LAFCO
Mercy Springs Water
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
MERCY SPRINGS WATER
DISTRICT
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE
Report to the
Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission
MSR-16-3
David E. Fey, AICP
Candie Fleming
George W. Uc
Juan Lara, Intern
2607 Fresno Street, Suite B
Fresno, CA 93721
June 8, 2016
PROFILE: MERCY SPRINGS WATER DISTRICT
Distribution of Irrigation Water
Contact Information
General Manager: Dennis Falaschi
District Office: 52027 W. Althea Avenue
Firebaugh, CA 93632
Phone: (209) 364-6136
Fax: (209) 364-6122
Management Information
District Formation: 1950
Principal Act: Water Code section 34000-38500
Special District Powers: Prescribed in Water Code section 35400-35413
LAFCo
Authorized Services:1 Levy and collect assessments and standby charges; perform
agreements, enter contracts, and delivery of water supply
Governing Body: Five-member Board of Directors, landowner-voters
Board Members:* Michael Linneman, President Appointed 2016-Expired 2019
Dennis Falaschi, VP Appointed 2013-Expired 2017
Brad Gleason** Appointed 2016-Expired 2017
Atomic Falaschi Appointed 2016-Expired 2019
Julie Cascia Appointed 2016-Expired 2019
Board Meetings: Meeting are held on an as-needed basis with a minimum of one annually
Meeting Location: 52027 W. Althea Avenue Firebaugh, CA 93622
Staffing: None, District contracts administration with Panoche Water District
Service Information
Area Served: 95% of the land in the District is owned by the Panoche Drainage District
Service Area and SOI: 3,710 Acres
Infrastructure: None
Fiscal Information
Budget: $49,270
Sources of Funding: Land assessments
Rate Structure: $6 per acre, per year
Administrative Policies
Master plan: Not provided Policies/procedures: No By-laws: Yes
Boundary formed: 1950 SOI last updated: 2007 SOI update: 2016
1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)
*District board is awaiting formal reappointment from Fresno County BOS
**Appointed by District Board on March 4, 2016, to fill Vacancy. Awaiting Fresno County BOS appointment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CH AP TER 1: MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW ......................................................... 3
Principal Act................................................................................................................................. 3
Fresno LAFCo MSR Policy Designation ..................................................................................... 3
District boundaries ....................................................................................................................... 4
District Growth and Population Projections ................................................................................. 4
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ............................................................................. 5
Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 6
District’s Water Supply ................................................................................................................ 6
Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services ......................................................................... 8
Opportunities for Shared Facilities ............................................................................................ 10
Governmental Structure ............................................................................................................. 10
Other Matters Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery ............................................. 14
Actions taken on District 2007 MSR Determinations ................................................................ 16
CH AP TER 2: MSR DETERMINATIONS .................................................................... 18
1. Growth and Population Projections for the Affected Area. .................................................. 18
2. The Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
Within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence. ..................................................................... 18
3. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies.
................................................................................................................................................... 18
4. Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services. .................................................................. 19
5. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities. .............................................................. 19
6. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Government Structure and
Operational Efficiencies. ........................................................................................................... 19
7. Any Other Matter ................................................................................................................... 20
CH AP TER 3: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND UPDATE ........................ 21
1. Present and planned land uses, including agricultural and open-space lands. .................... 22
2. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. ............................ 22
3. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency
provides or is authorized to provide. ......................................................................................... 22
4. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission
determines that they are relevant to the agency. ....................................................................... 23
5. The present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. ...................................... 23
CH AP TER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................... 24
CH AP TER 5: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................... 25
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
1
Figure 1 – Mercy Springs Water District
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
2
CHAPTE R 1:
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Principal Act
The Mercy Springs Water District (“District” or “MSWD”) was formed in 1950 to provide
agricultural irrigation water to landowners within its service area. The District was formed
pursuant to California Water Code sections 34000-38500, which enables this Water Districts to
acquire, plan, construct, maintain, improve, operate, and keep in repair the necessary works for
the production, storage, transmission, and distribution of water for irrigation, domestic,
industrial, and municipal purposes.2
The District’s service area and sphere of influence (SOI) are coterminous measuring
approximately 3,710 acres. Land within the District includes both agricultural and fallow land
owned by three landowners. During the preparation of the Municipal Service Review (MSR), the
District informed LAFCo that it does not provide direct services to its landowners; however, the
District functions as an administrator of water supplies and addresses consumer needs within its
boundaries. The District does not own any capital or public facilities. The District contracts its
office administration and office facility with Panoche Water District. The District is a Central
Valley Project (CVP) contractor with a water service contract with the United States Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (“USBR”) for up to 2,842 acre-feet of CVP water from the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.3
The District is an independent special district, which has a five-member board of directors not
governed by another legislative body (either a city council or a county board of supervisors).
Candidates eligible to serve as the board of directors must be a holder of title to land within the
District boundaries or the legal representative of the holder of title to land within the District
boundaries.
Fresno LAFCo MSR Policy Designation
Fresno LAFCo MSR policy designates the District as a “level three” special district that provides
“non-municipal” services to its constituency. Non-municipal special districts typically do not
request or experience modifications to their district service area or request an update or
revision to the Commission’s adopted SOI for the agency. A level three non-municipal local
agency designation means, in Fresno LAFCo's judgment, that services provided by the agency do
not facilitate or induce population growth.
In accordance with Government Code (GC) section 56066, Fresno County is the principal county.
Fresno LAFCo is responsible for processing the agency’s request to reduce the Commission’s
determined SOI for District. Fresno LAFCo has prepared this service review consistent with GC
sections 56425(g) and 56430.
2 California Water Code Section 35401
3 USBR Contact Number 14-06-200-3365A-LTR1, Mercy Springs Water District Contract with USBR
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
3
District boundaries
The District service area includes 3,710 acres of unincorporated land approximately seven miles
northwest of City of Firebaugh. The District’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is coterminous with its
service area. The District extends from the Main Lift Canal on the north down to the Delta-
Mendota Canal on the south. The District is bounded by Russell Avenue on the west and Fairfax
Avenue on the eastern side of the District. The Outside Canal bisects the District's service area
from the west to east. The District is located three miles west of State Route (SR) 33 and eight
miles east of Interstate 5.
The District's service area is appropriately sized with no plans for expansion within the next 10
to 20 years. Additionally, the District does not foresee a need to request a revision to the
District’s SOI. The District obtains its irrigation water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
and directly from the Delta-Mendota Canal. The District is entitled to receive up to 2,842 acre-
feet (AF) of irrigation water each year under its USBR CVP contract, based on years with 100
percent allocation.
The District shares common boundaries with Firebaugh Canal Water District to the south,
Panoche Water District, and Oro Loma Water District to the west, and Central California
Irrigation Districts to the east and north. The District is located within the Panoche Drainage
District and Panoche Resource Conservation District boundaries. The District informed LAFCo
that approximately 95 percent of land within its service area is owned by Panoche Drainage
District. The remainder of the land is owned by two separate private landowners.
District Growth and Population Projections
The District is situated completely within the western side of Fresno County. The County of
Fresno is the land use authority for land located within the District. The Fresno County General
Plan designates land within the District service area for agricultural use. Crop production within
the District generally consists of cotton, alfalfa, tomatoes, wheat, barley, melons,
pomegranates, pistachios, asparagus and onions. Occasionally, land within the District could
experience fallow years.
According to the District's financial statements, the District provides administrative services for
the delivery of irrigation water to approximately 1,240 acres of agricultural land.4 The District
informs that there are three landowners in the District that separately own majority of the land
in the District. Panoche Drainage District owns approximately 95 percent of the land in the
District, and the remaining acres are owned by two separate private landowners. District
operations are limited to administrative tasks associated with the distribution of water supplies.
The District does not own capital or public facilities or require infrastructure to operate or
continue providing its services. The District office is housed in the Panoche Water District's
office. The District's office administration is also contracted with Panoche Water District.
4 Mercy Springs Water District Notes to Financial Statements for Year Ending on February 28, 2015, page 11
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
4
Panoche Water District is a California Water District located immediately west of Mercy Springs
Water District.
The District has a fixed CVP water supply contract with USBR. The District does not expect to
annex additional territory to its service area due to the fact that it would require additional
water supply to be attained from USBR.
By LAFCo policy, District services do not directly facilitate or affect the rate of population
growth. As a result, any population growth in the vicinity of the District is expected to occur
within the neighboring incorporated cities of Firebaugh or Mendota. This is consistent with the
Fresno County policy to direct growth to the cities due to a wider range of municipal services
offered by the cities.5
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH) requires LAFCo
to make determinations regarding "disadvantaged unincorporated communities" ("DUCs") when
conduction a SOI update or when conducting municipal service reviews for any local agency (city
or special district) that provides public facilities or services related to sewer, municipal and
industrial water, or structural fire protection.
Government Code sec. 56033.5 defines a DUC as: i) “inhabited territory” (12 or more registered
voters), as defined by sec. 56046, or as determined by commission policy, that constitutes ii) all
or a portion of a “disadvantaged community” as defined by section 79505.5 of the Water Code.
Water Code section 79505.5 defines disadvantaged as a territory with an annual median
household income (MHI) that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household
income. Further, on January 9, 2013, Fresno LAFCo adopted a policy that refined the DUC
definition to include having at least 15 dwelling units at a density not less than one unit per acre.
This section of the report uses County of Fresno’s Geographic Information System (GIS) parcel
mapping information and U.S. Census data to quantify the economic composition of all the
census block groups within the vicinity of the District’s boundaries. Geographic Information
System (GIS) files were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey
(ACS) compiled for the five-year period 2006-2010 to identify the demographic composition
within the District’s service area. Although the ACS provides annual and three-year estimates,
the five-year reports provide the most precise data and mapping information for analyzing small
populations. California’s statewide MHI reported for years 2006 through 2010 was $60,883, the
DUC threshold is any geographic unit with a MHI that is less than $48,706.
An assessment of the census block groups within and outside the District service area and SOI
were reviewed to determine the demographic composition of the area to gage MHI levels. In
preparation for this section of the MSR, LAFCo staff worked with complementary GIS data
5 County of Fresno, Housing Element, pg.7-58-Westside North Market Area
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
5
provided by PolicyLink, a national non-profit corporation based in Oakland, California.6
Instrumental independent resources were used for this section of the MSR as a cross-reference
mechanism to identify DUCs in accordance with CKH and the Commission’s adopted DUC policy.
Fresno LAFCo surveyed unincorporated areas utilizing aerial photography and parcel division
patterns to determine the possible existence of any DUCs.
The District’s entire boundary lies within one census block group unit: census tract 84.02 block
group 2. The MHI levels reported for this census geographic unit between years 2006 to 2010
was $27,589.7 Based on these data, the census geographic units that overlay the District meet
the criteria for Disadvantaged Communities as defined by California Water Code section
79505.5.
As previously noted, Fresno LAFCo Policy designates the District as a “level three” special district
that provides “non-municipal” services to its constituency. A level three non-municipal local
agency means that, in Fresno LAFCo's judgment, services provided by the agency do not
facilitate or induce population growth. Services provided by the District would not directly
benefit a DUC, and no further analysis is provided for this section of the MSR.
Infrastructure
The District does not own office facilities, infrastructure, machinery, equipment, tools, autos-
trucks or tractors. The District’s primary function is to administer the distribution of USBR CVP
water. The District office facilities and administrative duties are contracted and housed at the
Panoche Water District office.
District’s Water Supply
The District is currently entitled to receive up to 2,842 AF of CVP water each year under contract
with USBR through the Delta-Mendota Canal, based on year with 100 percent allocation.8 The
amount of CVP water received by the District depends upon several factors, including the water
year classification by the California Department of Water Resources.
Originally, the District had a CVP contract for up to 13,300 AF per year; however, in 1999
through 2002, landowners took actions to transfer their water allocations to land out to third
parties through formal contract agreement. The transfer of CVP water encumbered the District
with covenants foregoing the rights to use USBR water allocation within the District.
Subsequently, USBR approved 10,458 AF of the District’s original contracted water to be divided
and distributed to Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, Santa Clara Valley District,
Westlands Water District, and to Westlands Water Distribution District Number two.
6 Jake Mann, GIS Specialist/Cartographer, email correspondence with LAFCo Staff – Draft DUCs for Fresno County,
February 11, 2015.
7 U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) compiled for the five-year period 2006-2010.
8 USBR Contract No. 14-06-200-3365A, Mercy Springs Water District
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
6
By 2006, District landowners were still entitled to receive 2,825 AF of the remaining 2,842 AF of
USBR’s CVP water allocation. At the same time, USBR recognized that District landowners
entered into several contract agreements to transfer the right of the remaining 2,825 AF of
water allocations to third-parties. Consequently, nearly all of the CVP water allocated to the
District is currently transferred out of the District to third-parties.9 The primary source of water
supply used within the District is subsurface agricultural drainage water applied by Panoche
Drainage District to irrigate salt tolerant crops as part of the San Joaquin River Improvement
Project (SJRIP).
USBR reports that since 2012 none of District’s CVP water is applied within the District service
area. Instead, the District sells and/or transfers its CVP water supply to third-party outside of
the District’s service area. According to USBR, the District has the option to transfers up to
1,300 AF of its CVP water allocation to Angiola Water District located in Corcoran, California,
County of Tulare. The District informs that out of District water transfers are subject to change
on an annual basis and it depends on several factors such as, annual allocation percentage
rating, water supply levels, and District water needs. In the past, the District has requested
USBR permission to reschedule its water allocation so that it could be received at a later time
during the subsequent year.10 The District has retained 17 AF of its contract water supply that
could be used within the District, however to date this amount has not actually been used in the
District.
Panoche Drainage District (PDD) owns majority of land within the District from which the right
to receive CVP water allocation had previously been sold out and removed from the land within
the Mercy Springs Water District. As noted earlier, landowners within the District sold their
rights to water to third-parties outside of the District. PDD uses the land as part of the San
Joaquin River Improvement Project (SJRIP)11 a regional drainage reuse area where subsurface
agricultural drainage water is collected from approximately 94,000 acres of land within the
Grassland Drainage Area (GDA). This portion of the District's service area is utilized to irrigate
salt-tolerant crops.
Of the total acreage in the District’s boundaries approximately five percent is considered
irrigable acres. The estimated five percent of irrigable acres are owned and operated by two
separate landowners. Both farm operations do not receive District CVP water supplies, and
both have on-site improved wells subject to restrictive covenants implemented by the District.
As previously mentioned, landowners in the District either fallow their land, irrigated with well
water supplies, or purchase and import CVP water from other CVP South of Delta contractors.
When permitted by USBR, some of the District’s CVP water is pumped into the DMC under
USBR’s DMC pump-in program, or stored for future deliveries. The District transfers all of it its
CVP allocation to neighboring CVP contractors participating in the SJRIP to help offset SJRIP
costs to local landowners.12
9 USBR Contract No. 14-06-200-3365A, Mercy Springs Water District
10 USBR, Mercy Springs Water District and Fresno Slough Water District Multi-Year Transfers to Angiola Water District
– FONSI-10-021. Web Accessed: https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/documentShow.cfm?Doc_ID=10210
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
7
Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services
The District informed LAFCo that it is not a direct service provider and does not own any public
facilities or infrastructure. The District is entitled to receive up to 2,842 AF of water each year
under contract with USBR, based on years with 100 percent allocation.
The majority of the District’s revenue comes from water sales to third-parties and land
assessments and charges collected from landowners. The District informs that its land
assessment amounts to approximately $6.00 per acre, and a wheeling charge of $50 per acre-
foot for groundwater pumped through the Mercy Springs Water District Warren Act contract
with USBR. All of the District water transfers are administrated by Panoche Water District. The
District board adopts an annual budget that forecasts revenues and expenditures for the
upcoming fiscal year. The District reviews and establishes its service fees with the adoption of
the annual District budget. The District at minimum meets once a year, the two most recent
meetings held were on September 19, 2014, and March 4, 2016. Based on information provided
by the District, it appears that the District board did not convene during the 2015 calendar year.
Every District fiscal year begins March 1st and concludes on the last day of February.
In preparation of this MSR, a copy of the District’s most recent independent auditor’s report and
financial statements for year ending February 28, 2015, was provided to Fresno LAFCo. The
District provided a copy of its adopted budgets for fiscal years ending 2014-15 and 2015-16 to
review and assist LAFCo to determine fiscal status, assess financial practices, and review
pertinent management findings. The District’s financial account is organized on the enterprise
fund basis which is classified as a proprietary type fund. The focus of a proprietary fund in
governmental accounting is structured to be managed as a business-like fund.
The financial statement indicates that the District implements financial administration practices
similarly observed by a government unit. The District has adopted the provisions of
Governmental Accounting Standard Board (GASB) Statement No. 34, “Basic Financial Statements
for State and Local Governments.” GASB establishes standards for external financial reporting
for all state and local government entities, which includes a statement for net assets, statement
of revenues, expenses and changes in net assets, and a statement of cash flows. The District’s
financial account structure conforms to accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America and consistent with governmental proprietary fund account as an enterprise
fund. The auditor’s financial statement notes that District’s financial reporting complies with
policies and procedures of the office of the State Controller, State of California.
The District applies all GASB pronouncements as well as the Financial Accounting Standard
Board (FASB) pronouncements, except when (FASB) conflict or contradicts GASB
pronouncements.
The District’s total assets for the year ending on February 28, 2015, were $593,936. The
District’s total liabilities equaled its assets of $593,936. The District’s total net position is
equaled its liabilities ($0).
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
8
The District generates $1,084,293 in charges for services for water sales, its operating grants and
contributions generate by District’s land assessments totaled $58,029. The District generated
total revenues of $1,142,322 for fiscal year ending on February 28, 2015. The auditor’s financial
statements report the District’s total operating expenses at $818,562 for the same fiscal year.
The District reports a net income of $323,760. At the end of the fiscal year the District reported
a cash balance of $555,631 in its business checking and savings. The District maintains its cash
balance in one financial institution, with insurance up to $250,000. As the time this MSR was
prepared, a portion exceeding $250,000 of the District’s cash was uninsured.
The District has no capital assets that require maintenance expenditures. The District has no
noncurrent (long-term) liabilities as of February 28, 2015.
The District annually collects sufficient land assessment fees from land located within its service
area to finance the operation of District expenditures. All land assessments are considered
collectible by the District. The District’s principal act empowers it to place a lien upon all
assessed property once land becomes delinquent. After a five-year period, the District has the
ability to sell the property to recover all prior assessments, costs, penalties and interests.
As previously noted, the District annually approves a budget that forecasts expenditures. For
fiscal year 2014-15 the District’s adopted budget totaled $49,270 and allocated funds for the
following action items:
San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authorities Dues, $12,000
CVP Water Association Dues, $1,300
The State Board of Equalization, $1,800
Administration, $7,200
Engineering Water Conservation, $1,500
Audit, $6,100
Insurance, $2,400
Legal, $4,000
Accounting services, $3,600
Office Supplies, $450
Public Notice, $1,000
Actual District revenues totaled $1,142,322 and expenditures are reported by the Auditor
financial statement to total $818,562 for the same fiscal year. The District allocated
expenditures for the following items:
Purchased Water, $546,885
San Joaquin River Improvement Project Expansion Cost, $216,575
Administration, $35,980
Legal and professional, $14,360
Insurance, $2,011
Water Rights Fees, $1,994
Dues, $750
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
9
Miscellaneous, $7.00
Office Supplies, $200
Opportunities for Shared Facilities
The District’s office administration is outsourced to Panoche Water District. The Panoche Water
District houses the District’s office and provides administrative staff support. The District
informed LAFCo that its board is comprised of the two private landowners and existing Panoche
Drainage District board members or administrative staff of the Panoche Drainage District, that
are also employed by Panoche Water District. As previously mentioned, the District is
essentially an administrative agency associated with the distribution of USBR CVP water
supplies. The District does not own public facilities or infrastructure that would present any
opportunities for shared facilities. LAFCo observes that the District already benefits from shared
facilities with Panoche Water District and Panoche Drainage District.
The District is bordered by several similar California Water Districts. The District is located
immediately east of Oro Loma Water District, north and east of Panoche Water District, and
north of Firebaugh Canal Water District. The District does not overlap with other California
Water Districts. However, the District does overlap with Panoche Drainage District and the
Panoche Resource Conservation District.
Governmental Structure
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure options and
operational efficiencies are evaluated as part of the MSR Program to encourage the current and
future orderly formation of local government agencies, create logical boundaries, and promote
the efficiency delivery of services. This MSR is an informational document that will be used by
Fresno LAFCo, other local agencies, and the general public to discuss future government
structures for the District.
The California Water Code authorizes the formation of California Water Districts to acquire,
plan, construct, maintain, improve, operate, and keep in repair the necessary works for the
production, storage, transmission, and distribution of water for irrigation, domestic, industrial,
and municipal purposes.13 This District is an independent special district which has a separate
board of directors not governed by another legislative bodies (either a city council or a county
board of supervisors). The District has adopted by-laws which govern and controls its affairs
consistent with the constitution, laws of the State, and California Water District Law.14 The
District is a landowner-voter District that historically has not conducted elections due to limited
qualified candidates residing within the District. The District’s election process is governed by
the Uniform District Election Law.15 Pursuant to the District’s bylaws, the District should hold
elections on a Tuesday during the month of June of each even numbered election year.
Candidates for the District board must either hold title to land within the District or be the legal
13 California Water Code Section 35401.
14 Mercy Springs Water District Bylaws, July 5, 1960
15 Election Code Section 10000-10735
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
10
representative of a title holder of land within the District consistent with California Water
Code.16
The District informed LAFCo that there are three landowners that own majority of the land
within the District. The District informed LAFCo that due to limited number of eligible
candidates residing within the District as a matter of necessity, the District board has historically
appointed qualified directors to serve on the board. During the preparation of this MSR, LAFCo
observed that all five board terms had expired by the end of 2015. Under section 10507 of the
Uniform District Election Law, board members of landowner districts serve four year terms or
until his or her successor qualifies to take office.
On February 23, 2016, LAFCo staff contacted the Fresno County Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors and requested verification on the District board terms. The Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors noted that the District showed five vacant seats, and the District had not filed any
declarations of candidacy for eligible board positions for any landowner since 2013. On May 5,
2016, the District informed LAFCo that four board member terms were in the process of being
officially reappointed by the County Board of Supervisors. During the preparation of this MSR,
one director resigned from the District board.17 On March 4, 2016, the District called a special
meeting to reappoint four directors which terms were held-over since 2015.18 The elections
governing statute of the California Water District’s election process allows directors to hold seat
for four year terms or until a qualified director is able to take office. During the District’s March
meeting the District also appointed a new director to fill the vacancy left by a departing director.
As of May 6, 2016, the District informs that it is awaiting the official appointment of all five
directors by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors.19 Fresno County staff informed LAFCo that
the District was in process towards submitting a complete application to request the County
Board of Supervisors to officially reappoint four District directors and fill one vacancy.20
Pursuant to the Uniform District Election law, board members are subject to election of four-
year staggered terms; in the event that the number of candidates who file election papers is
equal to the number of openings on the board, members may be appointed in lieu of an election
(pursuant to Elections Code sec. 10515 (a)) by the supervising authority based on
recommendation made from the District’s board of directors. If no candidates file election
papers, the supervising authority of the county may appoint a director pursuant to (Election
Code sec. 10515 (c)).
LAFCo notes that the District board is comprised of a combination of landowners and
representative of Panoche Drainage District. Both private landowners hold seats on the District
board. Historically by practice the Panoche Drainage District selects at maximum three
candidates from a combination of staff or board members of PDD to represent land owned by
16 Water Code Section 34700
17 Marcos Hedrick, informed District of his resignation, February 2, 2016
18 District Letter to Fresno County Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, Re: MSWD Appointment to Fill Vacancy on the
Board of Directors, Dated: March 14, 2016
19 May 6, 2016, Phone Communication with District’s Legal Counsel, Gabriel Delgado
20 May 10, 2015, Confirmed by Fresno County Board of Supervisor, Deputy Clerk, via electric mail
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
11
PDD on MSWD. LAFCo notes at least three members of the District board currently also hold
administrative roles with neighboring Districts generally in west Fresno County (as shown on
Table one - Mercy Springs Water District board members). LAFCo observes that Panoche
Drainage District could utilize legal representatives to represent land owned by the PDD within
Mercy Springs. A legal representative shall meet all prerequisites identified under Water Code
section 34700 and 34030.
The table one below lists the Mercy Spring Water District’s most current board and their
respective roles within other Districts.
Table 1- Mercy Springs Water District Board Members and Roles
Relationship of MSWD board member to other special districts
Mercy Springs Mercy Pacheco Panoche Panoche Panoche Pleasant
Water District Springs Water District Water Drainage Resource Valley
(All board Water District District Conservation Water
members are District District District
awaiting official
appointment by
Fresno County
BOS)
Michael
Board Board Board n/a
Linneman, n/a n/a
Member Member Member
President
Dennis Falaschi, General
Vice President Office Manager/
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Manager Board
Member
Brad Gleason Board
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Member/
President
Atomic Falaschi
Administrative Administrative Administrative
n/a Employee n/a
Assistant Assistant Assistant
Julie Cascia
District Office Office Office Office
n/a
Secretary Manager Manager Manager Manager
The District board has the authority to elect a president and a vice-president from its board
members with no compensation. The board also has the ability to appoint members to serve as
secretary, tax assessor, tax collector and treasurer, and hire contract employees. Officers such
as the secretary, tax assessor, tax collector and treasurer do not need to hold board status to be
appointed.
The District provided LAFCo and organizational chart which outlines the District’s government
structure. The board governs the District, while Panoche Water District manages the day-to-day
administration of the District. Panoche Water District provides the District general management
support, a water master, an office manager, and administrative support. Panoche Water District
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
12
also has the ability to hire a consultant engineer to assist on District related projects. The
District also contracts a general counsel representative, and a Certified Public Accountant to
periodically conduct audits on the District’s finances.
Based on information provided by the District, the District does not hold regular board
meetings. Although the bylaws state that regular meetings should be held on the first
Wednesday of every month, the District informed LAFCo that board meetings are scheduled on
an “as-needed” basis with a minimum of one meeting per year. The District informed LAFCo
that administrative and policy issues are generally addressed by Panoche Water District staff.
The two most recent District board meetings were held on September 19, 2014, and March 4,
2016. On September 19, 2014, the District board met to address a proposed joint drainage
management project with neighboring agencies. The District informed LAFCo that the project
proposal seeks to improve agricultural drainage within the Mercy Springs Water District,
Panoche Drainage District, and Firebaugh Canal Water District service areas.
On March 4, 2016, the District convened to reappoint four board members terms which had
expired at the end of 2015. During the same meeting, the board also appointed a new director
to fill a vacancy after the departure of a former District director. LAFCo notes that the District
board did not convene during the entire year of 2015. This contradicts the District’s bylaws
which indicate that the District shall hold monthly board meetings. In the District's judgment
monthly board meetings are unnecessary and no longer applicable based on its current District’s
landowner composition. LAFCo notes that the lack of District board meetings appears to be
influenced to the relatively low number of landowners within the District and the increasingly
administrative nature of the District as it has sold almost all of its water entitlement to other
contractors participating in USBR's CVP program.
During 2015, the District board did not convene therefore no formal notice was required. Board
meeting notices are required to be posted at least 72 hours in advance at the District office
located at 52027 West Althea Avenue, Firebaugh, California 93622. Opportunities for public
participation and communication with the District board do not seem to occur due to infrequent
meeting schedules, or no meetings at all. Communication with the District board members is
most likely to occur directly with individual director outside of a meeting setting. Inversely
based on the composition of the District’s landowners, it appears that communication with the
board could also occur through Panoche Water District staff. The District provided LAFCo a copy
of the District’s special meeting minutes and notice for the March 4, 2016 meeting.
LAFCo recognizes that to an extent, the District appears to depend on Panoche Drainage District
to provide at least one legal representative to sit as a director to establish a board quorum.21 As
previously noted, it is the practice of the District to appoint its directors from a limited pool of
eligible candidates. LAFCo recognizes that all five director terms expired during the preparation
of this MSR precluding a board quorum for the conduct of the District. It is not known when the
District intends to renew board member terms.
21 California Water Code Section 34030
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
13
Other Matters Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery
LAFCo first contacted the District to inform it about the scheduled MSR update on December 12,
2014. LAFCo followed up by sending notice to the District requesting public information
necessary to update the District’s service review. LAFCo’s MSR questionnaire provides local
agencies with a four-week timeline to respond to LAFCo’s public information request, and/or
instructs agencies to request additional from LAFCo time to comply with the information
request. On several occasions LAFCo spoke with the District’s front office; however, District
management was frequently unavailable to speak on behalf of Mercy Springs Water District.
LAFCo obtained the District's Secretary’s and Vice President’s electronic contact information
from the District's front office and was directed to email information for their attention and
direction. LAFCo followed up by emailing the District Secretary and Vice-President. However,
during the allotted four-week timeline the District did not communicate with LAFCo staff nor
requested additional time to comply with the MSR update information request. The District’s
lack of interaction with LAFCo indicates administrative deficiencies during the first stages of the
MSR preparation.
LAFCO is concerned that, at least with respect to the preparation of this report, by not
responding in a timely manner to its information requests, that the District is not complying with
the California Public Records Act, may not be complying with key provisions of the Water Code,
and the District’s adopted 1960 by-laws. On multiple occasions LAFCo staff contacted the
District to obtain public information, however the District contracted staff disregarded LAFCo’s
MSR program. In fact, from the day of LAFCo’s initial request for information on December 12,
2014, and numerous additional contacts and conversation with District representatives, it took
the District 11 months to provide LAFCo with the requested public information.
The District employed a cumbersome and possibly unnecessary internal approval process
whereby the District’s (contract) staff via Panoche Water District was consistently unavailable to
speak on behalf of Mercy Springs Water District. Once LAFCo established contact with the
official District Secretary, the Secretary consistently failed to address LAFCo's public information
requests. Furthermore, the new District secretary was required to obtain the Vice-President’s/
Office Manager’s authorization to release public documents requested by LAFCo. Over time, the
District's officers did not respond to LAFCo’s request for public information in a manner
consistent with their statutory responsibilities. This created substantial delays in the release of
public information.
On several occasions, LAFCo was informed that District officers were unavailable to talk due to
reoccurring board meetings, many of these had coincidentally just started at the time of LAFCo’s
phone calls. However, as previously indicated in this report, the District board did not convene
during the entire year, 2015. The District informed LAFCo that its last board meeting was held
on September 19, 2014. The lack of responsiveness by the District contracted staff was
repeated on several occasions as described below:
December 8, 2014, LAFCo called the District to inform the District of the schedule MSR
update. District management was unavailable; however, LAFCo staff talked to the
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
14
Panoche Water District front office phone operator and obtained District management
mail and email information.
December 12, 2014, LAFCo emailed Ms. S. Reyes, Secretary and Mr. Falaschi, President
of MSWD requesting the District’s participation with the Commissions MSR Program.
The email included a notice letter, MSR Questionnaire, and a request for public
information with a four week response window.
January 30, 2015, LAFCo called the District office to inquire on the information request.
A follow up email was sent to District secretary and presidents. The District did not
provide a response.
March 4, 2015, LAFCo spoke with the District secretary over the phone. The District
secretary informed LAFCo that she had not received the MSR notice letter or MSR
Questionnaire. LAFCo verified her contact information and resent the MSR information
to the District.
May 11, 2015, LAFCo called the District to schedule meeting with District representative,
to no avail. No one responded the District’s phone during regular business hours.
June 18, 2015, LAFCo called the District. No District representatives were available to
address LAFCo’s information request. LAFCo left a voice mail message with the District
secretary. The District’s office assistant informed LAFCo that management was in a
“board meeting.”
June 25, 2015, LAFCo contacted the District to follow up on the information request.
District management was unavailable due to a special board meeting. LAFCo staff spoke
with Josh, district phone operator to schedule a time to meet with the District president
or secretary within a week of June 25, 2015. Josh, District phone operator did not
follow through with LAFCo’s meeting request, no response was provided.
July 14, 2015, LAFCo called the District and requested to speak with Mercy Springs
Water District Secretary Sandra Reyes. The District’s front desk phone receptionist
informed LAFCo that the District secretary was entering a board meeting and could not
take a phone call. LAFCo was rerouted to speak with the Pacheco Water District
secretary whose office is also housed in the Panoche Water District office. Pacheco
Water District’s secretary stated that she could not speak on behalf of Ms. Reyes.
On July 16, 2015, the District Manager authorized the District’s consultant engineer to
work with LAFCo to provide the necessary information associated with LAFCo's MSR
program.
On October 2, 2015, the District consultant engineer successfully collaborated with
LAFCo staff to gather the necessary District information requested by LAFCo.
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
15
The District’s inability to comply with LAFCo’s MSR program in a timely manner reflects critically
on the District’s ability to efficiently maintain District business records and to respond to
requests for public documents.
The District is an agency of the state, formed pursuant to California Water District Law (Water
Code Section 34000) for the local performance of administration and distribution of irrigation
water supplies within its limited boundaries. Water Code §34850 and the District’s by-laws
designate the District secretary as the “custodian of all records of proceedings had at meeting of
the board. All records pertaining to district affairs shall be filed in the office of the District with
the secretary and shall be open to inspection at all times by any person interested.”
Given the extensive contacts with the District and the District’s lack of responsiveness, LAFCo is
concerned that, at least with respect to the preparation of this report, the District officers are
not complying with responsibilities detailed under the District’s principal act and adopted
District bylaws. Furthermore, the District secretary’s lack of timely compliance with LAFCo’s
information is contrary to the spirit of California Public Records Act. Nevertheless, the District’s
reluctance to disclose public information is unusual and not consistent with the District’s by-
laws, its principal act, and the Public Records Act.
Actions taken on District 2007 MSR Determinations
As previously described in this MSR, USBR recognizes that District landowners entered into
several contract agreements to transfer the rights to third-parties outside of the District that are
also CVP contractors. Amendments to the District’s USBR water contract has, over time,
effectively sold nearly all of the District’s water entitlements to areas outside the District.22
The 2007 MSWD MSR suggested that a reorganization of the government structure should be
considered by the LAFCo. Several events have occurred since 2007, for example LAFCo notes
that much of the District’s water rights have been sold to third-parties that participate in USBR’s
CVP program. Currently, the District is in place to solely provide water administrative services
which is preformed through contract by Panoche Water District. Based on information then, the
District expressed that dissolution of the District would be detrimental and would potentially
result in the loss of the water rights formally sold by landowners within the District.
Furthermore, LAFCo notes that a potential dissolution of the District could nullify the District’s
CVP contract with USBR. Through the 2016 MSR update LAFCo has learned that there are only
three landowners within the District's service area and that these landowners sale their water
supply to third-party participant of USBR’s CVP program.
Although the 2007 MSWD MSR determined that a consolidation or merger of the District with
Panoche Drainage District should be considered, the Commission ultimately adopted a
resolution to reaffirm the District's adopted SOI and took no further action regarding district or
22 USBR Contract No. 14-06-200-3365A, Mercy Springs Water District
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
16
SOI modification. It is appropriate to reaffirm the District existing boundaries with no
modification.
Through the preparation of the 2016 MSWD MSR, LAFCo notes that a more appropriate merger
recommendation, if prompted, should actually be between the District and Panoche Water
District (PWD). PWD currently staffs the District and it is also a California Water District formed
under the same principal act to provide similar services as MSWD.
During the 2016 MSR preparation, the District did not express interest to pursue a merger with
any other agency. LAFCo notes that the Commission updated PWD’s SOI on April 12, 2015,
which also did not consider or weighed discussions regarding possible reorganizations or
mergers with the Mercy Springs Water District.
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
17
CHAPTE R 2:
MSR DETERMINATIONS
This portion of the report addresses the factors specified in the governing statute for Municipal
Service Reviews and provides analysis in conformance with Government Code §56425 and
Fresno LAFCo policy. Pursuant to Government Code §56430, the Commission prepares the
following written determinations.
1. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE
AFFECTED AREA.
The District service area includes 3,710 acres of unincorporated land approximately
seven miles northwest of City of Firebaugh.
The District is designated as a non-municipal local agency, which means that the District
provides non-municipal services that do not facilitate, support, or induce population
growth.
The County of Fresno is the land use authority for territory within the District’s
boundaries. The Fresno County General Plan Land Use Elements designates territories
as agricultural use within the District’s boundaries. No significant changes to population
are anticipated.
The District is entitled to receive up to 2,842 acre-feet of irrigation water each year
under its USBR CVP entitlement based on 100 percent allocation.
District growth is restricted by its water supply allotment CVP contract with USBR.
2. THE LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ANY
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
WITHIN OR CONTIGUOUS TO THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE.
A review of the American Communities Survey five-year estimates indicate that the MHI
for the census tracts and block groups within the District boundaries are considered
Disadvantaged Communities.
The District is designated by LAFCo policy as a level three non-municipal local agency,
meaning that the District is authorized to provide non-municipal services.
The District has no public facilities or provides services related to sewer, municipal and
industrial water, or structural fire protection that would present opportunity to extend
services to a disadvantaged unincorporated community.
3. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES.
The District does not own office facilities, infrastructure, machinery, equipment, tools,
autos-trucks or tractors. The District’s primarily function is to administer the
distribution of USBR CVP water.
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
18
The District informs that majority of the territory with the District are owned by three
landowners. Two private landowners with farming operations, while Panoche Drainage
District owns approximately 95 percent of land within the District service area.
The two private landowners do not receive District CVP water supplies, both landowners
have onsite improved wells subject to restrictive covenants.
The District office facilities and administrative duties are contracted with Panoche
Water District.
4. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES.
The majority of the District’s revenue comes from water sales to third-parties, annual
land assessments, and charges collected by the District.
The District board appears to adopt an annual budget that forecasts revenues and
expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year. The District reviews and established its
service fees with the adoption of the annual District budget. The District at minimum
meets once a year, the two most recent meeting were held on September 19, 2014 and
March 4, 2016.
The District’s generates $1,084,293 in charges for services for water sales, its operating
grants and contributions generate by District’s land assessments totaled $58,029. The
District generated total revenues of $1,142,322 for fiscal year ending on February 28,
2015.
The District annually collects sufficient land assessment fees from land located within its
service area to finance the operation of District expenditures. All land assessments are
considered collectible by the District.
5. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES.
The District’s office administration is outsourced to Panoche Water District. The
Panoche Water District houses the District’s office and provides administrative staff
support. LAFCo observes that the District already benefits from shared facilities.
The District informed LAFCo that its board is comprised of the two private landowners
and existing Panoche Drainage District board members or administrative staff of the
Panoche Drainage District, that are also employed by Panoche Water District.
The District does not own any capital or public facilities that would present the
opportunity for shared facilities.
6. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS,
INCLUDING GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL
EFFICIENCIES.
California Water Code section 34000-38500 authorizes the formation of Water Districts
to acquire, plan, construct, maintain, improve, operate, and keep in repair the necessary
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
19
works for the production, storage, transmission, and distribution of water for irrigation,
domestic, industrial, and municipal purposes.
This District is an independent special district which has a separate board of directors
not governed by another legislative bodies (either a city council or a county board of
supervisors).
The District has adopted bylaws which govern and controls its affairs consistent with the
constitution, laws of the State, and California Water District Law.
The District informed LAFCo it has not been necessary for the District to conduct an
election to fill available board member seats due limited eligible candidates residing
within the District’s service area. The District historically has appointed its board
members.
During the preparation of this MSR, LAFCo observed that all five board terms had
expired at the end of 2015. However, the elections statute that governs the California
Water District’s election process allows directors to hold seat for four year terms or until
a qualified director is able to take office. As of May 6, 2016, the District informs that it is
awaiting the official appointment of all five directors by the Fresno County Board of
Supervisors
The District informed LAFCo that board meetings are scheduled on an “as-needed” basis
with a minimum of one meeting per year. LAFCo notes that the District board did not
convene during the entire year of 2015. The District’s bylaws indicate that the District
board shall hold monthly meetings, on the first Wednesday of each month at the District
office.
Board meeting notices are required to be posted at least 72 hours in advance at the
District office located at 52027 West Althea Avenue, Firebaugh, California 93622.
Opportunities for public participation and communication with the board appear to be
limited during the annual District meeting.
7. ANY OTHER MATTER RELATED TO EFFECTIVE OR
EFFICIENT SERVICE DELIVERY, AS REQUIRED BY
COMMISSION POLICY.
The Mercy Springs Water District MSR is noted for the following characteristics:
o Repeated and substantive delays in obtaining public records from the District;
o District Secretary was not effectual in providing public documents;
o District does not comply with its 1960 approved bylaws.
o District directors need official reappointed by County of Fresno Board of
Supervisors.
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
20
CHAPTE R 3:
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW
AND UPDATE
In order to carry out the Commission’s purposes and responsibilities for planning and shaping
the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies subject to
its jurisdiction, the Commission shall develop and determine the sphere of influence of each city
and each special district within the County and enact policies designed to promote the logical
and orderly development of areas within the sphere. A sphere of Influence is defined as “a plan
for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the
commission.”
In determining the sphere of influence of each local agency, the commission shall consider and
prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following:
1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space
lands;
2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area;
3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency
provides or is authorized to provide;
4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the
commission determines that they are relevant to the agency;
5. For an update of a sphere of influence of a city or special district that provides public
facilities or services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection, that occurs pursuant to Government Code section 56425 (g) on or after July
1, 2012, the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any
disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence.
In determining a sphere of influence, the Commission may assess the feasibility of governmental
reorganization of particular agencies and recommend reorganization of those agencies when
reorganization is found to be feasible and if reorganization will further the goals of orderly
development and efficient and affordable service delivery. The Commission shall make all
reasonable efforts to ensure wide public dissemination of the recommendations.
When adopting, amending, or updating a sphere of influence for a special district, the
Commission shall establish the nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes of
services provided by existing districts. The Commission may require existing districts to file
written statements with the commission specifying the functions or classes of services provided
by those districts.
Chapter one of this MSR provides the foundation for the SOI determinations. As previously
indicated, the District’s service area and SOI are coterminous measuring approximately 3,710
acres. County of Fresno is the land use authority for land located within the District’s service
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
21
area. The Fresno County General Plan designates land within the District service area for
agricultural use. The District informs that there are three landowners in the District that
individually own majority of the land within the District. Panoche Drainage District owns
approximately 95 percent of the land in the District, and the remaining acres are owned by two
separate private landowners. The District has a fixed CVP water supply contract with USBR and
the District does not expect to annex additional territory to its service area due to the fact that it
would require amending the CVP long-term contract to request additional water supply from
USBR. The District reports its SOI and service area boundary are correct at this time and no
changes are requested by the District.
In accordance with Government Code Section 56066, Fresno is the principal county and Fresno
LAFCO is responsible for preparing the following determinations for the Sphere of Influence
include in this Municipal Service Review.
When Fresno LAFCO updates a sphere of influence it must adopt specific determinations with
respect to the following factors:
1. PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES, INCLUDING
AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN-SPACE LANDS.
The County of Fresno is the land use authority for territory within the District’s
boundaries. The Fresno County General Plan Land Use Elements designates territories
as agricultural use within the District’s boundaries. District services do not directly
facilitate or affect the rate of population growth; therefore, land in the District is not
anticipated to change from agricultural land use.
2. PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES
AND SERVICES IN THE AREA.
The District does not own office facilities, infrastructure, machinery, equipment, tools,
autos-trucks or tractors. The District’s primary function is to administer the distribution
of USBR CVP water. The District office facilities and administrative duties are contracted
and housed at the Panoche Water District office.
The District has a fixed CVP water supply contract with USBR. The District does not
expect to annex additional territory to its service area due to the fact that it would
require additional water supply to be attained from USBR. The District's service area is
appropriately sized with no plans for expansion within the next 10 to 20 years.
3. PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY
OF PUBLIC SERVICES THAT THE AGENCY PROVIDES OR IS
AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE.
The District contracts its office administration and office location with Panoche Water
District. The District’s primary service is for the administration and distribution of its
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
22
USBR CVP water contract. Present services that the District provides appear to be
adequate.
The District provides services consistent with its principal act and as authorized by the
Fresno LAFCo.
4. EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES
OF INTEREST IN THE AREA IF THE COMMISSION
DETERMINES THAT THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY.
There are no relevant social or economic communities of interest relevant to the
District’s service provisions. Services provided by the District do not facilitate or induce
population growth. The District has a fixed water supply for irrigation use through its
contract with the USBR. The District informed LAFCo that it cannot support additional
water demands due to the limits of its contracted water availability.
5. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR THOSE PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY DISADVANTAGED
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE.
The District is designated by LAFCo policy as a non-municipal local agency, meaning that
the District is authorized to provide non-municipal services. The District has no public
facilities or provides services related to sewer, municipal and industrial water, or
structural fire protection that would present opportunity to extend services to a
disadvantaged unincorporated community.
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
23
CHAPTE R 4:
RECOMMENDATIONS
In consideration of information gathered and evaluated during the 2016 Municipal Service
Review, it is recommended the Commission:
1. Receive this report and any public testimony regarding the proposed Municipal Service
Review and proposed Sphere of Influence Update.
2. Find that the Municipal Service Review is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act pursuant to section 15306 (Information Collection).
3. Approve the recommended Municipal Service Review determinations, together with any
changes deemed appropriate.
4. Recommend to the District that:
4.1. Immediately and continuously hereafter, the District will adhere to state statutes
that ensure that its affairs are conducted in an accountable, transparent, and
accessible manner.
4.2. It improve its internal communication and public record management to comply
with its bylaws and the Public Records Act.
4.3. It adhere its election/reappoint procedures to conform with the Uniform District
Election Law. Set internal procedures to file its Certification of Facts, or declaration
of candidacies in a timely manner with Fresno County Clerk to the Board.
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
24
CHAPTE R 5:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Municipal Service Review was prepared by Fresno LAFCO staff. The Mercy Springs Water
District provided information included in this evaluation of the agency’s service provisions.
This document and supportive information is available in the Fresno LAFCo office located at:
Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission
2607 Fresno Street, Suite B
Fresno, California 93721
The Municipal Service Review is available on Fresno LAFCo’s website under documents open for
public review and comment: http://www.fresnolafco.org/Public%20Review.asp
Municipal Service Review Mercy Spring Water District
25