and reduced competition for grant funding would benefit the District. CCRCD reported that it has not considered consolidation with neighboring RCDs. The District indicated that due to the difference in programming focus in the neighboring districts and the demand for different services, that consolidation may not be efficient, feasible or beneficial to Contra Costa County taxpayers.38 MSR DETERMINATIONS This section sets forth recommended findings with respect to the service-related evaluation categories based upon this review of municipal services for Contra Costa County. LAFCO is required to identify governance options; however, LAFCO is not required to initiate changes and, in many cases, is not empowered to initiate these options. LAFCO is required by the State to act on SOI updates. The Commission may choose to recommend governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the spheres of influence as the basis for those recommendations (Government Code §56425 (g)). GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS 1) The 2009 residential population within CCRCD was approximately 1.1 million. Recent growth has been high. 38 Interview with Carol Arnold, CCRCD Executive Director, November 9, 2009. 28 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES 2) The projected population growth rate from 2010 to 2035 is 21 percent in Contra Costa. Significant residential growth is anticipated within the District and its SOI in the cities of Pittsburg, Brentwood and Oakley in east county, Richmond, Hercules and Pinole in west county, and San Ramon in the southern portion of the County. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES 3) Existing CCRCD owned and leased facilities are sufficient for the District to provide adequate service levels. However, the District hopes to move its office to a more convenient location for constituents and regional collaboration. 4) CCRCD owned facilities are limited to a weather station, which is in good condition and has no identified needs or deficiencies. 5) The present facilities have adequate capacity for the District to provide services well into the future. 6) The District is providing adequate services given financial constraints, based on honors and awards received and professional management practices. 7) CCRCD is a well-managed agency that conducts annual employee and agency performance evaluations, maintains up-to-date financial information and budgets, and conducts strategic planning for future service needs. 8) The most significant service challenge faced by CCRCD is the declining grant revenues received by the District since 2008, due to the economic crisis. The District reported that it is searching for additional revenue sources to return to previous financing levels. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES 9) CCRCD’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by limited property tax revenues, the State property tax withholding, and a decline in available grant funding. 10) Due to the economic decline, the District reports that the current level of financing is not sufficient for adequate service provision. There are potential watershed projects that presently lack funding, and the District has reduced staffing to minimum levels. 11) The District will need to obtain additional grant funding in order to return to previous service levels by initiating new projects and programs. 12) The District should consider charging fees for services, as appropriate, to augment revenues. 13) The District maintains sufficient reserves to compensate for funding shortfalls in the near future. BY BURR CONSULTING 29 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES 14) The District shares its office space with the National Resources Conservation Service, which promotes synergies and efficiency in program planning and access to NRCS staff expertise. 15) No further opportunities for facility sharing were identified. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES 16) Accountability to local voters is somewhat constrained as board members are appointed and not elected. However, CCRCD practices transparency and involves constituents in programming through outreach and education activities, easily accessible staff, and by maintaining a website where publications and other program information can be accessed. 17) The District demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCO requests. 18) LAFCO recommends that if CCRCD continues to experience financial challenges, the District should investigate consolidation as a possible strategy to limiting costs and leveraging existing financing. SOI RECOMMENDATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS The existing SOI for CCRCD is coterminous with its bounds. The SOI for the district was updated by LAFCO most recently in 2003. AGENCY PROPOSAL CCRCD reported that it had no desire to make changes to its SOI at this time. SOI OPTIONS Given the considerations addressed in the Municipal Service Review, two options are identified for the CCRCD SOI: SOI Option #1 – Retain existing coterminous SOI If LAFCO determines that the existing government structure is appropriate, then the existing SOI should be retained. This option would enable the District to continue to include the areas within its SOI in its long-term planning. SOI Option #2 – Expand the SOI Should LAFCO determine that consolidation of CCRCD with Alameda County RCD (ACRCD) is desirable, then CCRCD’s SOI should be expanded to include ACRCD’s service area and signal the expectation that these two agencies will consolidate. 30 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES RECOMMENDATION In the absence of a more in-depth study on the benefits and challenges of consolidation, the recommended SOI option is to retain the existing SOI as requested by the District. Table 3-4: CCRCD SOI Analysis Issue Comments SOI update Retain the District’s existing coterminous SOI. recommendation Services provided CCRCD provides watershed education and stewardship services, coordination of watershed restoration projects, watershed assessment and inventory studies, support for agriculture, educational workshops on resource management issues, and programs for children and teens. Present and planned CCRCD’s bounds encompass a wide variety of land uses as its bounds land uses in the area include the entirety of Contra Costa County. In 2008, agricultural land made up 56 percent of the District’s land area, while urban and built-up lands and other land uses comprised 33 and 11 percent of land area respectively. Projected growth in the The projected population growth rate from 2009 to 2030 is 21 percent in District/Recommended Contra Costa. Significant residential growth is anticipated within the SOI District and its SOI in the cities of Pittsburg, Brentwood and Oakley in east county, Richmond, Hercules and Pinole in west county, and San Ramon in the southern portion of the County. Present and probable There is a present and probable need for resource conservation services need for public facilities which are pertinent to rural as well as urban areas. As the County and services in the area urbanizes, it is anticipated that the type of services CCRCD provides will gradually shift to focus more on urban needs. In addition, the recent trend to be more environmentally conscious combined with increased public awareness of ecological needs in the area will most likely result in increased demand for CCRCD services in the future. Opportunity for infill Maintaining the existing SOI is not anticipated to impact the location of development rather than development, particularly as the District is not a land use authority. SOI expansion Service capacity and The present facilities have adequate capacity for the District to provide adequacy services well into the future. The District is providing adequate services given financial constraints, based on honors and awards received and professional management practices. Social or economic Communities of interest in the District’s bounds and SOI include the communities of interest cities of Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Pinole, Hercules, Orinda, Moraga, Lafayette, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Concord, Clayton, Danville, San Ramon, Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, and Brentwood, as well as residents of the unincorporated areas. Effects on other Retaining the coterminous SOI will have no direct impact on other agencies agencies. BY BURR CONSULTING 31 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR Potential for Consolidation with a neighboring RCD may allow for better leveraging of consolidations or other limited funding and greater regional collaboration and planning with regard reorganizations when to watersheds that cross county lines. CCRCD reported that it has not boundaries divide considered consolidation and indicated that due to differing philosophies communities between the neighboring districts and the demand for different services, that consolidation may not be efficient or feasible. Location of facilities, The District subleases office space from NRCS in Concord and owns a infrastructure and weather station in Brentwood. The natural features of primary concern in natural features to the District are the 32 watersheds located throughout the County. The District presently provides active services to the Rodeo Creek, Marsh Creek and Pinole Creek watersheds. Willingness to serve The District has demonstrated a willingness to serve all areas within its boundaries. Potential effects on The SOI recommendation for the District is not anticipated to directly agricultural and open impact agricultural and open space lands; however, as the District provides space lands services to conserve natural resources including agricultural areas, by retaining the existing SOI, the District will continue to promote the conservation of agricultural and open space lands throughout the County. Potential environmental Although no potential environmental impacts were identified in the MSR, impacts the LAFCO counsel and planner should make CEQA determinations. 32 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES 4. M O S QU I T O A N D V E C T O R C O N T ROL S E RV I C E S This chapter provides a detailed look at mosquito and vector control services in Contra Costa County, including how these services are provided, as well as growth and population projections, current and future service needs, infrastructure needs, service adequacy, and financing. While the focus of the chapter is the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District, as it is the primary provider of these services under LAFCO jurisdiction in the County, other providers are addressed as well. Government structure options are identified only for local agencies under LAFCO jurisdiction. Table 4-1: Integrated Pest Management Mosquito and vector Integrated Pest Management abatement programs were created Monitoring vector activity and weather, as well as the to protect the public’s health and Surveillance testing of mosquitoes, chickens and wild birds for the comfort by limiting the number of presence of pathogens. pathogen-carrying and harmful Public relation and education programs such as the pests. These programs are generally based on an Prevention dissemination of materials, workshops and the use of environmentally sensitive other media outlets such as the local news and internet. approach called Integrated Pest Methods include biological (i.e., mosquitofish), physical Management (IPM), which uses a Control (i.e., the elimination of breeding sites) and chemical (i.e., variety of strategies to combat pesticides) means. mosquitoes and other vectors. IPM is a combination of surveillance, prevention, and control activities. SERVICE OVERVIEW This section provides an overview of mosquito and vector abatement services in Contra Costa County, including how these services are provided by the special districts and other providers not under LAFCO jurisdiction. CONTRA COSTA MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT Formation and Boundary Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District (CCMVCD) was formed in 1926 as an independent special district, originally named Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District Number 1. The District was originally formed to provide mosquito abatement services in response to mosquito overpopulation and encephalitis and malaria outbreaks.39 Since formation, the District has added 39 CCMVCD, Protecting Public Health Since 1927, 2009. BY BURR CONSULTING 33 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR other vector abatement programs to the services offered, including yellowjackets, Africanized honey bees, ticks, rats, mice, and skunks.40 The principal act that governs the District is the Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District Law, originally called Mosquito Abatement Act of California of 1915, that was revised in 2003 (SB 1588). The principal act empowers such districts to conduct surveillance programs and other studies of vectors and vector-borne diseases, take appropriate actions to prevent the occurrence of vectors and vector-borne diseases, and take necessary actions to abate or control vectors and vector-borne diseases. 41 The District’s boundary is coterminous with the Contra Costa County boundaries, encompassing a land area of approximately 720 square miles.42 Contra Costa is the principal county and Contra Costa LAFCO has jurisdiction. LAFCO and Board of Equalization records show that the District has made three boundary changes since formation. In 1969, the District annexed an area in the western portion of the County.43 Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District Number 1 consolidated with Diablo Valley Abatement District, which comprised the eastern portion of the County, in 1986, making the Mosquito Abatement District countywide.44 Most recently, the 1992 Villanova reorganization, detached approximately two acres from the County and the District and one acre was annexed.45 The District reported that it began providing vector control services in 1996 when the service was transferred from the County by mutual agreement, and the name of the District was changed to the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District.46 LAFCO affirmed the existing SOI for the District as coterminous with the District’s boundaries in 2003, following an inaugural municipal service review.47 No changes to the SOI have been made since that time. 40 Ibid. 41 California Health and Safety Code §2000-2093. 42 Contra Costa LAFCO, Directory of Local Agencies, 2009, p. 66. 43 LAFCO resolution action dated 4/2/69. 44 LAFCO resolution 86-7. 45 LAFCO resolution 92-10. 46 Contra Costa LAFCO, CCMVCD MSR, 2003, p. 4. 47 Contra Costa LAFCO, Minutes, November 12, 2003. 34 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO Countywide Mosquito and Vector Control District and Coterminous SOI }þ 29 }þ 160 HHeerrccuulleess PPiinnoollee PPiittttssbbuurrgg §¨¦ MMaarrttiinneezz 80 }þ OOaakklleeyy 242 CCoonnccoorrdd AAnnttiioocchh SSaannPPaabblloo PPlleeaassaanntt HHiillll CCllaayyttoonn BBrreennttwwoooodd RRiicchhmmoonndd EEllCCeerrrriittoo WWaallnnuuttCCrreeeekk §¨¦ }þ 80 24 LLaaffaayyeettttee OOrriinnddaa 567 MMoorraaggaa J4 }þ 13 DDaannvviillllee £¤ 101 ByLAFCOactionon4/21/10, ContraCostaMosquito&Vector SSaannRRaammoonn ControlDistrictboundary andSOIapproved. MosquitoandVectorControlDistrict UrbanLimitLine }þ CityBoundaries 65by1CPoinnetrSatCreoest,t 3 a47tC :h5 o 9F Mu :l4 no a 8 to py .r4 cCN5 roe o5 ma rNt t h emd 1Wu 2 4ni2 /int2 : yg0 7 ,6 D/2 M: e 3 0 av 5 1er. 0 3tlion8 pe4 mzW,eCnAt,9G4IS55G3r-o0u0p95 abrTea hasD isse i e t . sm vdW ea ca l u t p o ha r p i r , c C l e e m o p onn re o ut i t mn b n as Tt l t a t ii h n ya g Dr i st ia s oe elytc f pm e io C fC a d a pt ri oh t p t t y yo m ner w t i Lug e rsa a i hs n o m s et t uC e iwc t r t o d s c h ri, se et ii h s t n i a s aifs td do e d d a arc d e i m t t si a a t r b ce i a v y l f t da t er hi o .o i t de m hm Un e fC es r a ot re o Ch n m ro u oe dsf n n tC mol t t h i y a r f oe a a bt a n yh C i s Ct lii r ns st A oa y uo s m m CS t f t o a ba ote r a ep sC st g te aa ao e n gl u B o to C er n g o e rr ot r ea e y ea u sr d p nd t C p.oh t o oyo i Irc n m f te G sE m ia m n I ib d qS a f u o iulya n i P r at mn y i b rt lioy de z a fo ga tar i r rt o ec aioi n pc t m sn re. o '. p as d S t ct uc t oa hcu mx eerrad eaci tyn e. 84 0 0.5 1 2 Miles ® CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR Mosquito and Vector Control Services CCMVCD provides vector surveillance, prevention and/or control services in some form for mosquitoes, ticks, rats, mice, skunks, yellow jackets and Africanized honey bees and any related diseases, in addition to, pest identification and various educational and outreach programs. A majority of the vector abatement services throughout the County are provided directly by CCMVCD. Mosquito Control Services CCMVCD provides mosquito abatement services directly through a combination of surveillance, prevention and control measures, based on Integrated Pest Management. All services are provided free-of-charge to the public. In addition, the District provides mosquito abatement services at wastewater facilities by contract with Oakley Bethel Island Wastewater Management Authority, Mt. View Sanitary District, City of Richmond, and Delta Diablo Sanitation District. Surveillance of mosquito populations and diseases carried by mosquitoes is performed by CCMVCD in conjunction with the California Department of Public Health (DPH) Vector-borne Disease Section. Mosquitoes, blood samples from sentinel chicken flocks, and bird carcasses are sent to DHS for testing. Surveillance activities also include the maintenance of a database of identified mosquito species, quantities and locations (of larvae and adult mosquitoes) throughout the County. Mosquito control activities include biological, physical and chemical control methods. The most common biological mosquito control agent used is the mosquitofish—fish that can eat mosquito larvae as soon as the larvae hatch from eggs. Mosquitofish have been one of the most effective non-insecticidal and non-chemical methods of controlling mosquitoes for over eighty years, and a single fish can eat as many as 100 larvae per day. Mosquitofish are intended to be used for stocking ornamental ponds, unused or "out-of-order" swimming pools, and animal water troughs. The District provides moquitofish free-of-charge for use in ponds and swimming pools. In recent years, as home foreclosure rates have been on the rise, the District has had success keeping mosquito populations in check by placing mosquitofish in pools at empty and unmaintained homes. Physical control or source reduction methods include environmental manipulation to eliminate mosquito breeding sites. The District typically does not directly provide physical control measures, but instead provides technical assistance (property inspection and advice) free-of-charge to landowners and works with lead drainage system construction and maintenance agencies to ensure that mosquito control concerns are incorporated into drainage construction plans. When other control methods are not successful, the District may resort to chemical control methods, which consist of the application of pesticides to land and water sources of adult mosquitoes and mosquito larvae. Pesticides are applied to mosquito breeding areas using hand, truck, or aerial pesticide application devices. Commonly treated sources include catch basins, utility vaults and marshes. The public can be notified via e-mail of all aerosol or fogging operations conducted by the District by signing up through a link on the District’s website. Vector Control Services Vectors include rats, mice, squirrels, skunks, fleas, ticks, mites, flies, yellowjackets, Africanized honeybees, wild animals and other insects. Of primary concern to the District is the prevention of 36 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES transmission of vector-borne diseases such as rabies and Lyme disease. Another priority is the protection of residents from potentially harmful vectors, such as yellowjackets. Services provided by the District are dependent upon the type of vector and the type of threat the vector poses. Rodents are carriers of several diseases that pose a danger to humans, including hantavirus (rats) and rabies (skunks). Rat prevention and control services are typically provided by the District on public lands such as sewers, creeks, marinas, and parks. The District does not provide these services on private lands but will conduct a site visit at households and business and recommend control measures to the landowner. Similarly, the District will provide site inspections for possible skunk activity. The District will not trap the skunk, but will loan live-catch box skunk traps and remove any trapped animals at no charge. The District provides surveillance for the Western Black-Legged Tick and the bacteria that cause Lyme disease. As only certain types of ticks may be carriers of Lyme disease, the District provides tick identification for residents free-of-charge and possibly in-house Lyme disease testing depending on staff availability. When necessary, the tick is sent to a diagnostic lab for a fee of $60. While yellowjackets are not carriers of diseases, they may pose a danger to those that are allergic to their venom. The District provides extermination of ground-nesting yellowjackets only at no charge. In addition, the District provides contract yellowjacket control services to East Bay Regional Park District in parks within CCMVCD bounds. Location CCMVCD provides abatement services in the unincorporated and incorporated areas of Contra Costa County. The District monitors vector and mosquito activity throughout the County and responds to all service requests regardless of location. The District reported that it also provides services to the inhabited islands within the county lines. In addition, the District provides services outside of its bounds to the Ryer and Roe islands in Solano County under a contract with the U.S. Army at the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The District does not typically provide services outside its bounds, although it is allowed to cross agency boundaries in order to prevent populations from dispersing into the District.48 OTHER PROVIDERS Mosquito and Vector control, suppression and abatement services, such as biological and chemical controls, are primarily provided by CCMVCD in Contra Costa County with support from several County, State and federal agencies. East Bay Regional Park District also conducts a pest management program throughout the parks within its boundaries in Contra Costa and Alameda counties. EBRPD’s pest control services target only certain vectors—the California ground squirrel, yellowjackets, gophers, black legged ticks and aquatic snails.49 Alameda LAFCO is the principal LAFCO for the District. 48 California Health and Safety Code §2270. 49 CCMVCD, Five Year Plan, 2006, p. 30. BY BURR CONSULTING 37 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR Additional vector services, such as education programs, as well as the tracking of vectors and vector-borne diseases, control measure regulation, and minimal abatement services, are also provided in Contra Costa County by the public agencies shown in Table 4-2. These agencies are not under LAFCO jurisdiction and are discussed only briefly. Table 4-2: Other Service Providers Agency Vector and Vector-borne Disease Services California Department of Public Provides oversight and resources for local vector control agencies. Health, Vector-Borne Disease Section Develops and implements statewide responses to vector-borne diseases, Africanized honeybees and red imported ants. Conducts emergency vector control during outbreaks. California Department of Fish and Collaborates with CCMVCD on marsh restoration and Game enhancement projects. Regulates CCMVCD source reduction projects and animal trapping. Contra Costa County Agricultural Protects County agriculture through pest exclusion, detection and Department eradication projects. Enforcement of the use of pesticides. Registers all bee colonies in the County. Contra Costa County Animal Services Responds to animal bites and injured or sick wildlife. Division Collects rabid and questionable skunks for laboratory diagnosis. Contra Costa County Community Participates with the District in planning large-scale source reduction Development (Planning) Department projects. Contra Costa County Health Services Keeps records on vector-borne diseases. Department Provides information to the public regarding vector-borne diseases. Contra Costa County Health Services Conducts rodent abatement at solid waste sites. Environmental Health Division Collaborates with CCMVCD to conduct rat and mice inspections in commercial/public dining establishments. Contra Costa County Flood Control Maintains County-owned drainage facilities free of obstructions to District limit standing water. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Reviews all source reduction projects in all areas. U.S. Center for Disease Control Keeps records on vector-borne diseases. Provides information to the public regarding vector-borne diseases. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulates the pesticides used to abate mosquitoes and other pests. While many public agencies provide similar services in the County, there is no duplication of services, as the District and County annually coordinate to clearly define the role and services of each agency and ensure no overlap in the services provided.50 50 Interview with Craig Downs, CCMVCD General Manager, February 16, 2010. 38 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH This section discusses the factors affecting service demand, such as land uses, population growth, the presence of vectors, vector-borne viruses and requests for service. LAND USE CCMVCD’s bounds encompass a wide variety of land uses as its bounds include the entirety of Contra Costa County, which has a land area of approximately 720 square miles. Incorporated areas comprise 35 percent of the County’s total land area. Due to the plentiful water provided by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, agricultural land made up 56 percent of the District’s land area in 2008. Urban and built-up lands and other land uses comprised 33 percent and 11 percent of land area respectively.51 The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta—the largest estuary on the west coast of North and South America—flows through the eastern portion of the District creating a low-elevation maze of islands and water bodies. A plentiful fresh water supply found in the Delta and throughout the County in the irrigated farmlands, lends to mosquito breeding and consequently high service demand for the District in those areas. RESIDENTS The District considers its customer base to be the residents of the County. The District has experienced steady population growth since 2000, and a similar rate of growth is anticipated to continue in the future. The General Manager noted that population growth does not increase the demand for District services, but instead, alters the demand for the types of services provided.52 For example, urbanized areas have greater demand for source control services targeted at manmade structures, such as swimming pools, while control services in rural areas are targeted at natural and agricultural vector sources, such as offering technical expertise to landowners regarding improved drainage and surveying marshland. The estimated residential population in the District bounds was almost 949,000 at the time of the 2000 Census. The District’s population density was approximately 1,318 per square mile in 2000. By 2009, there were almost 1.1 million residents in Contra Costa County, according to the California Department of Finance. Of the total county population, 84 percent live within incorporated city limits. Population density varies throughout the County with a countywide average of 1,461 residents per square mile of land area (excluding submerged areas) in 2008. The average density in the cities was 3,135. Since 2000, the number of residents grew by 11 percent. Among the nine Bay Area counties, Contra Costa experienced the fastest residential growth since 2000. Growth was greatest in the eastern portion of the County. Population in the County is projected to grow by 21 percent over 51 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2009. 52 Interview with Craig Downs, CCMVCD General Manager, 10/22/09. BY BURR CONSULTING 39 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR the next 25 years, according to the 2009 projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Population growth is expected to be most rapid over the next 25 years in Pittsburg (44%), San Ramon (43%), Hercules (38%), Pinole (33%), Richmond (33%), Brentwood (30%), and Oakley (26%), according to ABAG projections. Moderate population growth is projected in Concord, Danville, Pleasant Hill, San Pablo, and Walnut Creek. Slower population growth is projected elsewhere in the County.53 The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. However, local vector control agencies have the authority to participate in review, comment and make recommendation regarding local, state or federal land use planning end environmental quality processes, documents, permits, licenses, and entitlements for projects and their potential effects with respect to vector production.54 The District reported that it reviews most major development Environmental Impact Reports for vector control concerns. In addition, the District has developed a joint code enforcement program with many local cities, enabling the District to reduce backyard vector sources.55 VECTOR POPULATIONS Vector populations, particularly insects, are strongly influenced by weather and seasons. Warm weather and rain in spring and summer create prime breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Also, vector populations tend to follow a natural cycle with peaks and troughs. CCMVCD reported that rodents and yellowjacket populations tend to follow a five-year cycle.56 Mosquito populations increase as a result of available breeding grounds, typically stagnate pools of water where larvae can hatch and develop into mosquitoes. Consequently, the demand for mosquito abatement services has been on the rise as home foreclosures reached record levels and swimming pools were left unmaintained. In 2008, the District found a strong correlation between foreclosed properties with swimming pools and West Nile Virus (WNV) activity.57 WNV was also highly concentrated in the eastern portion of the County in the cities of Antioch, Brentwood and Pittsburgh. CCMVCD chose to use seasonal employees to cope with this increase in demand. Africanized honey bees were first introduced in California in1994 and have become established in the southern half of the State as far north as Fresno. The District reported that since beginning surveillance for Africanized honey bees in 1997, only two swarms have been identified on ships docked in Crockett. The most recent swarm was found in December 2008.58 53 Oakley contends that the ABAG population projections understate growth significantly, and that the City’s residential population will be near 60,000 by 2030 rather than 43,000 as ABAG projected. If the City is correct, the District’s growth and future needs will outpace the ABAG projections. 54 California Health and Safety Code §2041. 55 CCMVCD, Five Year Plan, 2006, p. 8. 56 Ibid, p. 24. 57 CCMVCD, 2008 Annual Report, 2009, p. 8. 58 Ibid, p.17. 40 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES VECTOR-BORNE DISEASES Table 4-3: Diseases of Concern in Contra Costa County Vector Disease A major factor influencing service demand is the presence of vector- West Nile Virus borne disease agents within the Western equine encephalomyelitis County and neighboring areas. Mosquitoes St. Louis encephalitis CCMVCD monitors for vectors and Dog heartworm vector-borne diseases known to exist Malaria within the County. The demand for Skunks Rabies surveillance and control efforts Plague increases as a result of vector-borne Fleas Murine typhus virus detection within the State of Leptospirosis California, neighboring counties, and Rats/rodents the District itself. The diseases of Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome most concern to the District in the Lyme disease County are shown in Table 4-3. Ticks Babesiosis Anaplasmosis Mosquito-Borne Diseases Source: CCMVCD, Five Year Plan, 2006. Known mosquito-borne diseases in Contra Costa County include encephalitis, canine heartworm, malaria, and West Nile Virus (WNV). WNV is the most concerning mosquito-borne virus. The virus was first detected in the United States in 1999 and has spread to most of the country. The primary transmitter of West Nile to humans is the house mosquito (Culex pipiens), but the virus is found in a large variety of species. The house mosquito is commonly found near human habitation and in urban areas. The virus often goes unnoticed in many people who are infected. Those who do experience symptoms may experience fever, headache, nausea, and swollen lymph glands. In some cases, symptoms are severe, resulting in neurological effects and even death. Table 4-4: West Nile Virus Cases in California, 2009 Humans Horses Dead Mosquito Sentinel Squirrels Total Birds Pools1 Chickens State Total 101 18 508 1,063 442 10 2,142 Contra Costa 5 1 43 17 13 2 81 San Francisco - - 1 - - - 1 Alameda - - 10 1 - - 11 San Joaquin 7 3 23 84 10 - 127 Sacramento - 2 28 36 2 1 69 Solano - 1 3 2 13 - 19 (1) A mosquito pool is a collection of approximately 50 mosquitoes that are tested together for West Nile virus. (2) 2009 data through November 30, 2009. In 2005, Contra Costa County had its’ first human West Nile Virus cases. In recent years, the incidence of WNV in humans in the County has been relatively static with three cases in 2007 and five cases in 2008 and 2009. Through December of 2009, the County has had a total of 31 cases of BY BURR CONSULTING 41 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR WNV in humans, two of which have been fatal.59 Table 4-4 provides a breakdown of West Nile cases in the State, Contra Costa and neighboring counties in 2009. Although the problem is not as severe in Contra Costa County, continued efforts to limit the spread of the virus to animal and human populations are necessary. Table 4-5: Encephalitis in California, 1964 to 2008 Viral encephalitis is a disease Viral Toal Cases Most Recent Peak Cases causing inflammation of the brain. Enchepalitis 1966-2000 Year Cases Year Cases Two types of viral encephalitis have WEE 53 1986 2 1968 10 been found in California: Western SLE 123 1997 1 1989 28 Equine Encephalitis (WEE) and St. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Center for Disease Louis Encephalitis (SLE). Both Control and Prevention, Division of Vector-borne Infectious Diseases viruses are primarily transmitted through the encephalitis mosquito (Culex tarsalis), which spawns in rain pools, marshes, swimming pools, ponds and other freshwater sources. Table 4-5 provides a summary of reported cases of encephalitis in California. From 1964 to 2008 there have been 639 reported or probable cases of WEE and 4,482 reported or probable cases of SLE in the United States. The latest reported cases of WEE in California were in 1986, during which there were two cases reported. The latest reported case of SLE in California was in 1997, during which there was only one case reported. Generally, the number of viral encephalitis cases reported each year has declined throughout the nation. Canine heartworm is a virus affecting the heart transmitted among canines by Western treehole mosquitoes (Aedes sierrensis). Larvae of this mosquito species are commonly found in depressions in trees, water-filled tires and containers located near trees. Heartworm is not a human health problem. Although malaria is not considered a problem in California, mosquito and vector control agencies are responsible for inspecting all sources of malaria vectors within a one-mile radius of any reported case. The District is notified by the County Health Department of any incidents of malaria. Cases of malaria are generally imported from other countries. Other Vector-Borne Diseases Common vector-borne diseases other than those carried by mosquitoes include Lyme disease, rabies, hantavirus pulmonary syndrome and plague. Lyme disease bacteria, Borrelia burgdorferi, are found in mice, squirrels and other small animals. The bacterium is transmitted among animals and humans through various species of ticks. The primary transmitter for Lyme disease in the Pacific coastal region of the United States is the Western Black-Legged Tick (Ixodes pacificus). Most cases of Lyme disease occur in late spring and summer when the ticks are most active and human exposure is greatest due to outdoor activity. In 2008, the CCMVCD reported that there were 74 cases of humans or pets bitten by ticks, and of those only 37 were Western Black-Legged Ticks. Of the 25 that the District tested, none were positive for Lyme disease. From 1999 to 2008, the County has had between zero and five human 59 California Department of Public Health, Vector-borne diseases in California, 2008, p. 17. 42 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES cases of Lyme disease annually.60 Statewide, there have been 892 cases of Lyme disease between 1999 and 2008, with the annual number of reported cases ranging from 48 in 2004 to 139 in 1999.61 Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome is a newly-detected illness, discovered in 1993 in the southwestern United States. The cause of this illness is linked to exposure to a variety of viruses found in rodents. In California, the disease has been linked to the Sin Nombre virus found in the deer mouse species (Peromyscus maniculatus) and to the White Water Arroyo virus common in the woodrat species (Neotoma). Since 1993, there have been 465 cases throughout the United States, 45 of which were reported in California as of March 2007.62 In 2008, there were no human cases of hantavirus in California; however, 48 rodents tested positive for the Sin Nombre virus.63 Plague is an illness caused by the Yersinia pestis bacterium found in fleas on wild rodents including rats, rock squirrels, ground squirrels, prairie dogs, and other burrowing rodents. The bacterium is transmitted from animals to humans through direct contact with infected animals or other humans. In the United States, plague is only found in the western states, including California. The last urban outbreak of plague in the United States was in Los Angeles in 1924-1925. Since then, cases of plague have been reported in scattered rural areas. There have been no human cases of plague in Contra Costa County since 1970. In 2008, there were no human cases of plague in the State; however, small numbers of animals tested positive for plague in Kern, Modoc, Plumas, Sierra, Siskiyou, Inyo, Sierra and San Diego counties.64 SERVICE REQUESTS Requests for service is one indicator of the demand for services that CCMVCD is providing. Requests for services are a function of various variables, including vector prevalence, presence of vector-borne illnesses, and public awareness, as discussed above. 65 Requests for service vary over years, seasons and location. A breakdown of service requests for mosquitoes and all vectors by area is provided in Table 4-6. In 2008, requests for service per capita are highest in the cities along the eastern and midwestern portions of the County—Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, Orinda, Lafayette, Moraga, and Walnut Creek. Generally the cities along the west coast, including Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, and Hercules, had the lowest service request ratio per capita. 60 California Department of Public Health, Vector-Borne Diseases in California, 2008, p. 12. 61 Ibid. 62 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Infectious Diseases. 63 California Department of Public Health, Vector-Borne Diseases in California, 2008, p. 5. 64 Ibid. 65 The District noted a significant increase in requests for mosquito services after a campaign to educate the public on the need to locate unkempt swimming pools. BY BURR CONSULTING 43 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR Table 4-6: Service Requests to CCMVCD, 2008 Mosquito Abatement Since 1980, requests for mosquito services to CCMVCD have generally ranged from 300 to 1,000 requests annually. However, in 2008, CCMVCD saw a significant increase in requests to a total of 1,888 mosquito-related service requests, which was more than three times higher than the annual average of 606 requests. A majority of the complaints were about unkempt residential swimming pools, as a result of the District’s education efforts and requests to the public to help the District identify mosquito sources.66 Figure 4-1: Monthly Requests for Mosquito Service, 2006-09 Requests for mosquito 600 abatement services generally peak 500 in the spring and summer when mosquito populations are on the 400 rise. Mosquito-related service 300 requests generally range from about 20 to 215 per month in any given 200 year between March and 100 September. However, in 2008, the District experienced a significant 0 increase in requests, peaking at 533 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec requests in August. There has been a marked decline in requests thus far in 2009, bringing the number of requests more in line with previous years.67 66 CCMVCD, Annual Report, 2008, p. 11. 67 At the time this report was drafted, data was not yet available for October, November and December 2009. 44 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO stseuqeR ecivreS Service Per 1,000 Service Per 1,000 Area Requests Residents Area Requests Residents Cities Antioch 680 6.8 Oakley 190 5.7 Brentwood 254 5.0 Orinda 155 8.8 Clayton 45 4.2 Pinole 46 2.4 Concord 332 2.7 Pittsburg 183 2.9 Danville 194 4.6 Pleasant Hill 158 4.7 El Cerrito 25 1.1 Richmond 125 1.2 Hercules 24 1.0 San Pablo 20 0.6 Lafayette 234 9.8 San Ramon 74 1.3 Martinez 141 3.9 Walnut Creek 400 6.1 Moraga 96 5.9 Uincorporated 334 1.9 Total Service Requests 3,710 3.5 2009 2008 2007 2006 MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES Vector Control Figure 4-2: Rodent and Yellowjacket Requests, 1995-2008 CCMVCD tracks requests for 1400 rodent, skunks and yellowjackets. 1200 As shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3, requests for services related to 1000 these vectors have been on a 800 downward trend since 2004. 600 Most recently, in 2008, 400 CCMVCD received a total of 1,822 rodent (30 percent), skunk (38 200 percent) and yellowjacket (32 0 percent)-related requests. Through the end of September 2009, the District had received 1,323 service calls for the same vectors. The cities of Walnut Creek and Concord made up the highest percentage of rodent service requests with 15 percent and 12 percent of the total rodent-related service calls in 2008. Similarly, Walnut Creek made up 21 percent of the yellowjacket service requests. Lafayette and Orinda also had high occurrences of yellowjacket requests with 17 percent and 15 percent of the total, respectively. Figure 4-3: Skunk-related Service Requests, 1995-2008 Until 2000, requests for assistance with skunks made up a majority of the vector service requests handled by CCMVCD. Skunk-related service calls peaked in 1998 with 4,565 requests for service, but since 2001, have declined to between 600 and 1,000 requests annually. Skunk service calls, in 2008, were concentrated in the center of the County in Walnut Creek (17 percent), Concord (14 percent) and Danville (12 percent). INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES FACILITIES CCMVCD owns a main office in Concord and a facility in Brentwood. The District described the facilities as being in good condition. The facility in Brentwood is leased to a private party. The BY BURR CONSULTING 45 stseuqeR ecivreS Rodents Yellowjackets 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 stseuqeR ecivreS Skunks CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR main office is comprised of six structures—an administrative building, a wet lab for keeping mosquitofish, a greenhouse, a maintenance shop, an equipment storage building and two covered carports. The main office facilities were expanded and upgraded in 1997 at a cost of $2 million to provide office space for all employees in the same building, create laboratory facilities that comply with OSHA regulations, and add further storage space. The District has a fleet of 40 vehicles, seven all-terrain vehicles, two four-wheelers, and two boats. All vehicles are stored on site and maintained by District staff. The District reported that all of the vehicles are in good condition. The District does not own aircraft, but has a contingency contract with and aerial service contractor for these services should fogging with airplanes be necessary. However, this has not been necessary to date. ADEQUACY Overall, the main office is satisfactory for current demand levels. As the main office was recently updated, there were no needs or deficiencies identified by the District.68 As the size and configuration of the Brentwood station limits its usefulness to the District, CCMVCD anticipates needing an additional substation in the eastern portion of the County. The District anticipates selling the Brentwood facility and obtaining property at a more suitable location to accommodate anticipated growth.69 Given the recent unpredictability of revenues, the District does not anticipate making these changes in the near future. The District keeps a mechanic on staff for upkeep of the fleet. The District reported that vehicle turnover has been sufficient and did not identify any present fleet needs.70 SHARED FACILITIES Facility Sharing Status As the District is countywide and does not overlap with any similar service provider, CCMVCD does not currently share facilities or equipment with other agencies. Opportunities The District has considered sharing facilities with the County Department of Agriculture. These discussions have been ongoing, but have not yet come to fruition. CCMVCD has also considered the possibility of a tri-county facility with the Alameda Mosquito Control District and San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District. However, such a facility was not deemed feasible given the distance between the three counties and their service areas. 68 Interview with Craig Downs, CCMVCD General Manager, 10/22/09. 69 CCMVCD, Five Year Plan, 2006. 70 Interview with Craig Downs, CCMVCD General Manager, 10/22/09. 46 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES Regional Collaboration The District practices regional collaboration through its membership with the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California. Benefits of being a part of the Association include legislative representation, a statewide vector-borne disease surveillance program, and low cost continuing education courses. The District is also a member agency of the Vector Control Joint Powers Agency, which is a workers’ compensation and general liability risk pool comprised of 34 mosquito abatement and vector control districts in California. SERVICE ADEQUACY RESPONSE TIMES Response times are an indicator of service adequacy. The District reported that it responds to yellowjacket calls by the next business day and all other vector service requests are responded to within five business days; however, the District did not provide exact response times for service calls in 2009. With regard to skunks, depending upon the District’s workload, there can be a one to five day waiting period before traps can be delivered.71 According to the District’s Five Year Plan, the District recognizes the need to improve its response times to within an hour for yellowjacket requests. Every year the District completes customer satisfaction surveys on a weekly basis from May to November. The most recent survey completed in 2008 indicates that for all types of service requests, 88 percent of customers gave the District’s response time a rating of 5 (the highest) and nine percent gave a rating of 4. Approximately two percent gave the District a rating of 1 or 2 (the lowest ratings) in regards to satisfaction with CCMVCD response times.72 Satisfaction with response times for mosquito related service requests was slightly lower, with only 73 percent giving a rating of 5 and 14 percent giving a rating of 4. MANAGEMENT The District employs 34 full-time staff and up to 17 seasonal staff. All vector control technicians are certified by the California Department of Public Health according to legal requirements. Aides are given the opportunity to be certified, but are not required to be certified according to the Health and Safety Code. The District is divided into nine mosquito and other arthropod zones and four vertebrate vector zones. Each mosquito and other arthropod zone is assigned a full-time vector control technician, and sometimes an aide, whose responsibilities include minor physical control, inspection and treatment of known vector sources, finding and controlling new sources, and responding to service requests from the public. Each vertebrate vector zone is 71 CCMVCD, Five Year Plan, 2006, p. 12. 72 CCMVCD, 2008 Survey Results. BY BURR CONSULTING 47 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR also assigned one or more vector control technicians and sometimes aides; responsibilities in these zones include control of skunks, rodents, and potentially other vertebrate vectors. The department managers report to the general manager who reports to the Board at regular meetings. The District completes employee evaluations annually and conducts workload monitoring consisting of a district-created database where all field employees record activities for certification requirements. The database is updated nightly and includes information such as what pesticides were used, where, the dose, what kind of equipment was used, transportation time, and field preparation time. Office employees keep time sheets consisting of total daily work hours.73 District performance and productivity is evaluated annually in the Annual Report and the Annual Field Report, as well as every five years in the Five Year Plan. The District does not perform benchmarking due to concerns that other districts are not comparable as a result of differences in services offered, environments, board composition, as well as other factors. The District reported that it annually prepares audited financial statements. The most recent audited financial statement provided to LAFCO by the District was for FY 08-09. District planning efforts include a mission statement and a Five Year Plan, which outlines program analysis to date (2005), goals and objectives through 2010, and projections and needs for personnel, equipment, facilities, and finances. In regard to financial planning, the District adopts an annual budget. The District does not prepare a separate capital improvement plan, but does include limited capital improvement needs and estimated costs in its Five Year Plan. The District has received numerous awards for its public education services. In 2009, the District won the Bronze Anvil Award from the Public Relations Society of America for creating an online pesticide spray notification system. The District also received an award for the best use of internet and new media from the League of American Communication Professionals for the notification system. While public sector management standards do vary depending on the size and scope of the organization, there are minimum standards. Well-managed organizations evaluate employees annually, periodically review agency performance, prepare a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year, conduct periodic financial audits to safeguard the public trust, maintain relatively current financial records, conduct advanced planning for future service needs, and plan and budget for capital needs. According to these standards, CCMVCD is a well-managed agency that conducts annual employee and agency performance evaluations, maintains up-to-date financials and budgets, and conducts five-year planning for future service and capital needs. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The District is governed by a 22-member board. Three trustees are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, and the other 19 trustees are appointed by the City Council of the respective 73 Interview with Craig Downs, CCMVCD General Manager, 10/22/09. 48 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES City within the District. Each board member appointed by the Board of Supervisors or city council must be a voter and a resident of that portion of the county or city that is within the district.74 Table 4-7: CCMVCD Governing Body Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District Governing Body Name Appointed by Began Serving Term Expires Diane Wolcott Orinda 2003 2009 James Fitzsimmons Lafayette 2004 2012 H. Richard Mank El Cerrito 1994 2012 Richard Ainsley Pittsburg 2007 2009 Soheila Bana Richmond 2007 2009 Russ Belleci County 1995 2011 Jeff Bennett Hercules 2007 2009 Nancy Brownfield Walnut Creek 1983 2013 Mike Cory Danville 2009 2010 Chris Cowen County 2009 2010 Members Richard Head Oakley 2000 2012 Peggie Howell Clayton 2007 2010 Tim Mc Donough Pinole 1996 2010 Richard Means Pleasant Hill 2000 2012 Angela Micheals-Tibbals Concord 2006 2011 Daniel Pellegrini Martinez 1997 2011 Myrto Petreas, Ph.D. Moraga 2000 2011 James Pinckney County 1988 2011 Sharyn Rossi San Ramon 2008 2010 Jose Saavedra Antioch 2005 2009 Kirk Thill Brentwood 2009 2011 Brian Smalley San Pablo 2009 2011 Appointed by the County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of each Manner of Selection incorporated City in the District. Length of Term 2-year initial term and 2 to 4 years thereafter Date: Second Monday Location: 155 Mason Circle, Concord, CA Meetings every other month at 7:30 Agenda Distribution District website, posted outside the main office and sent to several organizations Minutes Distribution Posted on the District website Contact Contact General Manager Mailing Address 155 Mason Circle, Concord, CA 94520 Email/Website ccmvcd@ccmvcd.net/http://www.ccmvcd.dst.ca.us/ 74 Health and Safety Code §2022. BY BURR CONSULTING 49 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR Board members are compensated up to $100 per month during months when a meeting is held. In addition to posting meeting agendas on the website and outside of the main office, the District also sends agenda information to the newspaper, Grand Jury, taxpayers association, County administration, and employees union representative. With regard to customer service, complaints may be filed via phone, email or through the complaint form on the website. In FY 07-08, no complaints were filed. The District completes an in-depth survey every five years to determine customer satisfaction with services provided and rate the success of outreach activities. This survey was last completed in 2009. In addition, the District continuously surveys clients on satisfaction with services received. In 2008, 88 percent of customers rated their overall experience with CCMVCD at the highest level of satisfaction.75 Accountability of a governing body is signified by a combination of several indicators. The indicators chosen here are limited to 1) agency efforts to engage and educate constituents through outreach activities, in addition to legally required activities such as agenda posting and public meetings, and 2) transparency of the agency as indicated by cooperation with the MSR process and information disclosure. The District conducts significant constituent outreach activities as part of its vector control and disease education services. Activities to educate and inform the public include, but are not limited to, presentations, fogging notifications, media releases and interviews, newspaper publications and updates, television shows, website updates, news videos and conferences, public service announcements, literature, booths at events and fairs, library displays, workshops, tours and electronic newsletters. The District demonstrated full accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO inquiries and document requests. FINANCING The financial ability of agencies to provide services is affected by available financing sources and financing constraints. This section discusses the major financing constraints faced by CCMVCD and identifies the revenue sources currently available to the District. Finally, it assesses the financial ability of CCMVCD to provide services. REVENUES Presently, CCMVCD finances all operation and capital expenditures through its general fund. The District received $6.8 million in revenues in FY 08-09. CCMVCD relies primarily on countywide property taxes to fund services. Revenue sources for the District include property taxes (64 percent), benefit assessments (29 percent), interest (three percent), and miscellaneous sources and charges for service, which made up two and one percent of total revenues respectively. The District levies a benefit assessment on all parcels (except public land) countywide based on land use, 75 CCMVCD, 2007 Annual Field Report, 2008, p. 8. 50 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES degree of service and location within the County. The assessment was approved in 1996. In FY 09- 10, the maximum assessment per single family home was $3.13 in west county, $4.74 in central county, $5.34 in the waterfront areas, and $11.89 in east county. The assessment is adjusted annually according to the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area. Table 4-8: CCMVCD Revenues and Expenditures 2007-09 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Due to the State budget crisis, in July 2009, the State Revenues legislature voted to suspend Charges for services $ 80,757 1.2% $ 121,673 1.8% Proposition 1A, which Property taxes 4,416,676 64.2% 4,404,919 64.4% ensures local property tax Benefit assessment 1,983,091 28.8% 1,992,563 29.1% and sales tax revenues remain Medical insurance reimb. 12,085 0.2% 11,669 0.2% with the counties, cities and Interest 266,984 3.9% 218,063 3.2% special districts.76 Miscellaneous 116,002 1.7% 89,779 1.3% Consequently, all local Total Revenues 6,875,595 6,838,666 agencies will be required to Expenditures loan eight percent of apportioned property tax Total Expenses 5,878,251 6,588,176 revenues to the State with Net Assets repayment plus interest by Unrestricted 7 ,388,341 7,648,284 June 30, 2013. To mitigate the impact of the loss of revenues on the local agencies, the Proposition 1A Securitization Program enables local agencies to sell their Proposition 1A Receivables for cash proceeds to be paid in two installments in January and May 2010. CCMVCD has chosen to not take part in the securitization program, but instead will wait for repayment from the State until 2013.77 EXPENDITURES Total operating and capital expenditures for FY 08-09 were approximately $6.6 million, 69 percent of which were for payroll and benefits. Capital outlays made up 10 percent of annual expenditures. A comparison of revenues and expenditures of districts in neighboring counties that provide both mosquito and vector control services, reveals that the median operating expenditure per capita of the seven districts was $5.00 per capita in FY 06-07.78 By comparison, CCMVCD spent $5.16 per capita in the same year, or just above the median of the comparison districts. Expenditures in the neighboring counties vary according to the depth of services provided and the demand for services in the area. For example, expenditures in San Joaquin County may be highest among the 76 Proposition 1A was passed by voters in 2004. It prohibits the State from reducing local government property and sales tax proceeds. The proposition may be suspended if the Governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the State legislature approve the suspension. 77 CCMVCD, Trustee Meeting Minutes, 9/14/2009. 78 The expenditures and revenues for Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District and the Vector Control County Service Area were combined, as the two districts together provide similar services to the other districts shown. BY BURR CONSULTING 51 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR comparison districts as it has the highest rate of occurrence of West Nile Virus among the six counties, causing a greater demand for district services. Figure 4-4: Operating Expenditures per Capita, FY 06-07 CCMVCD had no long-term debt at the end Contra Costa MVCD of FY 08-09. The District Alameda CMAD & Vector CSA had $7.6 million in unrestricted net assets at Santa Clara County VCD the end of the same fiscal year. In other words, Marin/Sonoma MVCD CCMVCD maintained over one year of working San Mateo County MVCD reserves; however, of San Joaquin County MVCD those reserves the Board has designated $5.3 $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00$12.00 million of the funding for anticipated plans and Revenue per capita Operating expenditures per capita emergency needs, including dry period cash flow (47 percent), emerging diseases (29 percent), building fund (21 percent), and Africanized honeybees (three percent). FINANCIAL ABILITY CCMVCD’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by limited property tax revenues and the State property tax withholding. While the District reported that there is some uncertainty to these revenue streams, CCMVCD presently has adequate funding to deliver a sufficient level of service.79 The District also maintains sufficient reserves to compensate for future funding shortfalls. GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES This section discusses possible governance alternatives to the current government structure with respect to mosquito and vector control services in Contra Costa County. As CCMVCD is the primary provider of mosquito and vector control services countywide, governance structure options are limited. One alternative identified may be consolidation with the Alameda Mosquito Abatement District (ACMAD). ACMAD is a countywide district (with the exception of the City of Albany), which provides only mosquito abatement services. A study was conducted in 1995 to analyze the efficiencies of CCMVCD consolidating with ACMAD. The study found that a consolidation could result in a combined savings of $135,000 annually, or two percent of the two districts’ combined expenditures. According to the report, the two agencies must come to an agreement on the following issues in order to successfully 79 Interview with Craig Downs, CCMVCD General Manager, 10/22/09. 52 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES consolidate: 1) the size and composition of the new board, 2) reserves for known liabilities, and 3) notable differences in employee benefits. Potential positive impacts of a consolidation may include the ability to share and exchange personnel, a uniform bi-county program, reduced personnel and operating costs, improved reserves, greater public visibility, and an improved image of program accountability. Such a consolidation may also have negative impacts such as increased operational complexities, particularly in light of the difference in services provided by each agency, and a potentially oversized Board.80 In response to the report, the ACMAD Board voted against consolidation, while the CCMVCD Board did not take action but indicated that they are willing to review the matter again at a later date if needed. The two agencies have not had any further discussions on the potential to consolidate. No other annexation, detachment, reorganization, or consolidation opportunities were identified. MSR DETERMINATIONS This section sets forth recommended findings with respect to the service-related evaluation categories based upon this review of municipal services for Contra Costa County. LAFCO is required to identify governance options; however, LAFCO is not required to initiate changes and, in many cases, is not empowered to initiate these options. LAFCO is required by the State to act on SOI updates. The Commission may choose to recommend governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the spheres of influence as the basis for those recommendations (Government Code §56425 (g)). GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS 1) The 2009 residential population within CCMVCD was approximately 1.1 million. Recent growth has been high. 2) The projected population growth rate from 2009 to 2030 is 21 percent in Contra Costa. Significant residential growth is anticipated within the District and its SOI in the cities of Pittsburg, Brentwood and Oakley in east county, Richmond, Hercules and Pinole in west county, and San Ramon in the southern portion of the County. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES 3) CCMVCD facilities and fleet are in good condition and presently have capacity to provide an adequate level of service to constituents. No infrastructure needs or deficiencies were identified for existing District facilities. 80 CCMVCD and ACMAD, Report on Consolidation of ACMAD and CCMVCD, 1995, p. 1. BY BURR CONSULTING 53 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR 4) It is anticipated that a new district substation in the eastern portion of the County will be necessary in the future. Timing for the new substation will depend on financing levels, degree of growth in demand for services, and emergence of new vector-borne diseases in the County. 5) The District is providing adequate services, based on customer satisfaction with response times, the scope of services provided, and management practices. 6) CCMVCD is a well-managed agency that conducts annual employee and agency performance evaluations, maintains up-to-date financials and budgets, and conducts five- year planning for future service and capital needs. 7) The most significant service challenge for CCMVCD is the unpredictability of service demand from year to year due to a combination of factors, including the natural fluctuation in vector populations, introduction of new diseases, and unforeseen impact of outreach programs. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES 8) The District reports that the current level of financing is sufficient for adequate service provision, but, like other agencies dependent on property taxes, reports a challenge due to uncertainty of this revenue stream. 9) The District maintains sufficient reserves for future capital plans and contingencies. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES 10) The District does not practice facility sharing. 11) Opportunities for future facility sharing include 1) sharing a facility with the County Department of Agriculture, or 2) consolidation with a provider in a neighboring county. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES 12) Accountability to local voters is somewhat constrained as Trustees are appointed and not elected. However, CCMVCD practices transparency by conducting significant constituent outreach and education activities, having accessible staff, and by posting publications, agendas and other information on the District’s website. 13) The District demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCO requests. 14) Consolidation with a neighboring service provider has been reviewed by the District, and it was deemed to provide minimal financial gains with a number of reorganization challenges. 54 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES SOI RECOMMENDATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS The existing SOI for CCMVCD is coterminous with its countywide bounds. The SOI for the District was updated most recently in 2003. AGENCY PROPOSAL CCMVCD did not indicate a desire to make any changes to its SOI. SOI OPTIONS Given the considerations addressed in the Municipal Service Review, two options are identified for the CCMVCD SOI: SOI Option #1 – Retain existing coterminous SOI If LAFCO determines that the existing government structure is appropriate, then the existing SOI should be retained. This option would enable the District to continue to include the areas within its SOI in its long-term planning. SOI Option #2 – Expand the SOI Should LAFCO determine that consolidation of CCMVCD with Alameda Mosquito Abatement District (ACMAD) is desirable, then CCMVCD’s SOI should be expanded to include ACMAD’s service area and signal the expectation that these two agencies will consolidate. RECOMMENDATION Given the lack of interest in consolidation by CCMVCD and ACMAD and the minimal financial savings gained by such a consolidation, the recommended SOI option is to retain the existing coterminous SOI per the wishes of the District. Table 4-9: CCMVCD SOI Analysis Issue Comments SOI update Retain the District’s existing coterminous SOI. recommendation Services provided CCMVCD provides vector surveillance, prevention and control services for mosquitoes, rodents, skunks, yellowjackets, ticks, and Africanized honeybees. Present and planned CCMVCD’s bounds encompass a wide variety of land uses as its bounds land uses in the area include the entirety of Contra Costa County. In 2008, agricultural land made up 56 percent of the District’s land area, while urban and built-up lands and other land uses comprised 33 and 11 percent of land area respectively. BY BURR CONSULTING 55 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND VECTOR SERVICES MSR Projected growth in the The projected population growth rate from 2009 to 2030 is 21 percent in District/Recommended Contra Costa. Significant residential growth is anticipated within the SOI District and its SOI in the cities of Pittsburg, Brentwood and Oakley in east county, Richmond, Hercules and Pinole in west county, and San Ramon in the southern portion of the County. Present and probable There is a present and probable need for mosquito and vector abatement need for public facilities services in the area due to public health concerns of existing and future and services in the area vector-borne diseases. Opportunity for infill Maintaining the existing SOI is not anticipated to impact the location of development rather than development, particularly as the District is not a land use authority. SOI expansion Service capacity and CCMVCD facilities and fleet are in good condition and presently have adequacy capacity to provide an adequate level of service to constituents. The District is providing adequate services, based on customer satisfaction with response times, the scope of services provided, and management practices. Social or economic Communities of interest in the District’s bounds and SOI include the communities of interest cities of Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Pinole, Hercules, Orinda, Moraga, Lafayette, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Concord, Clayton, Danville, San Ramon, Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, and Brentwood, as well as residents of the unincorporated areas. Effects on other Retaining the same coterminous SOI would have no direct impact on agencies other agencies; however it would indicate that LAFCO anticipates CCMVCD will not consolidate with another provider in the near future. Potential for There is the potential for consolidation with a provider in a neighboring consolidations or other county; however, the District has reviewed consolidation with Alameda reorganizations when Mosquito Abatement District, and it was deemed to provide minimal boundaries divide financial gains with a number of reorganization challenges. communities Location of facilities, The District’s main office is located at 155 Mason Circle in Concord. The infrastructure and former substation that is leased to a private company is located at 29 natural features Spruce Street in Brentwood. The primary natural feature that impacts demand for district services is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. A plentiful fresh water supply found in the Delta and throughout the County in the irrigated farmlands, lends to mosquito breeding and consequently high service demand for the District in those areas. Willingness to serve The District has demonstrated a willingness to serve all areas within its boundaries. Potential effects on The SOI recommendation for the District is not anticipated to affect agricultural and open agricultural and open space lands. space lands Potential environmental Although no potential environmental impacts were identified in the MSR, impacts the LAFCO counsel and planner should make CEQA determinations. 56 PREPARED FOR CONTRA COSTA LAFCO R E F E R E N C E S DATA SOURCES Agency-specific data: responses to LAFCO Requests for Information, budgets, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Capital Improvement Plans, General Plans, official statements, and miscellaneous plans Agricultural data: Agricultural Census; California Department of Conservation; Contra Costa County Agricultural Commissioner. Business and employment data: Dun and Bradstreet; County Business Patterns; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages; California State Board of Equalization. Demographic data: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Department of Finance Jobs and population projections: Association of Bay Area Governments; Department of Finance, Long-Term Debt: California State Controller; MuniStatements; Moody’s; Standard and Poor’s; Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Revenue: California State Controller; Contra Costa County Auditor/Controller; Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports BY BURR CONSULTING 57